36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 9
CONTENTS
Friday, October 22, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Third reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BURLINGTON
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| DOUKHOBOR RUSSIANS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1100
| WINDSOR PUBLIC LIBRARY
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| POTATO INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| CJCS
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1105
| CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| EZRA LEVANT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME MONTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| MANITOBA'S FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1110
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| PEACEKEEPING DAY
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1115
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| YWCA
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1125
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1130
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1135
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1140
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1145
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1150
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| BILL C-6
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
1155
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1200
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1205
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| The Senate
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1210
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Third Reading
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1215
1220
1225
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1250
1255
1300
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1305
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1310
1315
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1320
1325
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1355
1400
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1405
1410
| (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 9
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 22, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that 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, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I
believe that you would find consent for the following:
That, not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders this day, all questions necessary
to dispose of the motion for third reading of Bill C-6,
be deemed put and a recorded division
deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at
the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Hon. John Manley: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
have this opportunity to address the House of Commons again on
Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic
documents act. This act was developed in response to a very real
and pressing need. Canadians have told us in clear terms that
they want their personal data protected no matter where it goes,
no matter who uses it, trades it or holds it. Business wants a
level playing field, with competitors bound by the same rules.
As well, Canadians want the option to communicate with their
governments electronically.
Privacy is something that Canadians feel very strongly about. In
a July 1998 Angus Reid poll 88% of Canadians polled said that
they found it unacceptable for companies and organizations to
sell, trade or share lists containing personal information with
other organizations. Bill C-6 will give Canadians the privacy
protection which they desire and which they are entitled to
receive.
[Translation]
The bill is a legitimate exercise of the federal government's
authority to legislate in respect of trade and commerce in
Canada. The increasing ubiquity of networks and the speed of the
technology means companies are collecting more information,
circulating it more widely and combining it more ingeniously
than ever before.
Personal information is now a commodity which can be bought,
sold and traded. It has commercial value in and of itself. That
information is crossing all boundaries—provincial, territorial
and national.
Provinces acting alone and even together cannot pass laws that
can effectively protect information crossing those boundaries.
1010
A company in Alberta company collecting information from
Manitobans may disclose it to another company in New Brunswick
or New York. Canada needs a federal law to protect personal data
in these circumstances. We also need a harmonized regime—with
the provinces and territories playing their part in their areas
of competence.
[English]
Bill C-6 establishes the right of all individuals to privacy in
a way that is consistent with the reasonable needs of
organizations to collect, use and disclose personal information.
As our competitors around the globe scramble to put in place the
frameworks that will create the consumer confidence to make
electronic commerce a practical reality, the privacy protection
in Bill C-6 will put Canada at the forefront.
Parts 2 to 5 of Bill C-6 will eliminate the paper bias in our
federal laws by making them media neutral. Bill C-6 will put
electronic transactions governed by federal laws on the same
footing as paper ones. It will ensure business and citizens that
an electronic document and an electronic signature has legal
standing.
Bill C-6 will make the electronic transmission of information
through computers an option that is realistic, practical and
legally sound.
I would like to acknowledge at this point the excellent work of
the Standing Committee on Industry. The committee members have
been conscientious and helpful in improving the legislation and I
am grateful to them for their efforts. They have helped to make
a good bill better. In particular, I recognize the efforts of
the member for St. Catharines who served as my parliamentary
secretary until August and who provided tremendous support in
bringing this bill to report stage.
[Translation]
The committee members identified and addressed the needs of
stakeholders with regard to this legislation, and the bill is
stronger for their scrutiny and attention. Amendments resulted
in key areas such as the primacy of protection of privacy,
protection for whistleblowers and provisions for a review of the
effectiveness of the bill every five years.
Committee members always remembered that the goal is a balance
product and that when you add a bit to one side of the scale you
must also keep the other side in mind, to ensure that
equilibrium is maintained.
We are all aware that the legislative process can be both and
complicated.
But again, the process of public hearings and debate has
resulted in a superior outcome.
I would like to highlight briefly what some key witnesses told
the Standing Committee on Industry during its hearings on the
personal information protection and electronic documents bill.
Consumers and privacy advocates supported the bill and expressed
a desire to see it passed now, even if not all of their
requested changes were made.
[English]
Some privacy advocates called for more powers for the privacy
commissioner. Some even demanded binding powers for the
commissioner. However, the federal privacy commissioner himself
stated quite eloquently that he did not want binding powers and
that the most elegant and least cumbersome way to achieve the
desired results would be through a proactive approach based on
education and ombudsman-like powers. In the end, the validity of
the privacy commissioner's arguments was recognized and
prevailed.
When it was the business community's turn to address Bill C-6
many stressed their support for the legislation and appreciation
for its basis in the CSA standard. The view was expressed that
the smooth harmonization of privacy frameworks across the country
is highly desirable. Businesses and consumers alike told the
industry committee that they also welcomed parts 2 to 5 of the
bill, which will permit the government to deliver services to its
citizens electronically and permit the government and the courts
to use and accept electronic documents and signatures.
1015
[Translation]
The business community needs the continued ability to gather
information to detect fraud and the violation of agreements.
This ability is important to sectors as diverse as the computer
software and insurance industries.
The intent of Bill C-6 is to strike a delicate balance between
these entirely legitimate needs and consumers' equally valid
expectations for privacy protection.
Amendments aimed at helping businesses combat fraud were
carefully designed to maintain that balance. The committee
received the benefit of appearances by the federal Privacy
Commissioner, the Ontario commissioner and the British Columbia
commissioner and a brief from the Quebec commissioner.
The commissioners were very strong in their support for public
education and held that its value in changing the landscape of
privacy protection is great.
The Ontario commissioner emphasized this point. She stated that
public education changes practices for the better and reduces
complaints.
[English]
Topics such as harmonization and duplication of regulation
received thoughtful consideration. The Quebec commissioner made
suggestions for avoiding areas of potential confusion, while
other commissioners held that the bill could be passed first and
appropriate administrative arrangements worked out afterward
among commissioners.
The bill's structure was also a focus of comment. The B.C.
commissioner dismissed any criticism that the bill might be
awkward to read as some had argued. He stated that many laws,
even consumer protection laws, were written in complex language
and expressed his confidence that Canada's privacy commissioners
would be competent enough to interpret and implement Bill C-6.
Ever mindful of the need to continuously improve on the bill, we
introduced amendments after the industry committee's report to
the House. We improved the primacy clause and required
confidential measures in federal court hearings. We have amended
clause 30 to clarify how the bill applies in its first three
years.
[Translation]
And we have made changes to ensure that law enforcement bodies
can continue to carry out their mandate as they currently do.
These law enforcement amendments clarify for organizations the
circumstances under which they may accede to the lawful requests
of government institutions for personal information for national
security for enforcement or administration purposes.
These amendments allow the status quo to continue and allow
businesses to continue to co-operate, where appropriate. These
amendments do not grant new powers to government institutions,
nor do they create new obligations on business.
[English]
The intent of the bill is to regulate the commercial use of
personal information. For instance, in the case of the publicly
funded health care system, the bill is not intended to impede the
flow of information necessary for the protection of patients'
health and the improvement of the administration of health care.
To clarify this, I tabled an amendment on October 15 which
specifically addresses the need to share information without
consent when it is necessary for the administration of a law or
program.
The information highway offers opportunities to improve the
efficacy and indeed accountability of our health care system.
Organizations such as the Canadian Institute for Health
Information assists in this endeavour. Bill C-6 is intended to
facilitate these initiatives as it provides a basic set of fair
information practices around which all stakeholders can
harmonize.
In the pursuit of a harmonized privacy protection regime for
Canada, we encourage all the provinces and the territories to
move swiftly to legislate broadly in their own jurisdictions.
1020
In closing, a brief overview of what the personal information
protection and electronic documents act will accomplish will
reveal how the government has addressed the concerns of witnesses
who appeared before the committee.
[Translation]
The overarching goal of Bill C-6 is to codify a right to privacy
without placing a heavy burden on business, intruding unduly on
the right of freedom of expression or destroying our historical
memory by interfering with the preservation of documents.
Bill C-6 will foster responsible privacy practices. Oversight
will be complaints driven, but the Privacy Commissioner has been
given a strong public education and advisory role.
The commissioner will be able to help businesses comply with the
law, launch investigations, compel witnesses and evidence and
conduct audits where he has a reasonable cause to think that
something might be happening that is contrary to the law.
[English]
Bill C-6 will establish harmonized national rules to avoid
different sets of rules for business and the resulting confusion
for citizens. The provisions will also encourage provincial and
territorial action to legislate. Only Quebec has its own privacy
law in place. British Columbia is working on one, and with the
strong federal leadership that the bill represents, we expect
others will soon follow.
Canada is unique in the world for having developed a national
standard to protect privacy. Considerable momentum already
exists in the application of the CSA code in the marketplace. A
number of industry associates and firms have CSA based codes. It
makes sense to build on that consensus and momentum and that is
what Bill C-6 has done.
Internationally, the adoption of Bill C-6 will show the way to
the future. The use of standards is an accepted way to resolve
trade disputes over differing national rules and Canada will
continue to support the movement toward an international privacy
standard.
Canadians need and they want privacy protection. The right of
Canadians to control their personal data is within their reach
with the bill. The bill before the House is a product of
informed review by many experts in the field of data protection
and electronic commerce, of widespread public consultations and
of an extensive examination by members of the House. It is a
good bill.
In releasing his annual report earlier this week, Mr. Bruce
Phillips, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, said this:
The bill represents considerable ingenuity and not a little
courage. It is no magic bullet...But we must begin by doing
something and doing it quickly. If we fiddle in the face of
lobbying and jurisdictional disputes, Canadians' privacy and the
business opportunities on-line will burn.
I could not agree more. It is time to move the bill on. I urge
all members of the House to support passage of Bill C-6, to
support the right of Canadian citizens to protect their own
personal, private information.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, Bill C-6, which is the old Bill C-54
from the last session of parliament, is a bill largely about the
future. The government is trying to catch up with technology to
regulate for reasonable order and safety, much like governments
did as they tried to keep up with the emergence of the motor car,
airplane, travel, telephones, radio broadcasting, television and
now a universe of information transfer and monitoring never
imagined by the writers of our constitution passed in 1867.
1025
Form continues to follow function and I am sure that the present
bill will be subject to much amendment in future years as society
attempts to respond to issues of sovereignty, rights, protection
and general order. Maybe it could be said that Alvin Toffler was
right that social change accelerates and we all struggle to deal
with future shock, even governments.
The future is now, and the bill is written 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 a record
of information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act.
Part 1 of the bill establishes a right to the protection of
personal information used in commercial activities in connection
with the operation of a federal work, undertaking, or business or
interprovincially or internationally. It establishes principles
to govern the collection, the use and disclosure of personal
information. It deals with accountability, identifying the
purposes for the collection of personal information, obtaining
consent, limiting collection, limiting use, disclosure and
retention, ensuring accuracy, providing adequate security, making
information management policies readily available, providing
individuals with access to information about themselves and
giving individuals a right to challenge an organization's
compliance with these principles.
It further provides for the privacy commissioner to receive
complaints concerning contraventions of the principles, conduct
investigations and attempt to resolve such complaints.
Unresolved disputes relating to certain matters can also be taken
to the federal court for resolution.
Part 2 sets out a scheme by which requirements in federal
statutes and regulations that assume the use of paper do not
necessarily expressly permit the use of electronic technology,
may be administered or complied with in the electronic
environment. The bill grants authority to make regulations about
how these requirements may be satisfied by using electronic
means. Part 2 also describes the characteristics of secure
electronic signatures and grants authority to make regulations
prescribing technologies for the purpose of the definition of
“secure electronic signature”.
Part 3 amends the Canada Evidence Act to ease the admissibility
of electronic documents, to establish evidentiary presumptions
related to secure electronic signatures and to provide for the
recognition as evidence of notices, acts or other documents
published electronically by the Queen's Printer.
Part 4 amends the Statutory Instruments Act to authorize the
publication of the Canada Gazette by electronic means,
which will certainly be thanked by many.
Part 5 amends the Statute Revision Act to authorize the
publication and distribution of an electronic version of the
consolidated statutes and regulations of Canada. This is a
democratizing barrier removal for all citizens.
We have been at the Canadian democratic experiment at least
since 1867, 132 years or more, with our evolution to responsible
and accountable government from dependent colonialism.
I am here in parliament as a Reformer in part because it is too
evident that we still have a lot of work to do on that score to
take up the job of expanding the boundary of democracy, of
implementing needed change. Sadly it is a quest that the old
reformers forsook, those who became the true Grits, for the
Liberals who have long forgotten about being the repressed
underdog in governance, for they are now so smugly superior,
secretly plotting to avoid real public political accountability.
In view of what happened, it could be reasoned that the Reform
Party are the liberals of the 21st century, for we are now the
agents of change, struggling against an entrenched establishment
party that is reluctant to let go of privilege and power.
It is an ideological gap that I am talking about. With Bill C-6
they are playing catch-up. As in commerce, Canada has a long way
to catch up politically, even reforming this very parliament.
Canada started with a constitution that was rooted in certain
basic principles and was written by some incredibly brilliant
people who understood that times would change, the definitions of
fundamental things of governance would change and that
circumstances would require people to rise to the challenges of
each new era by applying old values in practical ways.
It is recognized that as Canada changed from being an
agricultural to an industrial society that the laws made under
simpler conditions of living could not handle the complex
relations of the modern industrial world, and now even the cyber
age.
While the bill attempts to deal with some technological matters
that have gone way ahead of governance, Reformers also work for
the day when we can bring this creaky institution of parliament
into the cyber age of political accountability, using technology
to more fully obtain political consent from an informed
electorate who watches, engages and decides, often through
electronic means.
1030
It is present day Reformers that seek to move the boundaries
between old and new. We might even get TV cameras in the Senate
some day and have more committees televised. Parliament needs to
get fully plugged in, turned on and really connected to the
people it is supposed to serve.
Reformers of old, it must be remembered, fought hard to adapt
our institutions to new realities, to update vital protections
for our citizens, to expand the developing notions of the right
to privacy which has become most valued by our present culture.
We are in the midst of another vast social transformation. Once
again the law needs to govern fluid markets, documentation and
legal exchange. They are so dynamic they could not have been
imagined in the British North America Act of 1867 when it
enumerated responsibilities. But the pace of change is very
different, not just the nature of change but the very pace of it.
Once again we have to respond, applying our oldest values and
practical ways that allow them to be preserved and enhanced in
modern times.
We all know that technology and competition have revolutionized
the financial services industry. I think most of us believe that
by and large these changes have been very good. But many people
do not have the knowledge to properly evaluate what is truly a
dizzying array of options. Some are falling victim to new
abusive practices. Others are being left out of the financial
marketplace altogether. That is why we have to deal with these
things in parliament, to give all Canadians both the tools and
the confidence they need to fully participate in the thriving but
highly complex 21st century economy that will often be focused in
the world of electronic commerce.
The term electronic commerce refers generally to commercial
transactions, involving both organizations and individuals, that
are based upon the processing and transmission of digitized data,
including text, sound and visual images, and that are carried out
over open networks. Although much media attention is focused on
online merchants selling books, wine and computers, the vast
majority of products marketed electronically business to consumer
are intangibles such as travel and ticketing services, software
entertainment such as online games, music and gambling, as well
as banking, insurance and brokerage services, information
services, legal services, real estate services and increasingly
health care, education and government services.
In view of these realities there are some principles that must
be regarded. The first thing we have to do is to protect every
Canadian's financial privacy. There has been analysis to
identify where privacy is at risk and finance certainly was the
first obvious area of great concern.
The technological revolution now makes it easier than ever
before for people to dig into and collect our private financial
data for their own profit. Some private financial information is
protected under existing federal law. One's banker, broker or
insurance company could still share with affiliated firms
information of what one buys with cheques and credit cards or
sell this information to the highest bidder.
We need better laws to give Canadians the right to control their
financial information, to let the consumer decide whether they
want to share private information with anyone else. They need to
know where it goes and why.
To enhance financial privacy we must also protect the sanctity
of medical records. With a growing number of mergers between
companies, financial institutions and lenders potentially can
gain access to the private medical information contained in
insurance forms or from government subcontractors. We need to
severely restrict the sharing of medical information. People
should not have to worry that the results of their latest medical
physical exam will be used to deny them a home mortgage or a
credit card. The possibilities must be carefully anticipated for
protection.
It should be understood that our basic privacy is at stake. As
electronic commerce develops, the volume and the nature of
personal data such as name, address, interests and records of all
purchases can be disclosed on networks during electronic
activities and these transactions certainly will increase.
New methods for processing the vast accumulation of data such as
data mining allow the creation of customer profiles that combine
demographic data, credit information, usage patterns and minute
details of transactions. If consumers do not have control over
the collection and use of their personal data, electronic
commerce must facilitate the invasion of their privacy. But if
consumers are in a position to either decline or to give informed
consent to the collection and use of their personal data,
electronic commerce will not be too much different from
traditional commerce.
In today's world, consumers may participate in what we call
fidelity or loyal shopping plans, or choose to exchange their
privacy for something they value such as lower prices,
convenience or personalization.
Businesses and consumers will have to help adjudicate the
tradeoff between protecting privacy and obtaining the benefits of
electronic commerce that both value. Education on this issue is
therefore of primary importance.
1035
The question has come up about illegal and harmful content.
There has been much public concern about the content of some of
the information distributed and accessed on the Internet.
Disagreeable or detrimental content is not more prevalent on the
Internet than beneficial content, but the people who distribute
and access disagreeable or detrimental material on the Internet
enjoy the same advantages offered by the Internet as others do.
The positive elements are vast in terms of opportunities for
electronic commerce, community development, communication and
access to information.
