1998-10-30

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.
In addition to modernizing federal legislation for the digital age and building the environment for electronic commerce to flourish, this act also addresses one very particular need in the information society in which we now live: the right of individuals to have some control over their personal information.
The rapid development of information and communications technology such as the Internet has brought about new opportunities for individuals, businesses, communities and governments. But to realize those opportunities there are some challenges that must be resolved. One of the most significant of these is the issue of privacy and the protection of personal information. New technologies provide new capabilities to collect and manage personal data. Canadians want to be confident that any information concerning themselves is accurate, up to date and, most importantly, secure.
Bill C-54 provides that assurance and much more. It will make private sector organizations responsible for the security and accuracy of the personal information they collect. For federal statutes it will introduce a degree of equivalency between electronic and paper formats and improve the ability of the federal government to conduct its business electronically. An opting out process would allow government bodies sufficient time to prepare for the impact of updating and re-engineering their business functions for the age of the Internet. It will assist the courts in evaluating the reliability of electronic records presented as evidence and it will give official status to electronic statutes and regulations.
Specifically regarding security, the legislation proposes ways to remove legal roadblocks to using electronic technology as a secure option for doing business with the federal government. It contains provisions for the development of secure electronic signatures for people doing business with the federal government. These will provide a model for electronic commerce in general. It will make federally regulated private sector organizations responsible for the security and accuracy of the personal information they collect.
The provisions of the act for privacy protection are based on the model code for the protection of personal information which was developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
However, as exemplary as this code is, it has been voluntary. Now we are enshrining its principles in law and we are making significant improvements.
To be successful any legislation regime which safeguards personal information must provide effective oversight and enforcement, and foster awareness.
As other hon. members have noted in previous debates, Bill C-54 is the result of a great deal of broadly based consultations. In those consultations Canadians made their point over and over again that individuals must have the right to launch complaints and to challenge an organization when they think its compliance with protection requirements has been inadequate.
The legislation before us gives individuals the right to complain and to challenge compliance with any part of the law. Thus it affords Canadians a key role in monitoring the organizations which hold personal information about them.
The private sector also has an extremely important role to play. There was strong agreement in the consultations that businesses should take an active role in monitoring their own practices and should co-operate with consumers in resolving problems. The first step in a normal complaint process should involve an individual complaining to the organization.
The organization should then look into the complaint and attempt to resolve it.
Accordingly, Bill C-54 makes organizations accountable for the information they collect, use or disclose. Furthermore, it requires that organizations put in place procedures to receive and respond to complaints or inquiries about their information policies and practices.
However, an individual might not always be able to obtain satisfaction through the organization. In such cases there must be a second avenue for redress. This legislation provides that avenue. Throughout the government's consultations Canadians expressed broad support for giving the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the authority to investigate complaints, issue recommendations, mediate disputes and conduct research on issues related to the implementation of the law.
Under Bill C-54 individuals will be able to complain to the commissioner regarding any aspect of an organization's compliance with the legislation, including improper collection and use or disclosure of personal information. The commissioner may also initiate complaints if there are reasonable grounds to do so. The commissioner will have the power necessary to investigate complaints, including the ability to enter the premises of any organization, examine any records, administer oaths and interview an organization's staff.
Furthermore, as part of the complaint resolution process the commissioner may suggest mediation or other forms of dispute resolution. When an investigation has been completed the commissioner will provide a report outlining the findings of the investigation together with any recommendations the commissioner deems appropriate to both the individual and the organization. The commissioner may follow up to ensure that the organization deals with the identified issues.
In our consultations consumers indicated that it was important that the legislation provide a watchdog who can ensure that the law is being respected. When the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that an organization is not complying with the law the legislation gives the privacy commissioner the power to conduct audits.
Consumers and businesses have also made clear their view that legislation to protect privacy in the private sector will be most effective if it includes measures to address emerging privacy issues proactively through consumer education. The government agrees that consumer education is absolutely key to ensuring that citizens are well informed about their privacy rights and are vigilant in protecting them. Therefore, the legislation gives the privacy commissioner an explicit mandate to educate the public. It also gives the commissioner powers to research and comment on any issues that affect the privacy of Canadians.
These various powers of the privacy commissioner are designed to ensure compliance with the law and to give consumers somewhere to turn when there is a problem. The commissioner will also serve as an important source of expertise and advice for organizations that are trying to comply with the law.
Canadian citizens and consumers are rightly asking that personal information be adequately protected in the new digital economy. Experience has shown that industry self-regulation has not been up to the task. As a result, international data laws have to be developed that might restrict the flow of information to countries with inadequate privacy protection standards. With this legislation the government has done so, with privacy protection that will be simple yet effective, consumer friendly and not overly burdensome for the industry, especially for small and medium size firms.
It is made in Canada legislation that strikes the right balance for our conditions and it will help ensure that technological innovations will be able to serve our economic needs while not infringing on our fundamental rights.
It is the system that Canadians need to safeguard information privacy in the private sector. Therefore, I move:
That the question be now put.
The Deputy Speaker: On debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the industry critic to address Bill C-54.
For the benefit of those who have just joined the debate, Bill C-54 is an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act. The bill is referred to as the personal information protection and electronic documents act.
