36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 236
CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 2, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| THE DEBT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| TÉLÉBEC MOBILITÉ
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| SENIORS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1405
| NELSON MANDELA
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| GILLES DOSTIE
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| SPACE MISSION
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1410
| ROAD SAFETY
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| YOUTH UNLIMITED
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ASBESTOS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1435
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BILL C-54
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1440
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1450
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1455
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| MONETARY UNION
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1500
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Bill C-55
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY ABORTION REFERENDUM ACT
|
| Bill C-515. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-516. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1510
| PRAIRIE GRAIN ELEVATORS ACT
|
| Bill C-517. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| PETITIONS
|
| Estrogen Products
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Child Custody
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1515
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Candu Reactors
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Child Custody
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Public Service Pension Plan
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Marriage Act
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| MacKay Task Force
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1520
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Child Custody
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Government Spending
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Freshwater Resources
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1525
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Transferred for debate
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-54. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1530
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,
79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1535
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1540
1545
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1550
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1555
1600
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1605
1610
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1615
1620
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1625
1630
| Mr. Randy White |
1635
1640
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1645
1650
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1655
1700
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1705
1710
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1715
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| HEALTH
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1735
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1740
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1745
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1750
1755
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1800
1805
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1810
1815
1820
| Motion
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1825
| Health
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 236
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 2, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Environment Week, a week set aside for Canadians to
recommit themselves to environmental action. This week Canadians
have an opportunity to act to meet our climate change goals and
commitments. The federal government wants to help.
In last year's budget $150 million was committed to the climate
change action fund. The fund includes a public education and
outreach program. This program builds public awareness and
informs and engages Canadians on climate change. It encourages
partnerships between governments, communities, the private sector
and other organizations in early action measures.
We do know this: we must act; we can act; we are acting. Only
by acting now can we protect the environment for today and for
future generations.
* * *
THE DEBT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is about
two and one-half years ago since I gave a statement in this House
welcoming little Noah, our new grandson. Members may recall that
I bemoaned the fact that the Liberal and Conservative governments
of the past 30 years had loaded him with a debt of around
$20,000.
I am proud to announce that Noah now has a little sister,
Hannah, born on May 15. She too was born crying. Like her
brother, her share of the debt is almost $20,000. Our four
grandchildren, Dallas, Kayla, Noah and Hannah, collectively owe
$75,000. I am very unhappy about leaving that legacy of debt to
our grandchildren.
I say to little baby Hannah, welcome. We assure you that you
are and will be greatly loved. I assure you too that your
grandpa and his Reform colleagues will continue to demand debt
reduction and lower taxes from this high-flying Liberal
government.
* * *
WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate a fellow member of the Women
Entrepreneurs of Canada, Rossana Magnotta, executive
vice-president of Magnotta Winery and president of Festa Juice
for having been selected to represent Canada as one of the
leading women entrepreneurs of the world.
As the only Canadian honouree, Rossana was one of 50 women
business owners selected to attend the third annual gala and
celebration in Monaco. The concept of an annual gala and
celebratory events in a different international city each year
was created to highlight the accomplishments of women business
owners worldwide, their effect on the global economy and to
showcase these women as role models.
Rossana Magnotta is certainly one of those role models. In
eight years Magnotta Winery has become Ontario's third largest
winery in terms of volume and sales. It has also been awarded
over 800 medals in adjudicated competitions. With increased
capacity Magnotta is taking on the international markets with
exports to the United States, Japan, Taiwan and China.
This truly is a Canadian success story. We congratulate
Rossana.
* * *
[Translation]
TÉLÉBEC MOBILITÉ
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, continuous cell phone service has been available in La
Vérendrye wildlife refuge since May 19, thanks to the
perseverance of the President of Télébec Mobilité, Richard Hélie,
and his employees.
Under this $2 million project, five cellular sites were
installed along the nearly 200 kilometers of Trans-Canada
Highway 117.
This service is an important safety factor for car and truck
drivers, as well as for fishers and hunters. It provides
technological, economic and tourist advantages to the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue region and the wildlife operations of the
Société des établissements de plein air du Québec.
We thank the Télébec and Télébec Mobilité team in
Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
* * *
[English]
SENIORS MONTH
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today in recognition of June
as Seniors Month.
On this occasion as well as throughout the year it is important
to remember the tremendous contribution that our senior citizens
have made and continue to make to the social and economic
well-being of Canada. In my own riding of Guelph—Wellington,
senior citizens are a vibrant part of our community through their
work and volunteerism.
The United Nations has declared 1999 as International Year of
Older Persons. The Government of Canada is proudly participating
in this event through activities that help raise awareness of the
important role that seniors play in society.
During Seniors Month let us reflect on the rich gift that we
have inherited from Canada's seniors. By emphasizing the need
for consideration and respect between all generations, Canadians
can contribute toward giving our senior citizens the honour that
they deserve.
* * *
1405
NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members
regularly unite in recognizing political greatness. One such
leader who deserves this unity is Nelson Mandela. Taking the helm
of his country after nearly three decades in prison, he has acted
as a moral compass for a deeply divided society.
The bitterness of apartheid could quite easily have erupted into
a violent and extremely bloody civil war. However, it did not
and today it is one of the few functioning democracies in Africa.
South Africa is now holding its presidential election.
In pursuing retirement he now seeks peace and quiet to
contemplate his life's work and the future of his country. But
it is his leadership and his moral purpose that characterized his
term in office that have made these elections possible.
This House will not be sitting when his successor is sworn in.
Nevertheless I think that this House will join me in extending to
Mr. Mandela our very best wishes and our admiration for what he
has accomplished as President of South Africa.
* * *
WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to tell everyone a little bit about Windsor and
Essex County as a summer vacation destination.
We enjoy festivals such as the Carousel of Nations where we join
together to celebrate our multicultural society. Each of our
cultural groups proudly shares their foods and customs with their
neighbours who tour from village to village.
The International Freedom Festival, a two nation birthday
celebration, has turned into a two week party over the last 30
years. It showcases talent and fires off the most elaborate and
exciting fireworks display on the continent.
The International Blues Fest each year attracts world class
performers and music enthusiasts to this outdoor weekend of fun
and street partying.
Festival Epicure shows off the talents and cuisine of our finest
restaurants and bistros, while the International Busker Fest
celebrates the talents of street performers from around the
world.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but you had better come to Windsor
and Essex County to see for yourself.
* * *
[Translation]
GILLES DOSTIE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday the Société national des Québécois de L'Amiante paid
a rousing tribute to Gilles Dostie, a true nationalist of
unshakeable convictions, who has remained a simple and modest
man while being involved in all manner of humanitarian causes.
The ceremony, held before over 400 people at Club Aramis, with
Guy Bouthillier as the honorary chairman, afforded the people of
L'Amiante an opportunity to say thank you to this man who has
committed his life to serving his community.
Gilles Dostie will leave his mark on our region, among other
things as a co-founder of the Comptoir familial de Thetford and
the Centre communautaire Marie-Agnès-Desrosiers.
I join with all the people of L'Amiante in congratulating and
thanking Gilles Dostie, who is and will continue to be a source
of inspiration for the entire population.
Thanks are also due to his wife, Pierrette Gagnon, for her
unfailing support over the years.
* * *
[English]
SPACE MISSION
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank Canadian astronaut Julie Payette for
sharing with Canadians her experiences during the current space
mission.
Nunavut students in Rankin Inlet were among those Julie touched
as she answered their questions. I know they will be along with
other young Canadians inspired to reach for the stars themselves.
Canadians watched Sarah Wheaton of Iqaluit, winner of the
Canadian Space Agency's nationwide contest, proudly wave the new
Nunavut flag at the launch at the Kennedy Space Centre in
Florida. I know she and her family will not forget this
experience.
I applaud the opportunities my constituents have had to
participate in yet another historic moment for Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday's question period brought back fond memories
of when the current Minister of Human Resources Development was
minister in charge of the CIDA cesspool and I was the critic.
The Prime Minister makes much of the fact that there were three
bidders for the infamous Mali contract. He has apparently
forgotten that those three companies, all from the same region,
were hand-picked by the minister, who then told the House, “I
have no recollection of only three Quebec firms having been kept
on the short list”. Other competitors including at least one
better qualified than Transelec were not even allowed to bid.
The bad odour from that saga forced CIDA to rewrite its rules
for tendering.
1410
It was well known that at that time the prime qualification for
a large CIDA contract was a substantial donation to the Liberal
Party. What was not well known until recently was that doing
business with the Prime Minister was much more useful.
[Translation]
Long live pork barrel politics.
* * *
ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is road safety week.
We can never stress enough how careful both children and drivers
must be on roads and in public places.
Too many Canadian children are lost to the road, unfortunately,
every year. The years in which the statistics are lower never
compensate for the pain these tragedies bring to all of us.
The government can come up with all sorts of laws and
regulations, but without greater community and individual
responsibility than we are seeing now it will be to no
avail.
Repression will not put an end to all the carelessness on our
highways.
How many more victims will it take before we recognize that this
responsibility is essential in order to spare the lives of our
children?
* * *
[English]
YOUTH UNLIMITED
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since 1974
Youth Unlimited of Regina has been helping address problems for
the city's young, problems many Canadians incorrectly assume
exist only in the third world.
In the past decade the federal government has helped with the
summer day camp. The federal government has advised however that
it is not funding this year's camp. There was no consultation
and no alternative sources of funding, just a plain no.
Clearly Regina MPs are not in the same league as the fabulously
successful member of parliament for Saint-Maurice who was able to
secure multiple grants and loans for Shawinigan enterprises often
before a plan was submitted.
The Regina day camp has helped keep children off our streets.
Also off the street this week is the executive director of Youth
Unlimited in Regina. Maurice Kovatch is atop a flagpole on
Albert Street trying to attract attention and secure donations to
aid this worthwhile cause. It is a shame the government by its
heartlessness forces this kind of bread and circuses on to causes
which desperately need and deserve public support.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, between May
31 and June 11 the federal court will hear the appeal by the
government of the decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal on pay
equity.
The scorn heaped by the President of the Treasury Board on his
employees is shameful, and becoming more apparent daily. While
he spends millions of taxpayers' dollars in legal costs of all
sorts, he has the gall to cite excessive costs as the reason for
his refusal to comply with the latest decision by the tribunal
on pay equity.
The President of the Treasury Board should be ashamed of
treating his employees this way. The worst of it is that pay
equity is not an isolated incident; nothing of the sort.
Although they have the legitimate right to strike, these
employees are being forced to return to work by a government
that dared do so with special legislation passed behind closed
doors.
It also passed legislation allowing it to brazenly dip into the
surpluses of the public service employees' pension funds.
What bounds are there to the government's scorn for the
legitimate rights of its employees? It ought to take a look to
see whether the President of Treasury Board is not at war with
his employees.
* * *
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to the economy, the Liberal government chose to take
concrete measures to promote economic growth. The results
accurately reflect our efforts to improve the quality of life of
Canadians.
For example, since 1993 the job creation and economic growth
strategy of the Liberal government has been made possible by a
policy promoting investment, tax reduction and debt reduction.
Since October 1993 1.6 million new jobs have been created and
economic indicators are generating optimism among Canadians.
The Liberal government is also helping young people.
To help regions with high unemployment we invest $110 million
each year in the Canada jobs fund.
These are concrete measures taken by the Liberal government to
ensure sustained economic growth in all regions of Canada.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Kosovo
crisis has moved public opinion in our country. It has triggered
many initiatives and gestures of solidarity.
In my riding, children from several schools have drawn pictures
and written messages of peace to the children who are among the
victims of that crisis. Through their initiative, our children
want to reach out in compassion to comfort other children of
their own age who have been torn away from their families, homes
and dreams.
1415
We are sending these messages today to the Kosovar children in
the refugee camps located in Macedonia and Albania, and to those
whom we have welcomed here in Canada.
In addition to the collective commitments made by our country to
take part in NATO air strikes and to welcome refugees, we must
also let our hearts speak through small acts of compassion such
as these in the face of such terrible inhumanity.
Congratulations to those in charge of the Paix-Cible
organization, particularly Diana Tremblay and Francine Riverin,
and their chaplain, Reverend Paul Tremblay.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week defence ministers from the United States and
the major European countries met to discuss the question of
ground troops in Kosovo, but not the Canadian defence minister.
He was not even asked to deliver doughnuts.
Our CF-18s carry NATO payloads in the skies of Yugoslavia. We
have hundreds of military personnel already involved in the
conflict and we are sending 800 more. We ought to be involved in
the planning.
How does the government explain Canada's complete absence from
this important meeting?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we are involved with the planning
because the decisions are made at NATO and we are a full partner
in NATO.
Second, the meeting last week was a regular meeting of defence
ministers of the European Union. On the side of that meeting, a
few of them met with Secretary Cohen of the United States. It
was an informal meeting. It was by no means a meeting attended
by any NATO officials. No decisions were made. It was an ad hoc
meeting. In fact, I had an ad hoc meeting on the phone today
with Secretary Cohen to discuss the matter.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this avoids the question.
A meeting of major members of NATO was held to discuss the
question of ground troops in Kosovo. President Clinton has just
made an announcement based on that meeting. Meanwhile, our
defence minister's response to questions on a mission in which
Canada will presumably be involved is “I do not know who was
there. I do not know what was discussed. I do not know what
impact it had”.
How does the government expect Canadians to have any confidence
in the defence minister or Canada's participation in this affair
when the position of the defence minister is “I do not know?”
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not know yesterday simply because
it was an ad hoc meeting. It was not a formal meeting. There
was no decision making made there whatsoever.
There are lots of bilateral meetings. I have them with these
same people. They have no official status whatsoever. What is
important is that the decision making and planning goes on at
NATO and we are a full partner in that process.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a time when Canada had a major and important
role in any military and strategic conference involving the
security of the western world.
Prime Minister King met with Mr. Churchill and President
Roosevelt. The counsel of Prime Minister Pearson was sought out
by world leaders with respect to the Suez crisis. Under this
administration and this Prime Minister, Canada's influence on
international security has been reduced to the minimum.
What does the government propose to do to secure a meaningful
role for Canada in the military and strategic planning in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of these questions is
absolutely false.
When decision making is going on at the NATO council, we are
there. When participation in terms of the peace plan involves
the G-8, we are there. When decisions are made by the United
Nations Security Council, we are there.
This was a European Union regular meeting of defence ministers.
On the side of that, there were a few of them who got together in
an ad hoc informal way. No decisions were made. Nothing came
out that we were not involved in because the involvement and
decision making goes on at NATO.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not realize the Americans were part of the European Union for
its little ad hoc chat.
The Prime Minister has battles of his own here. The showcase of
shame continues to loom over him. A friend won a $6 million CIDA
contract after donating more than $10,000 to the Prime Minister's
campaign. He then went on to inject more than $500,000 into the
Prime Minister's company on a land deal.
Why does the Prime Minister think it is okay to abuse his office
that way?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premise of the hon. member's question is totally false.
The decision on the CIDA contract was made by an arm's length
committee composed of four members: two of them were
representatives of the Government of Mali, one was an outside
consultant and the other one was an observer from CIDA. They
made the decision and the decision was obviously one based on the
fact that the successful company had the lowest bid.
Only the Reform Party would be against the lowest bidder winning
a government contract.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in some of these arm's length organizations the arms get pretty
short.
The Prime Minister accepts tens of thousands of dollars in
contributions from Mr. Gauthier. He then does personal business
deals that pull in over half a million dollars for Mr. Gauthier.
Then when Mr. Gauthier gets a $6.3 million government contract,
the Prime Minister and his government wonder why anyone would see
a conflict with that.
We would like to hear an answer from the Prime Minister to this
question. Why does he not get up? Why does the Prime Minister
always pretend there is no conflict when it is as plain as the
pavement on his driveway?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no involvement by the Prime Minister.
Why do the Reform Party members not get up and admit that they
are making these baseless allegations because they are trying to
divert attention from the fact that their party is disintegrating
before the eyes of Canadians and Reform members are in open
revolt against the united alternative initiative and, in
particular, against their Leader of the Opposition? For that
matter, they are at half of where they were in the last election.
The party is dying and they are trying to hide that fact even
from themselves.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in reference to asbestos and the WTO, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs justified the federal government's
refusal to be accompanied by Quebec by saying
“winning a round against the WTO means playing by the WTO's
rules”.
How can the minister say that it is the WTO's rules that are
preventing Quebec from joining the Canadian delegation when, in
reality, everyone knows that the rules were set by the federal
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
asbestos issue obviously involves regulations passed by the
French government and not regulations passed by the province of
Quebec.
It is therefore only right that the national government, which
represents all Canadians, including Quebecers, play the principal
role.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will reply,
unless the Deputy Prime Minister is going to bat for him.
I would like him to tell me the specific WTO regulation or
section that prevents a provincial government from sitting on
the Canadian delegation.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that this was a
decision taken by the federal government, and that the truth is
that it is the federal government that is preventing the
provinces, including Quebec, from sitting on the delegation and
not the WTO?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
usual, it is all the federal government's fault.
They are still looking for winning conditions, but these
conditions will be their undoing. In the case of an
international trade dispute, Canadian policy is to invite the
provinces to take part in hearings only in the case of
provincial measures that are challenged by other countries.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had the nerve to claim
that Quebec would be less well served if it were present at the
table with the federal government.
Yet it is Quebec that prepared the entire case. Even the
minister acknowledges that.
Is the minister aware that the federal government's position of
excluding Quebec from defending its asbestos, when we are the
second ranking producer in the world, is not based on any logic,
has no connection with any WTO requirement and is purely
doctrinaire?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I would say is that yesterday
the deputy Premier of Quebec accused the Government of
Canada of being fanatical on this issue.
I would suggest that the Government of Quebec and the Bloc
Quebecois drop all of this verbal bombast, which only proves in the
end that they are out to get winning conditions.
1425
Second, in the WTO all member states, without exception,
jealously protect their ability to speak with a single voice in
negotiations in order to be in a winning position.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the minister told us that Quebec will be briefed every evening
on the progress of negotiations.