The reality is that with those benefits come the difficulties of
coping with content judged to be detrimental. The development of
electronic commerce could potentially be impeded by illegal and
harmful content issues where users fear unwanted content and
where network service providers fear the liability they will take
on if they are expected to be responsible for the content that
flows across their systems. Although traditional methods for
addressing these issues may not be as feasible in the electronic
environment, advances in technology are offering new ways to
resolve some of these issues.
We must require greater public disclosure and enhance every
consumer's right to know. Consumers received millions of credit
card solicitations last year. Some offers contained new traps
for the unwary. For example, sometimes credit card companies
advertise low interest rates known as teaser rates to reel in
consumers who are then surprised with unexpected interest rate
hikes.
Millions of consumers have also found out the hard way that
making only minimum payments rarely helps retire debt and almost
always results in very large interest payments. We should
require clear notice of how long and how costly repayments would
be if the consumer makes only the minimum payment.
We have to do more to combat consumer fraud. It is remarkably
easy now for a thief to take out huge loans in someone else's
name, run up enormous credit card debts and tap into bank
accounts. We have now heard at least twice this year in the
Commons that the RCMP do not have the basic resources to attack
consumer commercial fraud. Consequently capacity creates its own
demand and it will only flourish if the government is not minding
the people's business.
We need to give priority to cases involving identity theft,
particularly those involving organized crime groups with the goal
of increasing the number of prosecutions. It must be made harder
to steal someone else's identity in the first place. Telephone
long distance fraud is also rampant and the millions lost is
reflected on my telephone bill.
We also need to crack down on fraud committed over the Internet.
If we want to seize the Internet's full potential, we have to
stay ahead of those who would use this open medium to manipulate
stock prices, commit fraud on online auctions or perpetuate any
other type of financial scam. We need a national co-ordinated
approach for tracking Internet fraud and to train those in
provincial and federal law enforcement how to recognize and root
out these schemes.
It could be said that the law enforcement community compared to
people who are doing criminal activity are like unaware parents
trying to keep up with their children who go on the computer. It
is an endless effort. We need to organize and systematize a
continuous retraining effort and have a federal government with a
vision to commit the resources needed so that we can stay ahead
of the crime curve.
Investors need better information to protect themselves against
online securities fraud. Complaints of Internet fraud are
greatly increasing, for every new medium of exchange brings a new
opportunity for criminal exploitation. Are the Liberals on top
of it? I doubt it, for they have shown time and again that they
are not really wise managers of the public trust.
We must provide services for those who have been denied access
to the wired world and ensure opportunities for all. Technology
can bring, for example, credit and banking services to the
disenfranchised. We need to continue to expand the bounds of
service for the aged and the challenged with low fee bank
accounts and services in ways that maximize the possibility of
technology yet preserve safety and accountability.
Electronic commerce dramatically reduces the economic distance
between producers and consumers. Consumers can make their
purchases directly without involving traditional retailers,
wholesalers and in some cases distributors. They benefit from
improved information, lower transaction costs and thus lower
prices, and larger choices which can include products tailored to
individual requirements and instant delivery for intangible
services and products in digital form.
For sellers, electronic commerce also presents many advantages.
Small scale manufacturers can gain access to a global marketplace
with relative ease.
Specialist resellers enjoy the same advantage. Neither need
maintain a physical store or shop and inventory can be managed
more efficiently.
1040
Labour cost savings can be considerable. For instance, one
estimate places the cost of buying software on the Internet at 20
cents to 50 cents per transaction as opposed to $5 for a
telephone order and $15 our a traditional retailer. But just as
electronic commerce offers new market opportunities, it will also
intensify competition. It will probably make some provisions of
provincial labour codes obsolete.
Government must strive to provide the opportunity for everyone
to have access to electronic commerce. The key difference in
having rights and benefiting from them is the degree of
participation and full exchange. Anyone with access to the
Internet has access to electronic commerce. Online commerce
requires hardware such as computers and servers, software, and
the ability to connect to the network itself which may involve
access to telephone, cable TV, cellular mobile networks,
satellites or broadcasting networks. Equipment costs, access
charges and the complexity of the evolving Internet itself are
barriers to universal Internet access. At present, regulatory
structures in many countries still limit market access by
infrastructure providers. This is changing with the
liberalization of telecommunications.
Estimates of the number of Internet users vary between 30
million and 50 million. It is a rapidly growing population. Just
three or four years ago the number of users was only in the
thousands.
The number of commercial transactions made over the Internet is
also rapidly growing. Nearly all analysts predict growth by
factors of 10 or more and that electronic commerce will overtake
the size of mail catalogue sales in the United States alone.
The networks are being built but they will likely never be
comprehensive or fast enough for changing demands. Sadly, the
law, protections and regulatory climate will always be behind,
especially if the Liberals stay in power in Canada.
Internet communications are generally established through
telephone systems which were built to carry voice, not data.
These systems need to evolve. At present most customers connect
to communications networks via a standard telephone line. Local
telephone tariffs currently account for more than 60% of the cost
of Internet access. The expansion of electronic commerce depends
on speeding up data transmission while keeping the costs very
low.
Increasing competition in the communications market is the best
way to encourage network upgrading. One key to increasing
competition is to put in place regulatory structures that
encourage the creation of networks providing and supporting all
types of applications, including entertainment, voice telephony
and electronic commerce. However, it seems that we will always
have one hand tied behind our backs in this country, because we
have a Canadian policy for Luddites who vainly resist in the name
of Canadian content which seems premised upon a cultural
inferiority complex.
Our law must properly follow the opportunities of technology for
jobs, growth and trade. By raising economic efficiency,
electronic commerce will increase overall wealth. In doing so,
it will impose adjustments on existing economic structures, for
electronic commerce may well result in the loss of employment in
traditional distribution and retailing. However, experience
demonstrates that technological change will create new and better
replacement jobs.
Electronic commerce is already creating new high quality
computing and communications jobs linked to the development of
global digital markets. Of course the NDP will rail against it
and claim it needs an even more iron fisted union to stop the sun
from rising, the light of new knowledge coming in, or it will
want a world ruler of the Tobin tax to mitigate against what it
cannot comprehend. Outdated political ideologies hurt people,
stunt potential, breed poverty and perpetuate oppression and
servitude. That is what the NDP ideology must be understood to
bring, in light of discussing the implications of Bill C-6 and
the future.
From the perspective of the firm, the cost of doing business on
new electronic networks is significantly lower than the cost of
traditional methods. This advantage plus the ability to offer
high value, content rich products and services has led to
exponential growth in the number of firms entering electronic
commerce and related businesses. This is most evident in the
urban North American centres but is becoming evident in other
countries as well.
By bringing buyers and sellers closer together, electronic
commerce will facilitate trade growth. Canadian wealth is based
on international trade, but there is no help from the NDP
anti-traders belief system.
What we are talking about also has consequences for taxation and
tariffs. Jurisdictional rules applying to taxes and tariffs are
generally based on concepts of physical geography, such as place
of supply or residence of a taxpayer. As electronic commerce is
not bound by physical geography, it may become difficult for
taxpayers and governments to determine jurisdiction and revenue
rights. For consumption taxes, there may be a need for action to
avoid double or non-taxation.
1045
The availability, reliability and completeness of commercial
records generated in an electronic commercial environment,
including those from electronic payment systems, are also of
concern. Such records must be relied upon to ensure that
taxation and tariffs have been appropriately and fairly applied.
Many forms of taxation and tariffs are levelled on physical
goods. The ability in electronic commerce to create electronic
substitutes like electronic books presents challenges for revenue
collection and the archaic quota regimes overseen by our heritage
minister.
The existence of electronic products also raises issues of
fairness between taxes and tariffs imposed on physical goods and
electronic substitutes. The ability within the electronic
distribution channels to bypass any or all of these traditional
middlemen between producer and consumer raises serious issues for
the collection of taxes, particularly withholding taxes.
The use of electronic commerce technologies in the form of
intranets by multinationals and collaborative groups may tend to
increase the prevalence of transfer pricing and increase the
difficulty of detecting such behaviour.
The predicted growth of international electronic commerce, much
of which may be undertaken by smaller less sophisticated
businesses, may mean the number of unintentional breaches of
international revenue laws could increase.
Given the global nature of electronic commerce, it is important
that the decisions taken by government continue to allow for the
international flow of data. Moreover, technological tools will
offer new ways to allow users to protect themselves. Some of
them are mechanisms for verifying information such as labelling
systems which certify that an online business meets certain good
standards of business. Other mechanisms exist for notifying
consumers of legal jurisdiction or venue for resolving disputes
arising from a transaction. Some others allow consumers to
access educational messages that describe their rights in the
context of electronic transactions.
Canada certainly needs to work with the international community
to provide a forum for continuing exchange of views on developing
technologies and an institutional framework to support them. We
also have to increase the financial and electronic literacy of
the Canadian people. It is not enough to know how to balance a
chequebook any more. Even those fortunate to have the help of
accountants sometimes have a hard time understanding all the ins
and outs of investing in an RSP, paying off credit card debt or
refinancing a mortgage.
Knowledge is power and as Canadians understand technology they
will use it in ways that make it accountable to them, as it
enhances their quality of life. Laws and regulations must go
hand in hand with an informed public if technology is to serve us
rather than us serving it.
As reported in the Ottawa Citizen today, Ontario residents
may soon have a single computerized card that will do everything
from providing access to health care to serving as a driver's
licence under a new project unveiled by the province. The smart
card concept announced in the provincial government's throne
speech yesterday, it is hoped, will mean more convenience for the
public and less fraud. The term usually refers to a credit card
with a tiny computer chip that contains lots of information about
the cardholder that can replace the need for many cards. The one
card will include a driver's licence, access to services such as
medicare, social assistance and senior benefits.
The future is here. How far off will it be that a ton of
information that can be put on one small card will simply be put
on a microscopic chip under the skin on one's hand? By then the
universal numbers will be assigned at birth, which can be the
international drawing rights credit card, citizenship and right
to vote registration for the world, and contain personal
international telephone and computer access numbers. The
technology seems to be coming, but are the law and society ready
for these realities?
That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-6. It is an
attempt to improve privacy, enhance disclosure, combat fraud,
increase access and bring the transactional world of commerce and
law under some semblance of control.
Members of the official opposition engaged fully in the process
of the bill. We offered a number of constructive improvements
which the government was rather arrogant about accepting, as old
style governments usually are. Nevertheless Reformers support
the bill since it is as good as we can get it at this time.
Reform recognizes the fine line between the right of Canadians
to have freedom of speech and the right of privacy. The need for
that balance has become acute as Canadians embrace new
technologies. Therefore we support the regulation that Bill C-6
introduces.
As the world changes and the proposed act needs adjustment in
the future, I hope it will not take as long to do as the years it
took the hapless Conservative and the bumbling Liberal
governments to update the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Nevertheless the government had at least one good minister to
finally get it done, the Minister of Industry.
1050
In conclusion, the objectives of the bill are broadly similar to
the ones used to harness the opportunities and benefits of the
industrial revolution. They are just as vital today, if not more
so, as they were a century ago. It is now time to use them to
seize the enormous potential of the information revolution for
every Canadian citizen.
If we work together we can help all families have the benefits
of new choices and new technologies. We can help our people
thrive in the 21st century. All we have to do is to remember how
we got here over the last 132 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, here we are
at third reading of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, whereby the
federal government intends, as far as we are concerned in
Quebec, to become king and master of what the protection of
personal information should be.
In spite of all the attempts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois
and all those who came before the parliamentary committee to
show how bad this bill would be for Quebec, we are not debating
it at third reading.
Before going any further, I want to salute the excellent job
done by my colleague from Mercier who single-handedly carried
this matter for a year to bring government members to realize
the impact this bill would have in Quebec and how flawed it is
even for those Canadians it purports to protect.
We could talk about the real efficiency of this bill which is
more about promoting electronic commerce than protecting
personal information. This week, the government decided to ram
through this bill by the end of business today and to defer the
division at third reading until the beginning of next week.
The bill contains some amendments coming from the government.
It is important to know that, half way through, the government
saw the holes in its bills and started improvizing, trying to
improve certain areas, tabling amendments of its own after
witnesses were heard in committee. Thus, the government,
realizing its bill was flawed, brought in new amendments, but
did not allow any debate on them to give people a chance to be
heard. Groups who appeared before the committee never saw them,
which creates a very dangerous situation.
Strangely enough, some of the last-minute amendments exempt the
government from the application of its own act in a number of
cases. Is it not strange that the government should come to this
realization only after the committee hearing stage, and that it
thought appropriate to give itself and its components some
manoeuvering room in order not to abide by its own law?
This is a bit surprising coming from a government that says it
wants to protect people but is looking for ways to avoid doing
so itself whenever possible.
This brings me to the case of Quebec. For five years now,
Quebec has had an act for the protection of personal information
in the private sector. This act serves as a model, because
there are very few others like it; in fact, it is the only one
of its kind in North America. Now the federal government has
decided to take a page from our book.
It is a desirable thing that all Canadians be protected with
respect to the distribution of their personal information. But,
seeing how slow the other provinces have been to act, the
federal government decided to introduce legislation. I would
point out, however, that the provinces, in conjunction with the
federal government, had already embarked on a process of
harmonizing legislation.
But, last year, the federal government decided unilaterally to
withdraw from the process and come up with its own legislation.
It withdrew from the joint effort it had embarked on with the
provinces, an exercise in which Quebec had pointed out that it
had its own legislation. By the way, there are two relevant
instruments in Quebec: the act, and the Civil Code, which also
governs the protection of personal information. If memory
serves, the applicable articles of the Civil Code are 35 to 40.
The act is thoroughly steeped in Quebec's civil law tradition,
as opposed to the common law tradition on which the federal
government's approach is based.
Enforcement will be extremely
difficult. It is no accident that the Barreau du Québec, the
Chambre des notaires, the Conseil du patronat, and a union body
such as the CSN told the government that what it was proposing
for Quebec was ridiculous, that it would be unworkable and
complicated for businesses, a complete disaster.
1055
There was legislation protecting personal information and not
focussed on encouraging e-commerce. E-commerce will grow despite
the federal government. It does not need any legislation to
encourage it. It is developing at a phenomenal rate and will
continue to do so.
What is needed is assurance of the protection of distribution,
disclosure and transmission of personal information.
The federal government has seen fit to provide for this in a
schedule to its legislation, not in the legislation itself, and
in a conditional mode. I will give hon. members an example of
the very fuzzy concepts its contains. In the Government of
Quebec's legislation, the consent for release of specific
information must be very clear.
The individual must have consented to the transfer of his
personal information.
At the federal level, the approach is far more vague, so things
are not as clear. Explicit consent is not necessarily required.
Once again, it can be seen that the two governments are guided
by two very different mindsets.
I will continue by quoting from the testimony of some of those
who appeared before the committee. In fact, I intend to quote
two.
When I was preparing my speech for this morning, a comment I
heard came to mind. A man spoke of his fear that the
organizations with the greatest interest in invading our privacy
were the ones setting the legislative agenda.
He said “Now it is clear that Bill C-54”—now Bill C-6—“is an
initiative on e-commerce. I believe it is useful to note that
the words `consumers', `businesses', and `industry' appear 78
times, while `citizen' appears only ten times”.
So said Valerie Steve, a professor at the human rights research
and education centre. This then is a very different approach
from what the government was boasting about this morning, saying
that it wants is simply to protect personal information.
I will now quote from the remarks made by the former president
of the Quebec bar association, who also has interesting things
to say. He said “From a very careful reading of Bill C-54, in my
opinion, this would mean a significant step backwards for
Quebec”. I repeat “in my own opinion, this would mean a very
significant step backwards for Quebec”.
He added “These regulations, in fact, this sort of voluntary
standard, are given the status of law by making them a schedule.
They are not stringent enough to protect consumers. They are
full of loopholes for commerce. It is based in large part on a
completely outmoded approach to consumer protection with
virtually non existent rights of recourse”.
I see that we will soon be proceeding to Statements by Members
and Oral Question Period. I will continue afterward. I will
return to the notion of recourse for consumers.
I want to ask for unanimous consent to have my speaking time of
40 minutes split into two 20 minute periods, since I will be
sharing my time with the member for Mercier.
I have used about ten minutes so far and, after my second ten
minute period, the member for Mercier will finish the 40 minute
period, if there is unanimous consent.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the hon. member to share his time in two 20 minute periods?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BURLINGTON
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each
year graduating students in Burlington win hundreds of awards
recognizing their academic achievement, athletic abilities and
interests. Each year it is my pleasure to honour one student at
each school with a Paddy Torsney MP Citizenship Award.
This year's winners include Michael Lazarovitch from Assumption,
Liane Mahon from Notre Dame, Manjinger Shoker from Burlington
Central, Anthony Adrian Van Veen from Lord Elgin, Amy Wah from MM
Robinson, Elizabeth Shadwick from Nelson and Sarah Norris from
General Brock.
Burlington residents are proud of its youngest citizens. They
have demonstrated their commitment to our country. They have
volunteered to improve our schools and our community. Their
energies are boundless and their accomplishments many.
Congratulations to their parents, teachers and friends for
supporting them in their efforts. I know members will join me in
wishing each of them continued success and much happiness as they
pursue their goals and dreams. Way to go, Burlington.
* * *
DOUKHOBOR RUSSIANS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1899 many Doukhobor Russians immigrated to Canada to
escape persecution due to their pacifist beliefs. A great many
of those people have settled in what is now the riding of
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
1100
Over the years the Doukhobor people have integrated into
Canadian society, but while doing so have still retained their
language, culture, religion and traditions. The Doukhobor
community is a shining example of how a distinct group of people
can preserve and celebrate their heritage by sharing it with
other Canadians. Our riding and indeed all of Canada benefit
from the wonderful example of family and work ethics provided by
the Doukhobors. They amply demonstrate that there is more to be
gained through unity than division.