The bill is part of Industry Canada's broad and ambitious plan to create a legal, regulatory and tax regime in which electronic commerce will flourish. It is fair to say that under the direction of the Minister of Industry, Canada has become a world leader in electronic commerce, at least as far as public policy is concerned.
This is not the case of big brother in Industry Canada going high tech. The specific purpose of Bill C-54 is to create a legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce by introducing measures to protect personal information in the private sector by creating an electronic alternative for doing business with the federal government and by clarifying how the courts assess the reliability of electronic records used as evidence.
The Reform Party supports in principle the government's efforts to create a legal and regulatory framework to allow legitimate electronic commerce to flourish which is why we are supporting the bill.
However, it should be understood by all members of this House and by the public that Bill C-54 goes beyond the scope of electronic commerce in that it creates a legal and regulatory framework that will be applied broadly to the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all areas of business. When this bill is examined more closely in committee, it must be examined with this in mind.
Bill C-54 will also work to replace electronic documents on the same legal footing as paper documents. As part of this endeavour to bring legal legitimacy to the electronic business world, the government has empowered itself to regulate the concept of secure electronic signatures through the use of encryption. This is a necessary part of the bill but I would caution the government to work with the private sector as it deals with the issue of encryption every day when providing security of data to its clients.
We must whenever possible borrow from the work being done in the private sector and whenever possible allow these industries to regulate themselves. Private sector co-operation and self-regulation should guide us as we examine the issue of electronic commerce.
The bill was created in co-operation with the private sector which speaks to the quality of the legislation and which is why my concerns are limited. However, when this bill is discussed in committee, there are issues we must be aware of.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association supports Bill C-54, while warning that any amendments that would change the rules governing positive consent should be examined carefully as they have the potential of creating a business environment that is unduly restrictive for direct marketers. In essence, the CDMA argues that there is often implied consent for the use of personal information.
The provision in the bill allowing for implied consent ensures that once private information is lawfully acquired it can be used repeatedly by the same company unless the consumers instruct otherwise.
If direct positive consent were required before information lawfully collected is used, it would be cumbersome and would hurt the direct marketing industry. Furthermore, the direct marketing industry would prefer that a greater reliance be placed on negative consent. That is, customers would be given an opportunity to remove sensitive personal information from lists before those lists were used or sold. However, if they chose not to take this action, the direct marketer with impunity could then use the information.
There is also some debate regarding the use of information collected by the government but then made part of the public record. If only the government can use this information in a commercial manner, namely by selling it to private sector businesses, it amounts to unfair government competition for information trading, which is a large part of what many direct marketers do.
The government has very recently created legislation that brought positive changes to the direct marketing operations, changes that were supported by the CDMA. We should be cautious to ensure that this work is not undermined by a subsequent piece of legislation that may hurt this industry if we do not act judiciously.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical Association. Physicians are very concerned about their ability to protect the confidential information of patients who confide in them. In response to this, the CMA has created the Health Information Privacy Code which it hopes will become a standard for the medical profession. This is an example of industry self-regulation.
It also brings forward a very serious concern regarding the patient-doctor relationship. We do not want to create legislation that will create blanket policies for electronic privacy protection when there are clearly different needs in different sectors of the economy calling for different policy solutions.
The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic climate in Canada with fair and transparent rules that protect both consumers and business.
It is well within the proper function of government to create a legal and regulatory framework to allow electronic commerce to flourish in Canada. For this reason Bill C-54 should be supported. However, care must be taken at the committee stage to ensure that concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Direct Marketing Association and others are addressed.
I will close by encouraging the government to continue to make electronic commerce a priority and to work to create a regulatory environment that stabilizes trade but that does not become a barrier to it.
I would also encourage the government to pursue taxation policy that encourages businesses to take their operations into the electronic business world. If this happens, I am confident Canada will become a leader in electronic commerce.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise this morning to speak on Bill C-54 as one who had close ties with the communications industry during 15 years. I was involved in broadcast media at the time.
Throughout this period, I had an opportunity to witness changes as they occurred: the arrival of fax machines, satellite dishes, computers and, finally, the Internet. All these changes have always served the public at large, the general public, well. However, a closer look at electronic commerce and this technology that is increasingly becoming a part of our daily lives raises concerns.
As the millennium approaches, in this era of communications, with communications occupying an ever-increasing place in our lives, the federal government has deemed it appropriate to legislate in this very complex area.
I would like to give a little background on Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce. The purpose of this legislation is to support and promote electronic commerce. How? The title goes on to say: by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending certain acts.
Once again, Quebec is at the cutting edge, since it has had legislation protecting personal information in the private sector for four years now. Bill C-54 introduced by the federal government deals only with commerce. It does not extend to any other activity and has some serious deficiencies.
In its 1997-98 annual report, the Quebec access to information commission is unequivocal on the issue of privacy on the information highway.
The commission examined the consequences of introducing Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on the information highway.
Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this protection will be based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the Canadian Standards Association, and adopted in 1990.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback for the privacy issue in Quebec. This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on protection of personal information.
However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the personal information protection systems established under the two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee all citizens an impartial and fair solution to any problem or dispute that may arise with regard to the protection of this increasingly important aspect of one's privacy.
Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the Commission, the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.
Discussions of e-commerce become a little complicated. First of all, for the benefit of this House I am going to use general, easy to understand terms. We are talking about making purchases or conducting transactions with banks, with suppliers, with manufacturers, or with clients electronically.
These types of transactions have been in existence for quite some time. Telecommunications have been with us for 30 years or so. They have been relatively well structured in terms of standards for 25 years. As for electronic data interchange, it has been governed by international standards for more than 10 years.
In fact, electronic data interchange is used relatively often by many businesses. For the past 10 years or so, large businesses have been using it in their dealings with suppliers. This means that a supplier does not send a written bill to his client, but rather an electronic bill that is received on the computer of the client, who will then authorize payment after verifying that the goods or services have actually been delivered.
But what is happening in this era of communications is an acceleration of this process. Electronic data interchange is no longer restricted to large corporations or governments. It is now accessible to the average person through the Internet, among other means. The Internet is becoming increasingly popular at home.
I want to discuss into greater detail how this government is once again getting involved in issues that are under Quebec's jurisdiction. The bill introduced by the Minister of Industry to protect personal information was of course anxiously awaited. It is, as the federal privacy commissioner pointed out, the most significant step taken to protect personal information since 1983.
However, instead of introducing a real bill to protect privacy in the private sector, in a technological world that challenges this fundamental right, the government, through its Minister of Industry, is proposing this weak legislation, whose fundamental part is found in a schedule to the bill, and in which the commissioner does not have real powers. The wording lends itself to a broad interpretation.
As we know, when this government wants to get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, it always goes for a broad interpretation, so that it can justify its actions to the people.
In this context, there is a risk that Bill C-54 may infringe on the privacy rights of Quebeckers. This bill may not meet the expectations of Canadian and Quebec consumers.
Moreover, the Minister of Industry is introducing a bill which, on the face of it, seems to provide less protection than in the federal public sector. Whereas, at the moment, harmonization of legislation on the subject across the country seems to be an important criterion in ensuring constant protection of personal information, it might be reasonable to expect the government to draw on the experiences of Quebec in protecting personal information. It has had a law for four years. Not so.
The Bloc Quebecois regrets that the government has chosen not to give the privacy commission power to issue orders. This lack of power, which currently prevents him from fulfilling his responsibilities in the public sector, should have been remedied in proper form in the bill before us. This shortcoming will affect the bill's credibility.
The Bloc Quebecois fears that these weaknesses in the bill will make the Prime Minister's objective of promoting consumer confidence in order to develop electronic trade unattainable.
This is no surprise. The Bloc Quebecois is sure the government will not give the privacy commissioner the resources he needs to do the additional work given him in the bill. The copyright board, a body making quasi-judicial decisions, had no increase in its resources following the passage of Bill C-32, which doubled its workload. Today, the Minister of Industry is obliging it to examine the cost recovery formula.
This is another method frequently used by our friends opposite. The government hands out responsibilities, but not the resources or the money to fulfil them.
Furthermore, this means, very clearly, that the Bloc Quebecois does not support Bill C-54 as drafted. The minister should go back to the drawing board and look much more carefully at the importance of personal information.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois to strongly condemn Bill C-54, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
This bill does not accomplish what it set out to do, which is to protect citizens. Instead of a bill to really protect privacy in the private sector, in a technological environment that puts this fundamental right at risk, let us examine what the minister is proposing in this piece of legislation.
This is a flimsy and confused piece of legislation whose central feature is a schedule containing the Canadian Standards Association code without changes.
This legislation grants huge discretionary powers to the governor in council, but none whatsoever to the privacy commissioner; it focuses on e-commerce and places the fundamental notion of privacy on the back burner; it ignores the unique experience of Quebec in the area of protecting privacy in the private sector; finally, it could undermine the legislation in effect in the province of Quebec.
Before dealing directly with the shortcomings of the bill before us today, I would like to talk about the central concept of this bill, which is privacy, and to examine it in the Canadian and Quebec legislative context.
The right to privacy is a human right just like the right to equality and justice. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year and to which Canada is a signatory, specifies that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” and that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation”.
In Canada, this protection is implied in sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, the Canadian government implemented in 1983 a Privacy Act that applies to more than 100 government organizations under its jurisdiction.
The federal government has since promised a framework legislation to ensure the private sector complies with the obligation of protecting privacy. Bill C-54 is the unfortunate result of that promise.
In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms and in the Quebec civil code. More importantly, the Quebec government is the only government in North America to have developed legislation governing personal information protection in the public sector in 1982 and in the private sector in 1994. Some experts even agree that the Quebec legislation applying to the private sector is reportedly one of the best in the world, which is remarkable.
I will point out some of the weaknesses in Bill C-54. This is a weak bill whose centrepiece is its schedule. Most provisions that will govern personal information protection are in the schedule to the bill. Moreover, this schedule is not the model code on personal information protection that was developed by the private sector and by consumers to serve as a framework for the protection of personal information on a voluntary basis.
By limiting himself to this text, the minister ignored the recommendations made by consumers and by privacy commissioners who recognized that the model code of the Canadian Standards Association was a good basis for reflection, but that it had to be reviewed before being incorporated into the legislation. The minister did not do so.