He ought to realize that by evening it will be too late for us
to tell the federal government what other arguments it ought to
have used to defend us.
Is this the best way to defend the interests of Quebec, briefing
us in the evening after the cases have already been argued?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been informed that, of the 12 delegation members, 10 are
from the province of Quebec and are spokespersons for the Quebec
asbestos industry. These are the real experts. Their expertise
will, I trust, help us toward a good outcome for the people of
Quebec and for all the people of Canada.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister is scrambling to convince Canadians that he is
on top of his job. Let us listen to the words of the defence
minister about a key NATO meeting that took place six days ago.
He can try to duck it but these are his words, “I don't know
exactly who was at the meeting. I'm still looking into it. I
don't know what was discussed or what impact it had. I'm still
waiting to find out”.
Canadian Armed Forces personnel are doing their jobs in the
Balkans. Canadian aid workers are doing their jobs. Why can the
defence minister not do his job?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first thing that is false about that
preamble is her suggestion that it was a NATO meeting. It was
not a NATO meeting at all. It was a regular meeting of defence
ministers of the European Union. They have been going on year in
and year out and nobody has ever suggested that Canada should be
involved in those meetings. They are strictly for the European
Union. A group of them decided to have an informal ad hoc
meeting on the side with Mr. Cohen. That is all it was. It was
not a decision making meeting by any means. Decisions are made
at the full NATO council in Brussels and Canada is a full
participant.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when is
a meeting a meeting? When armed forces personnel go AWOL there
are definite consequences, but when the defence minister abandons
his post there appears to be absolutely no consequences
whatsoever.
Are Canadians to conclude that the government has no intention
of doing anything about the incompetence of the defence minister?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am on the job. The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas was part of the NDP caucus that went a little
AWOL not too long ago in going over to Belgrade.
I just had a meeting today with Secretary Cohen. I have had
numerous meetings with Secretary Cohen and other defence
ministers within NATO. I do not hear complaints from other NATO
defence ministers that I did not include them.
We all know that we have informal discussions, but we also know
that the decision making process is at NATO in Brussels and we
are all full participants in it.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Prime Minister refused to answer three simple questions: First,
will he ask his HRDC minister to release the 363 pages withheld
from my access to information request on the Duhaime and Thibault
deals; second, will he release all the documents regarding the
CIDA contract to Claude Gauthier; and third, will he invoke
section 11 of the Auditor General Act to investigate this
questionable use of taxpayers' dollars?
Will the Prime Minister answer these questions or will he keep
hiding behind his cabinet ministers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is obvious that if there is one person who is
a 100% stand-up guy and does not hide from anything, it is our
Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is meeting with the executive director of the
International Monetary Fund at an important function.
1430
I want to say that there is not a shred of evidence of any
wrongdoing. The auditor general, of course, has his own autonomy
and jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the minister responsible for CIDA can give
answers on the release of documents.
The Prime Minister has acted in a perfectly proper way in this—
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, if there is
not a shred of evidence, let us table all of the documents.
We, the Conservative caucus, were the first to urge the Prime
Minister to use section 11 of the Auditor General Act to clear
the air on this scandal. Only an independent investigation from
an apolitical, arm's length office can credibly examine the
nearly $9 million in questionable HRDC grants, federal business
loans and CIDA grants to the Prime Minister's friends and
constituents.
Is the Prime Minister refusing to ask the auditor general to
investigate because of what might be uncovered?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no CIDA grant. It is a contract for work being
done in one of the poorest countries in the world.
There is not a shred of evidence. It is all innuendo and it is
rotten politics.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that whenever—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Jason Kenney: There is a little concern over there.
It seems that whenever the Prime Minister is asked some tough
questions about his shady business dealings—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member
to go directly to his question.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, why is it that when the
Prime Minister threatens to sue people for talking about
conflicts of interests outside this House he ends up ducking,
dodging and disappearing? Why is it that the Prime Minister
expects Canadians to believe that when he receives $15,000 from a
constituent and gets a half million dollars in his company from
that constituent that a $190,000 untendered government paving
contract is an accident?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your
attention and that of the House, to remind everyone, to the fact
that the Prime Minister is in the House a lot more than the
Leader of the Official Opposition.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all hon.
members that we do not refer either to the presence or the
absence of any members in the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
no one has ever accused the Leader of the Opposition of letting
an untendered government contract to a campaign contributor and a
business partner. No one has ever accused the Leader of the
Opposition of doing business with convicted criminals and
benefiting from it.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, seeing as the man in
his stead is not here, how can he—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week in Bonn the U.S. defence secretary and four of his
European counterparts met secretly to discuss a possible ground
war in Kosovo.
1435
Canada was excluded from this meeting. Yesterday, the Minister
of National Defence did not even know who had attended the
meeting and what was said.
What explanation can the Minister of National Defence offer for
the way in which Canada was left out of discussions that could
ultimately involve the lives of our troops?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said a
number of times. We are not a member of the European Union. This
was the defence ministers of the European Union getting together
as they regularly do. On the side of that meeting there was an
informal ad hoc meeting of three or four of those ministers plus
Secretary Cohen of the United States. This was not a decision
making meeting because decisions are made at NATO and we are a
full participant of NATO.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to point out that the U.S. was there, as well as four major European
nations, not necessarily members of the European Union. Not
all members of the European Union were there.
Is the fact that the Minister of National Defence was excluded
even from the informal meeting not proof that this government is
considered second rate, and that is exactly what other
countries think of this minister? When he is called, it is
to inform him of decisions already taken, but not to consult
him.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a bilateral meeting with Secretary
Cohen by telephone today. I have had numerous meetings with him.
My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, met last week with
the Secretary of State for the United States, Madam Albright. We
did not receive any complaints from the Europeans because we had
these informal bilateral meetings. It is part of the ongoing
process of keeping each other informed.
However, when it comes to deciding what needs to be done, when
it comes to mapping out the plans for NATO, that is being done in
Brussels with the full NATO council of which we are a full
participating member, and we will continue to be a full
participating member in this fashion.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
the Prime Minister's numbered company that owned the Grand-Mère
golf course when Monsieur Gauthier bought the half million
dollars worth of land. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he
believed he had sold those shares, but—and this is critically
important—the sale of those shares never went through. In other
words, the shares returned to the Prime Minister and they are now
in the hands of his own solicitor.
How can the Prime Minister claim that there is no conflict of
interest when he had a financial stake in a company that stood to
benefit from this deal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I recall hearing the Prime Minister say in this House
more than once that he has no financial interest in the company
in question and that the shares were not returned to him.
The unwarranted allegations of the Reform Party show the truth
of the adage, especially when we look at how it has fallen in the
polls, that when the Reform Party throws mud, it loses ground.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the ethics counsellor appeared before the standing committee
he admitted that those shares had not been paid for. In fact
they were searching for a new buyer for those shares. They are
held by the solicitor of the Prime Minister. In other words, he
had an interest in the company. Mr. Gauthier then bought some
land from him. He then got a big contract from CIDA. He then
gave a $10,000 donation to the Prime Minister's personal
campaign.
The Prime Minister benefited electorally from that donation and
I assume that he also benefited from the sale of that land. How
much did he benefit from the sale of that land to Mr. Gauthier?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister played no role in the granting of the
contract through CIDA to carry out work in Mali. It was done by
an outside committee.
The Prime Minister has said over and over again that he has no
interest in the company in question.
The hon. members are in breach of a basic principle of Canadian
and British justice, that he who asserts must prove. They have
not brought any evidence. They have not proven anything. All
they have proven is why they are trying to deflect attention from
their own disintegration and their own self-destruction.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
By saying in response to Quebec Minister Joseph Facal that Bill
C-54 did not call into question “the principles of Quebec civil
law” the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is showing that he is
sadly ignorant of the subject.
Is the minister not aware that Minister Facal's position is the
same as that of the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires
du Québec and the Québec Interprofessional Council, among
others?
1440
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
quote witness Jacques Frémont of the University of Montreal,
who said “I have been saying for a while that there is a
legitimate federal presence”.
He also said that the federal government could get involved and
that
it would be entirely constitutional to regulate exchanges of
data for the protection of personal lives in all areas of
interprovincial and international trade.
We will protect, with the Government of Quebec, the privacy of
all citizens of Quebec and Canada.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the same
Jacques Frémont said, the same day, “It is a constitutional
blow”.
How can the minister say his government is acting totally within
the Constitution when, with Bill C-54, his government is usurping
the right to decide whether a law in Quebec, in an area under
Quebec's jurisdiction, applies or not? This is not federalism,
it is trusteeship.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is clear that it is not solely the responsibility of the
provincial government. It is the responsibility of both levels
of government. The same Jacques Frémont said “Bill
C-54 is a good idea, a very good idea”.
That is enough for me, because the people of Quebec have an
advantage. They have a provincial bill on privacy protection as
well. This was a bill of the former government of Daniel
Johnson, which gives them, with Bill C-54, the best protection in
Canada. Now, that is a good idea.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while
the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back for the great
things he has done in the riding of Saint-Maurice, unemployment
in that region is as high as when he was elected in 1993.
Yet he continues to use the money of Canadian taxpayers
under the pretext of creating jobs in order to pay back his
buddies.
It is obvious that this money is not increasing employment.
Only are increasing donations to the Liberal Party
slush fund.
How can he justify being the Prime Minister of the
people when the only people he is helping are his friends?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the projects in the riding of Shawinigan were no different than
job creation projects approved in the Reform Party held ridings
of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for the West Coast Trail Hotel,
Cariboo—Chilcotin for the Wells Hotel expansion project and,
listen to this one, West Kootenay—Okanagan for the Halycon
Health Spa.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to hear the government line, but—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the
government line, but what the minister appears to be
forgetting is that the Prime Minister announced contracts in his
riding even before the ink was dry.
It is pure coincidence, I am sure, but how can he explain that a high
proportion of the contracts awarded in his riding have links
leading directly to him or his office?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very
clear that he has no personal interest whatsoever in this matter,
despite the constantly repeated allegations to the contrary. He
has been very clear on that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: The projects approved by my department
had been discussed between my staff and the contractors in the
riding of Saint-Maurice. There was no undue pressure. We
checked things very carefully indeed.
I can assure hon. members that we are going to continue with the Canadian
job creation fund, which has so far created 30,000 jobs across
Canada in regions of excessive unemployment.
* * *
1445
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development thought he could get away with
appointing a facilitator in the matter of millennium
scholarships.
However, it appears that the facilitator did not facilitate
much, and time is of the essence in this matter for the
students.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development assume his
responsibilities, become personally involved in the matter, and,
finally, meet once and for all with Minister Legault in Quebec
City?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont
for the planted question, planted perhaps by the other side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I do want to say one thing. I realize
that this time unfortunately, the member for Rosemont does not
appear to be particularly up to date on the latest events. I
talked to Mr. Legault at noon.
I can assure the member that he and I are on absolutely the same
wavelength. We noted that progress had been made in meetings
between our officials and our spokespersons. We are both aware
that the few remaining minor stumbling blocks may be resolved in
the coming days.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the finance minister indicated that he would make a
decision soon regarding extending the Y2K tax exemption.
Now that the industry committee has reported, could he tell us
if he will extend the Y2K exemption for small business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question posed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton is
a classic example of how he and all other members on this side of
the House have consistently sought to further the interests and
the needs of small and medium size business in the country.
I am very grateful to the member as indeed I am very grateful to
the members of the industry committee who have deliberated long
and hard on the particular measure. They have recommended that
this tax measure be extended for small and medium size business
until October 31 of this year.
I am delighted to announce today that the government accepts
that recommendation.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, here is what has happened. First, a friend buys a money
losing hotel from the Prime Minister's company and then receives
nearly $1 million in grants and loans.
Second, just before the election the Prime Minister makes a
splashy announcement of a big grant in his riding without any
approval.
Third, another friend donates $10,000 to the Prime Minister's
campaign, injects $500,000 into his cash starved golf course, and
receives a multimillion CIDA contract.
Is this what the Prime Minister calls good, honest government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to use this occasion to correct an inaccurate
insinuation by another Reform member earlier.
The Prime Minister sold the shares in question before he became
Prime Minister. He has not yet been paid. His trustee holds the
debt. The shares are in the hands of the buyer. The Prime
Minister's lawyer only controls the debt and the Prime Minister
has no intention of ever getting the shares back.
The basis for the earlier question is wrong. The basis for this
question is wrong. Once again it is an act of desperation by the
disintegrating Reform Party.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a good try, but the fact is that the Prime
Minister's fingerprints are all over these suspect transactions
of public money.
When will the government set things clear by tabling all the
documents, having an independent inquiry into this matter, and
making sure that there has been no conflict of interest, for
Canadians?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, instead of making these wild unsubstantiated
accusations, the Reform Party should congratulate the companies
in question for the work they are doing in one of the poorest
countries in the world.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, background
documents on the new made in America magazine deal state that
Canadian content is “original to the Canadian market or has been
authored by a Canadian”.
By this definition a quick rewrite of an article on American
Olympians in a new spit-run edition of Newsweek becomes
voila, Canadian content.
The new definition now includes work written by American writers
as long as they are only published in an American split run.
Does the minister agree that by this new definition American
content is now Canadian content?
1450
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the regulations specifically preclude rewrites.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister should read her own documents. By agreeing upon
this definition of Canadian content, the minister has kicked open
the door for challenges on Canadian content in films, books,
music, and all other endeavours. They are now all threatened.
The minister has a choice to make. Either she endorses an
American definition of Canadian content and keeps her cabinet
seat, or she stands up as a Canadian cultural nationalist and
resigns in principle.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member has understood that Canadian
content in the law is a big step forward.
The fact is that the regulations accompanying this legislation
insist any new magazine that sets up in Canada must have a
majority of content for the Canadian market which is only
Canadian content.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would remind the Minister of National Defence of some interesting
facts.
A month ago the NATO secretary general asked General Wesley
Clark, NATO chief of staff, to prepare a plan for the deployment
of ground troops. Last week in Bonn a plan was provided and a
call was issued for a meeting of NATO members, to which Canada
was not invited.
How are we to be credible in the military action if Canada is
not even included in the military planning?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was a meeting of the European Union.
We are not a member of that.
There were a few on the side who decided to have a meeting with
Secretary Cohen. I am told that General Clark was not there. In
fact there was no NATO official there.
It was not anything more than an exchange of information, an
exchange of views, which is the same thing that goes on, on a
bilateral basis every day, including a meeting my colleague had
with Secretary Albright last week. The decisions are in fact
made at the NATO council in Brussels and we are a full
participant.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence has just told us that he himself
spoke today with the U.S. defence secretary, Mr. Cohen.
Can the minister tell us if they discussed the Bonn meeting? Is
he now aware of what went on last week? Could he inform the
House a bit?
Did the U.S. defence secretary also inform the minister of the
agreement that now reflects Russian participation in a military
force in Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have regular meetings either by phone
or in person with Secretary Cohen to discuss general matters
relevant to the effort in Kosovo. Secretary Cohen informed me
that the position of the ministers he met with is as we all
understand and as we all agree, that the air campaign must
continue.
We must put continuing pressure on the Yugoslav government while
the diplomatic effort is also ongoing and involves the Russians.
Hopefully it will all come together and we will be able to get
peace and security and a return of the Kosovars to their
homeland.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns
NATO actions against Yugoslavia.
Could the minister please advise the House as to the rulings
announced today by the International Court of Justice on the
legal suits brought by Yugoslavia against Canada and other NATO
states?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that the
International Court of Justice, by an overwhelming majority, has
totally dismissed the petition by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia for an injunction against NATO action. The judges
themselves have clearly seen through the attempts by the
Milosevic regime to use this as a propaganda means.
I remind the House that Yugoslavia has never recognized its
responsibilities under international law. Last week Mr.
Milosevic and his cohorts were indicted as war criminals. It
showed clearly where the responsibility lies.
* * *
NAV CANADA
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, summer
air travel in the country could come to a halt if the dispute
between the air traffic controllers and Nav Canada does not come
to a quick conclusion.
With both parties willing to negotiate, will the Minister of
Labour allow them time to hammer out a deal and get it ratified?
1455
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conciliator's report was
released on Monday and the parties have returned to the table.
The government is prepared to assist the two parties in any way
we can.
* * *
[Translation]
MONETARY UNION
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian ambassador to the United States and the second in
command at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank have just rekindled the
debate on a single currency for the Americas. Even the very
skeptical chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada now admits
that the idea intrigues him.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Does he really want to be the last on the bandwagon, or has he
had a change of heart since March and would he now agree that a
special house committee should be struck to take a hard look at
this issue, which is capturing the interest of more and more
people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, Mr. McCallum said exactly the opposite of what the
member just claimed.
Second, the United States has made it very clear that it would
never consider monetary union or a common currency. It would
only consider the use of the U.S. dollar, which would be a very
expensive proposition for the monetary policy of any other
country wishing to use it.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance confirmed in the House that he
paid $104,000 of the public's money to three Liberal hacks to
polish his budget speech.
That is $3,500 a page or $5 a word; in other words a lot of
public gold for the minister's silver tongue. On top of that he
spent $3.85 million advertising the budget, an increase of 500%
from last year.
In what could be a Liberal leadership year, how much will next
year's budget cost to advertise? Will it be $5 million or $10
million? How much?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me simply quote from the departmental official who
confirmed what I said in the House yesterday, that it was not
only for a speech. It was for the entire communications
strategy.
In fact, and I now quote, it was for all of the other
informational material about the budget. It is true that there
was advertising about the budget. That advertising was generally
very well received by all people in the country, unlike the
advertising for the Parti Quebecois which was condemned by the
agencies that watch that kind of advertising.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has set up an official maritime helicopter project
office in the Department of National Defence. This is the first
official step toward a Sea King replacement.
I have a question for the minister. Why has there been no
announcement? Is he waiting for parliament to recess to make
this announcement, or will he do it now?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working on this project. As I
have said before, we are developing our procurement strategy.