This weekend many of them are gathered here in Ottawa at a
conference celebrating their first hundred years in Canada. I am
sure that all members of the House will join me in welcoming the
Doukhobors and offering congratulations on the contribution they
make to Canadian society.
* * *
WINDSOR PUBLIC LIBRARY
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to tell the House that the Windsor Public Library
was awarded a gold medal at the Technology in Government
Distinction Awards gala held in Ottawa on October 18, 1999.
Distinction awards are designed to formally recognize leadership,
innovation and excellence in the management and use of
information technologies to improve service delivery.
WERLnet, the Windsor Essex Regional Library network project,
implemented a state of the art library automation system shared
by all partners and available over the Internet. WERLnet was one
of 230 projects nominated from all three levels of government
from coast to coast. It is the first gold medal winner in the
newly created innovative service delivery in the municipalities
awards category and was selected by the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities.
I congratulate all those who made this project possible,
specifically Steve Salmons, Chief Executive Officer of the
Windsor Public Library, who accepted the award on behalf of the
WERLnet project and its partners. The city of—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Malpeque.
* * *
POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June
18 I had the opportunity along with the premier of P.E.I. to open
the P.E.I. Potato Board Quality Monitoring and Inspection
Station. This facility has the capability to inspect the quality
of all loads of potatoes leaving the province by truck.
The building was dedicated to the memory of the late Gordon
Dawson, a potato producer who was a leader in the industry in
growing and promoting quality spuds. A plaque unveiled states:
“The P.E.I. potato industry dedicates this facility to the
memory of Gordon A. Dawson, Augustine Cove, P.E.I., a potato
grower and shipper who firmly believed that growing and marketing
the highest quality product is the foundation of Prince Edward
Island's strength in potato markets around the world”.
Mr. Dawson and his family exemplified what potato quality is all
about. His legacy will continue through this new facility and as
a result growers, shippers and consumers will benefit.
* * *
CJCS
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year CJCS, Stratford's first and still operating
radio station, is celebrating its 75th anniversary. Founded in
1922 by electrician Milford Higgins and ham radio enthusiast
Lawrence East, their radio experiments laid the foundation for
Stratford's radio future.
Attaining an amateur broadcasting permit in 1923, the station
was named C3GG and was originally situated at 151 Ontario Street.
Owned at one time by Jack Kent Cooke and Lord Thompson of Fleet,
the station has had a few well known announcers from the
broadcasting field start out at CJCS. These include LLoyd
Robertson, John Thretheway and Frank P. Stalley.
I wish to congratulate the present station owners, Steve and
Carolyn Rae, on all their success and wish them a further 75
years of quality live broadcasting.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
farmers across the country are going broke or are having a
difficult time making ends meet. For most it is through no fault
of their own. Farmers are paying the price for this government
letting them down in trade talks, for this government overtaxing
them everywhere they turn and through everything they buy, for
this government imposing unfair user fees on them and for this
government burdening our farmers with unnecessary red tape and
over regulation.
For six years Reform has fought for the government to lower
taxes, to remove unfair user fees, to reduce red tape and to get
tough on trade talks. For the past 10 years Reform has proposed
compensating farmers through a trade distortion adjustment
program for losses resulting from unfair trade practices on the
part of Europe, the United States, Asia and elsewhere.
Surely even this government must see that it is reasonable for
farmers to receive compensation for losses resulting from unfair
trade practices in other countries, but so far all they have
received is the Trudeau salute, again.
* * *
1105
CHILDREN
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in your great city of Kingston
this past September a conference, Healthy Children—Healthy
Communities, was staged to identify strategies to increase the
awareness of and to initiate a call to action for children's
health and well-being. Hosted by the Southeastern Ontario
District Health Council as a part of its larger Children's
Wellness Initiative, it attracted participants from the fields of
education, employment, recreation, economics, social services,
justice, health and government.
Keynote speakers included renowned medical researcher and early
childhood development expert, Dr. Fraser Mustard; Dr. John
Wootton, Executive Director of the Office of Rural Health for
Health Canada; and our eminent colleague and children's issues
advocate, the hon. member for Don Valley West.
Conference participants urged that children be the first
priority on all governments' agendas for the new millennium.
Children were indeed a main focal point of the Speech from the
Throne. In response, our Prime Minister emphasized that we have
no higher priority as a government. “The best place to start is
with Canada's children. If we want the brightest future possible
for our country, we must ensure that all of our children have the
best possible start in life”.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Co-op Week, and I am very pleased to take this
opportunity to pay tribute to all co-op members in Quebec and
around the world.
In this era of globalization, at a time when major corporations
are streamlining their operations strictly for reasons of
profits, co-operatives are viewed as an effective protection
against desolidarization within the economy.
Throughout the world, an increasing number of men and women are
turning to co-ops as a mean to reconcile economic development and
solidarity.
In Quebec, there are co-ops in the agri-food, financial services,
housing and work industries, and these employ tens of thousands
of men and women.
Co-ops inform and develop, while promoting democracy and
solidarity. Long live the co-ops.
* * *
[English]
EZRA LEVANT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Ezra Levant of Reform question period fame is a man of
many words and unbridled optimism.
After a date last year in Toronto he was told his chances of a
repeat encounter were a daunting one in a million. Ezra's
response? “Yes, I have a chance. I have a shot”.
Five hundred roses and countless trips to Toronto later, Ezra
got lucky. At 5 p.m. on Sunday, October 24 at Shaarei Tefillah
Synagogue in Toronto, Ezra Levant and Golda Van Messel are to be
joined in marriage.
Life in Toronto has changed Ezra a bit. He no longer snacks on
steaks or chews on members of the Upper House. He now enjoys
sushi and spends quiet afternoons doing arts and crafts.
People are still trying to figure out why Golda, a promising
digital media specialist, has chosen Ezra as her mate, but future
Speakers of this House should beware that one day there will be
more Ezra Levants around here.
I invite this House to join the official opposition in wishing
both Ezra and Golda all the very best in their new life together.
* * *
[Translation]
SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME MONTH
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with sadness that I must remind the House and all
Canadians that October is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Month.
Sudden infant death syndrome, also known as crib death, refers
to the sudden and unexplainable death of an apparently healthy
baby, usually under the age of one. Every week, three babies die
of SIDS, leaving families grieving their tragic loss.
The Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths is
conducting research to determine what causes crib death.
The foundation, along with Health Canada and a number of other
organizations, is striving to develop public awareness and to
inform people, so as to reduce the risk of sudden infant death
syndrome.
I am asking you to join me in wishing the Canadian Foundation
for the Study of Infant Deaths and its countless volunteers a
resounding success during Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Month.
* * *
MANITOBA'S FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITY
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this Year
of the Francophonie, I would like to pay tribute to the vital
role played by mothers and school teachers in the fight for the
survival of the francophone community in Manitoba.
Although the rights of francophones were enshrined in Manitoba's
Constitution in 1916, the provincial government prohibited the
teaching of French until 1947.
The official story glosses over the role of women, but it is
important that young people know that their grandmothers and
great-grandmothers were active in helping the francophone
community in Manitoba survive.
1110
For over 30 years, these women ensured the survival of their
franco-Manitoban cultural heritage by educating children in
French. Today, because of their efforts, over 22,000 Manitobans
live in French.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, 82% of Saskatchewan farmers support continued regulation
of freight rates and 63% want the wheat board to keep its role in
the grain transportation system.
However, the Liberals are pressing ahead with their crazy plan
to deregulate the rail transportation system. Deregulation has
been a colossal disaster for the airline industry, but
deregulation in the grain transportation sector is even worse.
Freight rate costs to farmers have tripled since the Liberals
cancelled railway cost reviews and killed the Crow benefit, while
rail service to branch lines was cut back. The result, railway
profits have doubled and thousands of farmers are going bankrupt
from skyrocketing input costs, record low grain prices and cruel
Liberal policies.
Justice Estey, Mr. Kroeger and the Reform Party want the
Liberals to remove the freight rate cap, but it will cost
thousands of farm families their livelihoods.
The NDP is the only party fighting for farmers to keep the cap
on freight rates.
When will the Liberals stop this economic insanity of
persecuting western farmers?
* * *
[Translation]
PEACEKEEPING DAY
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if world peace is
to be maintained, the laws governing relations between nations
must be enforced and respected.
Faithful to our tradition as peacekeepers, we support the
peaceful resolution through peacekeeping missions of the
conflicts in which many nations are embroiled.
Saturday, October 23, is Peacekeeping Day, a day to pay tribute
to Canada's participation in various peacekeeping missions
throughout the world.
This October 23, let us remember the devotion of the men and
women who have served the cause of democracy by taking part in
these missions. Their contribution has been instrumental in
maintaining international peace and security.
Peacekeeping Day provides an opportunity to officially recognize
that contribution. On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to
pay them a well-deserved tribute and to tell them how greatly we
admire them.
* * *
CRIME PREVENTION
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 6, the federal government announced
allocation of $557,165 to assist in the funding of 15 crime
prevention projects in Quebec.
The National Strategy for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
helps communities to develop community solutions to problems
linked to crime and victimization and to enhance the awareness
of all communities involved in the fight against crime.
There is much still to be done. Let us hope that everyone
directly or indirectly involved in crime prevention will
participate actively in this type of program, the existence of
which was made possible by the federal government.
Essentially, the purpose of this initiative by the Liberal
government is to enhance the quality of life of Canadians, and
this requires enhanced security.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, at the present
time the people of this country are greatly concerned about
their children's safety, having learned that the Supreme Court
will not be hearing the case on child pornography until January
18, 2000.
The Minister of Justice tells us children are at no risk
whatsoever, while the families await a decision from the nine
federal justices.
Given their case load, the final decision by these judges might
come only in 2001. If her department had referred this case
immediately to the Supreme Court last winter, the public would
be less concerned.
According to her, all our children are still protected
nevertheless. Can she guarantee that the message these recent
decisions are sending to predators is not encouraging them to
continue their despicable behaviour? Can she prove to us that
the lawyers of these predators are not using the recent court
decisions as legal loopholes?
We trust that the minister will not wait for some other dramatic
event to make the news before she does something.
* * *
[English]
PEACEKEEPING
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has been and remains one of the most dedicated supporters
of peacekeeping. Of all the activities conducted by our nation,
few reflect the attitudes, beliefs and spirit of Canadians like
peacekeeping.
Today more than 4,000 Canadian forces personnel are far from
their loved ones, unselfishly giving their best to missions in
far away places such as the Golan Heights, Cypress, the
demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait, Kosovo and
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1115
Our men and women are also contributing to other complex and
sometimes dangerous peace support operations in East Timor, the
Arabian gulf, Cambodia, Guatemala and Mozambique.
To commemorate United Nations Day and the 11th anniversary of
the Nobel Peace Prize for peacekeeping, the Canadian forces will
at 10 a.m. on Saturday, October 23, 1999 hold a ceremony at the
peacekeeping monument in Ottawa to pay tribute to the men and
women of the Canadian forces who have died while serving on
peacekeeping missions around the globe.
I know that all members of the House will join me in honouring
both the sacrifices and continuing exemplary commitment of the
men and women of the Canadian forces.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals need to stop saying one thing when they
mean another. Take the notion of pay equity. Canadians want
anyone doing the same job to be paid the same. Same job, same
pay, that is pay equity, except if you are a Liberal. To them
the state should decide what your job is worth and which job
should be paid the same as other jobs.
How does the state make this leap of logic? The Liberals cannot
really say. But naturally they know better than workers, unions
and employers what jobs are worth, and once that dollar figure
has been pulled out of the Liberal hat, someone has to pay a lot
of money, unless that someone is a Liberal. They fight for years
not to have to pay the price of their own foolishness.
Equity means fairness and equal treatment. Only the Liberals
could undermine this fine principle by using it to cloak
arbitrary state intervention.
Canadians beware, fairness can become what the government says
is fair not what citizens agree is fair in free negotiations. Is
that the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
* * *
YWCA
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week
has been the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence, the
campaign where all Canadians are challenged to build solutions to
violence in their own communities.
As the member of parliament for Dartmouth, I know where much of
the violence in my community comes from. It is from poverty,
from hopelessness and from an sense of deep frustration of being
left out of the good things which the country has to offer. It
comes from running up against brick walls as people look for
jobs, decent housing, pensions, as they stand in line at food
banks. It comes from seeing government policies that do not
address these issues but instead continue to maintain high levels
of poverty, unemployment and economic barriers to higher
education.
As we applaud the YWCA for its efforts to draw attention to
violence, let us here in the House collectively address the roots
of poverty with progress and with humane policies that put people
first, children first and equity first.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister claimed in the House that there was no proof that
he was involved in the APEC security arrangements.
However, documents released by the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission show that the Prime Minister and his office were up to
their eyeballs in taking action against the APEC protesters. The
Prime Minister told the House that he had nothing to do with it
and yet we now find that he and his staff were intricately
involved.
Why did the Prime Minister and his office tell police that they
had to find some way to get those protesters out of there?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this matter is being considered by the Public Complaints
Commission under the former Mr. Justice Hughes. This is an
independent tribunal. I suggest we let the tribunal get on with
its work in examining this matter.
I want to also point out that senior officials of the Prime
Minister's office have already testified. I suggest that the
hon. member look at what they have to say and take that into
account as well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
incredible as it sounds, in order to stop the protesters at the
APEC meetings, the Prime Minister arranged to temporarily lease
land from UBC so that he could charge any protesters for
trespassing, arrest them and then throw them in jail. In other
words, where it was perfectly legal and lawful to protest one day
it suddenly became a place to charge, arrest and jail students
the next day.
Are these legal shenanigans the Prime Minister's way of getting
around the charter protected rights of these protesting students?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject categorically the premise of the hon. member's
question. I do not accept it at all.
I will repeat that this matter is being considered by an arm's
length tribunal headed by a very distinguished former judge. He
will take all these documents into account. Let us wait until he
states his conclusion.
That is what we should do if we respect the work of the tribunal.
That work should not be carried on in the House when the tribunal
has been set up to do that work.
1120
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here
is what an independent RCMP Public Complaints Commission found.
It found that the chief of APEC security was quoted as saying
“Even they, the prime minister's staff, say they are not
concerned about the security aspect of the Prime Minister's
visit; it's the politics of it”.
In other words, the Prime Minister and his office were prepared
to move in on protesters, not because they did anything wrong,
no, it was because the Prime Minister did not want it to look bad
for the dictator Suharto.
Why did the Prime Minister pressure the RCMP to compromise the
legal rights of the protesters in order to protect the dictator
Suharto?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept, in fact I reject the premise of the
hon. member's question. At the same time, I wonder why the hon.
member does not respect the jurisdiction of the tribunal and
wants to have its work duplicated improperly in the House.
A very distinguished former judge is looking into this matter.
Contrary to what the hon. member has said, the tribunal has not
reached any conclusions. We will be happy to see the conclusions
and have them considered once they are reached and announced by
the judge.
Why does the Reform Party not want to let the commission do its
work and respect the work being done by former Mr. Justice
Hughes?
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the opposition rejects the premise of the Deputy Prime Minister's
answers. He is trying to throw a wet blanket on APEC and that is
not going to work. It is not going to go away.
The Prime Minister still denies he was directly involved. Let
me read a quote from one of the police officers at that time. The
police officer said “We know how we normally treat things, but
then the Prime Minister is not directly involved. But right now
the Prime Minister of our country is directly involved and he's
going to start giving orders”.
What part of that quote does the Deputy Prime Minister not
understand?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I do not understand is why the Reform Party is
unwilling to let an independent arm's length tribunal carry on
its work and allow the commissioner, Mr. Hughes, to consider all
the matters in question, including the evidence of senior
officials of the Prime Minister's office, and then reach his
conclusions and issue his report.
Why does the Reform Party not understand the process of justice
in the country?
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): It would be
nice, Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister answered
questions instead of asking them all the time.
The Prime Minister on October 28, 1998 said “At that time I did not
have time to discuss anything with police. Anybody with common
sense would know that”. Not only was the Prime Minister burning
up the phone lines, but now we learn he was busy leasing land in
order to crack down on student protesters.
How can the Prime Minister continue to stubbornly deny he was
directly involved in APEC operations when everybody with common
sense knows he was?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I again reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. There has not been a finding to that effect by Mr.
Hughes. The commission has not completed its hearings. Mr.
Hughes has not rendered his judgment.
If the hon. member asks why in addition to answering questions I
ask them, I want to demonstrate that the Reform Party members on
this or any other subject fail to have any real, meaningful or
important answers. They do not have the answers and they do not
have the facts.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of the week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
announced that the Montreal urban police were to meet yesterday
with officials from Canadian Heritage and Revenue Canada.
Could the minister tell us the outcome of this meeting?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the allegations are being investigated by the police.
So I ask that we let the police do their work.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
never get an answer from this government, because everything is
always under investigation.
If the Deputy Prime Minister cannot tell us about this meeting,
it is, perhaps, because the rumours are true and the meeting was
not held.
Could the government tell us why the meeting between the
officials and the police was cancelled?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the
meeting did not take place because the RCMP is carrying out
investigation and has asked to continue its investigation
itself.
For the ninth or 10th time, we invite the Bloc Quebecois
members, we encourage them, to contact the RCMP directly if they
have any allegations or information.
1125
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the media are reporting that Telefilm Canada is showing
arrogance by refusing to answer the questions asked by
journalists, preferring instead to refer them to the Access to
Information Act.
My question is: How can the government tolerate the arrogance
displayed by Telefilm Canada, which is refusing to answer
questions about how it is spending public moneys?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Telefilm Canada is not
refusing to answer questions.
Members opposite and in fact all the members of this House have
had many opportunities to ask questions to Telefilm officials
when they have appeared before house committees, and this will
continue to be the case.