This undoubtedly shows that the minister has put economic values before social values, when this fundamental right is so fragile in the development of electronic commerce.
It is said also that this legislation gives tremendous discretion to the governor in council. Paragraph 27(2)( b ) gives the federal government the right to amend the act by order in council, without having to come back to parliament. Therefore, the act could easily be amended in accordance with the wishes of lobbyists representing large companies that contribute to the election funds of Canada's traditional political parties.
Another criticism we have is that this bill does not give any powers to the privacy commissioner. Despite the fact that the other Canadian provinces have followed Quebec's model by giving the commissioner the power to issue orders, the federal bill does the exact opposite.
The commissioner will not have the power to issue orders, which means that this act will not be easily accessible to consumers and will have no effect on businesses.
We say that this bill ignores Quebec's unique experience; therefore we cannot support it. It also ignores Quebec's unique experience with regard to the protection of personal information in the private sector.
I would like to give you a few examples: the objectives are better set out in the Quebec act, since it deals with the protection of privacy, irrespective of any commercial considerations. The Quebec act clearly covers all profit and non profit organizations, whereas the federal bill provides for the protection of personal information only in the context of commercial transactions.
The Quebec act provides that a group of persons may designate a representative in a common cause, but there is no equivalent provision in the federal bill.
On top of all these shortcomings, there is an even greater concern. The only guarantee Quebec has that it will exempted from this legislation is a timid statement by the Minister of Industry.
This mistrust is largely motivated by certain formal commitments to Quebec that the federal government has too often ignored or reneged on. For example, may I remind the government of the promises the Prime Minister made a few days before the 1995 referendum at the Verdun auditorium.
The issues are clear. For the Minister of Industry, the important thing is that Canada participate fully in the lightning fast progress of electronic commerce. Concerns expressed by Canadians with regard to their right to privacy are a minor consideration.
The Minister of Industry does not hesitate to take a centralizing position that, in many respects, goes against something that was very well done in Quebec and in the other provinces, something that he could have used as a model, particularly the Quebec model.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the immediate withdrawal of Bill C-54.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into the debate on electronic commerce. As most people know, the rapid change in communications in just a little over a decade has been dramatic. There is no doubt that we will see further growth of gigantic proportions in this area.
I have a number of concerns with Bill C-54. I am not sure that I will be nearly as kind on the government as my colleague who spoke earlier. My concerns have to do with identification and security of information.
I could, if I so chose, create a web site and identify myself as a deputy speaker of the House of Commons, as some other member of the House, or even as a senator if I wanted. I could put on the site anything I want and people accessing that web site would have no way of knowing it is not a legitimate site unless there is good publicity. I think there would be if I did that. I have no intentions of doing that, but it is an electronic possibility.
It used to be that people recognized voices on the phone. Certainly in talking with people face to face there is the recognition factor with respect to the physical appearance of the person. For many decades a hand signature on documents of either the individual or the person authorized to sign on behalf of a company or organization was an identifiable marker.
We do not yet have an adequate means of defining the source of electronic information. Part of the legislation includes development of electronic signatures. One could argue that an electronic signature is more than just a duplication of a hand signature. However it is one thing that could be done.
In a computer data file a scan of the actual signature could be stored, but anyone else who would pick up the document could then paste it into any other document. It would be a perfect forgery, bit for bit as we say in the computer world. A physical signature is inadequate to identify a document.
Another way of doing it is as is done now in electronic commerce with banks. We are all familiar with automatic teller machines, ATMs, where people put in a card to identify themselves and to prove it is not a stolen card they enter in a four digit ID number or PIN number. How can we do that if we are sending something to an organization? The only way it would work is if the other organization knows what our PIN is so that when they receive it they know it is a legitimate individual sending the information.
With the banks this works perfectly fine. Most of us have PINs on our bank card or on our MasterCard. When I put my card into the machine and enter my PIN, that number goes down the electronic pipeline to the financial institution handling that transaction and it matches it at the other end with a PIN it has on file electronically. If it does not match, it says “wrong pin number, try again”. If someone enters the wrong PIN two or three times, it says “you're the wrong guy, we are keeping your card”.
How do we do that electronically? If I am going to put something to another organization, I would have to by some means send it what my electronic signature is so that it can identify me. If I send it in the same document, it is useless because if someone else gets it, they immediately can use it. So I need some method of saving with the recipient of that information my personal signature, my PIN, my electronic signature.
This is a digression. This has nothing to do with the bill but I think we are permitted to do that in the House from time to time. Many members here know that I spent a fair amount of time in my previous life teaching and working with mathematics and computers. One of the fun things I do, while other people who are real boring go out and play golf, is solve mathematical problems as a mental exercise and as a recreation.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Scintillating.
Ken Epp: Exactly. It is a very interesting process.