This is a very major purchase. It is very complicated too in
terms of the missions system, so it is taking some time to put
all the pieces together.
I am hopeful that at the very earliest opportunity we will be
able to announce that we are proceeding, but certainly the matter
is still under consideration.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are increasingly concerned about climate change. May
was drier and warmer than normal in some regions of Canada. The
St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes have water levels that are
well below their 30 year average.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House what she is
presently doing to ensure that Canada will reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, climate change is a top priority of the
government. Earlier today, with the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Minister of Transport, I had the opportunity to
announce eight new transportation projects intended to
demonstrate how all Canadians can participate in reducing
greenhouse gases.
This is clean air day. The government has also launched a
climate change trade fair which I welcome all members of the
House and the public in this region to visit to see how all
Canadians have worked together to reduce greenhouse gases.
* * *
NAV CANADA
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour say that she was willing to do everything possible to get
an agreement between the air traffic controllers and Nav Canada.
I hope that also means there is a willingness to declare a
moratorium on job action so that the parties will have plenty of
time, maybe even a couple of months or so, to ratify this deal.
It is of the utmost importance that they have time to go through
this deal and negotiate it and not have something imposed on
them.
1500
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a process in place. We
believe in negotiations and we intend to let the negotiations
take place.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency
Hugo Fernandez Faingold, Vice-President of the Eastern Republic
of Uruguay.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period I said that 10 of the 12 members of the
Canadian delegation representing Canada including Quebecers at
the World Trade Organization hearings on asbestos were industry
representatives. I want to correct that. Ten of the twelve are
Quebecers from Quebec but they are not all industry
representatives.
I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have created.
BILL C-55
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
During question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage in
response to a question from the member for Dartmouth about Bill
C-55 said “The regulations exclude rewrites”.
I wonder if the minister would be willing to table these
regulations. If she is referring to regulations that none of us
here have seen, we would certainly like to see them.
The Speaker: Did the hon. minister hear what the point of
order was? It was a request actually.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, of course the member will have a chance to review
the regulations when they are available.
I trust that he takes the word of the hon. member that when an
agreement is signed and the agreement specifies that there are no
rewrites in terms of the regulations, the member will have a
chance to review those regulations.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into what is the answer
and what is not, but there it is. Good luck.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the
House in both official languages the report of the meeting of the
IPU working group for legislators on a draft handbook for
legislators on HIV/AIDS, law and human rights, held in Geneva
from February 24 to 26, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the 23rd
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
In accordance with Standing Order 108, your committee has
considered proposals for a miscellaneous statute law amendment
act, 1998 as well as changes by the Department of Justice. It
agreed on Tuesday, June 1, 1999 to report the same without
amendment.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the 29th report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to chapter
2 of the April 1999 report of the Auditor General of Canada
dealing with Revenue Canada, the underground economy initiative.
I also present the 30th report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts relating to chapter 4 of the April 1999 report of
the Auditor General of Canada dealing with fisheries and oceans
managing Atlantic shellfish in a sustainable manner.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to these two reports.
* * *
MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY ABORTION REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-515, an act to provide for a referendum to
determine whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions
to be insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend
the Referendum Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of my
bill entitled an act to provide for a referendum to determine
whether Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be
insured services under the Canada Health Act and to amend the
Referendum Act.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for a referendum to be
held on the question of whether public funds should be used for
medically unnecessary abortions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-516, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of
offence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of
this bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive
sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence).
The purpose of this bill is to require that a sentence for the
commission of certain serious offences be supplemented if a
firearm is used, The additional sentence is to be served
consecutively to the other sentence and is to be a further
minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment if the firearm is not
discharged, 20 years if it is discharged, and 25 years if it is
discharged and as a result a person other than an accomplice is
wounded, maimed or disfigured.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
PRAIRIE GRAIN ELEVATORS ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-517, an act respecting the transfer of
grain elevators located in a prairie province and the
discontinuance of their operation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require
persons who operate grain elevators located in a prairie province
and who plan to discontinue operating any of these elevators to
provide potential buyers with an opportunity to purchase the
elevators. This would place them on an equal footing or on the
same basis as the railway companies.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you
would seek unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from
interparliamentary delegations.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House the report of the
Canadian group of the Canada-France Interparliamentary
Association which attended the meeting of the association's
standing committee in Paris and in the Aquitaine region from
February 21 to 27.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present
Motion No. 634, that in the opinion of this House, all
parliamentary secretaries be removed from all standing committees
and that they not be allowed to be on these committees again. The
reason is that they have become mouthpieces—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon.
member has a notice of Motion No. 634 on the notice paper. My
recollection is that it is a motion under Private Members'
Business, is it not? Perhaps he can inform me if that is the
case.
Mr. Keith Martin: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: If so, it has to wait until it gets
drawn for debate in the usual course before he can make a speech
on the subject, unless he is seeking consent from the House to
have that debate now, which I did not sense he was.
Mr. Keith Martin: I would like to ask for consent now
and make a short speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
ESTROGEN PRODUCTS
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present.
The first one is from PMU producers in my province. They urge
the government to support and recognize the unique contribution
PMU ranchers make to women's health care and to withdraw proposed
regulations that would permit or encourage substitution of
non-equivalent synthetic estrogen products for Premarin.
CHILD CUSTODY
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is quite a lengthy one. It has to do with child
custody for divorced parents.
1515
The petition states that no parent should ever lose custody of a
child by legal process; no parent should be denied adequate
parenting time; and no parent should be allowed to seriously
obstruct a child's relationship with the other parent. In other
words, this is about parental access to children in matrimonial
breakups.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is on the defence of marriage. The petitioners
from Alberta are saying that they would like parliament to define
the statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a
single male and a single female.
[Translation]
CANDU REACTORS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to submit a
petition signed by residents from my riding of
Pierrefonds—Dollard.
The petitioners are asking the Canadian parliament to oppose the
sale of Candu nuclear power reactors to Turkey, and they hope
that all necessary measures will be taken in that regard.
[English]
CHILD CUSTODY
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today. The first one is being submitted on
behalf of the children of separation and divorce who are asking
for their rights to be loved and nurtured by both parents with
numerous examples of how that should be done.
They call upon parliament to pass legislation incorporating
these rights of children and the principle of equality between
and among parents to bring that about.
PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
further petitions, one signed primarily by people in the
Vegreville, Alberta area and the other signed by people in and
around my constituency who became aware that the President of the
Treasury Board wanted to appropriate the pension fund belonging
to 670,000 current and future retirees.
They say that the action is morally flawed. They therefore ask
that Treasury Board end all actions which would undermine the
confidence and morale of the public service, armed forces and
RCMP personnel.
I am pleased to say that I and my Reform colleagues voted
against Bill C-78.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from
about 300 petitioners from the Province of Ontario who are
calling on the government to ensure that the downloading of the
urban native housing program does not go ahead.
The petitioners are expressing their concern about the federal
government abandoning its fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal
people by proceeding with the downloading of social housing. Most
of these constituents are from the Province of Ontario and are
outlining their very serious concerns about the abandonment and
the downloading of aboriginal housing to the province.
MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition today from people in my riding in the
Beauséjour area who are petitioning that marriage is a voluntary
union of a single man and a single woman.
They pray and call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage Act, so as to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single
female. They pray that the House take notice of that.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition where
the petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the
right of spouses, parents and grandparents to access to or
custody of the child or children.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would like to table the following petition
which comes from the constituents of my beautiful riding of
Lethbridge.
The petitioners accuse parliament and the Government of Canada
of blindly following a careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of
bombing the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia. They call upon
parliament and the Government of Canada to disengage from such
policy and bring our troops home.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions to present today all containing hundreds
of signatures.
The first petition calls upon parliament to enact legislation to
allow veterans' spouses to receive benefits under the Veterans
Independence Program until their own death.
MACKAY TASK FORCE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition calls upon the House to totally reject the
recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the
entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
1520
ABORTION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition draws the attention of the House to the following:
that Canada in her bill of rights recognize the supremacy of
God, that God recognize the unborn child and forbids the taking
of an innocent life.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament to repeal
laws allowing abortion.
The Deputy Speaker: I invite the hon. member to avoid
reading. I know he is supposed to give a brief summary of the
petition and I thought he was doing so well until he got to the
last one.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I present literally hundreds of signatures,
which now, added to those collected, will probably add up to
thousands, from urban aboriginals in Ontario who have come to me
and other caucus members because they do not have the
representation from the governing side of the House.
The petitioners call on the House and the government to stop
the downloading of urban aboriginal housing. They want to be
given the same recognition as those people involved in the
co-operative housing movement in Ontario. They want to have the
same right to have their housing looked after. They believe the
government is shirking its fiduciary responsibility.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions today from constituents. The first petition is
with regard to marriage.
The petitioners are expressing parliament's responsibility to
ensure that marriage remains defined as it always has been which
is the union of a single, unmarried male and a single, unmarried
female.
CHILD CUSTODY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I am honoured to present concerns the children of
divorced and divorcing parents.
The petition states that no parent should ever lose legal
custody of a child, or by legal process be denied adequate
parenting time unless there has been due process to determine
that the parent is unfit. This is signed by petitioners from my
constituency.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition concerns spending public money on projects which are not
properly scrutinized.
The petitioners refer in particular to the spending of $98,000
on a book entitled 500 of the Best Dumb Blond Jokes.
Members should know that many people besides the petitioners are
upset about that as well.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must say I am particularly upset with
the point raised in the last petition myself, on a personal
basis. However, I do not want to associate myself with the
member's previous petition.
It is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order
36, from a number of constituents who are aware of discussions
presently ongoing with the Government of Canada and a number of
provincial governments about the possible transferring of federal
responsibility for urban native housing.
Consequently, the petitioners have a number of reasons for
opposing this, which are pretty self-evident to most people. They
are asking the Government of Canada not to proceed with the
proposal to download the urban native housing program to the
provinces.
FRESHWATER RESOURCES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a large number
of constituents from the Kamloops region who are concerned about
the pressures building to export freshwater from Canada.
The petitioners point out a number of reasons, which I have
presented in previous petitions. They are calling on Canada
not to proceed with any possible transporting or exporting of
freshwater resources from Canada to the United States and Mexico.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (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.
* * *
[English]
INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been
discussions among all the parties and I think you will find
unanimous consent of the House to replace the name of the hon.
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar with the name of the
member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore as a
sponsor of private member's Bill C-424 on the order paper.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposition put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1525
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-39 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena.
That an Order of the House do issue copies of the most recent
band audits at all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an
accumulated debt on their last band audit.
Motion No. P-39 is an
order of the House to issue copies of the most recent band audits
at all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an accumulated
debt on their last band audit.
The financial statements of first nations and their
organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph 20(1)(b) of
the Access to Information Act. Portions are mandatorily
protected under subsection 19(1) which protects personal
information. In addition, a federal court decision of June 27,
1985 judged that information regarding Indian moneys was
confidential and not subject to release by the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
First nations are required to make their audited financial
statements available to members of their community. Officials of
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot
release the audited financial statements because of the third
party nature of the audit.
Individuals interested in reviewing a first nation's audit can
contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the
chief and council whether they wish to disclose audits to non-band
members.
I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
Motion No. P-39 to be called.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has a choice.
Could he indicate whether he wishes to proceed with the motion
now and accept it subject to the limitations, or withdraw, or
transfer it for debate? Those are really his options.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to
communicate is that I would like it transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-54, an act
to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain
circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to
communicate or record information or transactions and by amending
the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the
Statute Revision Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 156 motions in
amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of
Bill C-54. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47
to 49, 56, 58 to 96, 99 to 156.
[English]
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 26, 34, 35, 44 to
46, 50 and 51.
[Translation]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 52 to 55, 57, 97 and 98.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43,
47 to 49, 56, 58 to 96, and 99 to 156 to the House.
[English]
Does the House wish to have this whole group of motions read?
Some hon. members: No.
1530
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all these motions
have been deemed moved, seconded and read to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-54, in
the title, be amended by deleting the long title.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak
to the motions in Group No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-54.
This is a very important bill because it deals with the leading
edge of technology. It refers to the explosion of information
technology that is occurring today, the challenges we face as a
nation, and how to protect the personal information of
individuals.
I am disappointed with Bloc Quebecois members for putting
together the motions in Group No. 1 because unfortunately they
are intending to filibuster the entire bill. They are doing so
because they believe, and to some extent correctly, that privacy
issues are provincial issues. That is true.
The Reform Party seeks to create a situation where federal
privacy issues are merged with and complementary to the
provincial regulations that have been set up. Unfortunately only
Quebec has set them up. The other provinces have not done so,
primarily because of a lack of resources.
The other side of the coin is that privacy issues in relation to
the Internet are not provincial in nature. They are national and
international. The Internet is an international system. It is
the World Wide Web. Therefore any systems and regulations we
apply to the World Wide Web by their very nature have to be
national and international.
The Reform Party wants to work with its provincial counterparts
and provincial governments in Quebec and other parts of the
country to make a seamless integrated collection of rules and
regulations to ensure the protection of people's privacy. Therein
lies one of the great challenges.
With the explosion of information occurring today there is
another side of the coin: How do we protect people's individual
privacy? A lot of information is put out there. A lot of
information is of a very personal nature. People across the
country are justifiably concerned as to how that information will
be protected.
One of the most important areas to protect is that of medical
records. The personal medical records of people are very
sensitive. They fall within the category of sensitive
information that can only and should only be shared among
individuals and groups with an interest in treating, dealing
with, and benefiting the individuals concerned.
The medical community has some grave concerns about the bill. It
wants to make certain the bill will not trammel its ability to
share medical information about patients. If we put roadblocks
between medical professionals taking care of a particular patient
we impede the ability of that patient to be treated in a
responsible and effective fashion. It is a very difficult area
to deal with, to be sure, but many of the motions put forth will
benefit patients across the country.
On the other hand, we want to make sure the personal medical
information of individuals will not be spread willy-nilly among
people who have absolutely nothing to do with the care of
patients. The overarching requirement in the sharing of medical
information has to be that the information is shared only with
people and personnel intimately involved in the care of patients.
That is what we do today. Physicians and other medical
personnel share information on the basis that it is a group which
is trying to take care of a particular patient or patients. It
would be a very serious offence for that information to be sent
out to individuals who are not involved. Penalties would be
placed upon the individuals who have violated the privacy of the
patients concerned.
1535
On the larger issue in the Group No. 1 amendments, I hope the
Government of Quebec, the province of Quebec and the other
provinces will come together with the federal government to
ensure a seamless group of rules and regulations that protects
the privacy Canadians, not only between provinces but nationally
and internationally.
Blockages have to take place and barriers have to exist to make
sure that individuals cannot access personal information that can
be used against people.
This group of amendments contains information concerning the
police. We want to make sure the police have the ability to
extract and acquire information about individuals engaged in
criminal behaviour. The line in the sand is that the information
can only be used in a legitimate investigation of individuals
about whom the police are legitimately concerned who are engaging
in criminal activity.
My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has done an incredible
job. He has taken a leadership role in this issue. He has made
it very clear that it cannot be used as a fishing expedition on
the part of the police or any other organization. They cannot
extract or find information about people who have absolutely
nothing to do with the criminal activity.
It is a very fine line. We want to make sure that the police,
as I said before with respect to the medical community, are able
to obtain the information on individuals they require to do the
job they are tasked to do. On the other hand, we want to make
very certain that personal information on the individual is not
abused. The laws of the country are there to protect the
personal information of individuals. Penalties will be paid by
those who abuse personal information.
With the explosion of the Internet and with the explosion of
electronic commerce a great deal of potential exists, not only
for our country but for individuals and companies, to be able to
utilize this information in a very productive fashion. We are in
favour of that.
The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has done a great job in
shepherding the bill through and helping the government craft a
finer bill than it was originally. We are in support of the bill
to make sure rules and regulations are in place to protect the
personal security of individuals and to make sure that there will
be no barriers or impediments to fair and equal utilization of
information technology for the benefit of the country and
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take part in
this debate at report stage with some emotion. I say so without
hesitation, because for Quebec this bill is an attack on the
fundamental right of Quebecers under civil law to have privacy
legislation.
In 1994, under a Liberal government in Quebec, and with the
unanimous support of the Parti Quebecois, Quebec passed
legislation to protect personal information in the private
sector. It was the first state in North America to have the
courage to pass such legislation.
After much consultation, the bill became law. It aroused some
concerns, and in some instances anger, among representatives of
employer organizations who feared its effects. However, five years
later, after a review, again unanimously supported, what we
discovered during the consultation phase of Bill C-54 was that
in 1993-94 it was organizations and companies that were
concerned about the effects of the act respecting the privacy of
information in the private sector.
1540
They told us “We were concerned. We held discussions with the
representatives of the Commission d'accès à l'information, and
now we are here to ask you why the federal government has not
made use of the experience acquired in Quebec, the experience of
Quebec businesses and the experience of the Commission”.
The Quebec legislation has been in place for five years. It is
a piece of legislation many describe as a model, because it is
simple and readily understood. People are aware of their
rights. Businesses know their obligations. The legislation
provides effective and free recourse which really helps people in
Quebec in their dealings with organizations in the private sector.
Under such circumstances, how can we let the federal government,
when it decides finally to legislate in this area, use an
entirely different model, that of a voluntary code of behaviour
for businesses, rather than draw on the experience of Quebec,
businesses, individuals, consumer organizations, the government
and the access to information commission?
This voluntary code, a positive initiative in which Quebecers
have been considerably involved, is full of conditions and
language which permits recognition of neither rights nor
obligations. It is vague.
When the essence of a bill is appended and is not written in
legal terminology, it is very likely that it will be extremely
difficult to apply, not to mention that legal recourse is time
consuming, may be very costly and is ineffective, according to
the witnesses we heard.
Quebec cannot prevent Canada and the other provinces from
establishing legislation, but it, its government and many, many
witnesses asked “Why not create legislation that is effective
because it is harmonized?”