Telefilm Canada is complying with the Access to Information Act
and if the hon. member is alluding to an RCMP investigation,
again, we urge him to contact the RCMP directly if he wants to
make allegations or communicate information.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in order to allow Telefilm Canada to regain its credibility,
what it the Minister of Canadian Heritage waiting for to ask the
auditor general to shed light on a case where the actions of a
minority are detrimental to the whole television industry?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one wonders which
actions, by whom, are detrimental to whom in this House.
Again, and I believe I am repeating this for the 13th time, if
Bloc Quebecois members have allegations to make or information
to communicate, we urge them to contact the RCMP directly. It is
investigating this matter at the minister's request.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, another
autumn in the 1997 APEC fiasco haunts us still.
The transcript of an RCMP conference call reveals the Prime
Minister's office was deeply involved in security arrangements
for the Vancouver summit.
Listen to what RCMP Inspector Wayne May had to say at that time.
He is quoted as saying, “When the Prime Minister is told of this
he is just going to tell them to do whatever it takes to get the
protesters out of there”.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, the minister
responsible for the RCMP, to confirm what Canadians already know,
that the Prime Minister and his office had a direct role in
security for the APEC summit.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that the
Public Complaints Commission is an independent tribunal. Mr.
Hughes is examining all information relevant to the RCMP.
What my hon. colleague should do is let the Public Complaints
Commission do its job.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems
to me that the APEC inquiry is about investigations into the
RCMP. What we are interested in talking about today is what the
Prime Minister's involvement was in all of that.
RCMP Inspector Bill Ard is quoted as saying, “The Prime
Minister wanted everybody removed. That was the deal and we are
feeling there is no legal way to do that”.
In the face of these hard RCMP facts, why will the government
not confirm the involvement, and indeed the interference of the
Prime Minister and his office in the APEC summit in 1997?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has co-operated fully
with the Public Complaints Commission. Very senior members of
the Prime Minister's office have testified before the commission.
Why will my hon. colleague not let the Public Complaints
Commission do its job?
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the existing chaos and menacing atmosphere resulting
from the Marshall decision is taking its toll on fishermen,
families and stocks.
Will the minister make a public statement that will clarify the
position of his department and apply the principles of
conservation for all fishermen in Canada?
I say to the minister, if conservation is truly coming first,
why does he not prove it?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, conservation is our number one
priority and we operate and manage the fishery on that basis.
That is exactly what we are doing out there.
I have said from day one that we will have a regulated fishery.
We have a regulated fishery that we enforcing to ensure that we
have conservation.
I have been in contact with all the groups. We now have a
federal representative out there speaking to the commercial
industries and the aboriginal communities and working to have a
practical arrangement. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we do not have conservation, we have confusion;
confusion among the fishermen, the aboriginal people and the
ministers themselves.
It appears as if the ministers' plan to put a negotiator in
place has failed.
Now that the Sable gas plan may be interrupted, it seems that
every time the federal government goes to court it loses. Even
the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans stated there has to be more leadership coming from the
minister.
1130
If the minister has a plan to resolve the crisis in the fishery,
will he please share it. What is that plan?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member and his
party have not been listening. We put together both a short term
and long term plan. We have a federal representative who is now
talking to the groups.
The only plan the Conservatives have is to use the
notwithstanding clause. They do not even recognize that in this
case we cannot use the notwithstanding clause. That is the only
solution coming out of the Conservative Party.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is official. Possession of child pornography is
now legal in provinces other than British Columbia. Despite
promises from the justice minister that this would never happen,
yesterday in an Edmonton courthouse right in the minister's own
backyard, charges against Lawrence Edelstein were held over
pending a supreme court decision.
Given this contradicts everything the minister said would not
happen, including the child pornography case reaching the supreme
court, would the parliamentary secretary tell us if the
government will now invoke the notwithstanding clause?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is committed to ensuring the safety of our
children. We have intervened vigorously at the British Columbia
Court of Appeal level and we will do the same at the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Let us not forget that possession of child pornography is
illegal in nine provinces and three territories. Let us not
forget that. Also let us not forget that it is illegal to
produce, to transfer, to sell child pornography. The government
is acting well on this issue.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I still thought Alberta and B.C. were part of
Canada. Let me remind the government of the justice minister's
words on February 2, 1999 in this House. She said “We are
acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the
supreme court”.
Let me also remind the government that in January the
parliamentary secretary who just answered the question wrote to
the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause
to solve this child pornography case, as did 62 other Liberals.
When is the government going to bring in the notwithstanding
clause and put children first instead of the sexual deviants who
are still operating in this country?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this case will be heard on January 18 and 19. We are vigorously
defending it. To invoke the notwithstanding clause at this time
would weaken our case, a case where we feel we are
constitutionally strong.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the closing
session of a meeting of the Canadian Health Food Association
held in Ottawa last weekend, David Suzuki quite rightly remarked
that Canadians are being used as guinea pigs for genetically
altered foods.
Is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for the food
inspection system to be discredited before labelling and
regulating genetically altered foods, as the Bloc Quebecois
requested last June?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the approval of foods no matter how they
are produced and come about in Canada is a very rigorous process.
The Ministry of Health sets the terminology and the rules and
regulations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors and
enforces those standards and regulations. The Ministry of Health
audits and monitors the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
government undertake to move quickly to carry out exhaustive
studies of the effects on health of genetically altered foods
and to increase the budgets necessary to evaluate these foods?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no food is approved for sale in Canada
unless it has gone through one of the most rigorous food
inspection systems in the world. It takes a number of years
before that process is completed. The best way to explain to
everybody how successful and how good it is is to look at the
track record. Canadians are fortunate to have the best food
regulatory system in the world and the track record shows that.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have undermined the solid principle of pay
equity by substituting their fuzzy notion of equal value work.
The Liberals' little experiment has wound up costing taxpayers $5
billion. Worse, it has sparked a rash of similar suits that will
cost consumers billions more. Unfortunately the government's
loss has already set a precedent in those cases.
1135
When is the government going to end the confusion for Canadian
workers, employers and consumers by defining what it means by
equal value work?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is clear that there is a big difference between the Reform
Party and our government. I remind everyone that the Reform Party
in its electoral platform said: “We will discontinue employment
equity programs and will repeal section 15(2) of the charter of
rights and freedoms”. That is the section about equality
rights. I do not think we have any reason to hear from the
Reform Party on that.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pay equity is nothing but pay inequity.
Bureaucrats assigning an arbitrary value to jobs has nothing to
do with fairness. It has nothing to do with unity. Every other
worker in the country can now kiss a tax cut goodbye so the
government can finance its loss to the federal court. It is hard
to see the equity in that. There goes the surplus. There goes
tax relief.
Why is it that whenever the government makes a mistake,
taxpayers end up paying the bill?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. He
certainly was not listening to the Prime Minister the other day.
The Prime Minister said that the pay equity decision will not
cause the government to back down on its commitment in the throne
speech and before to carry out general tax relief for Canadians.
It has already begun doing that to the tune of $19 billion. The
government will continue to do this.
The hon. member should not say things which cause confusion and
misunderstanding on the part of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order
to protect biodiversity, an international protocol on biosafety
that would regulate the export and import of genetically altered
organisms is now being negotiated.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is
Canada one of the small group of six nations blocking the accord
and putting trade ahead of the protection of health and the
environment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is one of the group of nations that export
agricultural products. We are also trying to have some good
exchanges of views and to reduce the distance separating the
opinions of the group of countries to which the hon. member
referred from the other countries with their differing views.
We are doing our best to bridge the gap and to find common
ground.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does
the minister explain that Canada is refusing to include in the
biosafety protocol a clause making companies responsible for
damage caused to the environment by their genetically altered
products?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with like-minded nations
which face similar problems.
As the logic of the hon. member's position would indicate, the
fact is we cannot simply halt international trade in foodstuffs.
We have to recognize that there are differing points of view of
differing countries of the world. We must continue to work to
bridge these differences and attempt to bring together an accord
which will in particular protect the less developed countries.
That also depends on our assisting them with technology,
information and systems which will allow them to make benefit of
any future accord.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the historian whose expert opinion Justice Binnie relied
on in the Marshall ruling has publicly stated his testimony was
twisted to fit the ruling. Justice Binnie interpreted Professor
Stephen Patterson's testimony as evidence that the treaties
granted a permanent native right to fish or hunt, but Patterson,
the person Justice Binnie relied on, does not agree. The decision
is flawed.
Given this evidence of a flawed decision, will the government
join with the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition in petitioning the
supreme court to stay and clarify the Marshall decision?
1140
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the important thing is to work out an arrangement
involving all the parties in a fair and equitable way.
Discussions are under way right now for that purpose. A very
distinguished legal scholar has been appointed as mediator. We
should support his work to make sure there is a fair arrangement
respecting the rights of all concerned, whether the fishers are
native or non-native people in any part of Canada, including
Atlantic Canada.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be good to hear from the fisheries minister.
The Marshall decision establishes a race-based commercial
fishery on the east coast. History Professor Patterson was one
of the central experts cited in that case. He thinks the ruling
was flawed. He said:
Mr. Binnie relies extensively on my testimony in order to support
that position. But I think what he has quoted from my testimony
is very, very incomplete.
Why will the government not ask the supreme court to stay the
Marshall decision, and clarify it?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position has been very clear
from day one.
We have a supreme court judgment. We will make sure that we
live within the spirit of that judgment. We have already
recognized that treaty right. We are now making sure we have
dialogue and co-operation.
The Reform Party of course has a different position from the
other parties in the House. Since 1993 it has voted against
every major aboriginal initiative in the House and as usual it is
carrying on as it always has.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Section 5 of the Department of Industry Act provides that the
minister shall exercise his powers and perform his duties “in a
manner that will promote the interests and protection of
Canadian consumers”.
In order to guarantee consumers proper information on the food
they consume, would do the minister promise in this House to
make it mandatory to label genetically altered foods, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago the grocery
distributors council announced an initiative with the Canadian
standards council, the industry, the provinces, the federal
government and the Consumers' Association of Canada to conduct
meetings and put together a criteria for voluntary labelling.
Before we do any labelling, we have to have a criteria in place
so that it will be credible and enforceable labelling. We
recognize the consumer's right and desire to know and we are
working in that direction.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last June the Minister of Health tabled an announcement regarding
the medical use of marijuana in a Health Canada document on the
medical use of marijuana. The minister, under section 56 of the
act, exempted two persons.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
explain to the House what other actions have been taken over the
summer?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actions of this government have
shown it to be taking a humanitarian approach to people who are
suffering and believe the use of marijuana would help them.
On October 6, the minister granted 14 exemptions under section
56 bringing the total to 16. As it there has been some
criticism of the procedure, the minister is undertaking
consultations in order to improve it.
He has also announced an action plan for clinical trials and an
action plan to ensure a domestic source of supply within one
year.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like read a quote by one of Canada's most infamous 80 year
olds:
There is a long term intention on the part of the government—to
arrive eventually at a situation where Indians will be treated
like other Canadian citizens of the particular province in which
they happen to be.
Pierre Trudeau made that comment in the House at the tender age
of 49. What exactly happened to the Liberals' long term
intentions when they signed the Nisga'a treaty?
1145
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the intention of signing the
Nisga'a agreement is to bring certainty, not only to our
responsibility under the constitution to first nations rights but
also economic certainty to the province of British Columbia, a
province that needs certainty in the forestry area.
That is where we are at. That is where we were going. We are
doing the responsible thing, and I hope the Reform Party will
come to its senses and support the Nisga'a agreement like
everybody else in the House.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
assigning democratic rights according to race is offensive. The
government is attacking the very foundation of our country.
Equality of opportunity is at the core of what it is to be
Canadian.
The government has quashed the principle of equality with the
Nisga'a treaty. No longer will hard work be the determining
factor of whether or not one can make a living in forestry,
fishing or mining. Now success will be based on race.
Why is the government promoting a treaty that abolishes equality
of opportunity?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was the exact argument used
by members of the Reform Party to keep the Sikhs out of the RCMP.
They said that they did not want the regulations to change and
that they did not want turbanned Sikhs in the RCMP. Members of
that party stood for that and they are using the same argument as
they did before. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members
should calm down for a moment.
* * *
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, we all remember the fiasco of having to
pay the Ethyl corporation $19 million. We learned today from
Santa Barbara, California, that Sun Belt Water is suing the
Canadian government for up to $15 billion under chapter 11 of
NAFTA.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Would he
now admit that Canada's water export policy will not be decided
by the Parliament of Canada, Canadian laws or the courts of
Canada, but that it will essentially be decided by three faceless
trade lawyers operating in secret on the basis of NAFTA trade
rules?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the NDP policy would be put
forward by the hon. member in this way.
We do not believe that bulk water is an item of trade. We do
not think it should go to NAFTA panels. We think that is covered
entirely within Canada by the decision of Canadians.
The NDP may think differently. It may think it is a matter of
trade. It may think it should be sent off to those lawyers
elsewhere, but we say we make the decision and not other people.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment can stand
and yell in the House all he wants that this is not a trade deal.
The issue of Canada's future water exports is going to a NAFTA
trade panel. The suit for $15 billion is being launched now as
we sit here in the House of Commons.
One reason this is happening is that the government and the
minister have been dithering on water policy. Back in 1993 the
Prime Minister said that there would be no water exports. We
have been calling for legislation. Will he now introduce
legislation and initiate talks to remove ourselves from chapter
11 under NAFTA?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party keep insisting that
somehow water is an item of trade which can be handled by NAFTA.
We say no. We say this is a decision for Canadians, not for
people elsewhere. We are saying no to water diversions from any
of the major watersheds in Canada.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the owners of leaky condos in British Columbia are faced with
tens of thousands of dollars in repair costs through no fault of
their own.
Given that Ottawa has no consumer protection legislation in
place for condo owners and that CMHC required all those
homeowners to get inspections, will the minister of public works,
allow those homeowners at least to use some of the money from
their RRSPs without penalty? This measure would not cost the
government one penny. What can the minister do to help those
people in B.C.?
1150
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CMHC has been at the
forefront of this situation. It has been inviting the owners of
those condos to come forward if they need financial assistance.
We have been opening the mortgages and giving more time for
payments. We have also consolidated mortgages and we offer all
the research. We continue to work in helping those people in a
similar situation. We understand it is a terrible situation but
we are taking our responsibility and we are acting.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the provincial government of B.C. agrees with the
Barrett commission that condo owners should be allowed a sales
tax exemption for the repairs.
The federal government assisted people during the floodings in
Manitoba and the Saguenay and during the ice storm in central
Canada. We are asking the government to have a little compassion
and to help those people in B.C. We are all Canadians; people
from B.C are also Canadians.
Will the minister use a little compassion and help those people
through GST exemption on the repair bills for those condos.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we
are trying with all the means we have to help condo owners, to
give them relief so they can make repairs. I assure the member
that our financial assistance through the CMHC loan insurance
program is working.
The hon. member has made a representation that we should use
retirement savings plans for those things. I can take that
representation to the Minister of Finance, but I remind him that
we did not use such things for the ice storm or the Saguenay
tragedy and so on. We also have to keep the integrity of our
retirement pension system.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Minister of Health made an announcement in Toronto of
major funding for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how health research will
be enhanced by this new funding, and how our researchers will be
able to contribute to the quality of health in Canada as a
result of these new resources?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure to confirm
the announcement made this morning in Toronto by the Minister of
Health.
A total of $65 million will be injected into health
research through the creation of institutes.
Their purpose will
be to improve the co-ordination of health research throughout the
country through involvement of both the private sector and other
levels of the public sector.
This is a result of an announcement made in the 1999 budget.
Also, a commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne to
introduce appropriate legislation in the very near future.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
barely 60% of the Nisga'a themselves voted in favour of the
Nisga'a treaty. The fisheries minister should abandon his name
calling for a while and ask the Nisga'a why they voted against
it.
The fact is that the absence of land ownership rights is a major
flaw in the Indian Act and the Nisga'a deal. Hundreds of band
members from the Squamish reserve in my riding have come to tell
me that the lack of land ownership is the single biggest
impediment to self-sufficiency for aboriginal people in Canada.
How can the government support a treaty that works against
individual property rights and that has been completely rejected
for that reason by some of the Nisga'a and the Liberal Party of
B.C.?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try one again more
time. It is very important for the member opposite to read the
agreement.
If the member wants to listen he will know that in the agreement
it is not the case that there are no land rights for individual
Nisga'a people. They can in the agreement set up a land code
which will allow through fee simple for the individual Nisga'a
owners to have a deed to that property based on their own
regulations as a government.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-6
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister of National Revenue stated that his colleague, the
Minister of Industry, had already responded to numerous requests
from the Government of Quebec to avoid any form of duplication
following passage of Bill C-6 on electronic commerce. However,
contrary to that statement, the Minister of Industry did not
propose any amendment of satisfaction to Quebec.
Why is the government refusing to meet Quebec ministers
concerning an issue as important as the protection of personal
information before ramming through the House a bill that could
easily have been put on hold until after such a meeting?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to tell the hon. member that the protection of personal
information is a very important issue for all Canadians,
including Quebecers.
1155
It is not possible for a provincial government to fully protect
privacy. Federal legislation is also required to achieve that
goal.
The Government of Canada also needs such legislation to fulfil
its international obligations. We already discussed on two
occasions the idea of such a bill with the ministers responsible
for the information highway. Personally, I do not understand—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre.
* * *
[English]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the consumer price index shows that the price of energy,
the linchpin of our economy, is driving inflation hard. Overall
energy costs are up 13% over the past year, but gas prices are at
record highs.
These high energy prices are driving up rail and trucking costs
and reducing the disposable incomes of Canadians while giving big
oil companies record profits.