I developed an encryption algorithm which unfortunately got sidelined because I got into this wonderful world politics. I never got around to marketing it. But I really thought the method I developed was very good because of the encryption method which I used being very unique, and no two successive encryptions of the same document ever came out the same. One of the inputs I used was the computer's clock in changing the way it encrypted. Besides that there is an upfront ID number which a person can use. But it is very important in this case that the person receiving the message at the other end knows what that encryption password is. The way I did it, it was nowhere included in the document but in fact formed part of the formula for the decryption of the message. Without even transmitting it, it was an integral part of actually encrypting the message
This is one of the things that has to be dealt with very severely, identification. I am thinking of someone making a bid on a government contract by electronic means. It would be real dastardly but it could happen that an impostor could submit a bid, pretending their so and so company was applying for this bid with the government when in fact it is one of the competitors which is simply throwing in a phony bid to try to throw people off track. We need to be very careful that identification of individuals is securely handled and this is one of the things I would really urge the committee to look at when examining this bill.
There are other considerations which I think are also very important. Not the least of these is we need to gear up to having a very good climate for this type of commerce to occur in Canada. We hear over and over again that in this country we are taxed to death. We hear it from businesses. We hear it from individuals. We have a brain drain problem where people can move to among other places the United States.
They earn more money. They pay less tax. Their take home pay is much superior to what it is in Canada. That includes all the necessities of life, including health care. When we factor it all together it is still a disadvantage to stay in Canada. That has to change.
I am distressed with this government. It talks about reducing unemployment, improving the economy and changing spending and borrowing patterns. It has had some success. It has resisted the temptation to spend what nominal surpluses there are. But it will not move off its position of keeping the money that has been taken from only one sector of our economy, employers and employees. If we took that away we would not have a balanced budget. The government has done that on the backs of those people.
With respect to electronic commerce, the government needs to make sure that the taxation will not drive Canadians out of the country. Otherwise we will have them out of the economic loop. With computers and virtual store fronts now, a person can live in this country but virtually move out of the country without physically moving out. There is no way of identifying the source of files once they are on the Internet. They can be sent anywhere around the world.
We need to make sure the tax system is such that people in this country can engage in electronic commerce without a tax penalty.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the failure of the Meech Lake accord in 1990, the federalist premier of Quebec said, and I quote from memory: “No matter what, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society”.
Bill C-54 gives the opportunity to reaffirm this loud and clear. When it comes to protecting personal information, Quebec's laws is unique in North America.
Quebec has had a law protecting privacy in the public sector since 1982. The federal government and every province enacted similar legislation. In 1994, the Quebec law extended the protection of personal information to the private sector.
And to conclude my preliminary remarks, Quebec is the only government in North America to have a law protecting personal information in the private sector. It has had it for over four years.
It is quite acceptable for the federal government to once again copy things we get right and do well in Quebec. We have no objection to that. What we do object to is the wording of this bill.
Our party's position is very clear, namely this half-baked piece of legislation is basically poorly drafted. I will get back to our position in my conclusion.
We know the goal of Bill C-54 is to promote electronic commerce; the right to privacy in the private sector is a minor consideration.
Had the minister wanted to show leadership, as he claims, he should have adopted these principles, not because they are our principles or because Quebec is involved, but because this is the sort of protection the people of Quebec and of Canada are entitled to expect.
Instead, Quebeckers' rights are being diminshed.
We think this bill does not provide adequate protection for Canadians. A number of its provisions fall short, but one involves the reduction of Quebec's rights and that is the one concerning all the provincial provisions.
Under Quebec law at the moment an individual working in Quebec can access his record, wherever it is, or a person having a medical examination can see his records, wherever they are. From now on, it will no longer be the case, since all the provisions that go beyond provincial jurisdiction will be subject to federal legislation.
One might wonder whether federal legislation will provide the same protection. The answer is no. When it comes to information that is not of a commercial nature, the act is vague, to say the very least. It is worse than that. The core of Bill C-54 is a standard, a CSA national standard that bears a number and that was approved in a totally different legislative context by the standards association in consultation with the telemarketing board and another body, as well as with consumer representatives.
While this self-regulating project is commendable, particularly since it originated with the private sector, it is also full of conditionals. This is what I was saying earlier when I spoke of the wording of the bill. A could or a should essentially means perhaps instead of shall.
My lawyer colleagues in this House will recall that, in law, there is a significant difference between may and shall, and I consider this essential.
In the bill—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as it is nearly 11 a.m., we must now proceed to Statements by Members.
He will have another five minutes following Oral Question Period to finish his remarks.

Statements By Members
Ryan HureljackMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very humbling for me to rise today and pay tribute a constituent of mine, Mr. Ryan Hureljack.
Last January Ryan became aware of how desperate many third world countries were for clean drinking water. Ryan used money from working odd jobs to pool an initial $70 for the cause. After meeting with officials from WaterCan, as well as the ambassador from Uganda, Ryan redoubled his fundraising efforts and at present has raised over $5,000 that when matched with CIDA funds now represents over $15,000 for water projects in Uganda.
Since the beginning of Ryan's quest he has received a real education on the needs of third world countries, specifically Uganda, saving money and the importance of determination and hard work. Ryan's school has now taken on the fundraising challenge in support of what they call Ryan's Well.
On November 20, national child day, Ryan will visit Parliament Hill to receive a You Made a Difference award for 1998 from the Our Kids Foundation.
I should mention that when Ryan began this project less than a year ago he was six years old. I think our country is in good hands because people like Ryan will be helping to shape our future.