The principle underlying such legislation, if personal
information is to be effectively protected, presupposes
harmonization. In addition to the constitutional problem raised
by Bill C-54, we are faced with a bill that will weaken the
meaning of the Quebec legislation and will make businesses
subject to two levels of law and regulation. They will
not know which way to turn. For the public, it will be a
terrible mess. They will not know whether to complain under one
law or the other.
The issue of personal information is abstract until people have
experienced a specific case themselves. In the present situation
one law applies.
If a person has problems, he goes to the access to information
commission, which investigates. If the problem is resolved at
the first level, it is all well and good. If not, the commission
reviews the matter and gives a decision. This is at no cost to
the individual. If it is a matter of record, the remedy will
follow quickly.
However, this is not the case under the federal legislation.
Information gathered in Quebec, with all the consent guarantees,
does not require the same guarantee across the border.
1545
What will the ordinary citizen do? Does he know if the
information collected will cross the border or not? No, he does
not.
When a business collects information, does it know whether this
particular information will cross the border or not? Does it
know whether it will be used both within and outside the
province? In such a case it would have to apply to both systems at
the same time.
This is absurd from a harmonization point of view. The
testimonies heard on this issue were unanimous. Business people
asked repeatedly that the government stop this process and
harmonize the bill with Quebec and the other provinces.
From a constitutional point of view, as constitutional expert
Jacques Frémont pointed out, there is also a show of force. If
the Minister of Industry had read the whole testimony he would
have read this, and I am quoting Mr. Frémont:
In my opinion, Bill C-54 is based on a false hypothesis, the
hypothesis that electronic trade is a federal area of
jurisdiction. Nothing could be further from the truth; in my
opinion, this is a shared area of jurisdiction, where both the
provinces and Ottawa should have a say. Since I am from Quebec,
I think that we would be quite right to be very concerned if
ever the common law applicable to electronic commerce were to
become a federal area of jurisdiction. If that were to happen,
we would be out and out supplanting the Code civil as the basis
of Quebec's legal system, a characteristic that is recognized by
this parliament.
If we were to keep the approach of this bill, we could out and
out strip the provinces of authority to regulate in the areas of
trade and commerce as soon as they include some aspects of
electronic commerce. This would be a power grab, a full-fledged
attack on provincial jurisdiction over economic matters.
Those are the words of Jacques Frémont, a well known
constitutional expert and, I insist, a free man.
From a constitutional point of view, the government says that it
has complete jurisdiction in the area of personal information
and electronic commerce. It claims to have jurisdiction over all
personal information collected in the private sector.
Then it decides that, if satisfied that a province has
legislation that is substantially similar, the governor in
council may exempt from the application of its own legislation
organizations or classes of activities—provinces are never
specifically mentioned—that come under the purview of the
province.
It is indeed a power grab. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has
asked that this bill be withdrawn at all stages. It is not that
we do not want legislation in that area, but we want legislation
that truly and equally protects all Canadians and Quebecers.
We did not simply ask that provisions of the bill be deleted. To
save whatever could be saved, we also prepared amendments in
consultation with many witnesses from Quebec. What we want above
all is to ensure that Quebecers are protected. That is what we
are here for.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
speak to the motions in Group No. 1. We strongly oppose the
motions in Group No. 1. These motions, which were tabled by the
Bloc, strike at the heart of Bill C-54 and undermine the
government's ability to introduce a national law that will
protect the privacy rights of all Canadians.
Moreover, these motions attack the government's competence to
deal with federal laws that impede electronic government and
electronic service delivery to Canadians.
In our consultations as well as in the industry committee
consumer groups and industry have expressed the view that the
government has achieved the right balance in Bill C-54. We have
balanced the right of individuals to have some control over their
personal information and to have access to avenues for effective
redress with the need of industry to collect and use personal
information as a vital component of success in the information
economy.
1550
For these reasons consumer groups like the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
and the Canadian Association of Consumers, as well as industry
groups like the Information Technology Association of Canada, the
Canadian Marketing Association, cable companies and telephone
companies have all called for the rapid passage of Bill C-54.
Swift passage of Bill C-54 will help build the consumer trust and
market certainty needed to ensure that Canada is a world leader
in electronic commerce and the global information economy.
The motions tabled by the Bloc are unacceptable and must be
rejected. With the passage of Bill C-54, Quebec citizens will
benefit from the best data protection in the country. Bill C-54
will provide all Canadians, including those in the province of
Quebec, with complete and comprehensive privacy coverage across
Canada.
I will quote some of the witnesses. The Chief Regulatory
Officer for Bell Canada, Bernard Courtois, told the member for
Mercier that Bell welcomes this legislation. In responding to a
question from the member the witness said:
This bill clearly applies to companies operating under federal
jurisdiction. It leaves a place for the Quebec legislation
within its particular area of responsibility. That seems to us
to be quite a clever way of not getting involved in needless
jurisdictional disputes.
Members of Quebec's historical community, the Quebec Association
of Archivists and the Historical Institute of French-Speaking
America, expressed support for Bill C-54. In fact, I asked them
specifically to comment on the Quebec privacy law. They said
that the Quebec legislation has problems because it does not make
any provision for the preservation of personal information for
the future. In other words, for historical or archival purposes.
I would point out that Action réseau consommateur and Option
consommateurs, which were involved in the adoption of the Quebec
legislation, told the committee:
We fully support the bill's underlying principles. We would also
like to highlight the importance and the relevance of federal
government intervention at the Canada-wide and international
level to ensure the privacy of Canadians.
We are here today because we strongly believe in the importance
of truly protecting the personal information that companies have
concerning Canadians. We congratulate the federal government for
its initiative and for the ongoing efforts by the Minister of
Industry, as well as the many people who have given concrete
expression to this requirement which has become, over the past
few years, more and more obvious.
The committee heard constitutional experts who spoke of the need
for a law that applies between provinces and across the country.
Roger Tassé of Gowling and Henderson said that the federal
legislation could stand with the provincial legislation because
they deal with different areas.
Finally, Jacques Frémont of the University of Montreal, who does
not support this bill, acknowledged on March 16 the following,
which the member for Mercier left out:
If there is a federal law, it's perfectly proper for parliament
to regulate the transfer of information between provinces.
What I'm saying is there's a perfectly, and I want to repeat it
to stress it, there's a perfectly legitimate federal presence for
inter-provincial international commerce and for inter-provincial
international circulation of private information.
(There is) perfectly legitimate room for Canada and the federal
parliament to have a Canada-wide law which applies to federal
fields of jurisdiction.
Finally, I would have expected better of the Bloc than to table
amendments which would deprive the rest of Canadians, who have no
privacy protection in the private sector, from getting the
benefits of this new national law. I have full confidence in the
privacy commissioners of this land, in each of the provinces, and
the federal privacy commissioner. I urge all members to support
consumers and reject the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to rise today to speak at
report stage of Bill C-54, an act to support and promote
electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act.
1555
We are truly today speaking about an economic revolution that is
sweeping our country, our continent and indeed the world. The
whole issue of electronic commerce will have profound
implications on the way that business is conducted, where people
work, how people work and how business will be transacted. It is
part of the globalization forces at work in our country. It has
already had a major impact on business transactions in our
country.
If there is one thing that has become very clear in the last
number of months in which electronic commerce has begun to move
into the stratosphere in terms of importance, it is the concern
that people have about information about themselves that is being
shared between companies, organizations and individuals
themselves. Therefore, the public of Canada has been calling
upon us to do something about the privacy of information.
If hon. members were to do a little shopping on the Internet and
they found themselves a nice book that they wanted to read and
they were asked for their credit card number, they would probably
wonder where that credit card number was going to end up.
When people apply for a credit card, on the application there
are a number of pieces of information about their financial world
and their lifestyle itself and at the moment that information can
be shared with virtually anyone. As a matter of fact, it is
probably sold to different groups in terms of being used for
their marketing plans and so on.
As we move into the World Wide Web of commerce, and as we become
participants as individuals, something has to be done to protect
privacy and personal information. I am pleased to say that Bill
C-54 is a major step in the right direction.
When I spoke at second reading I indicated a number of concerns
that we in the New Democratic Party had about this bill. Most of
those concerns have been addressed. I am pleased to say that
when it comes to third reading we will be supporting this piece
of legislation. I will say on behalf of my New Democratic
colleagues that it is a good first step in providing protection
for personal information held by private sector organizations.
More importantly, it will give consumers the tools and the
confidence they will need to fully participate in the thriving
but highly complex 21st century economy, that knowledge based
economy of the 21st century that will see the use of the World
Wide Web, the use of computers particularly for inter-business
transactions, but also transactions between individuals and
business firms.
I think it is fair to say that a number of firms and
organizations met with the industry committee. Perhaps at this
stage I should say that I want to compliment members of the
industry committee on the work which they have done in dealing
with the provisions of this legislation. I am a new member of
this committee and I must say that when I looked over the
transcripts of the committee proceedings, when I looked over the
minutes of the proceedings and when I looked at the various
experts who were called upon to report, I thought that the
examination was very thorough.
One of the issues raised, and I think many of us received
personal correspondence to this effect, was about people who do
research using personal information about individuals. I am
thinking of historians, genealogists, geographers, authors, urban
planners, social policy analysts, medical researchers,
climatologists, media of all types, anthropologists and
occasionally even politicians who research information about
individuals and, as a result, require personal information.
This legislation, as I understand it, protects the information,
in that people can access that information for their research
purposes as long as it is not being researched to be used for
commercial means. If a researcher wants to look into the
personal life of Louis Riel, he or she can seek an exemption
through the legislation from the privacy commissioner. That
exemption will be given and the researcher will simply have to
indicate that the information will not be used for commercial
purposes.
1600
Although we want to see the regulations, I believe that the
concerns researchers have brought to the attention of the
committee have been addressed adequately in this legislation. If
this becomes a problem for ongoing research, it is something we
will need to re-address in the future in terms of making some
modifications to the legislation. At this point let us assume
those problems have been dealt with.
Another issue is that when we have privacy protection, when it
comes to personal information, we do not want to have a number of
different systems across the country. We do not want to have ten
provincial and three territorial systems. We want to have one
Canadian system.
We are under a lot of pressure from the European Union to get
this legislation into place, to meld in with the work it has
done. It expects us to act by this summer. This legislation
presumably will be passed by the Parliament of Canada before the
summer.
We will oppose the amendments in Group No. 1. They are
thoughtful amendments from the Bloc Quebecois, but it is
important that we acknowledge that if we represent one province
or different provincial jurisdictions regarding this issue across
the country it would not be appropriate. We have to oppose these
amendments in order to maintain the consistency of these rules
and regulations from coast to coast to coast and not have them on
an interprovincial basis.
It is important to note at this early stage in the debate that
this bill has an international context. We are aware that
certain European Union deadlines have been imposed. We are not
interested in being an obstacle to the passage of this bill.
Indeed it is incumbent upon Canada to take the necessary measures
to address these EU directives on the protection of personal
data.
As a political party we support this legislation. Sufficient
safeguards have been built in to address the concerns that have
been raised at the second reading stage. We look forward to the
debate on the second group of amendments.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the PC Party of Canada, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 1
amendments to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and
electronic documents act.
I would like to thank the 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 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 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Industry for his credible defence of the government's
position. I would also like to commend the member for Durham for
bringing forward an amendment at committee to clause 18 of the
bill which was identical to an amendment I sponsored.
We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy
legislation but we do not feel the government has adequately
taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and
Quebec governments. We do not feel it has adequately considered
the cost impact of Bill C-54's new regulatory regime on the
private sector.
We do not see the need in rushing to pass a law to meet a
European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and
overall trading partner has adopted a diametrically different
approach.
I will now speak to the specific amendments in Group No. 1, all
of which were sponsored by the member for Mercier. I especially
salute the work of the member. While I certainly find myself at
the opposite end of her separatist convictions, I do admire her
dedication in opposing the bill.
To be fair to the member for Mercier, I would like to note for
the record that at the industry committee, the member presented
the following motion:
Whereas witnesses were recently heard by the Standing Committee
on Industry, on Bill C-54, concerning the major problems in
implementing this legislation; and took into account the big
application difficulties of this bill,
Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill
C-54 be withdrawn,
That the committee suspend clause-by-clause consideration of
Bill C-54 and ask the industry minister to undertake negotiations
with all the provinces, to forestall any constitutional challenge
that might impair the attainment of its objectives.
1605
This motion was defeated seven to four by the Liberal majority.
Support for the Bloc amendment crossed party lines with all the
opposition members voting in support, namely my Reform colleague
from North Vancouver, my Bloc colleague from Lévis, the member
for Mercier and me as the Conservative member.
Having heard so many concerns from witnesses, the Liberals had a
choice to take their time and consider meaningful changes to Bill
C-54. The Bloc, Reform and the Conservatives were ready to work
together to draft a better bill.
To their credit the Liberals allowed for some minor tinkering to
Bill C-54. For example they supported two of the 16 amendments I
brought forward. But on the major question of over-regulation in
the form of excessive powers granted to the privacy commissioner
and provoking battles with the Ontario and Quebec governments,
they refused to budge. They refused to co-operate; they refused
to compromise.
On behalf of the PC Party, I refuse to blindly support Bill C-54
for the sake of getting a law, any law, on personal privacy and
e-commerce.
One glaring example of the defects in this legislation is clause
18(1) which would give the privacy commissioner the right to
audit a company based on disputes 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 where 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-54 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 or not a company complies with recommended business
practices, such as what types of passwords or encryptions are
being used by a company.
Furthermore, clause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary
since Bill C-54 already provides the privacy commissioner with
the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For
example, clause 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,
clause 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate
all complaints, including complaints that an organization is not
following a recommended business practice.
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 power to the privacy commissioner
under Bill C-54, it is in the best interests of all concerned
that that 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 search and
seizure powers is deeply troubling. Clauses 12 and 18 of Bill
C-54 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy
commissioner to determine whether or not to exercise search and
seizure powers and to execute those same powers. The
authorization should be granted by a neutral third party, as is
the case for criminal investigations.
Bill C-54 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad
investigation 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 and to the same extent as a
superior court.
It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in
Bill C-54 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or his
delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization
and seizing records.
These are not just the concerns of allegedly self-interested
companies. Indeed, Blair MacKenzie from the Canadian Newspapers
Association told the industry committee that these provisions
within Bill C-54 are “frightening”. Other witnesses have
alluded to these provisions of the bill prompting challenges
under the charter of rights and freedoms if the privacy
commissioner acted upon clauses 12 or 18.
I am also troubled that the government did not bring forward any
study or reports on the cost impact of Bill C-54.
From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint, these
unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the
legislation.
1610
Sadly, the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free
speech advocates, ignore the pleas of the private sector and
chose to defeat my amendments to oblige the privacy commissioner
to obtain a court order before exercising search and seizure.
If there is any reluctance I have in supporting the Group No. 1
amendments, it is due to Motion No. 56 and up which deal with
part 2 through part 5. Most of these objections pertain to part
1 of Bill C-54.
Unfortunately the familiar double dose of Liberal arrogance and
heavy handedness has left me, on behalf of the Conservative
caucus, with no choice but to support the Group No. 1 amendments.
The Liberals had their chance to co-operate at committee to make
a substantially better bill and they chose not to.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to discuss Bill C-54 at
report stage.
I worked quite closely with members of the industry committee on
this bill. My colleague from Mercier and other Bloc members have
put forward a number of amendments, some of which we have tried
to take seriously. I have had much discussion with the member
for Mercier. I know we differ on this bill in its scope when it
comes to the issue of provincial legislation on privacy and the
role of the federal government in implementing some sort of
privacy protection when it comes to the use of sensitive
documents on the Internet and various other forms of transactions
in the whole area of electronic commerce.
It will not come as a surprise to my Bloc colleagues that even
though there are many issues I share with them when it comes to
provincial responsibilities and defending the right of provinces
to develop their own legislation in domains that are strictly
provincial, there are certain things I believe need to be in the
national interest, especially when they go beyond provincial
boundaries or national boundaries as in the case of Bill C-54.
This bill is almost global in its scope. That is something we
have to take into consideration when dealing with Bill C-54.
The bill itself has provisions to deal with provinces that want
to develop their own regulations when it comes to privacy
legislation. I differ with my colleague from Mercier and the Bloc
when it comes to this legislation. Normally I would work toward
protecting the interests of provincial legislation and provincial
responsibilities.
Specifically with Bill C-54 we are dealing with a bill which
creates a legal and regulatory framework that will be applied to
the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all
areas of business. Reform supports this initiative to protect
privacy.
When we look at the evolution of this particular industry, and I
brought this up during our discussions in committee, we can see
that in Internet commerce or specifically electronic commerce a
lot of the growth has taken place with very little interference
from the government. Why do we need to create legislation if many
companies engaging in electronic commerce are taking the issue of
security very seriously? Obviously that is happening because many
people who are using these services feel confident in providing
personal information on the Internet for various services.
With that comes the issue of sensitive documents aside from
commercial activity on the Internet or electronic commerce
transactions. The sensitive issue of private information is
something the Reform Party takes very seriously. We believe in
free markets. We believe in businesses taking the time to
develop interests and direction that is positive to their own
services and products but which also respects the privacy of
consumers. The one area we identify as a potential concern is
that of sensitive documents.
1615
In particular, aside from the first set of amendments in Group
No. 1 that we are currently discussing, I have introduced
amendments on behalf of a number of organizations which we will
be discussing in Group No. 2 that specifically pertain to health
issues and the issues of privacy in health. That is an area in
Bill C-54 that needs to be addressed and needs to be
strengthened.
We do not often hear the Reform Party talking about private
lives, but many interest groups, especially from medical and
dental associations, are very concerned about the impact Bill
C-54 will have on the issue of health privacy, health records,
and so on.
I will touch on some of the amendments briefly even though I
know Group No. 1 is specifically Bloc amendments. If we want to
ensure that the legislation covers all the areas of concern of
Canadians, there must be clear protection against the use of
personal health information collected for a purpose different
from the original purpose for which consent was given. In a
nutshell that is what the bill comes down.