Why has the Minister of Industry ignored the competition
problems in gasoline retailing when the clear result has been
record high gas prices, higher inflation and the potential for
higher interest and mortgage rates? When will he start
protecting consumers instead of big business?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is ironic to listen to a member of the NDP from
Saskatchewan make a statement like that one. Even in Ontario
yesterday the provincial government recognized its responsibility
for pricing in the retail sector.
If the Government of Saskatchewan wishes to follow the example
of the Government of Prince Edward Island, the Government of
Quebec and what is proposed in Newfoundland to have a provincial
pricing regime for gasoline, let the member take it to his own
government which is of his own political stripe.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, tensions
on the east coast remain high. It will come to no one's surprise
to say that since the minister has become the minister of
fisheries he has been sleepwalking through the Marshall file.
It is even more shocking that the current Minister of the
Environment, the former minister of fisheries, did not even give
a political heads up to the new minister on the issue.
Given that these two ministers and cabinet in general have, to
be polite, lost all credibility on the issue, will the Deputy
Prime Minister stand in the House today and make two principles
very clear: that conservation and preservation of lobsters stocks
are paramount and, second, that the livelihoods of traditional
fishers will not be jeopardized by any potential decision that DFO
may undertake?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is interested
in conservation he should be congratulating the Minister of the
Environment because he has taken a lead role throughout his term
by putting conservation as the priority, our government position,
and we followed that through.
As far as commercial fishermen, I have said in the House before
that the long term solution will not be at the expense of our
traditional commercial fishermen and their families. This is a
solution that we all have to sit down and negotiate, and that is
exactly what we are doing through dialogue and co-operation.
* * *
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour.
For 50 years health and safety provisions in the workplace have
not been reviewed. What action will the Ministry of Labour take
to modernize health and safety issues?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House should know that the
issue of occupational health and safety in the workplace is very
important to the government.
We are very pleased to note that employers and employees have
become more comfortable of late in addressing concerns in the
workplace.
We are also very pleased that there has been a genuine
willingness on the part of employers and employees to work with
government to bring forth a new regulatory regime which will
address the current realities of workplace health and safety. To
that end the Minister of Labour will be introducing amendments in
the near future.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am a Sikh and I am living proof that the Reform Party believes in
equality.
Why does the fisheries minister support policies that segregate
Canadians and create inequality? I challenge the fisheries
minister to debate equality and the Nisga'a treaty with me in
Vancouver.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear a question there.
Perhaps we can move on.
* * *
1200
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, six columns on
the front page of this morning's National Post are devoted to
comments by RCMP Superintendent Wayne May that the PMO and the
Prime Minister himself intervened directly in RCMP decisions
concerning APEC summit security.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How does he
square these comments, which came out in RCMP testimony, with
the repeated statements we have heard in this House from his
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
was also testimony from representatives of the PMO. The hon.
member must give sufficient weight not just to the allegations
she is mentioning today, but also to what spokespersons from the
PMO said.
This is before a commission operating at arm's length from the
government. It is headed by a very distinguished gentleman. It
is up to him to make a decision, so let the court do its work.
* * *
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
transport minister is trying to decide the future of Canada's
airline industry all by himself.
In August he suspended the Competition Act. In September he
blocked Liberal MPs from attending a transport meeting. In
October he stacked the House of Commons transport committee. Now
his November plan is to get the cabinet to give him the sole
power to decide the future of the airline industry.
Why does the minister think that only he knows what is best?
What about involving Canadians? What about involving this
parliament?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only did I not know that I was so nefarious, but
I did not know I had so much power, especially over my own
colleagues.
The fact is that this whole process has been a very open one and
will become even more so now that the standing committees of both
houses are looking at this matter.
As I have said repeatedly, airline policy will be made by the
government after consultation with members of the House and the
Senate. I thought that was our role as a parliament and as a
government. Perhaps the hon. member can tell me otherwise.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw to the
attention of all hon. members the presence in the gallery of the
Hon. Tim Sale, Minister of Family Services and Housing for the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: I have notice of a point of order
from the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been
some misunderstanding earlier today.
I wonder if I could seek the consent of the House to table, as
part of the proceedings, the notice of claim and demand for
arbitration filed by Sun Belt Water against the Government of
Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Government of Canada respecting measures
it has taken to give effect to the human rights committee's views
on Mr. Gauthier's communication.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during question period today a member on the other
side of the House used what I consider to be unparliamentary
language for this House.
The member for Lakeland, when the President of the Treasury
Board was answering a question, said “You are lying through your
teeth”. Then when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was
responding to a question, he yelled twice “You are a number one
scum ball”.
I am not aware of the type of language that the member for
Lakeland uses outside of the House, but one thing is clear, that
is unparliamentary language and I would ask that the member for
Lakeland apologize and withdraw those comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the member's point of order, I think, as you are
well aware, our emotions run high during question period and
during debate in this place.
In fact, the member for Peterborough last week called me a racist
in this place. I did not get up and ask for a withdrawal of that
remark. I think the hon. member knows that if we were to stop
and look at all the comments that were said in this place we
might be having points of order forever.
1205
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Lakeland could clarify the matter. If the statements alleged by
the hon. member were stated, they clearly were unparliamentary
and would not have been allowed. I must say that as Speaker I
thought I heard one of the alleged statements quite clearly. I
did not step up because I did not know who said it.
I would ask the hon. member for Lakeland to clarify the
situation. If he did say those things, perhaps he could withdraw
the words. I think it would be best if that were done
immediately and we could simply end the matter here. If he did
not, we will hear that from him.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I admit
that I do get a little excited by some of the so-called answers,
and I completely withdraw any comments that the hon. member finds
offensive.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these
appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing
committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
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 third report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of standing committees, and I move that the report be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give the hon.
parliamentary secretary unanimous consent to proceed with this
motion at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present
petitions on behalf of 163 voters in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan concerning the high level of taxation in this
country. They feel that it is time for, and that they deserve, a
tax break and they so indicate by these petitions.
THE SENATE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding,
as well as throughout Canada, who wish to see the Senate
abolished. They recognize that it is an unelected house and
Canadians do not need people looking over their shoulders who are
not elected representatives. Therefore they would like the
unelected house to be abolished.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to present a petition put forth by the African Refugee and
Immigration Aid Services which calls upon the government and the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to deal with the urgent
resettlement needs of refugees in Sierra Leone, including
tortured victims, women, children at risk and internally
displaced persons with family ties in Canada. They ask the
Canadian government to act on this immediately. I fully support
this petition.
THE SENATE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am very pleased to
present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Saskatchewan,
in particular Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw,
Weyburn, and parts of my constituency as well, communities such
as Duval, Strasburg, Davidson, Craik, Tugaske, Eyebrow and other
places.
1210
The petition calls upon the House of Commons to take a very
important measure. The petitioners are unhappy with the fact
that the Senate is undemocratic, is unelected and is
unaccountable to the people of this country. They are really,
really unhappy with the fact that two senators who have been
charged and found guilty of fraudulent matters are continuing to
receive huge paycheques from taxpayers through the Senate. The
petitioners ask that the House of Commons abolish the Senate
immediately.
* * *
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]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
information of our viewers, I would like to point out that today
we are debating Bill C-6 at third reading stage.
Today is the one and only day of debate on this bill at third
reading, because the government has decided to gag all those of
us who would have liked to give their point of view on this bill
after today's debate.
Those who are familiar with House procedure know that Friday is
the sitting day that has the shortest period for government
orders. The gag order has been imposed, and we will not be able
to continue this debate after today.
But there is something else. It is rather curious in our system,
and it is part and parcel of the problems of the Canadian
federation. Two ministers of the Quebec government have asked
for a meeting with a federal minister in order to discuss the
terrible problems this bill will create in Quebec. These two
ministers have asked for a meeting. That is not a big deal. But
they got a rather cool reception: the federal government is not
in the least bit interested.
A week ago, in a long speech called the throne speech, this same
government was extolling the virtues of the Canadian way, the
co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.
Two elected ministers representing the people of Quebec asked
for a meeting and got no other answer than the one given here
during Oral Question Period, namely that the federal government
was not interested in meeting them, that it was not interested
in their point of view, that it had decided to go ahead because
it believed it was in the public's best interest to do so.
Last week, this same government delivered lengthy speeches,
claiming to be co-operating in what it called the Canadian
approach. But there is the rhetoric, and then there is the
reality. Today, we are talking about the reality, and the
reality is that there is no co-operation.
And then the federal government wonders why, year after year,
for the past 35 or 40 years, more and more people in Quebec want
out of this political system.
Getting back to Bill C-6, a number of government amendments were
made after the committee discussions. As a result, none of the
witnesses were able to comment on them when they appeared before
the committee. I will mention two in particular, which are
extremely worrying.
In Division 1 of the bill, which deals with the protection of
personal information, clause 7 says, and I quote:
7. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite
the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may
collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of
the individual only if—
We are talking about exceptions whereby the government could,
without the knowledge of the individual—what is meant by that is
explained further on—collect information without the consent of
this individual. And then comes the list of exceptions.
1215
The government bill provides for an exception for investigative
bodies in specific instances. That exception, for investigative
bodies, applies to circumstances where the government believes
or has reasonable grounds to believe that offences have been
committed. Therefore, it is possible, under such circumstances,
not to comply with the act.
This started out as a rather limited definition or exception.
Already, in committee, that definition began to be broadened a
little.
What the exception says is that it is possible not to comply,
without the knowledge or consent of the individual, only if the
disclosure is
And then this has been added:
In the committee hearings, this concept of exception began to be
broadened. The federal government felt that it was a good idea
to have that exception for threats to security, and now, after
the committee stage, it is adding, in what is becoming subclause
c.1), what is suggested in the government's Motion No. 15:
(i) it suspects that the information relates to national
security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international
affairs,
So, there is now reference not to “reasonable grounds” but to
suspicions and three categories are defined: “national
security”, “defence of Canada” and “conduct of international
affairs”.
Knowing how paranoid the government gets when sovereignist
members of parliament go overseas and do a good job of
expressing Quebec's point of view, we also must ask how far the
government will go in its suspicions about international affairs
and national security.
The government will now be able to ignore its own legislation if
it thinks that the information it is seeking—I am sorry, I guess
I should say if it suspects that the information it is seeking,
and some wise guy could get up one morning and say that he
suspects—concerns these things. The federal government, a
government agency or a subdivision of such an agency, if it has
suspicions, will be able to ignore this act, which should
guarantee the protection of personal information.
If this is not enough to worry you, it certainly is enough to
worry me and I am convinced that it also worries a lot of
Canadians. I hope that the Privacy Commissioner will also be
worried.
I am looking forward to hearing his comments on the proposed
amendments, as the minister quoted him earlier as speaking
highly of this act. I am convinced that the commissioner will
not approve of this initiative and of these last minute
amendments.
As if by chance, and I have a hard time believing that the
government did not mean to do this from the beginning, these
amendments were tabled after the committee hearings. It is as
if the government had not wanted to hear people's comments on
this particular part of the act.
The government has presented another motion dealing with
investigative bodies. I will attempt a comparison here. For the
investigative bodies who believe that there was a violation, the
exception will apply if they have reasonable cause to believe
that the violation occurred.
For the investigative bodies, the words are “reasonable cause to
believe”.
However, where national security or the conduct of international
affairs arre involved, suspicion is enough. The same act, on the
same page, uses two different concepts. It will be enough for
the government to suspect, whereas the investigative bodies will
need a reasonable cause to believe. It is in fact a lot more
reasonable to require a reasonable cause than only a suspicion.
But then again, this does not mean that there was no recourse in
the past.
1220
It is possible to swear out a warrant to obtain information. To
obtain such a warrant, one must explain why the information is
needed. The system offers some protection, since the warrant is
issued by a judge who must ensure that the information required
will be obtained by appropriate means.
However, there is much cause for concern. I said so earlier this
week in a press conference. We do not know how the government
will use the information and what it really has in mind. It is
the Big Brother syndrome. The government wants to control all
kinds of information and is setting up the legislative framework
it needs to do whatever it wants.
The provisions of this bill give rise to many very serious
concerns. Let me repeat our objections.
First, we are against the bill because Quebec has already passed
legislation on this and because the federal act will only create
duplication and cause many problems.
Second, a harmonization and discussion process was started with
the provinces to establish a common framework. However, the
federal government pulled out of this process and decided that
it would decide on its own what is good and in the interest of
the people.
Why? For reasons of international visibility, because Canada
wants to show leadership and boast that it passed legislation.
Yet, the bill is riddled with loopholes.
Even if in some parts of the bill the government is proposing
measures that are both flawed and vague, it can still say that
is does have legislation. There is more to it than just passing
a law. There has to be some real impact to it.
This gives us
another reason to oppose this bill, since the protection of
personal information under this bill is subject to many
conditions.
It will be hard to enforce this bill. The people who want to do
e-commerce have a lot to gain by using personnel information, but
the citizens would have liked better protection. Here again, we
have another reason to oppose this bill.
It is easy to play with rhetoric.
I listened earlier to those who are in favour of the bill. They
were defending some fundamental principles, as if they were
speaking on a motion to protect personal information. This is
not what we are doing here: we are considering a bill with real
provisions in it.
I have to say that I am very surprised to see the Reform Party
supporting this bill; in fact, I am stunned. But they will have
to defend their stance, it is their problem. I am also very
surprised to see that federal Liberal members from Quebec are
not interested in this issue and come to the House only to
reiterate what has been said by the industry minister, who does
not seem to care much about what is going on in Quebec in this
area as in many others.
There was not a peep out of these Liberal members. We did not
hear from them, we did not see them. It is as if they simply did
not care.
I am convinced that some of them do not even know that there is
a personal information protection act for the private sector in
Quebec. Where are the people who defend this bill? Who are they
defending? Are they defending their government in Quebec, or are
they defending their Quebec voters in Ottawa?
The answer is the first option. These people are strictly
propaganda agents in Quebec, nothing else. This is very
regretful. Next week, and this is my prediction, we will see
another example of this with the Young Offenders Act. These
Liberal “carpet MPs” from Quebec will do the same thing.
Not one of them will rise. Yet, there is a great deal of
opposition in Quebec regarding the legislation on young
offenders, as there is regarding the bill now before us. And
this opposition is not just from the Bloc Quebecois or the
Quebec government.
The Commission d'accès à l'information presented a very detailed
submission to the committee. The Barreau du Québec also came and
said the same things. The Chambre des notaires du Québec told us
about the problems that this bill would create. The Conseil du
patronat and the CSN did the same. So, representatives of the
management, unions, lawyers and notaries, in other words all
those who will have to live with this legislation, are telling
the government, if only it is willing to listen, that what it is
doing does not make sense.
But this is not important to the Minister of Industry. It does
not bother him at all. He does not even want to take the time to
discuss his bill with the Quebec government, is spite of
repeated requests to that effect. This all began in November
1998. It continued in January, in April, and recently through
letters.
The government never agreed to meet the expectations and
requests of the Quebec government.
To conclude, this is my last intervention on this bill. My
colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, will use up the time
left. I will conclude by saying that even if the bill is passed
by next week, the government will continue to hear about it
because, as far as we are concerned, the fight will not be over.
1225
There will be a lot of practical issues and we will be here day
after day to remind the Minister of Industry of the negative
impact that his bill will have in Quebec. The minister will
still hear from us. I hope that some Liberal MPs from Quebec
will soon wake up and remember, when the time comes to vote next
week, who elected them and whom they should represent in this
House.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to thank my colleague from Témiscamingue for sharing his
speaking time with me. He knows how much the fight against this
legislation is close to my heart, and I think that he is
carrying the torch beautifully, as usual. I know he will
continue to fight in this House against this legislation that
cannot be allowed to go unchanged.
Having followed this legislation through all the stages since
its tabling in early September, last year, effectively
suspending the long-standing consultation process between the
provinces and the federal government, it is clear to me that the
minister of Industry could have used the time available to him
to try to harmonize his bill with the Quebec legislation. But he
obviously did not even try to do so.
And yet, this minister is an intelligent man. Why has he not
tried to make stock of the Quebec experience? I should point out
that Quebec is the first North American state to have passed, in
1994, a legislation for the protection of personal information.
Quebec's five-year experience made it possible to confirm with
businesses that the law was starting to be enforced seriously.
There is no personal information protection culture. Neither is
there sufficient training for the public. In Quebec however the
law was starting to be seriously applied.
Instead of building on this experience, the minister has
developed an altogether new logic based on a national standard
originally designed as a voluntary measure by businesses. That
is what he would rather have.
He decided to change this proposal, which was not as stringent
as a legislative proposal would be. He made it into a
legislative proposal and an appendix to the bill.
Based on the opinion of several legal counsels and according to
witnesses who appeared before the committee, this is the worst
legislation ever developed. But this act is not just any act. It
does not respect the spirit of the Speech from the Throne and is
not some kind of government provision. No, it is an act similar
to the Labour Code.
This act is one people will actually have to work with. Citizens
who want their personal information to be protected will depend
on it. The situation will be extremely confusing for Quebecers.
Why? Precisely because the minister decided to ignore Quebec's
experience and did not even try to accommodate Quebec's act. He
chose to use a completely different logic.
1230
Let me say this: I know that those who worked to have a Canadian
standard, a voluntary standard for businesses, developed—and we
have nothing against that, on the contrary—are for the most part
from Quebec. The Civil Liberties Union was one of them. But some
of the individuals who participated in this process told me that
they would never have done it had they known that their work
might be used as the foundation for a piece of legislation,
because it was not designed for legislative purposes. It does
not specifically provide citizens with rights.
We are now reviewing a legislation that will soon be enacted. On
the pretext of dealing with electronic commerce, this federal
act would infringe upon a jurisdiction that comes under the
provinces, and Quebec in particular.