Today I salute Ryan for his kind and caring contributions to his family, his school, his community, our country and for countries that are less fortunate than ours.
Agra IncorporatedMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the counterfeiting of money is a worldwide problem that leads to billions of dollars of losses each year.
A company in my riding of Oakville is working with the banking industry, including the Bank of Canada, to create a more durable and more secure currency.
AGRA Incorporated, headquartered in Oakville, is the international engineering and technology company responsible for this technological advance.
It is the genius behind the reflective security patches for the $20, $50, $100 and $1000 bills. It is now working on a more durable plastic based bank note, one that would offer enormous cost saving potential to government and would act as a strong barrier to counterfeiting.
AGRA's success is a shining example of how Canadian companies are successfully competing in today's global economy.
Franco-Ontarian CommunityMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the support recently provided by the federal government to the development of the franco-Ontarian community.
The federal government is giving the following: $12.9 million for artistic and cultural development;
$1.5 million to the Théâtre du Nouvel Ontario, in Sudbury;
$100,000 to the Festival franco-ontarien;
$2.5 million annually to TV Ontario and TFO;
$1.5 million to open school and community centres in Kingston, London and Mississauga.
The government is also providing support to help create community radio stations in Hearst, Kapuskasing, Penetanguishene, Nipissing and Prescott-Russell.
These concrete measures confirm the federal government's commitment to the franco-Ontarian community.
Canadian VeteransMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members of Canada's armed forces have paid with their lives and health in service to our great country. How well we attend to our veterans' concerns is a measure of our national conscience and the expression of the will of our nation.
Some of Canada's veterans' concerns still sit as they have for over 50 years. They are gathering dust as we approach Remembrance Day. Hong Kong veterans' enslavement compensation by Japan has not been resolved despite all-party support. Merchant navy requests for full equality and recompense has not been given in spite of recognition by other allied countries. Perley-Rideau veterans' care level funding is plunging with the minister's tacit approval.
Some issues have existed for over 50 years. Most veterans have little time left to enjoy restitution. The veterans of Canada want our government to listen now, not later. Our veterans' concerns should not be a new millennium project.
The Reform PartyMr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party in its typical, politically expedient fashion is now attempting to portray itself as a champion of human rights in the course of the APEC debate, when in the not so distant past it was a party with very little thought for human rights. That is not likely to change in the very near future.
Time and time again Reform Party members' statements have revealed their utter disregard for human rights. For example, with reference to the charter, the member for Wild Rose said in the Calgary Herald that if amendments cannot be made “we should scrap the whole thing”.
In this very place the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca went so far as to suggest that “the charter is actually discriminatory” and that “unfortunately in 1982 the Liberal government of the day decided to bring in the charter of rights and freedoms”.
I am certain that this political expediency will not curry favour with Canadians, regardless of their political allegiances.
AgricultureMr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a serious income crisis on farms throughout western Canada and this Liberal government is insulting prairie farmers by denying that such a crisis exists. Farmers are being abandoned by this Liberal government.
Why is the minister hiding behind the fiction that NISA will save the day? Farmers and their families know that NISA is far from adequate. NISA is supposed to stand for Net Income Stabilization Account. Instead it has come to portray this Liberal government's callous attitude. The letters in NISA now mean “not interested in supporting agriculture”.
The European-United States subsidy war is wreaking havoc on Canadian farmers, so we need to support prairie farmers through modified safety net programs and we need to review ways to reduce farm input costs. We cannot deny it.
In Canada we have a farm income crisis on our hands. Just how bad does the on-farm situation have to get before serious attention is given to this impending disaster?
Globe And MailMr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail has always prided itself on providing context and insight in its reporting, but lately this attempt at balance has been sadly lacking in its coverage of the financial management of the First Nation reserves.
In a letter to the editor printed in today's edition, Chief Stanley Arcand, chairman of the chiefs' summit steering committee on financial accountability, blasted the Globe and Mail for its failure to provide balanced coverage of the complex issues surrounding the financial management of the reserves. He noted that the Globe and Mail argument was “devoid of any meaningful examination of the real issues and causes behind the problems facing first nations—it was an extreme example of using the exception to prove the rule”.
The Globe and Mail would be well advised to take into account first nations that have—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
UnicefMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the staff and volunteers of UNICEF.
On Halloween night this coming Saturday, over two million children volunteers will be carrying the UNICEF box while trick-or-treating. Instead of asking for candy they will be collecting coins.
Empowered to help other children around the world, our kids are taking action. The money they collect will help ensure that children in poor countries are immunized, registered at birth, will eat nutritious food and will learn to read.
Since 1980 the increase in basic immunization coverage has saved the lives of more than 20 million children.
Programs supported by UNICEF and other partners have helped more than 900 million people gain access to safe drinking water.
I am appealing to the traditional Canadian generosity. It does not matter how small the amount. Every bit helps. On Halloween night this coming Saturday, when people see a volunteer child of UNICEF, drop a coin. It will help to save the life of a needy child. We can make a difference.
AgricultureMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the farm income crisis is taking its toll. Record numbers of Saskatchewan farmers are calling the farm stress line this year.
In September the stress line received 147 calls. The program co-ordinator for the line says “There has been twice as many calls in September compared to other months. The hope is going. If you don't have hope you don't have much to look forward to. You can only struggle for so long”.
The statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that existing farm safety net programs are enough to deal with the farm income crisis is simply not giving these farmers hope.
The Minister knows that NISA is totally inadequate to help western producers fight unfair foreign subsidies by the United States, unfair trade practices by the European Union and the economic flu in Asia, all of which have resulted in loss of markets for Canadian grain and brutally low commodity prices.
When are farmers going to see some action out of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instead of just more talk?
Quebec Election CampaignMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the next election in Quebec is of paramount importance.
Quebeckers will have an opportunity to vote in favour of a constantly improving federalism. Quebec can finally put an end to the political uncertainty that has prevailed over the past four years. The constant pussyfooting around the referendum issue hurts all of Quebec.
Those who support a united Canada are well aware of the progress made in recent years. Several federal-provincial issues were settled, including manpower and linguistic school boards, and the outcome was positive for Quebec.
In short, a Liberal vote is a vote for improving the quality of life in Quebec. It is also a vote for a federalism that evolves and in which Quebec has its rightful place. Let us not forget that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very clear yesterday when he said that a vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laval Centre.
Medical Research In CanadaMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week, as part of health research awareness week, 65 medical centres across Canada and Quebec have launched an information and mobilization campaign on this important issue.
In Canada, public funding in this respect is very clearly insufficient. Since 1985, investments have dropped by 10% in Canada, while they increased by 80% south of the border.
The level of funding currently available to the Medical Research Council of Canada represents only 0.3% of Health Canada's total budget. What researchers are requesting, and rightfully so, from the federal government is 1% of the health budget.
With its indecent budgetary surpluses, it is time the federal government took its responsibilities and handed out more than crumbs to health research—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière Churchill.
Northern CommunitiesMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a major concern about this country's northern regions.
In Cree we call it kêwêtinôhk and in Saskatchewan we further define it as where the people of the bush and the rock live: Sakâw-iniwâk asinêwaskiywiniwâk.
The federal government has been comfortable in accepting the definition of the north as the region north of 60°, but the northern half of all of our provinces is very unique.
There are huge tracts of land with extreme living costs. These regions are sparsely populated, but the communities are among the oldest in this country.
The north has contributed to the economic wealth of our southern communities and it is only by empowering and investing in our communities that we can proudly develop our own needs.
Our growing populations need highways, housing, health and education facilities that could be built by northerners. The federal government, in partnership with the provinces, must create northern specific initiatives such as the Northlands agreements of the 1970s.
Election Campaign In QuebecMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the election campaign gets in gear in Quebec, the issues are becoming clearer.
And the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has been a great help in clarifying that a vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for a referendum. This probably explains why Parti Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard raised the sovereignty issue again before a university audience yesterday.
But we think he should know that there are definite benefits to Canadian unity, as compared to the scenarios or tricks to achieve Quebec's independence.
We are also asking him to tell Quebeckers what they should expect the day after Quebec separates from the rest of Canada.
We want him to speak the truth to the people of Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently told us that a vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for a referendum.
Either Lucien Bouchard repudiates the Bloc leader and sets the record straight or he tells us the truth about what to expect if Quebec ever separates from the rest of Canada.
Fortunately, Quebec can count on a dynamic Liberal team—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
Anselme LapointeMs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay special tribute to a brilliant designer, Anselme Lapointe.
At the recent culture days in Valcourt in my riding, I joined the local committee and an impressive number of representatives from political, academic and professional circles, as well as Mr. Lapointe's family, in paying warm tribute to this talented individual for the quality of his work and for his humanitarian and social commitment to his region and to his province.
After graduating from the École des beaux-arts du Québec, Mr. Lapointe joined Bombardier in the early 1960s. Joseph-Armand Bombardier invented the snowmobile, but it was Mr. Lapointe's designs that changed winters forever for the millions of enthusiastic users of this sports and utility vehicle.
His vision, his courage, and his perseverance are an example to us all. Through his work, he has helped gain recognition for the importance of design and the related notions of economic and social cost-effectiveness for industry and for all Canadians.
In conclusion—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Québec has the floor.
Quebec School SystemChristiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the results of the third international mathematics and sciences survey, conducted by the International Association for Educational Assessment, show Quebec's primary and secondary school students right up there with the best internationally in mathematics and sciences.
On average, students from Quebec ranked considerably higher in mathematics than students from the rest of Canada. What is more, Quebec stood fifth among the 45 countries taking part. This is proof indeed that the curriculums now being used in Quebec are adapted to the modern academic world.
With results like these, we can only imagine what will be within our reach when we have all the tools of a sovereign nation and no longer have to beg the federal government to stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
Let's hear it for the students and their teachers, and above all for Quebec's public school system.
AircraftMr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Labrador search and rescue helicopters came into service between 1963 and 1967, and the Sea Kings between 1963 and 1969. Old aircraft to be sure, but what the opposition does not seem to understand is that this is not that unusual a situation in aviation.
For example, the venerable DC-3 which was built over 60 years ago is still in passenger service around the world. As a member of the Canadian Warplane Heritage, my colleagues and I routinely flew in aircraft over twice the age of our helicopter fleet.