When we look at what electronic commerce is trying to achieve in
this day and age, we see that it is often dealing with sensitive
information or commercial information. I will take a moment to
distinguish between those two points.
In terms of commercial information on the Internet, when one
orders catalogues from department stores or certain services or
products from various companies, quite often information is
traded, such as a Visa number or financial information.
Often these companies take this information very seriously and
it is confidential to their own records. Aside from that
obviously issues arise where privacy needs to be protected,
specifically the issue of health. The purpose of consent is
something the bill addresses. We addressed it in committee and
we are addressing it currently, especially when it pertains to
the health amendments I have introduced.
The issue of consent needs to be looked at. For instance, in
the industry committee I addressed the issue of how consent can
sometimes go too far and almost restrict the ability of companies
to be able to develop products and services in electronic
commerce.
On the flip side, when it comes to sensitive information, the
issue of consent can sometimes not go far enough in terms of
private records of health and various other forms of information
that pertain to a person's privacy. This is something we need to
discuss and I will be discussing it even further in the Group No.
2 amendments.
The Reform Party will be supporting this legislation and
opposing the Bloc amendments. When it comes to the Bloc's
concerns, the difficulty with provincial privacy protection
legislation, and the fact that this is obviously more global and
national in scope, there is something within the legislation
which allows provinces to develop their own privacy protection
legislation if they wish. That should be complementary to the
national view or the global scope of the bill.
A two year phase-in in the timetable is given to provinces that
do not have comparable legislation and would fall under federal
legislation. Currently only Quebec has comprehensive privacy
protection. Other provinces have determined that they neither
have the resources nor the inclination to create their own
provincial privacy protection legislation and preferred to be
included under the broad federal legislation.
The Bloc would prefer that we have a total exemption for every
province that creates its only privacy legislation. What we want
to address in the Group No. 1 amendments is that within the
legislation for once we see the government realizing the need to
take a complementary view when it comes to privacy protection.
It is almost encouraging the provinces to develop their own
legislation if they see fit in order to complement what is being
done on the federal level. In many cases, such as in the
province of Alberta and other provinces, privacy is taken very
seriously.
In the case of Bill C-54 many people realize that it would cause
unnecessary duplication to have separate privacy legislation
applying strictly to provinces because transfer of information in
this day and age goes well beyond the boundaries of provinces and
territories and is almost on a global basis, as I mentioned
earlier.
1620
This is where we differ. Specifically we would like to make
sure the government does not get too heavy handed when it comes
to the commercial side of the bill. As I touched on earlier,
currently much of the commerce on Internet has grown without
regulation, with very little government intervention, and has
been very positive. I do not have the figures off the top of my
head, but I know we are talking about a billion dollars worth of
business being done on the Internet.
On the other hand there is definitely room to strengthen the
bill when it comes to the protection of health information. My
hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca touched on the
medical issues. In the Group No. 2 amendments I will address
those issues in more detail.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois representative, along with the
member for Mercier, on the Standing Committee on Industry, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-54 at report stage.
It will come as no surprise to anyone if I say that I agree
fully with the member for Mercier, whose strenuous and very
articulate defence of our position was noticed by all members of
the committee from both sides of the House. However, we have
not succeeded in persuading everyone that we are right.
The main problem with this bill is that it was announced rather
extemporaneously by the Minister of Industry at last fall's OECD
meeting. The Minister of Industry was bent on showing
leadership. He wanted to take the lead with a modern bill on
e-commerce.
It is possible to want to promote e-commerce and still protect
personal information. Personal information insofar as
industry is concerned is a provincial responsibility. It is
also a fact that the majority of provinces have not assumed
their responsibilities in this regard, unlike Quebec, which for
five years has had very effective personal information
legislation.
It therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the province of
Quebec—I use the word “province” because that is what we still
are—which we call the state of Quebec.
At the OECD meeting in question, during a reception at the
Museum of Civilization in Hull that I attended, certain federal
government officials had praise for Quebec's personal
information protection legislation but still the Minister of
Industry wanted to wow them with his bill.
There are some astonishing things in this bill. For instance,
the CSA standards in the schedule to the bill were something
industry members came up with voluntarily at the time, a code of
ethics, as it were. Many of the verbs in this code are in the
conditional.
Because the minister was in such a hurry to introduce this bill,
he threw the voluntary standards used by people in the various
sectors into the schedule as guidelines.
There is a difference between a voluntary code of ethics written
by people from the industrial sector and legislation that is not
only supposed to provide a framework, but also to prohibit and
to regulate. This bill is too vague, a fact that a lot of people
have condemned.
This bill is nothing but wishful thinking in many respects, but
there are certain provisions that Quebec cannot not support.
1625
For example, the minister may change any provision of the bill
without consulting the House. The bill gives him this power. We
will come back to this later on. It is unusual for a bill to
give a minister the power to change the famous CSA code
contained in the schedule to the bill.
The Reform Party usually adheres to the principle of respect
for provincial jurisdiction and often defends this principle,
as does the Bloc Quebecois. I am somewhat surprised that my
colleague from the Reform Party, who took part in the work of
the committee on Bill C-54, would not follow his party's usual
policy. I am somewhat surprised and, I should say, disappointed.
Usually the Reform Party recognizes that the provinces have
jurisdiction over certain areas under the Constitution and that
the federal government must respect that. Reformers are not
sovereignists, but they often talk about that in their speeches.
However, in this case they decided to support the Liberal
government. They decided that we needed this bill, as flawed and
as vague as it may be, because many provinces have not passed
legislation regarding the protection of personal information.
Constitutional experts told us that this bill could be
challenged under the Constitution and that the government could
lose its case. In spite of that, we are being told that this
bill is good and that it must be passed.
The title talks about protecting personal information in the
area of e-commerce. Of course, we are on the eve of the year
2000.
Everyone is talking about e-commerce. We know abuse occurs, but
laws do exist. The government could have dealt with the
provincial ministers in other ways and more properly. All the
provincial ministers have contested the fact that this occurred
without their being consulted.
In Quebec, if only the Bloc Quebecois and the ministers of the
Parti Quebecois were opposed, people could say “We know the
traditional positions of these two parties”. However, there are
also the Conseil interprofessionnel, the Barreau du Québec, the
Chambre des notaires and the Conseil du patronat, all saying
essentially the same thing we are. We cannot say that the
Conseil du patronat du Québec is a part of the sovereignist
movement or a branch of the Parti Quebecois.
There is a consensus in Quebec on this issue among the unions, management,
notaries, lawyers, the Conseil interprofessionnel and consumer
associations. This represents quite a lot of people. People in
other parts of Canada too have said much the same thing.
A representative of the Ontario ministry of health said that
this was excessive meddling and that they had something in the
works that would better protect personal health care
information. All this was said by many witnesses and many
groups.
It is probably very difficult for such a proud minister, who
announced to the people of the other countries of the OECD that
he had a super bill and suggested they follow his example, to
drop his idea now.
1630
It is difficult for us too. We are looking at a real
constitutional coup. It would take too long to relate all the
examples, but this is often what happens. Once again the
federal government is interfering in an area of provincial
jurisdiction.
On the subject of personal information, Quebec has an excellent
law, and everyone recognizes that. Even federal officials have
said so to representatives of foreign countries. But no, the
federal government continues to use its bulldozer style,
ignoring the objections of the people in Quebec.
Our role is to represent the interests of Quebec and to remind
this House that this bill fails to respect Quebec's jurisdiction.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West, health.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to debate the item that refers to the intent of
the amendment to ensure that privacy laws do not inadvertently
restrict criminal investigations. I will talk about several
issues I have been working on recently to illustrate my point.
The first issue concerns an individual by the name of Eduardo
Montenegro. Eduardo is from Mexico. He came into our area of
British Columbia and immediately began selling drugs to our
children; cocaine in fact. This is the story about this fellow.
Despite two convictions for trafficking in Canada, this 26 year
old Mexican is being considered for refugee status. This is a
fellow who has come into our country, who has not worked, who
sells cocaine to our kids and who is now being considered for
refugee status.
People in my area, and I suspect people right across the
country, do not understand that. He applied for refugee status
last June, just days after his second conviction for selling
cocaine. That means that he stays in Canada until the refugee
hearing takes place, which could take up to a year. I know
because I have been through a lot of them myself, fighting
them as well.
Two months after this fellow applied for refugee status the
police arrested him again for selling drugs. He was waiting for
the refugee hearing and he was selling drugs. Not only that,
they found this fellow with two separate identities. Why?
Because he was picking up two separate welfare cheques as well as
selling drugs.
When that kind of thing happens one might think there is
something wrong with our system. Having been there I can say
that is an understatement.
I decided to find out what was going on and I started on the
usual process. I applied to the refugee hearing. As soon as I
applied they said “Let's have the hearing really fast so White
does not get involved and we have the spotlight put on us. Let's
do this really quick”.
After that happened I said that I wanted to know whether
the individual had been booted out of the country, in other words
whether his refugee application had failed, or whether he
would be staying.
I applied in writing to the refugee board to say that I wanted
to become involved. I received a letter from the good old
refugee board, which I usually end up dealing with, which
essentially said this: “Further to your access to information
request for the board's decision in Vancouver, British Columbia,
on October 27, 1998 regarding Eduardo Montenegro, we want to tell
you this: In a telecommunication today between your office and
another person, an access to information and privacy officer of
the board, the former confirmed that you are neither his
representative nor do you have his consent to know what
happened”.
1635
In other words, the privacy laws are telling me as a Canadian
citizen and as a member of parliament that it is none of my damn
business whether or not this cocaine dealer from another country,
this guy who is ripping off our system twice on welfare, is
staying in Canada or leaving Canada. Why? All because somebody
says it is a matter of his privacy.
I would like to know from the government whose brilliant idea it
was to say that the privacy of people who should be deported,
non-citizens selling drugs and ripping off our social system, is
paramount to the safety and security of the citizens of this
country.
If this were an isolated case I would not be standing here.
However, I can cite case after case on the issue of privacy in
this country that is not correct. It is not working properly.
I come into the House every opportunity I can to talk about
privacy and other laws to demonstrate to this government, all two
members who are sitting across from me, that what is in existence
in those departments and in the laws does not work, and yet it is
bringing in new laws that do not address the old laws. It is
just compounding the issues in delivering legislation.
For the life of me, for all of the people watching this, I do
not understand why people continuously, for two successive
parliaments, vote this group in when it is not only introducing
laws like Bill C-54 that are mediocre at best, but when it is not
fixing the broken laws that are breaking our society today.
I ask government members to listen, all two of them. There are
160-some representatives of the government who belong to the
House and we have two sitting here listening to the debate today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt to
remind the hon. member that we do not comment on the presence or
absence of members in the House.
Mr. Randy White: Thank you for that reminder, Madam
Speaker.
What is more important is not how many opposition members are
speaking in the House, but how many Liberals are listening.
I can remind the House of a lady from the United States who
broke the laws in California. She came into my area and claimed
refugee status. How can American criminals claim refugee status
in Canada?
I asked for the information on her. I asked whether she was
kicked out or whether she was kept here. Is she worth keeping?
If she is, then tell us. If she is not and we want her out, then
tell us. Guess what? That happens to be a matter of privacy
too.
We do not know today whether that person lives in this country.
Members over there shake their heads because they do not
understand what I am talking about. It is far easier in this
country, under the current government, to keep people like that
fin our country, in particular drug selling, rip-off artists like
Montenegro, than to stand to be accounted for, to stand to say
“That is wrong. It should be moved out”.
1640
I might remind government members that we just finished one of
many anti-drug rallies in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Well
over 900 people attended. George Chuvalo spoke at the rally. He
has lost three sons to heroin. All of the people who attended
agreed that non-citizens who sell drugs to our kids should be
booted out of this country, without any right of appeal. Not
only does the board not do that, it does not even tell us. It
hides under privacy laws. It does not even tell us whether they
stay in Canada.
When I come into the House and look at Bill C-54, which talks
about privacy, I say privacy be damned. The system has many
flaws in it and the board does not understand.
In my final comment I will say that it would be a whole lot more
worthwhile to be down here talking if there were as many people
sitting across there as there are listening up there and on
television.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I trust that
the next speeches by my Reform Party colleagues will address the
bill itself and not how many criminals they have in their
ridings.
The Bloc Quebecois has always set itself the fundamental mission
of defending and promoting the rights of the Quebec people here
in Ottawa. In reading Bill C-54, I realized once again how vital
the Bloc Quebecois presence here in the House is for Quebec.
Bill C-54 is once again clear evidence of the incompetence of
this centralist government, and of its lack of understanding and
total arrogance toward Quebec and its people.
First of all, I add my voice to those of my colleagues in the
Bloc Quebecois in condemning and strenuously opposing Bill C-54.
Bill C-54 is entitled 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.
Instead of that title, the government ought to have called it
Bill C-54, an act to promote electronic commerce at the expense
of privacy. It could have called it Bill C-54, an act
using electronic commerce as a pretext to invade the
jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
This is one of the many fundamental realities of the bill.
Bill C-54 would introduce measures to protect personal
information in the private sector, to create an electronic
alternative for doing business with the federal government and
to clarify how the courts assess the reliability of
electronic records used as evidence.
Bill C-54 is a component of the Canadian electronic commerce
strategy announced by the Prime Minister on September 22, 1998,
which seeks to recreate in cyberspace the best conditions that
currently exist in ordinary commerce to promote confidence and
reliability.
The government's stated objective is to establish Canada as a
world leader in electronic commerce by the year 2000. This bill
is one of the measures that would allow us to achieve that
objective.
On this issue, the federal Minister of Industry purposely
decided unilaterally to introduce the legislation on personal
information without waiting for the outcome of the consultations
with the provinces that he himself had undertaken. Let us look
at the chronology of events.
On June 12, 1998, the ministers responsible for the information
highway met in Fredericton and agreed to consult each other at
the appropriate time when reviewing the opportunity to
legislate the protection of personal information in the private
sector.
On September 21, 1998, the federal Minister of Industry sent a
draft bill to his provincial counterparts, asking them for their
comments on a bill that the federal government wanted to
introduce.
1645
On October 1, 1998, the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-54
in the House of Commons, without waiting to hear from his
provincial counterparts.
On October 30, 1998, the 12 provincial and territorial justice
ministers unanimously called on the federal Minister of Industry
to withdraw his bill, which is a major intrusion into provincial
and territorial areas of jurisdiction.
On November 11, 1998, Quebec's minister responsible for
relations with the public and immigration and Quebec's minister
of culture and communications respectively criticized this
unacceptable interference by the federal government in Quebec's
jurisdiction.
What justification can the minister give today for introducing
this bill? Quebec is the only government in North America to
have passed legislation protecting personal information in the
private sector and it did so in 1994. The legislation in
question, Bill 68, an act to protect personal information in the
private sector, has to do with personal information
that anyone collects, holds, uses or communicates to a third
party in the carrying on of an enterprise within the meaning of
article 1525 of the Civil Code of Quebec.
In other words, Quebec's legislation applies to all activities
in the private sector, for profit or not. And I would point out
that it is regularly mentioned by the experts as being cutting edge.
How do we explain Bill C-54? How do we explain such an
infringement upon these areas of provincial jurisdiction? The
Constitution clearly stipulates that privacy is a matter of
provincial jurisdiction.
Also, for the people of Quebec, Bill C-54 represents an
incredible step backward in the protection of personal
information. For instance, where consent is required for the
release or use of personal information, this bill does not
protect consumers because its ambiguous statements of
principle lend themselves to a broad interpretation.
Let me quote what Claude Masse, the former president of the
Quebec bar association and a consumer law professor at UQAM, had
to say:
Having carefully read Bill C-54—and in my view, it is clearly a
huge step backward for Quebec—this regulation, or this type of
voluntary standard which will be given a legal connotation
through a schedule, I can tell you it is not strong enough to
protect consumers. It is chock-full of loopholes for businesses.
It is largely based on a completely outdated approach to
consumer protection, and any recourse is practically non
existent.
Having read Bill C-54, I realize that it will apply to Quebec,
which means that the people and the businesses of Quebec will be
subject to two systems for the protection of personal
information. What sense will the people make of all this
confusion?
Thus, a Quebec company that would like to transfer information
outside Quebec will have no choice but to abide by two
different systems for the protection of information, the Quebec
system and the federal one.
When the Bloc Quebecois says that the federal government is
doing everything it can to hinder Quebec's economic development,
this example is proof positive. Here is what the representative
of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada said:
If we are trying to promote e-commerce...the last thing we need
is a patchwork or layers of regulations, private standards and
legislative frameworks that would only make things more
difficult for business people. I do not think our members are
convinced that we should have a national framework that would be
incompatible with the systems already in existence in Quebec or
other provinces.
Those words show clearly that the federal government should go
back to the negotiating table with the provinces in order to
come up with more adequate legislative proposals to bring about
harmonization in the whole area of the protection of
people's rights.
In short, Bill C-54 as it stands now has too many flaws from the
constitutional, democratic, and legal points of view, and it
does not adequately protect personal information.
It is almost unenforceable, it lacks clarity, it will created
unneeded complications for Quebec companies, and it
substantially reduces the rights of Quebecers to protect
their personal information.
1650
For all those reasons, the Bloc Quebecois disapproves of this
bill, and it is absolutely out of the question for us to support
it.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois in explaining to members opposite and to Canadians
and Quebecers who are listening to us through electronic means
why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-54.
I remind those who just joined us—and I am thinking of children
just back from school, particularly in the Gaspé Peninsula—that
Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, but it does so at
the expense of our right to privacy.
What is the right to privacy? It means that strangers have no
right to obtain information concerning my private life without
my consent as an individual or a member of my family.
For Canadians, and particularly for Quebecers, the right to
privacy is already provided for in the Quebec charter. I am not
ashamed to say that this was done under the Liberal government
that legislated in that area in 1994. Quebec was the only state
in North America to have legislation aimed at protecting
personal information in the private sector.