I noticed that the other provinces, after reacting strongly,
through their justice ministers, when they looked into the
federal government's bill, decided to put up with this, with the
exception of Ontario with regard to health information, and
maybe a number of other provinces in western Canada. The fact is
that they did not have any legislation in that area. This bill,
which will soon become law, means that Quebec will have to
enforce a federal act in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
One must know that, prior to the federal government legislating
in that area, personal information enjoyed complete protection
under Quebec's legislation. According to the legal
interpretations we have seen, only the adoption of a federal act
could challenge the application of the provincial act. Again, I
do not know what decisions will be made but, for the time being,
Quebec's legislation continues to provide complete protection
with regard to personal information.
What does the federal act do? It says—actually, it is the
minister who introduced it and the government that supported it
who had the nerve to say this—that, in an area that comes under
Quebec's jurisdiction, it will be up to the federal government
to decide in which circumstances the provincial act will apply,
in what area and to which organizations.
What a mess. Will this mess promote better enforcement of the
law? It will, and for a long time, not provide greater
protection but, on the contrary, slow down the process that gave
Quebec a system that was working more and more smoothly.
Let me say briefly that, contrary the federal legislation,
Quebec's legislation is clear. People can see what their rights
are.
It is easy to apply because any citizen can go to the Human
Rights Commission where, after an inquiry, a decision is
rendered. The Commission can make a ruling and exercise this
right so all citizens can obtain justice.
For most people, the issue of personal information protection is
about changing some incorrect information contained in a
person's file.
The federal legislation provides that that person must try to
agree with the company, and when this is not possible, he or she
must file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. After
reviewing the case, the commissioner makes a recommendation
which is forwarded to the complainant. A report is produced
within a year and if the complainant is not satisfied, he or she
may take the case before the federal court.
1235
Of course, the Privacy Commissioner can also decide, in
exceptional cases, to take the case himself before the federal
court. Otherwise, after the long process provided in the bill,
the complainant is back at square one and still has to pay if he
wants the recommendation to become a ruling.
I heard the minister say that Canadians want their personal
information protected. Yes, they do and they should not have to
wait.
But when he says, however, that the bill will ensure the
protection of personal information, I respectfully submit that
the minister has maybe relied too much on his counsellors and,
above all, that he has not looked at Quebec's legislation. He
has not considered that there could be more efficient and
clearer ways to protect the rights of citizens.
There is more. Not only the federal legislation will be
enforced, but it will also state in what fields the provincial
legislation can be applied. But does the citizen who has a
problem with a business know if it is federally or provincially
regulated according to this legislation? What will he do? He
will either not file a complaint at all or file one with the
wrong government, in which case the legal time limit could
expire. This legislation will create more confusion.
It is for good reason then that, on five occasions, Quebec's
ministers wrote to the industry minister and requested a meeting
with him, and asked him to postpone the process in order to
harmonize it. We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, have repeatedly
tried to convince the industry committee and the minister to
take advantage of the delays during the session of Parliament,
or even of the summer recess, to make an attempt at
harmonization. Why did the government not try to do it?
I attended the Forum of Federations, where I heard what I
already know: Federalism—and I am not talking about Canadian
federalism—is a system that is theoretically flexible. It is a
system that, in theory, allows different cultures and languages
to coexist.
I say theoretically because the process of legislation on
personal information in which I have been involved for more than
a year is not the least bit flexible.
According to the theoreticians, including those working for the
Forum of Federations, federations work best in homogeneous
countries. That is the problem. The problem is that Quebec is
a people and a nation. Its privacy legislation is governed by
civil law, with its origins in France. But it is civil law. The
rest of Canada is governed by common law—this is not a defect,
just a difference.
In fact, in the western world there are two major traditions,
civil law and common law. Now, instead of trying to take the
difference into consideration, the federal government has chosen
to eliminate it.
This is one more lesson.
Any student of law, politics or anyone else wanting to know the
status of Canadian federalism has only to trace the process of
passage of this legislation. It is a significant piece of
legislation, since it goes to the very heart of Quebec civil
law.
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to accompany the
minister to the G-8 summit, where one of the issues addressed was
e-commerce security.
1240
As I discovered, and the minister ought to have before me, when
there are international negotiations on harmonization—as there
will have to be, because a degree of harmonization on personal
information based on existing legislation will be necessary—he
will find that Quebec is not alone.
The European countries with
their differences and their civil law will do as Quebec has
done, use a definition of a positive right for citizens. He may
also, of course, find there are other countries with a common
law tradition that will settle for standards—I will withdraw
that expression—will prefer protection related to standards to
which businesses agree to comply.
Someday, negotiations will have to take place, and Canada could
have benefited from the fact that it still has a province,
Quebec, which has a civil law tradition, instead of trying to
bury this tradition and replace it by something else.
Instead of making good use of the time it had on its hands to
harmonize both legislations, it has steadfastly refused to do
it. Instead of using to its advantage the Quebec experience to
deal with an issue that is quite difficult, as it will find out,
it preferred to go about it in a completely different way, with
a totally different logic, by relying almost totally on
businesses' co-operation. Quite well. Everything is fine when
businesses do co-operate, but what happens when they do not? What
should we do? Should we let private citizens fend for
themselves? Of course not. That is the problem.
When the citizens' rights are not clearly and precisely spelled
out, when the means to have them respected are not free and
efficient, we can have all the legislation we want, it is of no
use to them. Instead of using the Quebec experience, in which
companies will have to abide by a certain set of rules, it will
force companies in Quebec to follow two set of rules, never
knowing for sure which one applies.
The government has refused
to even try to harmonize its legislation with the one in Quebec.
Instead of taking this advantage it will soon need in
international negotiation, that is the experience of harmonizing
two great traditions, the civil law and the common law, the
government chose to set one of these traditions aside, the
French one, to bury it, and forget about it.
The Chambre des notaires is extremely concerned about the
definitions of signature.
The Chambre des notaires can only accept a document if the
signature meets the conditions set out in the Quebec Civil Code.
This is a whole aspect of French live, Quebec tradition and
culture which is at stake, and the minister, instead of
understanding the intensity of the responses triggered by this,
and the depth of the problems created, prefers to ignore the
whole thing.
I believe this bill, when it becomes law, will come back to
haunt the government because it is not true that it will promote
the development of electronic commerce. Everybody has been
saying that people must feel safer before they engage in more
electronic commerce. This bill will certainly not achieve this
goal in Quebec, on the contrary.
It creates—as if on purpose, but let us assume it is not on
purpose—additional problems for every Quebec company and for all
the companies that do business in Quebec.
1245
At the international level also, this bill will come back to
haunt the government. For my part, I came to the full
realization, once again, that when it comes to the legislative
process, Canadian federalism is not consistent with the main
characteristics of federalism.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the last presentation and I
agree with some of the points that the hon. member made.
I am delighted to participate in today's debate. This is
probably one of the most important debates that we will have in
the House for some time dealing with the future of the country.
I know it must be difficult after lunch to have so many members
in the Chamber trying to stay awake to listen to my presentation.
I remember giving a speech once and there was a young man in the
back of the crowd. He kept saying, “Yea, yea”. I thought it
was very nice and very encouraging. At the end of my speech I
was commenting to one of my friends about this young man's
enthusiasm. My friend said “Did you not notice that he had his
headphone on and was actually listening to the hockey game”. In
any event, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will be listening to my
presentation today.
I feel very enthusiastic about speaking to Bill C-6 today. The
bill aims to support and promote electronic commerce by
increasing Canadians' confidence in online transactions,
providing protection for personal information that is collected,
adjusting the legal framework for the electronic environment and
providing an alternative means for the federal government to
provide services to Canadians.
I direct my comments in particular to the people in the gallery
who I think sometimes get the wrong impression that we are here
in the Chamber fist-fighting, arguing and yelling at each other
all the time when in fact most of the time it is fairly boring
here. I mean boring in a sense that it is very straightforward.
I am probably not going to change that mode this afternoon as I
make my presentation on Bill C-6.
I normally like to be a bit more flamboyant in my presentations
but this is a very detailed piece of legislation. It is very
specific and very integrate in terms of dealing with protecting
Canadians' privacy. I will quote from the privacy commissioner's
annual report of 1998-99 when he refers to this specific
legislation and states:
In terms of our concern here in this place for people's security
and the security of their personal information, whether it is
medical records, financial records or whatever, this piece of
legislation takes us further than any other piece of legislation,
bar none, with the exception perhaps of the Privacy Act itself.
The privacy commissioner goes on to say that the bill is a major
leap forward by providing a mechanism for independent oversight,
mandating the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate
complaints, issue reports and conduct audits. As a last resort,
it provides recourse to the federal court and empowers the court
to award damages when it feels the penalty is justified.
I could go on and on, but the privacy commissioner basically
states that this is really important and significant legislation.
It recognizes that the world of commerce, in which all of us
participate either in our roles as businesses or as consumers, is
more different today than it ever has been. It has taken on a
speed and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is not a
nine to five operation any more as it used to be just a handful
of years ago. There is indeed a business-industry revolution
taking place before our eyes. The transactions are so horrendous
in both scope and speed that something has to be done in order to
protect Canadians' private information.
1250
When we make a call to purchase some goods over the telephone
and are asked for our VISA number, I suspect we are hesitant to
give it. However, that is the way it is. We have to give it.
Goodness knows where the heck it is going and who is going to be
using it. Hopefully, the person at the other end of the line is
not an unscrupulous type. In terms of the need for privacy, this
is a simplistic version of what I am talking about, but I think
we have all been there and are concerned about it.
Since we will be talking a lot today about the Internet and
electronic commerce, I want to share with my colleagues a funny
little quote that I read somewhere which describes the Internet
as “A worldwide network of university, government, business and
private computer systems all run by a 13 year old kid named
Jason”. We all smile because we know that children are very
comfortable with these new technologies. In fact, I suspect that
most adult learn their skills from their children when it comes
to learning how to work our computers.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to
emphasize the importance that I feel the entire House of Commons,
without regard to political affiliation, should attach to this
matter. We are really debating something that is very important
to our children and their children's future. When we talk about
implementing legislation in the public interest, we have to
acknowledge the entire public, and clearly that includes the
young people of the country who are probably a whole lot more
tuned in to what I am talking about today than most people.
The federal government has been at this experiment for many
years. We started with the constitution and the charter of
rights rooted in certain basic values. The people who drafted
our constitution and the charter of rights understood that times
would change. Indeed, they understood that definitions of
fundamental things like privacy would also change. They also
understood that circumstances would require people to rise to the
challenges of each new era by applying the old values but in very
practical ways.
In the past, this change occurred when we went from an
agriculture economy to an industrial economy. This change is now
occurring with the move toward a new modern digital economy. It
is our responsibility to fight to adapt our institutions to new
economies and markets and to update and modernize our citizens'
rights to uphold their right to privacy in the midst of these
vast economic transformations occurring before us. In the past,
leaders recognized and lived up to this responsibility. Now it
is our opportunity and our responsibility to do the same once
again.
The pace of change, not just the nature of change, is very
different. Once again it is our responsibility to respond to
this change applying the oldest basic values and principles in
practical ways that will allow them to not only be preserved but
enhanced by our modern technologies during these modern times.
We all recognize that technology has revolutionized the way we
live and the way we do business. I suspect that we have only
seen the beginning of this. I am sure that many of us, in
different ways, have experienced how new technology, such as the
Internet, can be a valuable tool and a valuable resource.
However, it is only valuable when placed at the service of
humanity.
Technology, by its very nature, requires unconditional respect
for the fundamental interests of society. On this theme there
are only two direct topics that I would like to focus my remarks
on today. First, Internet technology must be at the service of
humanity and of unalienable rights. It must respect the
prerogatives of a civil society, among which is the protection of
our privacy.
Second, guiding principles and values cannot be inferred from
mere technological efficiencies of from the usefulness occurring
to some at the expense of others. New technologies must promote
our integral development for the benefit of all citizens of our
country.
Today I am going to concentrate my remarks about Bill C-6 on
these two topics. We have all made presentations in the House
over the last little while about some of the very specifics of
the legislation as well as its overall thrust. I want to focus
simply on two topics, the first one being the protection of our
basic rights.
It is obvious that new technology and the amazing advances that
have been made in telecommunications have changed the way we all
communicate with each other. There is no question that we are
living through a revolution in the telecommunications industry
with cheaper, easier to use and faster ways to communicate and do
business with people within our homes, communities and around the
globe.
I believe that on the whole the Internet and electronic commerce
do present outstanding possibilities for the advancement of our
basic rights and values and, on the whole, are very beneficial
tools to the citizens of Canada. No doubt things such as
education and commerce will be improved in the next few years
because of the Internet. Generally speaking, our daily lives
will likely be improved.
1255
The other day I was visiting an elementary school. I asked some
rhetorical questions to I think a grade 4 or 5 class. The
students looked awfully little. One young boy said “I will run
out and find out. I will get on the Internet and I will come
back”. I did not quite know what he was talking about, but he
came back with a long printout of all the answers to the
questions that I had been asking. In other words, this little
boy knew he could run out, get on the Internet and find out
information that would probably take me a good day of searching
in some library to find out. I realize I have a long way to go
to catch up to this young person who, in this case, was probably
in grade five.
A byproduct of this technological revolution is that supervising
our rights takes on a new dimension of responsibility. New
Democrats realize that when the world changes so do our
responsibilities. Just because new technologies are developed
does not mean that our basic rights and responsibilities no
longer apply. At the present time there is very little
protection or, More precisely, there is no legislative protection
or legal deterrent of our privacy rights in cyberspace. There
are mostly voluntary codes for businesses to follow.
Whatever exists, it does not loom large in cyberspace. For
example, a website posts a privacy policy. Does that mean our
privacy is protected? Not really. I do not think so, nor do
most Canadians.
The task before us is to make our laws and principles apply to
changing technology. The old laws may require some redefinition
but the same old general principles around protecting our privacy
rights must stand very firm. We must find the means to protect
our personal information in modern times. We cannot be neutral
in the development of or application of these new technologies.
It is not acceptable that these new technologies be endorsed
simply because of their efficiency. In the interest of advancing
human rights, we all have a responsibility to make sure that new
technologies respect the values of a civil society, among which
is the protection of our privacy rights. That is where
legislation like Bill C-6 comes into play.
We know that Bill C-6 partly grew out of a public concern about
personal privacy in the face of this rapidly changing technology.
We have all become data subjects. All sorts of organizations and
companies have personal details about us in their computer
databases. While growing up our mothers may have told us that a
person's mail is private, but in today's digital world I am not
so sure that is the case any more, at least our name and address
certainly are not.
The chances are very good that most of us have had, at some
point or another, our mailboxes stuffed and overflowing with
catalogues, sales ads, prize offers which we never requested and
probably do not want. How many times have one of us been
notified that we have won a huge benefit or something and all we
have to do is phone up, pay a couple of thousand dollars and they
will send it to us? There are all kinds of legitimate
initiatives but there are also a lot of scams out there. The
point is that somebody somewhere gets hold of our personal
addresses and of information about us personally.
We now know that companies have sold or traded mailing lists
containing our personal information time and time again. The
public concern is that if the information is entirely wrong, is
out of date, is confused with someone else's, or, in the worst
scenario, the information is abused, it can actually cause
serious problems. People could be unfairly treated, denied jobs,
housing, benefits, insurance, credit or even a spot in a
university.
Today information is becoming increasingly valuable. Information
is a valuable commodity and New Democrats believe we have to be
leaders in developing these new ways of doing business through
protecting individual's privacy.
We obviously have to protect our privacy rights. We also have
to ensure that we solve the problem that we set out to fix and
that the solution is in the best interest of our society. The
essential questions are: Is Bill C-6 a strong law; and, if
enacted, does it demonstrate that we have lived up to our
responsibility of protecting privacy rights in the face of these
new technologies? On the whole, I think the answer to that
question is yes. That is why New Democrats will be supporting
Bill C-6 at this particular reading.
I want to address one other theme before I close and that is
ensuring that new technologies benefit all of us.
I want to begin discussing this second theme, which is the need
to ensure that we all have opportunity to benefit from the new
technologies, by saying a variety of all commentators from all
sorts of disciplines have commented on the increasingly important
role that electronic commerce is playing in the lives of everyday
people.
I do not often quote the chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, but I
guess we try everything once in our lives. Mr. Jean Monty told
delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference last fall that “What we
are witnessing today is the birth of a new economy, a new
economic order that is based on networks and chips.”
1300
A quick glance at the current electronic commerce situation in
this country reveals that not all Canadians are being given the
same opportunity to participate in this new economic order. If we
assume, and I believe this is a safe assumption, that 30% of
Canadians have some sort of access to the Internet, and this may
just be the fact that they have a connected computer at their
school, we must acknowledge that about three-quarters of
Canadians remain in the dark.
Even worse, many Canadians in rural areas have begun to voice
concerns that they may see exorbitant increases in the cost of
local phone services in the near future. Traditionally, phone
companies were able to subsidize local phone rates in rural areas
with money taken from long distance funds and urban areas.
However, with the increased competition in the long distance
market through deregulation, these subsidies are drying up. If
future governments cannot ensure reasonable local phone rates for
rural Canadians, I wonder then how they can expect the farmer in
rural Saskatchewan for example to invest in a second phone line
for Internet purposes.
It is the government's responsibility and indeed our
responsibility to make sure that all Canadians have the necessary
opportunities to participate in the new economy. All Canadians
must be given an opportunity to get on board this new economy.
Otherwise, we risk creating a future society of electronic haves
and electronic have nots.
In the case of businesses, we have heard small and medium size
businesses complain that the costs of participating in electronic
commerce are often simply prohibitive from their point of view.
Ideally e-commerce would provide an excellent means for small
businesses to expand their market reach. Unfortunately, many
cannot afford the fees charged by banks for setting up the
necessary security and privacy protection services. The costs
are keeping electronic commerce in the big leagues and small
businesses could be put at a competitive disadvantage as a
result.
I know that Industry Canada has implemented a community
storefronts program which helps small businesses become online
merchants, but we need an expansion of this program if Canada is
to have a thriving small business presence on the Internet.
On another issue, it is impossible to deny that when electronic
commerce becomes the way of doing business, thousands of
Canadians will risk losing their jobs. Many commentators,
including American expert Jeremy Rifkin, have warned of the
adverse effects electronic technology will have on society.
There is a potential danger that as e-commerce takes off, whole
types of workers could easily be displaced. Those at risk are a
diverse group, everyone from stockbrokers to call centre
operators, to shipping clerks in warehouses. A society in which
there is a large pool of labourers with displaced skills and no
work and a group of information elites is not what New Democrats
want.
At the Ottawa OECD conference, Mr. Bill Conner, the general
secretary of Britain's largest union for retail employees,
expressed disappointment that “the meeting did not consider in
any detail e-commerce's potentially devastating effects on
traditional low and middle income workers”. He added that the
euphoria over the potential for exponential growth of e-commerce
overshadowed concerns about what may be left in its wake.
This is certainly not a good thing to see. It demonstrates a
lack of vision and a lack of ability to see the big picture. It
is not working toward our goal of ensuring the majority of
Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the new economy.
We New Democrats agree that Canada must be a world leader in
e-commerce technology. However, we also believe that true
leadership requires attention to all of the implications of this
issue. That is essentially the difference between our party and
some of the others that have spoken to this legislation.
I know my time is limited and I have much more I would like to
say, but I am not going to have a chance. I will simply say that
in terms of protecting privacy, as the privacy commissioner has
indicated, this is a major step forward. However, in terms of
those people who will clearly be displaced by the introduction
and the expansion of e-commerce, this is something that all of us
must take much more seriously unless we are going to have an
increasing society of those who have and those who have not.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply
like to say that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys gave us an excellent speech dealing with the
opportunities and the challenges of e-commerce.
1305
I would suggest that all members of the House read that very
thoughtful speech and take to heart many of the points the member
made.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
by my hon. colleague. I have known him for a long time and
respect the work he has done in the House of Commons.
I will use this opportunity to add one further point which I did
not have time to make in my original presentation and that is
about the need for proper education and training.
I know the government has introduced the possibility of
implementing Internet sites across the country that would be
serviced by 10,000 young people with Internet skills and
presumably other computer skills. That is obviously a major step
in the right direction, but let us not lose sight of the ongoing
need to properly educate and train people.
It is fair to say we all agree that one of the impediments to
the process is the tremendously high tuition fees students face
at our universities, colleges and technical schools. The
economic burden is sometimes prohibitive and a lot of people who
ought to be improving their educational training skills are
unable to do so.
We should take the bold step and acknowledge that if we are
moving into the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, we
should ensure that everyone has equal access to our colleges and
universities. We should consider joining the other 16 OECD
countries that have tuition free colleges and universities. The
cost would be $2.6 billion. We have a contingency fund in this
year's budget of $3 billion. If we had the will to do that today,
we have the finances that would ensure that every young person
and not so young person in the country had access to university
and college education without paying any tuition fees.
Can anyone imagine a better millennium project for the
government and parliament than to implement such a program.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
issue, the government's position or rather its insensitivity in
setting up a system that contradicts or even impacts on the
whole concept of civil law, is of course well known.
I would like to know how the NDP member would have reacted. He
is obviously arguing in favour of an act like the bill before
us. Is he at least more sensitive with respect to the complaints
made to the government? On that, I would like to quote the
Quebec bar association, which said that the protection of
personal information is under provincial jurisdiction because it
concerns property and civil law.
We all know that the Quebec system is based on civil law and not
common law and that important practical problems are to be
expected. We wonder if the government is the only one to think
along those lines and we also wonder what the other parties'
position is on the fact that the Government of Quebec, the
Quebec bar association, the Chambre des notaires du Quebec, the
Conseil du patronat du Quebec and Quebec unions have all said
that it would have been better to recognize Quebec's
legislation.
The bar association even went further and said that Quebec's
legislation must apply in areas under federal jurisdiction areas
to ensure that the law is the same everywhere and that it is
understood by everybody, particularly as Quebec's legislation
contains flexible mechanisms for consumers who feel that the
protection of their personal information is being interfered
with. There is a simple appeal mechanism, not too complicated,
that does not involve the traditional courts, where things are
complicated and intimidating.
Would the NDP member and his party have the same approach as the
government or would they be a bit more flexible?
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the
interventions made by the groups during the hearings into this
legislation that my hon. friend referred to. I acknowledge that
he has a point. The situation in Quebec is significantly
different than in most other parts of the country.
It reminds me of the debate yesterday when we were talking about
the replacement of the Young Offenders Act. The same case was
made that the Quebec experience in terms of dealing with young
offenders is much more advanced than in some of the other parts
of Canada, is much more effective and that we have much to learn.
1310
While I acknowledge my friend's point, we now have an
opportunity as a country to be on the leading edge of
technological change in terms of electronic commerce. It will
benefit business and consumers. I acknowledge that the
government has taken some steps in this direction. We have much
to learn from the Quebec experience particularly in terms of the
appeals process my friend has referred to. I am not an expert in
this field but perhaps there are other areas we could learn from.
The important thing is to acknowledge as a country that we are
poised on the edge of revolutionary change in the way society
operates as a result of these new technologies. We are in a
position to take global leadership on this issue. If this
legislation takes us one more step toward that, Canada can lead
the way in the development of new technologies. Canada can show
other countries ways of approaching these issues by implementing
policies both in terms of privacy and in terms of acknowledging
and not forgetting the people who will be replaced by technology.
We have a great contribution to make not only to future
generations of Canadians but indeed to the world itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to clarify what
I asked the NDP member previously.
I want him to understand one thing clearly. I fully share his
concern that there must be a legislative framework, that Canada
wants to take a leadership role and fulfil its own obligations.
I have no objection to that.
However, the problem we have is that, in order to meet a need in
other parts of Canada, in the nine provinces of Canada, the
government is significantly changing a balance that was in the
making because of a very progressive law in Quebec. In fact, the
problem is not only with this bill. He mentioned the bill on
young offenders. The same thing applies.
Is the New Democratic Party open to the idea that some asymmetry
could be allowed occasionally, or does it feel that there should
be a national objective at all cost, and too bad if Quebec
already has its own legislation? Their point of view is: “We
Canadians need a law, therefore we will impose it to Quebecers
too, because we need that law and we want to play a role”.
Is there not room for recognition, in the federal legislation,
of the Quebec legislation, and should it not simply say that,
where legislation on the protection of personal information
already exists, that legislation will be allowed to apply?
This especially true in the case of Quebec—I know it could be
different in the case of the other provinces—as Quebec has a
civil law system, while the other provinces have a common law
system that is different in its approach and philosophy. They
are not different for nothing. In speeches, Quebec is recognized
as distinct, among other things, because of its civil law, but
in reality, this bill does not recognize that fact.
Consequently, I would like to know if the member would be
willing to go as far as to support the bill's recognizing,
because of civil law, that in the objective of regulating
electronic commerce and protecting personal information, where
there is a civil law system, civil law and its legislation
should apply, because these provisions are even in the Quebec
civil code, and to give precedence to those provisions.
Governments could then hold discussions to ensure harmonization
for businesses involved in interprovincial trade. Does the hon.
member believe that the federal legislation should apply in
Quebec and prevent the Quebec government from making
regulations under civil law? This is what I am asking the hon.
member.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an
interesting question.
This perhaps is one of the ongoing dilemmas we often face when
we are trying to introduce a pan-Canadian approach to a problem.
We recognize that one province abides by a civil code and
therefore has different approaches from the rest of the country.
I would be open to further discussions on this. The need to
integrate the systems is critical. We must recognize and take
into consideration that a different legal system exists in the
province of Quebec. It is something that is certainly open for
consideration.
1315
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the PC Party of Canada I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, the
personal information protection and electronic documents act.
Before I begin I would like to thank many witnesses who took the
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. I
would also like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the industry
committee for their vigorous discussion of the contents of the
bill, in particular my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Regardless of our political
differences we are all trying to ensure that parliament acts
appropriately on legislative matters.
Moreover, I would like to note the efforts of the member for St.
Catharines, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of
industry, in terms of his credible defence of the government
position. I would also like to commend the member for Durham for
bringing forward an amendment at committee to section 18 of the
bill which was identical to an amendment I had sponsored.
It is always a rare pleasure to see Liberals deviate from the
government line. Perhaps we will see a day when the chair of the
industry committee shows similar courage, but I digress from the
subject at hand, Bill C-6.
The intent of Bill C-6 is a positive one. The bill
unfortunately has become known as the e-commerce bill, which is a
bit of a misnomer. Part 1 of Bill C-6 deals with the protection
of personal information irrespective of whether it is in an
e-commerce environment or whatever. Meanwhile parts 2, 3 and 4
of Bill C-6 pertain specifically to electronic documents.
It is unfortunate that the industry committee spent most of its
time on part l of the bill at the expense of the other parts. We
really did not delve into the technological feasibility of the
bill's clauses related to electronic signatures. For a so-called
e-commerce bill, the committee should really have devoted more
time to sections pertaining to electronic documents.
That being said, let us never forget that this is as much a
personal privacy law as an e-commerce law. The two distinct
issues have become intertwined. It is the growth of e-commerce
that is driving initiatives such as Bill C-6.
As I noted during my remarks on second reading the increase of
electronic commerce in Canada and throughout the world, more
appropriately North America, is growing exponentially. We
require a law to carefully examine the extent of government
regulations in this domain.
The European Union has before its member countries a hard
hitting directive to require companies to take exhaustive
measures to protect the privacy of their customers. Meanwhile
the United States has chosen the route of self-regulation. In
essence, it is letting companies prove their worth in protecting
the personal information of their customers. As someone who has
spent 28 years working for one of Canada's largest high tech
companies, with many of those years spent in sales and marketing,
I understand the logic of the U.S. approach.
The private sector has a strong stake in protecting its
customers, especially as it relates to the still unrelated realm
of e-commerce. If customers do not trust a company with their
information they will find another company that will. Competition
is therefore a strong motivator for companies to take meaningful
measures to protect the information of their customers. While I
understand the U.S. approach, and I do believe it is the right
answer for Canada, I also understand that the U.S. is now
beginning the process to develop a privacy and e-commerce act.
Today I listened to the industry minister in the House when he
said that we must do something and that people were saying we
must do it now. I am not saying that the privacy and e-commerce
act is not important, but when I look at privacy, at e-commerce
and at the consumer or the customer, I think we should have been
a lot more transparent. We should have had a comprehensive
e-commerce privacy act that incorporated all the provinces, more
importantly, and made sure that we were in step with our biggest
trading partner, the U.S.
The PC Party and I believe in the need for legislation to
protect personal privacy.
1320
There are many flaws in Bill C-6 that I have attempted to
address at committees, flaws which many witnesses have asked
parliament to correct, flaws which the government continues to
leave in the bill.
For example, subclause 18(1) gives the privacy commissioner the
right to audit a company based on a dispute regarding recommended
business practices which are 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 that 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
type of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company.
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 that an organization is contravening the legislation or not
following a recommended business practice. Furthermore, section
12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all
complaints including complaints that an organization is not
following recommended business practices.
I must also 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 powers 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.
The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain
the approval of our courts before exercising certain seizure
powers is deeply troubling.
Clauses 12 and 18 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by
allowing the privacy commissioner 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 appearance of persons under oath, converse with any
person, compel the production of documents and receive and accept
any evidence in the same manner 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 his delegate
actually entering the premises of a private organization and
seizing records.
Indeed, Blair Mackenzie of the Canadian Newspaper Association
told the industry committee that the provisions within Bill C-6
are “frightening”. Other witnesses have alluded to a challenge
under the charter of rights and freedoms if the privacy
commissioner acts on clause 12 or 18.
Furthermore, I am also troubled that the government did not
bring forward any study or report 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 and the pleas of the private sector and chose to
defeat my amendment to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain
a court order before exercising certain seizure.
However there are many other problems with the bill which the
Liberals chose to ignore. As Bill C-6 is currently drafted there
is no provision to facilitate the sharing of personal employee
data between management and the union pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement. Again the Liberal majority defeated my
amendments before the industry committee to remove these
potential obstacles to the employee-employer relationship.
Moreover, I do not feel that the amendment brought forward by the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to clause 27 adequately
addresses this problem with the bill.
The Liberal majority also defeated my amendments to limit the
costs charged by an organization for those seeking personal
information to the same level of fees charged by government
organizations. Despite the great rhetoric from the Liberals
regarding personal privacy, Bill C-6 leaves the door open to the
application of high fees for someone's personal information which
if not properly regulated could become a barrier to access.
1325
Bill C-6 also raised the spectre of a new round of
federal-provincial battles. The governments of Canada's two
largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have spoken loudly and
strongly in opposition to Bill C-6.
The industry committee heard from distinguished constitutional
lawyers including a former deputy minister of justice. They
disagreed passionately on whether or not Bill C-6 intrudes on
provincial jurisdiction. I found it quite troubling that one of
these distinguished experts mentioned the possibility of Bill C-6
as presently drafted becoming another referendum issue.
The Liberals had a chance to suspend clause by clause
consideration at committee to allow the industry minister to
negotiate a possible solution to prevent a constitutional
challenge but the Liberals said no. They refused to co-operate.
The Ontario ministry of health also expressed its concern that
health information falls clearly under provincial legislation. It
was better prepared than the federal government to bring in such
legislation. Regrettably the federal Liberals did nothing to
address these concerns. They seem more interested in provoking
fights than finding real solutions. Anybody who witnessed the
partisan Liberal attacks against the Ontario ministry of health
bureaucrat would attest to the poor attitude of the Liberals.
I will give credit where it is due. For example, the government
supported my amendments to subparagraph 7(3)(h)(i) which would
protect personal information for the shorter of 100 years after
the record's creation or 20 years after the individual's death.
Bill C-6 previously would have allowed for the disclosure only
after the shorter of 110 years after the record's creation or 20
years after the individual's death.
As amended, this provision of the bill is now a more reasonable
balance between protecting the personal information of the living
and allowing the use of such information for historical, research
or literary purposes. This is still a relatively small aspect of
Bill C-6. I thank the government for helping me to get this part
of the legislation right.
I also thank the government for supporting my amendments to
remove a clause from the original version of Bill C-6 which would
have allowed the government through order in council to change
schedule 1 of the bill.
Regardless of these minor improvements the bill remains
fundamentally flawed. The PC Party supported Bill C-6 with the
hope that the government would allow the industry committee to
correct many of these errors and omissions. Sadly not enough of
these flaws were corrected.
The bill opens the door to legal battles due to the unfettered
power given to the privacy commissioner. It unduly restricts the
legitimate activities of small and medium size businesses. It
causes a new restrictive, regulatory framework without a cost
impact study. It aggravates the delicate relationship between
the federal government and the Ontario and Quebec governments.
It rushes headlong into meeting an European Union directive when
our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted
a position with the directly opposite approach.
I have tried to be constructive and I have tried to improve the
bill at committee, but by and large the Liberals have refused to
co-operate. They have refused to compromise. Without concrete
evidence they ask us to trust them that all the problems will
sort themselves out.
On behalf of the PC Party I oppose Bill C-6 and urge the
government to respect and act upon the differing points of view
raised by so many in opposition to the bill as it is currently
written.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important for me to speak on Bill C-6. I
want to indicate that I will be using the whole 20 minutes that I
am entitled to.
1330
Bill C-6 is very important to me. As our NDP colleague pointed
out, the protection of personal information in the private
sector, what with the technological progress being made, must be
regulated if we are to protect our fellow citizens from coast to
coast.
What is the purpose of Bill C-6? First, part 1 of the bill will
ensure the protection of personal information collected, used
and disclosed by the private sector.
Many Canadians and Quebecers know that Canada already has a law
that ensures the protection of personal information collected
and used by the federal government, as have all of the provinces
except Prince Edward Island. However, these laws do not affect
the private sector. Up until now, Quebec was the only province
to have a law protecting personal information, which applied and
still applies to the private sector.
First, I want to talk about this bill and the protection it will
afford all Canadians, and then I will address the concerns
raised by my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.
How will this bill protect personal information? First of all,
“personal information” means information about an identifiable
individual.
This includes but is not limited to the following information:
race, ethnic origin, colour, age, marital status, religion,
level of education, medical record, criminal, financial or
employment information, address, telephone number, numerical
identification codes such as social insurance number,
fingerprints, blood type, tissue or other biological samples,
personal opinions or viewpoints.
This is a broad list, and I did not cover all personal
information that could identify a person.
This bill is designed to protect this type of information by
requiring organizations to respect the obligations set out in
the model code for the protection of personal information
prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA.
The code is entrenched in the bill, which I hope will be passed.
This means that it will have force of law as schedule 1 of the
law.
So where and when will this bill apply? Once it is passed, this
bill will apply to any organization which collects, uses or
discloses personal information in the course of commercial
activities. Commercial activity means any activity that is of a
commercial nature, which includes selling and buying as well as
other activities such as barter and exchange transactions.
What is an organization? An organization can be a business, an
association, a partnership, a person or a trade union, for
example.
However, there are organizations to which this bill will not
apply, for example organizations that do not conduct commercial
activities, such as a hospital, a public health clinic or a
doctor who provides public health services. It will not apply to
organizations that use personal information for journalistic,
artistic or literary purposes only, nor will it apply to the use
of personal information for personal or domestic purposes, such
as Christmas card lists.
To facilitate the harmonization of provincial and federal
legislation on the protection of personal information, the
coming into force of this bill will take place gradually.