Why is it important to have this type of legislation? In
e-commerce, where everything goes so fast in this computer age,
information is easily available. In the past, it took time to
gather information from huge registers. Now, with a diskette,
one just has to press a few keys on a keyboard to transfer
information regarding the lives of thousands of people
instantly. That is why it is very important to legislate in that
area.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to the federal bill? I will
give a brief historic overview.
As I mentioned earlier, in 1994 Quebec passed an act to protect
itself in this regard, and it also has a privacy commissioner.
The act has been tested. Numerous cases have been brought forward
and we can be proud of the way the act operates.
Nevertheless, the federal government took an initiative in June
1998. It brought together in Fredericton all of the provincial
ministers responsible for the electronic highway to examine the
advisability of passing legislation to protect private
information in the private sector.
Last fall, on September 21, 1998, the federal Minister of
Industry sent a bill to his provincial counterparts and asked
for their comments. However, without waiting for an answer, on
October 1, 1998 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-54 in
the House of Commons.
What is it that happened during the week of September 21 to
October 1 to lead the federal minister to decide to speed up the
enactment of the legislation? I do not know. Why are we coming
back to this bill at this stage, during the last few weeks of
sittings? Why the rush? I do not know.
However, I would like, if I may, to suggest how the House could
have made better use of its time.
1655
The fishing industry, the auditor general and all parties in
this House have unanimously asked the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans to introduce framework legislation so we will know
how the fisheries will be managed in the future.
The Bloc Quebecois made a similar suggestion at the outset,
in 1993, when I began in politics. The issue was also raised in
section 19 of a report of the standing committee on fisheries,
which asked the department to review its management methods. The
auditor general himself, who is completely independent and
neutral, and who most of all is not a member of the
Bloc—and no one can say whether he is a Conservative or a
Liberal—also asked in 1997 for the introduction of framework
legislation for the future management of the fisheries. Nothing
has been done.
Again this spring the auditor general, while examining another
area of fisheries—the first time, in 1997, it was groundfish
and this time it was shellfish—repeated the same thing “I find
the same management principles that might have caused the
groundfish collapse in the shellfish industry”. He called on the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to act to define this
framework legislation.
Just this afternoon, in the House, the chair of the standing
committee tabled a unanimous report—the five parties in the
House are in agreement—asking the department to introduce
framework legislation.
When I note that all parties are unanimously asking that
legislation be introduced, contrary to what I see concerning
Bill C-54, on which there was no consultation with the
provinces, which did not receive the approval of all parties in
the House and which the federal government is trying to have
passed at the last minute, in the last days of sittings, I
wonder who is making us run around in circles.
I am here, full of goodwill. I gave my assistance and my
support, along with my colleagues from other parties, to the
bringing forward of a bill. This was done unanimously. The
government is not listening. I see the stubbornness of the
Minister of Industry, who wants to have his bill on personal
information protection passed. It is poorly drafted, from a legal
point of view, and I will come back to this later . I wonder what
he is really trying to protect.
I have already explained why the Bloc Quebecois is giving this
bill so much attention. We already have our own law in Quebec.
We are in the House of Commons, where matters of federal
jurisdiction are discussed. The Bloc Quebecois is pointing out
that this legislation interferes with provincial jurisdiction
as it is written in the Constitution of 1867. The
provinces have jurisdiction over personal information by virtue
of the powers the 1867 Constitution confers upon them in the
area of property and civil law.
All experts consulted by the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged that
privacy of information is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Why is the federal government so obstinately intent on meddling
in this?
I am not very familiar with the legislative framework of the
other provinces. However, if the purpose of Bill C-54 was
to stir up some of the provinces to get them to bring their
legislation up to date with what the Quebec provincial
legislation is already doing, a good meeting and a reminder
would have sufficed. Trampling heavily into provincial
areas of jurisdiction at this point, when the House's time could
have been better used to pass fisheries legislation which everyone in
this House wanted to see passed, is just making parliament go
around in circles and is a waste of MPs' valuable time. The
ministers in the other provinces are not prepared to be pushed
around either.
1700
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this debate along with my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues.
To start with, I would like to thank my colleague from Mercier,
who vehemently condemned this bill, which is a direct
encroachment on Quebec's privacy act, an act unanimously hailed
as a model.
Bill C-54 is aimed at promoting e-commerce, but sadly it also
infringes on the right to privacy, as explained by my colleague.
The Bloc Quebecois is against this bill and asks that it be
withdrawn for five reasons. First, because the Minister of
Industry introduced it without previously consulting the
provinces.
He went through the motions, telling everybody “Have a look at
it and we will get together”. One week later he hastily
introduced his bill, saying it had to go through.
We know why every bill must be passed quickly. It is because
every bill is highly centralizing. The government wants to grab
all of the provinces' powers, be that on privacy or, as we saw
this week, the environment. The federal government wants all of the
powers because it needs to position itself within the World
Trade Organization, in view of what is coming down the pike
with supergovernments. It wants to play the role of a country
with all of the powers, one in which the provinces will be mere
regions.
Nobody was consulted on this bill, and yet it was introduced.
The Minister of Industry introduced this bill without consulting
the provinces. There was no consultation whatsoever.
We are asking that this legislation be withdrawn because it
infringes upon provincial jurisdiction, because it is a step
backward for Quebecers in the protection of personal
information, because its implementation in Quebec will create
confusion, and because it is flawed from a legal point of view.
The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to say that. The Chambre
des notaires du Québec came to tell the committee. The Québec
Interprofessional Council also came to tell the committee, as
did the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec government and the Conseil
du patronat du Québec. Incidentally, that organization is not
pro-sovereignist, as far as we know. They told the committee that
the bill had too many flaws from a constitutional, democratic
and legal point of view, and also with regard to the protection
of personal information.
The bill is almost unworkable, it lacks clarity, creates
unnecessary problems for Quebec businesses and significantly
impedes the right of Quebecers to the protection of their
personal information.
Given what I just said, it would be unacceptable for government
members to support such legislation.
Quebec has its own charter of human rights and freedoms, which
was enacted in 1975. The Quebec government also passed, in 1994,
an act respecting the protection of personal information in the
private sector, which is unique in America. That legislation is
recognized as a model all over the world. The federal government
should use it as a source of inspiration to draft its own
legislation.
But no. Because it wants to have all of the powers and take credit
for it, the government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as
possible, so that no one will notice. Quebecers and
Canadians are not stupid. They can clearly see the government's
intention. They know what it wants to do with this bill.
1705
I am going to try to show that this minister did not consult the
provinces, that he acted unilaterally in tabling this bill.
On June 12, 1998 the ministers responsible for the information
highway met in Fredericton and agreed to consult each other,
when appropriate, when contemplating legislation with respect to
the protection of personal information in the private sector.
On September 21, 1998 the federal Minister of Industry sent a
copy of proposed legislation to his provincial counterparts,
asking for their comments.
Oddly, though, on October 1, 1998, without even waiting to hear
from them, the Minister of Industry tabled his bill in the House
of Commons.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, this bill interferes in
provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Industry is now
creating a constitutional dispute that could have been averted
if he had agreed to work together with his counterparts.
Under the powers vested in them by the Constitution of 1867 with
respect to property and civil rights, the provinces have
jurisdiction with respect to personal information. All of the
experts consulted by the Bloc Quebecois see this as provincial
jurisdiction.
However, Bill C-54 provides that the legislation will apply to the
commercial operations of organizations under federal
jurisdiction; to organizations that transfer personal
information from one province to another or one country to
another, and to employees about whom personal information is
collected by an enterprise under federal jurisdiction.
In addition, under clause 30(1) the federal legislation will
apply to private organizations even if they come under
provincial jurisdiction if, in the view of the federal
government, the province does not have similar legislation. This
is ridiculous. The result will be complete havoc.
The proposed legislation is unenforceable, interferes directly
in provincial areas of jurisdiction, and is unconstitutional.
The provinces' consent was not sought. It is interference in
their jurisdiction, and Quebec is being forced to take a step
backward with respect to the protection of personal information.
Under the Quebec law an individual with a grievance may apply
free of charge to the access to information commission, which
will first try to mediate between the two parties involved. If
this fails, it will investigate and make a decision or an order
which would be binding. In this case, recourse is simple and
effective.
Conversely, the provisions on recourse in Bill C-54 are more
complex. An individual with a grievance must first try to reach
agreement with the organization. If this person is dissatisfied,
he may ask the federal privacy commissioner to intervene, and
the commissioner can make recommendations only. After this, a
dissatisfied individual may seek reparation from the federal
court.
How many people can afford to seek reparation in the
federal court? This is totally crazy.
The Quebec law provides that an organization must inform an
individual of the use to be made of the personal information
gathered. Bill C-54 simply provides that people gathering
personal information should be able to explain the use intended
for this information.
This bill, in Quebec, will create confusion because it is weak
from a legal standpoint, because the heart of the bill is
appended, because Bill C-54 gives cabinet discretionary power to
decide the value of provincial law and its application and,
finally, because it will invade provincial jurisdiction within
three years of its proclamation unless the province adopts
similar legislation.
1710
I repeat, the government tabled this bill without consulting the
provinces. It is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and
forcing Quebec to take a step backward in the area of the
protection of personal information.
Its application in Quebec will create confusion, and the bill is
lacking in legal terms. It is unworkable, unclear, creates
unnecessary problems for Quebec businesses and significantly
reduces Quebecers' right to the protection of their personal
information.
I urge my colleagues in this House to vote against the bill.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to enter the debate today with respect to this very
important bill.
Electronic commerce is a whole new and uncharted area. We had
not dealt with this in our country until the last year or two. It
is six, seven or eight years old. In the grand history of things
it is in its infancy.
I have engaged in electronic commerce. I was intrigued with an
ad I saw in a magazine on an airplane. It offered a clock. The
clock never has to be set and it always has the precise time to
the nearest one one-thousandth of a second.
Having a little fetish for time and the measurement of time,
which has been an interest of mine all my life since I am a
mathematician with a physics major, I was intrigued with this. I
wrote down the website location and I ordered this clock radio.
It is quite intriguing because literally I do not have to set it.
I plug it in and in a few minutes it pulls the time from the
air, sets itself and keeps perfect time after that. It is an
intriguing device.
Something really interesting happened. The website of course is
American. How would I know when I gave my credit card number on
the Internet that it was properly scrambled and secure so that
nobody else could pick up the information and use it for
inappropriate purposes? I was quite worried about that. A
message even came up on my screen saying that when ordering I
should be aware of the fact that it may not be totally secure.
That worried me. It really worried me a lot, but I did it anyway
because I can resist anything except temptation and I was so
tempted to have this little clock radio.
There is something else too. It was advertised at $69 on sale
for $59. I thought that was a really great deal. Well, was I in
for a surprise. By the time my bill appeared on my credit card,
the American money had been converted, and GST and shipping and
handling had been added. On top of all that, when I went to pick
it up, there was a bill from Canada Customs. There is no customs
duty on this, but I was charged a $5 fee to say that there was no
customs duty. In the end the whole bill came to about $130 for my
$60 clock, so thanks a lot, Canadian government.
I really love that rate of taxation. It is nice to hear the
Minister of Finance say that he is cutting taxes at every turn,
because I sure got nailed on this one. I still enjoy my clock
radio and every time I look at it I am reminded that we must work
hard to replace the Liberals.
I mention that because it is so easy and is a wonderful way of
doing commerce. It basically opens up every store in the world
to Canadian citizens or to any citizens for that matter. It also
opens up the world as customers for Canadian companies, provided
that our country has a tax regime that would encourage business
people to stay here and operate in this country.
We have heard throughout the debate today especially from
members of the Bloc about this whole jurisdictional question. It
is very important for us to remember that governments, whether
they be the federal government, provincial governments or even
municipal governments, are there to serve the people.
1715
I have no problem with the people here who represent many of the
43 or 44 ridings in Quebec, the separatist Bloc. I have no
problem with them saying that it is provincial jurisdiction and
that they already have a law in Quebec that covers it. That is
what they have been saying and I presume it is correct. I have
not had any dealings on the electronic Internet with Quebec
firms. However, they have this in place and that is great. If
another province has rules and regulations that deal with the
protection of their consumers and citizens, that is fine. It is
within their mandate.
However, what do we do when we have interprovincial and
international transport of goods? It happened in my case when I
ordered this from one of the American states, which is where it
originated.
When we get on the computer and click a website it is almost
transparent as to where that is. I got an e-mail not long ago
from a guy who said his name was Epp. He wanted to know about
me. He asked where I was from and wanted to know my family
history. I answered him back and asked him to tell me, when he
responded back, where he was because there was no indication on
his e-mail address. I asked if he was also an Albertan or from
one of the other Canadian provinces. It turned out that he is
from California. Here I was corresponding with a person in
California and I did not even know it.
I think it is high time that we have proper legislation in place
to ensure that the scumbags in our society, who would take
advantage of this kind of a system, are regulated and controlled
and will face penalties in the event that they try to rip us off
as citizens.
There is absolutely no problem in my mind with the federal
government doing what it can with respect to the regulation of
electronic trade based on what is happening into and out of
Canadian homes and businesses.
We need to be careful. We need to make sure that we set this up
in such a way that it is economical and efficient, but we must
ensure that there are penalties in place for those who would
abuse the system.
I look forward to the day when we have a federal government and
a provincial government, whether it is Quebec or any other
province, coming up with rules and regulations and working
together. This is what we should be doing. We should be
co-operating among and between the provinces and the federal
government.
I am sure my Bloc colleagues would agree that the federal
government would probably have a proper role to play in
regulating electronic commerce internationally that has to do
with work between nations.
Let us not hamstring our government officials in terms of what
they can or should not do when it comes to things which make
common sense and which are cost effective. On the other hand, I
cannot sit down without mentioning the fact that we do want
government to be efficient, to make wise and careful use of the
taxpayers' money and to not enter into areas where it should not
be.
The amendments put forward by the Bloc members have some
validity from their point of view. I have tried hard to
understand where other people are coming from, but I think in
this particular instance I can only advise that on this group of
amendments we should, as a body of parliamentarians, reject the
amendments, let Quebec do what it wants in terms of the
provincial sphere and let the other provinces do what they want
to in their provincial spheres. The federal government should
work not only from its part internationally but also in terms of
trying to bring co-operation among the provinces.
I think that would be a great and unifying goal and would
hopefully help to keep the country together.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am really
pleased to speak to this issue because it so happens that I
spent most of my career working in the field of computer science
and I know these things.
1720
When Quebec was preparing its legislation on the protection of
personal information in the private sector, I even had the
opportunity to appear before the commission that held hearings
on that subject in Quebec. Therefore, I am very comfortable
talking about this issue.
First of all, let us see what this bill does and what it does
not do.
Here, today, I heard comments that led me to believe that some
members do not clearly see the limits of this bill. It is aimed
at promoting electronic commerce, as stated in the title.
However, in promoting electronic commerce, it also deals with
the protection of personal information in commercial
transactions. It must be understood that all personal
information that is not related to a commercial transaction is
not protected under the bill before us.
It must also be understood that this bill simply does not apply
to any foreign transaction, commercial or other. A few moments
ago, our colleague from the Reform Party told us about his clock
that does not have to be set.
Since the transaction was made with an American company, the
bill simply does not apply. This bill does not apply to
transactions made outside the country, only to the ones made
within Canada's borders.
This being said, the bill does not apply either to the
protection of information on health or on any other activity
that we may enter into, unless it involves a business
transaction. This bill will not apply to government information
either. However, we will see later that the government will have
all powers to access our personal information, even of a
commercial nature.
In fact, this bill has three major flaws. The first one is that,
since its purpose is to promote e-commerce, it does not offer
real protection for personal information.
It is clear from the bill that there is no obligation on the
part of businesses to let clients know how they will use
the information they collect.
There is no easy recourse for the consumer or the owner of that
personal information, you, me, or anybody for that matter. It
will not be easy for anybody to find out who has what
information, to check if the information is exact and to have
the records amended if it is not.
When they talk about a law that will put us on an equal footing
with the European Union, I consider, frankly, that the bill
introduced by the Minister of Industry leaves a lot to be
desired. It is quite weak compared to the legislation passed in
Quebec five years ago.
That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are so concerned. This
federal legislation will conflict with Quebec legislation,
which is sound and well put together, and will destroy the benefits
people in Quebec have been enjoying for five years.
The first problem with this legislation is that it is
incomplete. It does not really protect personal information.
It certainly does not protect the individual who
could be wronged by the use of that information, however
accurate or wrong the information be.
The second problem with this legislation is that it conflicts
directly with Quebec legislation. Commerce, among other
things, comes under the Civil Code. The Civil Code of Quebec is
different from the legal system in the rest of Canada. Thus,
commerce is a prerogative covered by Quebec legislation and the
bill before us is in conflict with it.
1725
So much so that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, it must
be expected that constitutional challenges will be launched by
corporations and individuals who will feel wronged by the
situation.
If I had advice to give to law students, I would tell them to
undertake some research, a thesis or a master's degree on
Bill C-54. Then they could rest assured of collecting good fees for
many years. This will be a real gold mine, quite literally a
Klondike for lawyers, unless of course the House and the
minister change their minds and the bill is never passed.
This is my fondest wish.
This would save a lot of people a lot of money. It would provide
much better protection for Quebecers' interests and the Quebec
legislation might even apply throughout Canada, which would be
good protection for Canadians who deserve to be treated as well
as Quebecers.
This bill will create an unbearable situation for Quebec
businesses. Let us suppose I run a business. My transactions
will now be subject to two acts, the Quebec act, according to which
I have to do this or that, and the federal act, which says
something else. If the two acts do not conflict with each other,
I will still have to multiply my efforts, which will cost me
money and time, but I will be able to abide by both pieces of legislation.
However, when the two acts conflict with each other, and there
will be such instances, I will have to choose between breaking
the Quebec law or breaking the federal law.
The House and the Minister of Industry have no right to create
such a dilemma for businesses; namely, to decide which law to
obey. This is unacceptable.
By acting without consulting the provinces, and Quebec in
particular, the Minister of Industry failed to carry out his
duty to ensure that taxpayers, businesses and individuals are
not placed in a situation where they have to choose between one
act and another without knowing which one must prevail.
This is why I can assure members that there are people who, in
such circumstances, will go all the way to the supreme court to
get a clear answer.
What will be the outcome? Since the Constitution states clearly
that those issues are under provincial jurisdiction, the Supreme
Court of Canada will disallow the industry minister's bill,
which will have been nothing but a loss of valuable time.
I said that there are three problems here. The third one came to
my attention this afternoon when I was going through my notes
and a few documents, some of which are from the Library of
Parliament. I had not realized up to now how extensive the
government's power to collect personal information from
businesses will be.
Big brother is looming. Listen to this.
The first amendment moved by the minister will allow an
organization to disclose personal information to a government
institution or part of a government institution that has made a
request for the information, indicated its lawful authority to
obtain the information and its suspicions.
Members will remember that, not too long ago, Canada Customs
gave the Department of Human Resources Development a copy of its
tapes so that the department could go on a fishing expedition to
identify people who went abroad while receiving EI benefits, and
have them pay back those benefits. That is what we are facing
with this bill.
The impact could be enormous.
If the government now has the right to ask businesses for
information, to sort and collate data, then no one can hide from
the watchful eye of the government any longer.
For all these reasons the Bloc Quebecois will vote
against this bill, while hoping that it will die on the order paper.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize: (a) multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia as illnesses that have the capacity to
cause disability; and (b) those suffering the disabling aspects
of these diseases require protection and a strong moral
commitment to their well-being.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know I have 15 minutes but should any
time be left after I deliver my speech I would like to share my
time with the Minister of National Defence, if that is agreeable
with you.
The Deputy Speaker: If we are going to have a splitting
of time, I should advise the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that
it will require the unanimous consent of the House.
Is it agreed the hon. member may split his time into 10 minutes
and 5 minutes for this purpose?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a
motion of critical concern to all Canadians. Multiple chemical
sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia affect
between 6% to 15% of the Canadian population. Of those affected
approximately 1% to 2% are so severely debilitated that they
require hospitalization. This is a large number of Canadians
that need our attention. I will elaborate on these illnesses and
their effects on Canadians.
Multiple chemical sensitivity or environmental illness is a
chronic condition where symptoms occur in response to low levels
of exposure to multiple unrelated chemicals and the condition
improves or resolves itself when these chemicals are removed. It
is a multiple organ disorder that is closely related to chronic
fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Symptoms overlap in these
three conditions.
In 1994 the U.S. Centre for Disease Control concluded that
chronic fatigue syndrome is a clinically defined condition
characterized by persistent fatigue and a variety of multisystem
symptoms. The core symptoms include excessive fatigue, general
muscular and joint pain, mental fogginess and often
gastrointestinal problems. Other symptoms include fatigue
following stressful activities, headaches, sore throat, sleep
disturbance, low grade fever and depressed mood. The symptoms
fluctuate in severity and persist for a prolonged period of time.
The exact cause of chronic fatigue syndrome is not yet known.
Current etiological theories proposed are neuroendocrine
dysfunction, viruses, environmental toxins, genetic
predispositions, head injuries and stress. The disease is more
prevalent in women than in men.
Fibromyalgia on the other hand is a painful muscle disorder in
which the thin film or tissue, myofacsia, that holds the muscles
together becomes tightened or thickened causing pain. It is also
known as fibrositis. This disorder shares many of the same
symptoms as chronic fatigue syndrome and is also more common in
women than in men.
The sad truth about these illnesses is that they destroy not
only the health of those they afflict but also affect the lives
of their families. Imagine your child being rendered bedridden
by allergic reactions to the new carpeting in his or her school
or your spouse or companion becoming disabled after his or her
office has been renovated.
These are the realities of people affected with multiple chemical
sensitivities.
1735
We may or may not be aware of the struggle of these people and
the fact that they are unable to look after themselves and their
families once afflicted. The problem is that there is no standard
when it comes to applicability when we are dealing with these
diseases.
Imagine an individual who is affected by this disease and
applies for assistance, say for example through the Canada
pension plan disability benefit. Those benefits may or may not
be given to that particular person depending on the province or
territory they may be living in. The problem is that there is no
standard. The result is that disabled people are treated
inequitably.
These people are sick and in many cases they are being denied
benefits. At a time when they need support, they are being told
no. The result for many afflicted with these illnesses is
poverty, a lack of hope and in a few tragic cases, suicide. It is
my view that we no longer can ignore these illnesses or more
important, the people afflicted by these illnesses.
The suffering of these people is real. This fact is
acknowledged by Revenue Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Quebec, the Women's College Hospital in Toronto,
the University of Toronto, Dalhousie University medical school in
Halifax, the Alberta supreme court, the Peel and Waterloo school
boards in Ontario, as well as the World Health Organization and
the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. All of these organizations
recognize these illnesses as ones that deserve our most
attention.
There are other groups and organizations that recognize these
diseases but in the spirit of saving time I am going to move on
to talk about environmental medicine and the lack of it in many
cases in certain parts of Canada.
For example, Canada has 25 doctors in environmental medicine.
They are medical doctors who are familiar with these illnesses
and know how to treat them. That compares with 1,400 licensed
practitioners in the United States. Clearly we have an acute
shortage of physicians who are trained to treat these devastating
illnesses. Furthermore with only two medical schools, the
University of Toronto and Dalhousie University, offering an
elective course in this area, Canadian doctors are forced to
train in the United States to practise in these areas.
Add to the situation the cost of the treatment. In many cases
these treatments are not covered by the health care system.
I would like to share the remainder of my time with
the Minister of National Defence who has a few comments on this
issue.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in my capacity as a private member on this
occasion. I do so to very strongly support my hon. colleague who
has so eloquently spoken about the difficulties and challenges
faced by so many people in our society as a result of various
environmental illnesses. These include multiple chemical
sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
The hon. member speaks with great knowledge. From a personal
standpoint he has had his own challenges in this regard but he
has also studied this subject matter well.
I would hope that some way could be found for the House to
support this motion. I know there is a procedure involved. I
understand only the Reform Party members have indicated some
opposition to it. I do not know why they would.
This motion should get the support of all members of the House.
It is not a matter that is going to involve, as some might
suggest, an additional expenditure of money outside of moneys
already allocated for such purposes. I should think that all
members would want to support this motion.
An increasing number of Canadians are being afflicted. I also
have personal knowledge of that. Two people are here from the
Environmental Illness Society of Canada, Judith Spence and Maggie
Maier. I know there are other people as well who deal with these
matters on a day to day basis. They deal with the many challenges
that are involved in chemical sensitivities, allergies respecting
food and inhalants such as mould. Many people suffer from mould
difficulties in different buildings in this city and other cities
right across the country.
1740
An increasing number of people are affected by the results of
what we as a society are doing to our environment. This matter
requires some serious attention.
I have talked with my colleague the Minister of Health on this
matter. He is quite sensitive to this need to move forward to
establish some ways that this government together with our
colleagues in the provinces will be able to treat people who are
in these circumstances.
Much conventional medicine, much of what is allowed now under
medical plans does not recognize many of the problems and
symptoms that people with environmental illness are encountering.
It is time we got that kind of recognition for environmental
illness and these various components of it that are noted in the
motion by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
I would hope that all members of the House, including those in
the Reform Party, would have another look at this matter. I hope
that we can come to the conclusion of this with a votable motion
on something which I think is very important for all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to compliment the member for Ottawa
Centre for bringing this motion forward. It is a very timely and
important issue. I would also like to compliment our critic for
health, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, who is a
strong advocate for health care for those who need it and an
activist in the whole industry.
This motion asks that chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and
multiple chemical sensitivities be recognized as illnesses by the
federal government. It is not complicated. There should be no
doubt that these environmental illnesses have the capacity to
disable Canadians, to rob them of their livelihood and their
ability to lead a normal lifestyle.
This motion will ensure that many Canadians suffering from these
illnesses do receive equitable treatment when they apply for
various disability benefits under existing federal support
programs.
Motion No. 468 asks that there be a harmonization in the way
eligibility criteria are applied to federal disability support
programs. Currently federal programs apply different eligibility
measurements from one program office to the next within a
department. The result is a checkerboard of vastly different
decisions for applicants who have the same degree of disability
for the same illness. It also creates a tremendous amount of
frustration and antagonism, and whatever the situation is,
whoever the patient is, it just makes it a lot worse.
We continue to see that while some Canadians are rightfully
accessing the various programs by the federal government, others
with the same degree of illness are denied. To eliminate this
grave injustice it is necessary to have standardized eligibility
criteria to ensure that it is applied in an equitable fashion.
In my own experience as a member of parliament, the most
frustrating part of the job is Canada pension disability
applicants who cannot prove their disabilities. They have not got
an X-ray, they have not got a blood test, they have not got any
diagnostic system to absolutely without doubt say the person is
disabled. It is all subjective and it is very, very frustrating
because these people have very serious disabilities and are just
as disabled as somebody with a serious physical illness or
injury.
It is estimated that the three diseases we are talking about
afflict up to 15% of Canadians. Six per cent of all Canadians
are reported as experiencing allergic and sensitivity reactions
every single day. Of these, up to 2% are severely debilitated
and are unable to work or even leave their own homes. Through
timely access to specialized treatments, most sufferers can
expect to return to health, community involvement and employment.
It is hard to imagine the hardship and the stress created within
a family when one of its members is stricken with one of these
illnesses. Even though they are already ill with the physical
illness caused by this, the emotional stress and frustration can
make it far worse as they go through the Canada pension
disability system.
At present there is no biomarker, no blood test that has been
sufficiently tested and validated to assist doctors in the
diagnosis of these three illnesses. However, we are hopeful that
research which is being facilitated by the Environmental Illness
Society of Canada will be validated by a larger study conducted
by the Environmental Health Clinic of Women's College Hospital in
Toronto. If this research is successful, Canada will have
discovered a diagnostic and screening tool that will benefit
millions of people worldwide and will eliminate those
frustrations that I mentioned before.
1745
I would like to read part of a letter from Sandra Madray of
Winnipeg:
At present, Canadians afflicted with Environmental Illness...have
been placed in limbo because of the lack of support from
virtually all government agencies at nearly all levels, the
medical establishment, the workplace and insurance companies. The
current lack of a definitive test to validate or disprove the
existence of this illness and the fact that its etiology is not
fully understood, further complicates the politics surrounding
EI. However, this lack of understanding is no excuse for lack of
action...the inescapable and horrible fact is that real people
and their families are suffering while the medical community
dismisses them as “psychos” having an imaginary affliction.
That is exactly what I deal with whenever I have appointments in
my riding office. I deal with people who come in with Canada
pension disability applications and are unable to get them
through the system, through the series of appeals, the tribunals
and further appeals because there is no system of diagnosis.
I hope a positive outcome will come from the motion. Canadians
with these three diseases must be assured equal access to income
support, tax relief and other already existing federal
accommodation programs for the disabled. The Canadian government
must take a leadership role and demonstrate a strong commitment
to the socioeconomic well-being of those suffering from
environmental illnesses.
On behalf of the member for New Brunswick Southwest, our caucus
and myself, I urge the Minister of Health to refer the issue to
the Standing Committee on Health.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Motion
No. 468 brought forth by the Liberal member for Ottawa Centre.
The motion calls on the government to recognize multiple chemical
sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia as
illnesses that have the capacity to cause disability.
The Liberal member wants his government to recognize that
Canadians suffering the disability aspects of these diseases
require protection and a strong moral commitment to their
well-being. My constituents and I find this amazing: here is a
Liberal backbencher begging cabinet to learn to recognize
Canadians suffering from these diseases.
Let us look at the three things the motion asks the Liberals to
do: recognize these diseases as disabling diseases, give these
victims protection, and make a strong moral commitment to the
well-being of the victims.
Canadians know that the Liberals will do none of these things.
The Liberals have cut $23 billion from our health care system
since 1993. The government will not be providing any protection
for Canadians who are sick. They have already seriously reduced
such protections.
The government makes no moral commitments to Canadians who are
sick. The Liberal backbench MPs were weeping openly in the
House; they were crying and tears were coming out of their eyes
when they voted not to compensate victims of federal government
controlled tainted blood.
As I have said, the Liberals cut $23 billion from the health
care system. Now we have a Liberal asking the House to try to
force the government to do something about Canadians who are
sick. The member has chosen only a few diseases for his motion.
Some 20 other diseases could be added to the list by any
Canadian. Why is the member so selective?
What about the organ donor transplant system? The government
could have done very simple and basic things to immediately save
the lives of Canadians waiting for organ transplants.
I ask the House to imagine a very small bedridden children
crying. They need medical help. They could need a new kidney.
Members of the government lazily drag their feet while little
children, teenagers, young Canadians, mothers and fathers suffer
waiting for a transplant or death.
We have a three tier health care system in Canada, courtesy of
the Liberal government and courtesy of the defence minister.
First, we have a waiting list system.
Second, we have a system where those who are rich can go to the
United States and get immediate treatment for whatever ails them.
Third, we have a system which I call the sickness system.
1750
There is no money from the government to protect the health of
Canadians. The only time Canadians can try to contact our health
care system is when they are already sick.
The Liberals should be ashamed. They owe Canadians an apology
for creating this mess in our health care system in the first
place. It is because of them that 6,000 nurses and 1,400 doctors
left Canada last year alone. It is because of them that 200,000
Canadians are on waiting lists for various treatments. I could
go on and on and on.
The government has lost control over the levels of pesticides
found in our fruits and vegetables. About two dozen genetically
engineered food products are already on our shelves. The Health
Department has been stripped of the responsibility to monitor
food safety. That responsibility has been given to the
agriculture department, which is like a fox minding the chicken
coop.
There is no money for these things in our health care system
because the government has cut all the money it could. It has
cut $23 billion from health and other services. I could go on
and on. Yet we have the member for Ottawa Centre crying
crocodile tears on the floor of the House with the motion. I
hope the Environmental Illness Society is listening very
carefully to the debate.
The government member is not fooling anyone while he pretends to
do something for Canadians suffering from these diseases. Where
can he get money for the undefined protection he wants to offer
Canadians with these few specific diseases?
The Liberals already voted against compensating hepatitis C
victims. They voted to keep high taxes and supported a $23
billion cut to the health care system. They supported a $30
billion grab by the government from the pension plans of public
servants, RCMP and other public service employees.
Why can some of that $30 billion not be spent on the initiatives
the hon. member is talking about? The Liberal government does
not even recognize Canadians suffering from these diseases. His
cabinet colleagues will not provide Canadians living with the
challenges of disabling diseases protection and a strong moral
commitment to their well-being. That is what he has admitted by
submitting the motion. The motion is evidence that he has been
unable to convince his own colleagues to support it.
I can prove that in the official opposition benches on this side
of the House we have compassion and vision. We would not let the
health minister close the file and abandon hepatitis C victims.
We forced the Liberal health minister to reopen the file.
We on this side of the House also have vision. We would not
have chosen to close the hepatitis C file because we know that
Canadians who are compassionate people would want to help these
innocent victims. These Canadians were sick from tainted blood
given to them by the federal government that may even have
obtained the blood from prisoners in Bill Clinton town.
The majority of Canadians would not want these people who are
fighting for their lives to go through our court system. They
are not strong enough. The Liberal government should be held
accountable for not compensating them. We on this side of the
House are ashamed of the Liberal government's health record.
The government is denying Canadians freedom to choose natural
health products. Canadians sick with the diseases mentioned in
the motion and others have met with our chief health critic many
times over the years. Like all Canadians, they have been denied
access to simple alternative remedies which would alleviate some
of their pain and suffering.
Today the government will not be helping victims of multiple
chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
1755
I regret that my remarks could not be more positive. I support
any compassion, moral commitment or protection that any
government including this one would provide to Canadians. It
could do what the motion asks by returning at least $11.5 billion
that it still refuses to restore to our health care system. Why
has the government cut that money? The Liberals on the other
side of the House could had the opportunity to restore it.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
critical to support this motion. I will put it in the context of
the people in north, but I do not want necessarily to exclude
anyone else who suffers from fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue or
environmental sensitivities.
The Arctic Council recently did a report on the particular
vulnerability of people who live in the north. The rates of
pollution are unacceptably high and environmental sensitivities
are part of the problem. The levels of heavy metals such as
cadmium, lead and mercury congregate in the north and remain
there. They are in country foods; in indigenous foods; in
caribou; in surface, mountain and rain waters; and in mother's
breast milk.
I personally know dozens of women who have suffered from chronic
fatigue for five, six or seven years. It goes undiagnosed. I
know of women with fibromyalgia who can no longer work and have
been reduced to going to social assistance because they are not
eligible for disability pensions. Of course social assistance is
regionalized and these women cannot go from one part of the
country to another and expect to obtain social assistance at an
equivalent level. Being able to obtain a disability pension
which recognizes their medical suffering would allow them the
mobility to move a part of the country where their suffering
could be lessened.
One point about Private Members' Business that is uplifting is
that we can actually hear a minister talk to an issue rather than
being constrained by a party position. Debate very often is
oriented to an issue and we do not have to hear battles back and
forth about one party saying this and another saying that. As
individual members of parliament, elected from wherever in the
country, we can defend a position that we think is critical.
To include these three diseases and make the people eligible for
pensions validates the suffering of people. They are not
depressed for nothing. They can go to the doctor who can tell
them what is going on, who can help them out or recommend other
areas of medicine. This could encourage more research into an
area where there is not enough.
More and more the newer research indicates that low levels of
toxins affect individuals more than we thought. Low levels of
combinations of toxins have more effect than we expected them to
have. We do not have a lot of information on it, but we do know
that it affects people. It limits their lives and their ability
to work.