1335
After a one-year transition period, the bill will apply to
private sector fields, and I repeat to private sector fields,
subjected to federal regulatory control. But what are the
private sector fields that are subjected to federal regulatory
control? That is described in the Canadian Constitution.
Some areas are strictly of provincial jurisdiction whereas
others are strictly of federal jurisdiction. Others yet are
mixed. Those fields that are subjected to federal regulatory
control are: telecommunications, radiobroadcasting, banks and
interprovincial transports, as far as the protection of personal
information from clients and employees is concerned.
This bill will also apply to agencies that share personal
information outside the provincial or national borders. I will
say it again because I want to make sure that my colleagues from
the other side of the House fully understand this notion. This
bill will also apply to the agencies that share personal
information outside the provincial or national borders, for
example credit assessment officers and some insurance companies.
After tree years, the act will be extended to include all
personal information collected, used or disclosed within any
commercial activity, whether it is subject to federal regulatory
control or not. However, if a province pass a legislation that
is essentially similar to the federal bill, the agencies or
activities falling within the provincial act will be exempt from
the federal act.
As all of us in the House today know, and as many Canadians and
Quebecers know, Quebec has had such legislation since 1994.
I would like to address a few concerns raised by Bloc Quebecois
members. First, the fact that, in their view, there is no need
for this bill in Quebec. We have been told several times that
the Barreau du Québec, of which I am a member, the Chambre des
notaires, and other professional bodies and societies made their
positions known on Bill C-6.
I am sure that the Barreau du Québec did not claim that the
personal information of a non-resident of Quebec that is
disclosed or exchanged outside the borders of Quebec would be
protected by the provincial law.
The provincial law is clear: its purpose is to protect the
personal information of Quebecers when this information leaves
Quebec's borders. The law is silent about the personal
information of non-residents of Quebec that is collected in
Quebec and disclosed or transferred outside Quebec.
The need exists. I am speaking to Quebecers throughout the
province, whether they live in Sept-Îles, Chicoutimi, Ville-Marie,
Shawville, Bedford, Montreal, Lachine, Saint-Lambert,
Châteauguay, Charny, Lévis, Charlesbourg or Sillery.
1340
I was very proud when the Government of Quebec adopted the
protection of personal information act in 1994. As a Quebecer,
I was very proud. It is a wonderful piece of legislation, but
it is not perfect. Furthermore, representatives of professional
bodies who appeared before the committee said so. They even
pointed out safeguards in Bill C-6 that do not appear in Quebec's
legislation. I could mention whistle blowing. I will get back
later to this form of safeguard, which exists in Bill C-6 and not
in Quebec's legislation.
There is a need in Quebec and not just in the other provinces.
It was suggested today in the House that the need exists in the
other provinces because they did not give themselves a law to
protect personal information within their boundaries and that
only Quebec did—that there would be no need in Quebec for such
a federal law, but that need could exist in the other provinces.
I am sorry, but the need exists from sea to sea in Canada,
including in Quebec.
As I said previously in the House, in the case of a Quebecer
living in Quebec and dealing with a company outside Quebec, if
that company collects personal information about that individual
and discloses that information to some other companies,
associations or organizations and if that Quebecer tries to
complain or to sue that company which is not carrying on its
commercial activities in Quebec but in some other province, he
will be ruled out of court. The first thing the court will say
is that the Quebec law does not apply to that company.
Bill C-6 is needed to ensure the protection of personal
information about all the Quebecers and all the people who are
not necessarily Quebec residents but who were in Quebec at the
time the information disclosed outside Quebec was collected.
It was suggested that provincial areas of jurisdiction are
invaded. I invite my colleagues to go attend a course on
constitutional law. That is a well known subject. Here we have a
federal system and our constitution has set some areas under
exclusive federal jurisdiction. Some other areas are under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction and a third category of areas
is under joint jurisdiction. When dealing with the commercial
sector, I regret to have to tell my honourable colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois that commerce is an area coming under federal
jurisdiction also.
When a company carries on commercial activities outside Quebec,
that is interprovincial or international, we are getting into an
area of federal jurisdiction. You can laugh—
1345
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows very
well that she must address the Chair and not the other members.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I
apologize. I must always address you, and I must never address
the people across the way.
I was talking about infringement of provincial jurisdictions. I
again invite our colleagues seated to your left and my right to
perhaps take constitutional law 101 to find out about federal
jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions and joint jurisdictions.
They should read the charter and the British North America Act
carefully. Banks, telecommunications companies, broadcasters
and cross border transport companies, if I may call them that,
otherwise I have invented a new term.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On the other side of the House they are
saying that I did not invent the term.
The activities of the organizations I just mentioned come under
federal jurisdiction.
They also say there was no consultation. I am quite surprised
to hear it claimed in the House today that there was no
consultation with the provinces and with those interested in the
whole issue of protecting privacy and personal information.
The very members claiming there was no consultation are saying
that the Barreau du Québec was consulted along with the Chambre
des notaires. There is some confusion in their minds, to say
the least.
There were consultations between governments, which led to one
excellent thing: almost all the governments, if not all the
governments in Canada, recognized the need for legislation to
protect personal information.
However, not all these provincial governments had time enough to
pass legislation.
British Columbia is preparing to pass legislation. But, Bill C-6
addresses this problem, and as I mentioned at the start of my
remarks, it is precisely in order to permit the provinces to
pass legislation that may be implemented progressively.
At the end of three years, if some provincial or territorial
governments have yet to pass legislation to protect personal
information, the federal law will continue to apply in all areas
of commercial activity in the private sector.
However, in the case of governments passing legislation that is
essentially the same, the organizations covered by provincial
legislation will be exempted from the application of the federal
legislation.
I will close on this. About the claim that Quebec is best
protected, I must tell you that, if—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the 20 minutes are up.
1350
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
anxious to have an exchange of views with the Liberal member on
this.
First of all, she spoke of law 101. Well, we are also going to
tell her about politics 101, because she said that the
Government of Quebec had been consulted. The fact that the
Quebec bar association or the Conseil du Patronat spoke out in
committee does not mean that the Government of Quebec was
consulted. There is a difference between the Quebec bar
association, the Conseil du Patronat, the CSN and the
government.
The government is a different institution, one elected
democratically by the people and representing Quebecers. That
is my first point.
Second, she says we were wrong when we said that this was a
provincial jurisdiction. I have here a letter from the Quebec
bar association to the Minister of Industry, who is with us
today, and will read something from the end of its third
paragraph. She can discuss it with the bar association, since
she is a member. The letter reads:
But the protection of personal information is based on
provincial jurisdiction over property, under the civil code.
I would imagine that a nice little discussion between bar
association colleagues will ensue, since it is the association's
opinion that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
The letter is fairly recent, February 4, 1999. I imagine they
took into consideration the British North America Act, which has
been around for more than a hundred years.
Continuing with this letter, because it is most interesting,
they go on to speak of practical application of the legislation.
I quote:
This means that a considerable number of companies established
in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal legislation
rather than the Quebec legislation, and this is not likely to
make it any easier for members of the public seeking to find out
what their rights are in this context of changing legislation.
As well, Quebec-based businesses will be required to master a new
system for the protection of personal information, one which
differs considerably from the one in place in Quebec.
Returning to the phrase “a considerable number of companies
established in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal
legislation rather than the Quebec legislation”, this means that
they were previously subject to the Quebec legislation.
Does the hon. member realize that there was no legal vacuum, as
she seems to be implying, that it is not like everyone was
urging the federal government to get involved and set up
different rules?
I now come to the recommendation made by the Quebec bar, which
supports that of the access to information commission and which
provides that:
To avoid any confusion and ensure that Quebecers can continue to
benefit from a comprehensive personal information protection
program, we submit that Bill C-54—now Bill C-6—should be amended
to provide expressly that the federal legislation will not apply
to businesses governed by the Privacy Act in the private sector.
I can already see the hon. member getting ready to say “Yes, but
what about those for whom that act would not apply?” Her friends
from the bar added:
“We go even further. In our opinion, the bill should
incorporate by reference the
Quebec legislation, even in areas of federal jurisdiction, to
avoid confusion, overlap and duplication in the legislation
applied in Quebec”.
It comes from the Quebec bar, which represents lawyers. These
are experts who looked at this legislation and told us that it
will create chaos and make things extremely complicated. To
avoid that, they propose a simple solution. But this government
will never recognize the primacy of the Quebec law, even if it
concerns the civil code, which makes us so distinct in the eyes
of the federal government.
When the federal government defines Quebec's distinctive
character, it usually points to two or three elements. The
government includes as few elements as possible, but it usually
mentions the civil code. Yet, with this legislation, it is not
even prepared to recognize the civil code.
So, what does the member have to say to the Barreau? Not to us
on this side, to the members across the way to her right and to
your left, Mr. Speaker. What does she have to say to the Barreau
du Québec, which is suggesting this should be the solution?
And, before concluding, I would like to come back to one point.
She says: “Yes, but we will not be able to regulate
out-of-province companies doing business in Quebec”. If that
logic applied, how is the Government of Canada going to be able
to regulate an American company doing business in Canada?
Using her logic, it could not, because she is saying that
Quebec's legislation does not apply to a company holding
information obtained in Quebec, if the company is based outside
Quebec.
So what is she going to do about an American company that
obtains information here and holds it in the United States? If
the Government of Canada can do it, why would Quebec not be able
to do it for Canada?
There is something a bit illogical about what she is saying and
I would like her to explain to me why she thinks Quebec cannot
fully legislate this situation when, if this were true, the same
logic would apply to Canada, which would be able to legislate in
respect of American companies.
I would like her to explain this and to respond to the brief
from the Barreau that I have just cited and which is very
specific. If she wishes, I can give her a copy of the document.
1355
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
remarks. The federal bill will be completing the protection
afforded consumers in Quebec by the legislation of that
province.
Both laws deal with different activities, and the federal
legislation will be filling the gaps in the protection given by
the Quebec law. In Quebec, the federal legislation will target
situations where the activities of an organization are not
regulated by the Commission d'accès à l'information. I can think
for example of companies under federal jurisdiction, and of the
problems Quebecers can encounter in their dealings with
companies outside their province.
Bill C-6 settles problems that cannot be handled through
provincial laws, even when these laws have been prepared with
great care.
When data are transferred across the borders of 13 provinces or
territories, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is in a better
position to investigate and settle cross border problems.
A second example would be the case of a company headquartered in
Alberta collecting information on Quebec consumers. Since
Alberta and Quebec are not bound by each other's legislation,
there is a need for federal legislation.
Quebec businesses that transfer personal information within
Quebec and between provinces will have no problem complying with
both laws. When the Barreau du Quebec, of which I am a member,
or the hon. member opposite submit that this will cause
confusion, they are saying in fact that our Quebec businesses
are not capable of coping with situations where two laws are
applicable. They are already familiar with that kind of
situations. They are obeying industrial safety legislation as
well as legislation governing their commercial activities.
Quebec businesses have already had to organise their commercial
activities in compliance with different laws, federal as well as
provincial. It is a shame to claim that our businesses are not
capable of doing that.
Bill C-6 and Quebec Law-68 may be drafted differently but their
intent and impact are rather similar. Both pieces of legislation
require businesses to obtain the consent of a person before
collecting, using or disclosing his or her personal information.
Both pieces of legislation give people access to their personal
information that is maintained by private sector organisations.
Both provide for monitoring by a privacy commissioner and allow
redress mechanisms for people whose rights are affected. Above
all, both provide for rights and obligations which are basically
similar, since both have the same starting point.
What is that starting point? It all started with the guidelines
established by the OCDE in 1980.
Sure, there are differences, but Canada can manage them. Canada
may be the only country in the whole world which provides in its
charter of rights and freedoms that it shall promote its
diversity.
1400
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act aimed at
promoting electronic commerce at the expense of privacy.
Since the beginning of the week, I have noticed that the Liberal
government opposite, with Bill C-6 and Bill C-3, an act in respect
of criminal justice for young persons, has been speaking from
both sides of its mouth. The government tells Quebec and the
rest of Canada: “We are going to talk with the provinces, we
will come to an agreement before introducing new bills.”
I am really disillusioned with this government's double talk. I
believe Quebecers and Canadians must realize that this
government ignores everything that moves both in Quebec and the
rest of Canada.
This is the general image we have had of this government for the
two years we have been sitting in the Parliament of Canada.
Do not tell me it is because I am a sovereignist, an
independentist or a separatist that I talk this way. I am
defending the interests of a francophone riding in Quebec, the
riding of Jonquière. When I travel through my riding, my
constituents tell me this about the current government: “What is
wrong with them, why do they want to re-invent the wheel, redo
what has already been done, and why do they not take the best in
other laws to improve the justice system and health care system
in Canada?” No, what they want is to re-invent the wheel.
Too much is too much, or not enough is not enough, but I think
the government has time to waste, because it has no vision for
the next millennium that is fast approaching. I think the
government doe not know hoe to go forward. It wants to relive
the past, to return to the time where it was not in power, to
give itself good conscience. We have a concrete example of that
with this Bill C-6.
I would have liked to ask the Minister of Industry if he is
familiar with the Quebec privacy act that was passed in 1994. I
would have liked to know if he is aware of the Quebec
legislation on the protection of personal information in the
private sector, which is unique in North America. Quebec is the
only state in North America that has a legislation to protect
personal information in the private sector.
I hope the minister noticed that we have a legislation in
Quebec. Of course, nothing is perfect, and I think we can
rewrite a legislation to improve it, because time goes by and
society is evolving. He could have looked at this legislation
and say: “Quebec did this, why not do the same for the other
provinces of Canada, and also cover other areas that the Quebec
legislation does not cover?”
What did the Minister of Industry do? He told us he had
consulted with the provinces. I could give you some evidence
that the Minister of Industry did not consult with the
provinces, because on September 21, 1998, the federal minister
sent a legislation proposal to his provincial counterparts. He
asked for their comments. On October 1, 1998, he said: “I do not
need the views of my counterparts, I will act unilaterally, I
will table a bill in the House”.
1405
On October 30, the 12 provincial and territorial justice
ministers unanimously called—I am not sure if the word
“unanimously” has the same meaning in English as in French, but
this word means that everyone was in agreement—on the federal
Minister of Industry to withdraw Bill C-54, because it was “a
major intrusion into provincial and territorial areas of
jurisdiction”. This can be found in a press release that
followed that federal-provincial-territorial meeting of the
justice ministers, held on October 30, 1998, in Regina,
Saskatchewan.
These are the facts. The government brags about consulting the
provinces.
Is this the meaning they give to the word “consultation”? I am
curious as to what dictionary they might be using. To consult
people is to sit down with them, to submit your projects and to
ask them for their opinion. That is what consulting is all
about.
If you hear about some legislation somewhere that is protecting
privacy and working just fine, you sit down, negotiate and take
the best of this legislation to try and make a society, a
country like Canada a leader in that field to ensure the best
protection for its citizens.
This morning, my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue made an
eloquent speech in which he gave a clear explanation of privacy.
Personally, I would not like for someone, anyone, to scrutinize
my every move and say: “Maybe she should have done this instead
of that. We should investigate the matter.”
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you would like that, but I
certainly would not. I rise up against this tactic that the
government of Canada wants to use against me and my fellow
citizens who live in my riding of Jonquière and in Quebec.
Enough is enough!
Did the Minister of Industry understand? The Minister of
Industry created a whole constitutional litigation that could
have been avoided had he agreed to work in co-operation with its
counterparts.
If Bill C-6 is implemented in Quebec, the rights of Quebecers
regarding personal information protection will suffer
significant setbacks regarding consent and remedies.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says she is a legal
expert. There are several legal experts in my family.
We see more and more shortfalls in the legislation passed in the
House of Commons. I think there are many shortfalls in Bill C-6.
We must not let these legal experts implement legislation as
they like. In all conscience, we must ensure that these bills
help our fellow citizens, not the legal experts.
There is also a setback regarding the collection of information
from a third party. Moreover, the Bill will be confusing for
companies and individuals in Quebec.
The implementation of Bill C-6 in Quebec will require the setting
up of two systems for the protection of personal information and
it will be confusing for companies and individuals.
Today is October 22.
I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that the Bill
he introduced in this House is a source of confusion.
1410
When there is confusion there is a need for interpretation. I
call upon the minister of Industry to exclude Quebec from his
bill.
We, in Quebec—and I believe that some people in the House will
laugh—are pioneers in privacy protection. The Quebec charter of
rights and freedoms allowed our legislators to be at the
forefront of privacy protection.
Far from me the idea of pretending that we are perfect, but I
can say that we have always been listening to our fellow
citizens to be able to take care of their wellbeing and to
answer their needs through our charter of rights and freedoms.
We are constantly listening to people to improve our
legislation.
Bill C-6 does not improve on Quebec legislation, it will diminish
it. We have a civil code in Quebec. Contrary to Ontario and the
other provinces of Canada, we are not in a system of Common Law.
We reviewed our civil code three years ago because we thought
that it needed to be improved and adapted for the next century.
We did it and the privacy protection act we passed is based on
our civil code. If the minister does not know that code, I would
recommend him to read it because it is a little gem as far as
the protection of civil rights of Quebecers is concerned.
I will not repeat everything that was said by my colleagues, the
member for Témiscamingue and the member for Mercier, but through
you, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry—it is
never too late to recognize one's mistake—to change his mind
before it is too late.
I urge the Minister of Industry to wait, to meet both Quebec
ministers as they requested and allow them to explain their
position. This would make sure that the Liberal government in
Canada is listening to the people and does not pass laws that
duplicate or undo what has been done in the provinces. I am
waiting for an answer from the Minister of Industry and I am
putting a lot of energy into this to make sure that my request
gets to him through you, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
earlier this day, the question is deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
October 26, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
[English]
Is it agreed to call it 2.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.14 p.m.)