I rise as the member for Yukon in support of the motion. It is
important and I hope it leads to further research and more
support for the people who are suffering.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this important matter to
the attention of the House. As well, I thank the Minister of
National Defence for taking the very unusual step of speaking in
support of a private member's motion.
There are both scientific and humanitarian reasons for
recognizing multiple chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia and
chronic fatigue syndrome as conditions causing disability and for
supporting the sufferers of these conditions.
The extent of the suffering caused has been documented. People
suffering from these diseases may endure up to 20 painful
symptoms a day.
[Translation]
The symptoms include soreness in the bones and muscles,
gastrointestinal problems, headaches, dizziness, irritability
and sleep disorders for those who are affected. Their quality of
life is greatly affected.
1800
Every day, Health Canada receives several letters from patients
who are asking for help and who want assurances that serious
measures will be taken with regard to the disease that is
destroying their lives.
[English]
It is also important to recognize the largely voluntary efforts
of the scientific and social groups that have organized to
promote progress in this field.
One of the motivations for this motion is the United Nations
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons
with Disabilities, which say that states should ensure the
provision of effective medical care to persons with disabilities.
The Environmental Illness Society of Canada has interpreted this
as an obligation to protect the people through legislation in
order to achieve the goal of full participation and equality for
persons with disabilities. It feels that recognition by the
House of Commons will help sufferers gain access to disability
support programs.
Because MCS, CFS and FM are not considered disabling illnesses
at present, they are often misdiagnosed. Without recognition,
sufferers are unable to be considered for disability benefits and
treatment. It also means that we are lagging behind in research
for determining a cause for these diseases and a consequential
treatment.
For sufferers, these illnesses are often unidentified and they
suffer not only from their symptoms, but also from marriage
breakdown. They often lose their jobs due to an inability to
perform at their full capacity. They cannot afford treatment.
They use up their savings, often risking their homes. They go on
social assistance. They do not have access to community social
service support. They often get into legal battles with private
insurers and they have a higher rate of suicide.
It is hard for many of us to imagine being sensitive to almost
everything that surrounds us, but it is not hard to realize that
we live in an increasingly toxic world and that this has the
potential to cause risks to our health.
We have, as a government, taken some actions which demonstrate
the concern about the growing number of environmental hazards.
The Bureau of Chemical Hazards concentrates on the effects on
human health of chemical and biological agents in the
environment. The bureau has recognized the need to study not
only air quality but also personal exposure to airborne
contaminants.
We have an environmental health directorate at Health Canada and
an office of environmental health assessment which deal
specifically with environmental health risks. Last Thursday the
Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health announced
the first phase of research projects under the toxic substances
research initiative. This initiative responds to the need to
have sound scientific research in order to define and reduce the
health and environmental effects of toxic substances in Canada.
Health Canada, through its participation in an expert working
group on these conditions, participates in the identification of
research gaps in the field. Health Canada holds a number of
informal consultations with sufferers, concerned physicians and
other health professionals. It is anticipated that in the
upcoming months Health Canada will work toward a coalition of
patient groups in order to ensure their participation in program
planning and research agendas.
Research is extremely important and recognition by the House of
these illnesses would be an important step forward in ensuring
that researchers are able to carry out badly needed research in
these fields.
We have recognized that there is a link between environmental
factors and health. What Canadians who suffer from multiple
chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia
experience is a chronic and acute reaction to environmental
factors against which the majority of the population are able to
defend themselves.
1805
We have devoted resources and energy to dealing with chemical
environmental triggers at the level considered toxic. We have
mechanisms for dealing with the substances, but we cannot help
the people who suffer from even the slightest exposure to them.
Sufferers are often misdiagnosed as having psychological
disorders or are told that the source of their discomfort cannot
be identified.
Finally, I want to talk about the need for treatment. In this
country we have one centre for the treatment of
environmentally-induced illnesses. That centre has a waiting
list so long that the people who require care simply will not
ever be able to get it.
We have a Canadian expert in this area practising in the United
States, occasionally coming to Canada to provide treatment. Most
often, when the system can be persuaded that it is necessary, we
are sending Canadians to the United States to be treated by a
Canadian doctor who would love to be applying his expertise in
this country to help the many Canadians who are suffering from
what to much of the medical profession is a great mystery.
I wish this motion were votable. I know that the Minister of
Health recognizes the importance of this issue and is prepared to
act on it whether or not this is endorsed by the House.
We need to look at some specific things. We need to look at
some pilot projects to set up other treatment programs in Canada.
We have the expertise. We should be taking care of these issues
in our country.
Finally, I would like to quote a statement from a letter I
received this week:
CFS and FM have seriously affected each of our lives. Previously
employed as professionals, we are now incapable of employment and
some are only able to work with reduced hours. Every aspect of
our lives has had to be altered in order for us to feel some
sense of accomplishment. We struggle to do the basics such as
personal hygiene, home maintenance, raising families and
maintaining friendships. Every single task we attempt must be
pre-planned and often we fail in the end because our bodies do
not co-operate.
That statement, from a group of people who suffer from these
conditions, says more than I or any other member of the House can
say. I hope that this debate, even though it is not going to
lead to a vote, certainly leads the government and leads all of
us to make a commitment to follow through on this debate and to
ensure that appropriate action is taken.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Earlier I heard the hon. member for York Centre, the
Minister of National Defence, mention in his speech that all
parties in the House are supporting this motion except the Reform
Party. That is not true. I would like to put it on the record
that the statement was supposed to be the other way around.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion which I
think, with the unanimous consent of the House, might be
acceptable to all sides. The suggestion is that Motion No. 468
be withdrawn and that the subject matter be referred to the
Standing Committee on Health.
The Deputy Speaker: I think perhaps there may be
agreement to proceed in this way at the conclusion of the debate,
but I suggest that we wait until the conclusion of the debate.
Otherwise there will be no motion left before the House to
debate. That would be a disaster from the point of view of the
debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona wishes to speak and I
suspect that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre might want his
five minute reply.
If it is agreeable, perhaps we can simply hold the parliamentary
secretary's suggestion in abeyance for a few moments and hear the
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to have a chance to speak to this motion before it
disappears, procedurally speaking, but not before it disappears
in terms of the subject matter being a matter of ongoing concern
to the Canadian parliament.
1810
Rather than have this motion, which is not votable, simply be
debated and disappear, the idea of referring it to the health
committee is a good one, providing of course that it does
actually lead to some action down the way. However, we cannot
know that unless we give it the old college try and so having
this referred to the committee is certainly a good idea. I look
forward to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre seeking the consent
of the House to do that at the appropriate time.
This is a welcome motion because it gives us a chance to talk
about something that is a very serious problem for a growing
number of Canadians.
I have had the experience of visiting a person who suffers from
MCS, multiple chemical sensitivity. She is a person who lives
just outside my riding. Her name is Margaret Tatlock. She has
educated me, and I hope educated a great many other Manitoba
politicians, and not just politicians but others, in the terrible
circumstances which people who suffer from MCS live in, the way
in which their whole lives are virtually destroyed by this
condition.
I know the bill is not just about MCS. It is also about chronic
fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. However, I want to talk in a
little more detail about MCS because it seems to me that one of
the tragedies of this is not just the illness itself, but also
the great difficulty that these people experience in getting
anybody to take them seriously.
Most of the people who suffer from these things go through a
great period of time in which they have various doctors and
others tell them it is all in their head, that it is
psychological, that it is psychosomatic, et cetera. Even when
elements of the medical community become persuaded that there
really is something going on that is organic and not just
psychological, then they find that they cannot get treatment.
Even having crossed over the bridge of recognition, once they get
there, there is nothing there for them in terms of treatment.
The person I am talking about has had to make repeated trips to
a clinic in Texas, which is a very expensive thing to do,
especially if you are not employed, because you cannot hold down
a job when you have this kind of thing.
I have had to communicate with this person on occasion through a
neighbour because sometimes she cannot even use the phone. These
are all very difficult circumstances. I am sure there are
peculiarities to every case, but here we have a Canadian having
to go to Dallas on as regular a basis as she can to get treatment
which alleviates her symptoms for a time. There is a clinic in
Nova Scotia that deals with this, but it is only one. I think it
is the one that the member from Ottawa was referring to earlier.
The waiting list is enormous.
We have a growing number of Canadians who need to have this
officially recognized as an illness and have all of our
provincial health care systems deal with it.
I have written to ministers of health and to the federal
Minister of Health. There seems to be a kind of jurisdictional
twilight zone. How do we get a particular illness recognized as
something that should be treated under the terms of the Canada
Health Act, that falls under the rubric of a medical problem,
which is therefore something that Canadians can claim through
their medicare system? I have to say that I have not had any
success in doing that on this person's behalf, or on anybody
else's behalf for that matter.
That is an outstanding problem. Of course the recognition of it
would also address, as this motion does, the whole question of
disability, of having this recognized for disability purposes so
that people can qualify for a disability pension. Surely people
who fall into this category and suffer from this are people who
are genuinely disabled. A lot of them cannot leave their homes.
This is a genuine disability and we need to cross over. We need
to get out of the paradigm we are in. We need to get out of the
way of understanding things the way we do now and do a new thing.
If in some way the motion leads to that in the health committee,
the House will have served Canadians who suffer from these
conditions very well and we will have done our job. I hope that
will be the outcome of the debate this afternoon.
1815
One of the things that was disappointing this week, with respect
to another issue that touches on these things, is the whole
question of the environment. Here we are talking about multiple
chemical sensitivity. I know the government members have already
been on their feet to say what a wonderful job they are doing in
instituting this new program to do research on toxic substances,
et cetera. However, the fact of the matter is that this week we
did not cross over. We did not do a new thing. We did not build
a bridge to a new day when it comes to the environment when we
had the opportunity. We may be doing that now, I hope, with
respect to the recognition of MCS and these other two conditions,
but we did not do it yesterday or on Monday when we had all the
votes on the Canadian environmental protection act.
By the admission of everyone who knows anything about what
happened in the environment committee, the government, in
collaboration with the Reform Party, stomped out the more
progressive amendments that were brought forward by the committee
and by people on the government side who have a reputation with
respect to the environment that is second to none. I am thinking
of the hon. member for Davenport who has been a recognized expert
on the environment in this parliament ever since I arrived and
long before I arrived, since 1968, and the member for Lincoln and
the member for York North. Here we have three Liberals with a
reputation for being concerned about the environment, who were
forced to vote against their own government, not just in defence
of environmental principles but in defence of parliament.
Here we have another case of a committee that took a piece of
government legislation, examined it and improved it, but when it
got back to the House the improvements were literally stomped
out.
The Reform Party members sometime complain that the work of
committees is not respected. I will have to take that with a
grain of salt from here on in. I thought they were sincere but
not after this week. They not only participated in the ignoring
of a committee report, they were active collaborators in the
stomping out of the work of a committee.
I dare say there is a certain element of hypocrisy here, even on
the part of the hon. member who moved the motion. Had he been up
on his feet yesterday and the day before with the members for
Davenport, Lincoln and York North then I might be in a bit more
of a complimentary mood than I normally am, but he was not. I
would urge him to reflect on the fact that one of the ways of
dealing with multiple chemical sensitivity is to deal with the
fact that our environment is more and more permeated with
chemicals and it is going to continue to be more and more
permeated with chemicals until we adopt a policy of total
phase-out of persistent toxins.
As long as we have a policy that says we have to have balance no
matter how bad the stuff is, it is like saying there can be only
so much arsenic in our coffee. That is not balance. That is
death, destruction and poison. That is negative and destructive.
We need a policy of total phase-out of toxins in our environment.
Until we get that kind of policy from the government, we will
continue to have more and more Canadians suffering from these
environmental illnesses.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Listening to the members of the House talk, in particular the
minister of defence, the deputy whip of the government and the
mover of the motion, there was indication from them that they
might like to make this a votable motion.
I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to make
this motion votable.
1820
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
motion be made votable?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to all of my
colleagues here, there have been some discussions. If we really
want consent for the bill to go to committee, procedurally this
is perhaps the most effective way. I do know of at least one or
two members who are going to say no. As a result, this is the
best possible scenario in a situation where we can still continue
to debate the issue at the committee level and have the House
dispose of it.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if I could possibly
propose a motion at this time or would you rather that I wait
until later?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona for introducing my particular
solution to this problem that the member has raised.
I raised it when I did, not to interrupt the
member's speech but simply because you were dealing with a point
of order on this same matter.
This is a non-votable motion. The
member for Ottawa Centre has put a great deal of work into it, as
have other members of the House of Commons. Normally on a
non-votable motion there is a debate and nothing happens.
The intent of my motion, which I will repeat if needed, is
simply to see that it is referred to committee where it can be
studied and hopefully come back to the House in a form in which
it is not simply a motion but—
The Deputy Speaker: It sounds to me as though the
parliamentary secretary is making a speech rather than rising on
a point of order. While perhaps everyone appreciates the tenor
of his remarks, we are using up the time that is available for
debate.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has put a request to the House.
Does he wish me to put that request to the House?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
motion be made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the House that if the
hon. member for Ottawa Centre speaks now he will close the
debate.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not
put on the record my great appreciation for the tremendous amount
of leadership that has been provided by the people at the
Environmental Illness Society of Canada and, in particular,
Judith Spence and her volunteers not only across the country but
perhaps around the world. She has been a leading force in trying
to bring about awareness of this issue.
I would also like to put on the record a word of appreciation
for Kara Thompson who has also been a tremendous supporter of the
issues, the Minister of National Defence who has been great
inspiration for me on this issue, as well as members on all sides
of the House, from the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party,
the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Collectively, the
House has come to a level of awareness where something needs to
happen. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona has also, on a
number of occasions, given me a tremendous amount of support on
the motion.
In that spirit, I move:
That Motion No. 468 be withdrawn and the subject matter be
referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.25 p.m., is it agreed that
we call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1825
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
scientist at the Pacific Science Congress in Vancouver in 1974
had the following words to say. “A scientist has as much luck
in communicating with the federal bureaucracy as you would have
reciting Gaelic poetry to a deaf seagull”.
Recent events have served to prove these words. The government
seems to be favouring the narrow, short term, cash interests of a
few huge multinational corporations over the health of Canadians.
Canada's scientists have been gagged, muted, silenced and
ignored by this Liberal government. They have been pressured to
approve drugs and overridden by bureaucrats.
This is a very serious matter, and I believe the health of
Canadians to be threatened. The disease is misplaced government
priorities. The symptoms include muzzling scientists and
heavy-handed government intimidation tactics. The prognosis is a
festering, politically motivated plague on health prevention and
the prescription is for this Liberal government to clean up its
act where the health of Canadians is concerned.
In 1996 senior health protection regulator Dr. Michelle
Brill-Edwards resigned, charging that the interests of
pharmaceutical companies were being put ahead of those of the
public.
Health protection scientists have revealed outside pressure to
approve drugs aimed at increasing milk production in cows. The
biggest multinational pressuring the Liberal government to
approve their drugs for this use is Monsanto who, according to
Elections Canada, during the last federal election donated to one
candidate, the Liberal member for Mississauga Centre, and to one
federal party in 1997, the federal Liberal Party.
The file on rBST, a drug to increase milk production, was placed
off limits. A notice was sent out by the then director, Dr.
Lachance, stating:
Please be advised that starting immediately, January 11, 1999,
the following files cannot be obtained by anyone prior to my
approval: rBST,...
The memo went on to list other files. Then gag orders were
placed on the scientists not to discuss this issue publicly. One
scientist, who testified early in May before the Senate committee
on agriculture, said:
There was pressure to pass drugs, not only rBST, but also
antibiotics and other hormones. There were serious problems with
hormones that could cause cancer.
Another scientist, who testified before the Senate committee
about the situation facing health department scientists, said:
Yet another scientists, Dr. Margaret Haydon of Health Canada,
testified that after her research she could not recommend support
for a drug that affected the thymus gland of young calves which
could in turn affect the immune system. Another evaluator agreed
and the two acting chiefs of the section concurred.
All of this was overridden by higher powers closer to this
Liberal government and hence closer to the corporate interests of
Monsanto.
Even the food and drug administration in the U.S. admits that
cows injected with these drugs could suffer from increased udder
infections known as mastitis, severe reproductive problems,
digestive disorders, persistent sores and lacerations.
Canadians do not want to consume pus in their milk. The
government has done a real disservice to the health of Canadians,
not to mention scientific integrity.
What will the Liberal government do to convince Canadians that
it places their health over the greed of multinational corporate
giants?
Finally, to what will the government commit in terms of putting
in place processes which will protect the integrity of Canada's
scientists and ensure that their research into our safety is
given the priority it is due?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West on behalf
of the Minister of Health regarding allegations about the health
department.
These scientists have aired their concerns a number of times:
For example, with the Public Service Staff Relations Board, PSSRB
in September 1998 and at an October 22, 1998 and May 3, 1999
hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry.
Following two days of testimony and volumes of information, the
department found that scientists did not, through their testimony
or documents, provide evidence to support their complaints. In
fact the PSSRB dismissed all complaints made by Health Canada
employees.
The department has gone to every effort to make certain that
these scientists' concerns are heard and addressed and in fact,
if there are concerns the scientists may have, they should bring
them to the department where dispute resolution mechanisms are
well in place.
No information on products is kept from scientists doing reviews
and they have access to all information submitted and to the
world literature on any subject.
1830
Further, the deputy minister appeared before the Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on May 13. Let me repeat
what he told them in the other place. He told the committee that
there are 6,000 heroes at Health Canada, dedicated staff who work
every day and many nights and weekends to protect the health and
safety of Canadians.
Let it be perfectly clear that the product at issue, rBST, has
been reviewed within Health Canada for more than nine years and
has been evaluated internationally. Some countries have approved
it and some have not. Health Canada issued a non-compliance for
rBST on January 14. For rBST injected animals there were
concerns related to animal health and safety.
There is no gag order. This should be obvious from the very
fact that the scientists provided hours of testimony to the
Senate committee at both hearings. In fact we were advised very
clearly by the department that it was its obligation to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)