It is a sad fact of life that aircraft, whether new or old, sometimes fall out of the sky. The age of the aircraft is seldom a major contributing factor. It all comes down to maintenance. Properly maintained aircraft can last virtually indefinitely.
These aircraft are becoming too expensive to maintain and must be replaced. In the meantime, I am confident that they remain safe because they are properly maintained by the best air maintenance people on the planet, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a week after it was reported that Canada tops the UN list for the highest quality of life in the world the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released a report that proves how wide a gap there is between the average Canadian and our aboriginal population.
The minister for this portfolio said this study was needed to measure the progress. What progress? The quality of life of Canadians living on reserves is a national shame.
This government has legislated a system that condemns these people to a life of poverty, sickness and squalor. The government says it is trying to make things fair, equal and anti-racist. Instead the Prime Minister has thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at aboriginals as compensation while blindly clinging to the hope that native poverty will simply resolve itself.
The government believes that money can create the ideal atmosphere for natives to succeed and become self-sufficient. Mark my words. This will never happen as long as the money is paid to band administrators. The process is plagued with financial mismanagement. Until this is resolved, the quality of life will never improve.

Oral Question Period
Employment InsuranceMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance fund belongs to millions of Canadians, but because of this Prime Minister, every worker is paying $350 too much and every small business is paying $500 per worker too much.
Rather than changing the law to take this overpayment from workers and employers, will the government commit today to ensuring that every worker will see a $350 reduction and every small business a $500 per worker reduction in their EI premiums for 1999? Not $100, not $200, but the full reduction guaranteed by law. Yes or no?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, the EI premium has been reduced by this government by $5 billion or more. Our payroll taxes are the lowest, lower than those in the United States. We will continue.
What I really want to point out is the incredible fact that the Reform Party changes its mind on what to do with the EI surplus more than the Conservatives actually change leaders or have leadership votes. First the Reform Party wants to apply it to the deficit. Now the Reform Party wants to give it all back. Watching the Reform Party is like getting policy whiplash.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the law requires that the EI fund be kept focused on providing for the needs of unemployed people.
The Prime Minister has promised us a public debate on employment insurance. He has broken that promise. We have had no hearings. There has been no vote in parliament. Yet this government is acting as if the law has been changed. It has not. Will the Prime Minister today commit to a full and open debate in this House to change the law?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly participating in the prebudget consultation debate. He was with the committee when we were in parts of western Canada. The member has been here in Ottawa participating in the debate. Who do we hear from in that debate? We hear from Canadians who come forward and talk about Canadian priorities. Canadians talk about the employment insurance program, about investment in health care and reduction in personal income taxes.
The debate is ongoing. I encourage the hon. member to continue to participate.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the Prime Minister thinks he is above the law.
If there was an honest public debate on what to do with the employment insurance overpayment, it would be in parliament. It would be a formal debate and at the end of it there would be a vote. Every MP would have to go on record saying who they thought the money belonged to. The Prime Minister thinks it belongs to him. Everyone else in the country knows the money is theirs.
Why will the Prime Minister not allow for a vote on the EI overpayment, or has he already made up his mind to steal it?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that that remark is unparliamentary. The member should withdraw the word steal and I would ask him to do so.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, the word is withdrawn but the question still stands.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has recently come to this place, in 1997 I believe.
I do want to inform the hon. member that unless the rules have been changed, a House committee is an extension of parliament. Another Reform member is attending the committee. Perhaps I could encourage the member to attend. Instead of being the hired heckler that he was in the United States, perhaps he could contribute to the debate.
National DefenceMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House heard that the Canadian forces are expecting a $1 billion shortfall next year. This is after a Liberal policy of thousands of cuts on the duty roster, the troops, pay freezes for years, dilapidated housing and old equipment. Now we hear there is going to be another 76 military personnel cut from CFB Comox. We need more troops, not fewer.
The government has a choice. When is the minister going to choose between mothballing more equipment and cutting troops and giving Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member's research is faulty. He is basing his comments about a $1 billion deficit on an article that is completely wrong. There is no deficit. There is no overspending. There are no plans to reduce the number of staff or to reduce in fact the equipment that is provided for them.
Generic DrugsRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, seniors and low income Canadians rely on low cost generic pharmaceuticals for their health. Yet the Minister of Industry has created a regulatory environment for generic drug manufacturers that is so cumbersome and unfair that the supreme court called it a draconian regime.
When will the minister take his regulatory thumb off these drug manufacturers and scratch these unfair rules?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not here today, but I will pass on the concern. I do know that the minister is reviewing that and we will do what is right for Canadians.
Election Campaign In QuebecMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, everybody has noticed there is a battle going on between the Prime Minister and Jean Charest. Discontent is setting in among the federal Liberals.
The Minister of Immigration has even gone so far as to admit her leader's blunders and said that he would not take the blame for Jean Charest's defeat.
When she goes door to door, how will the minister justify the blunders of her leader, the Prime Minister of Canada?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions for Mr. Charest to win the next provincial election is that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois continue to make mistakes. He just has to continue telling Quebeckers the truth: that the only important thing for the Bloc Quebecois is another referendum and that their only goal is sovereignty.
Mr. Charest is the only one who promotes change and who promotes what is good for Quebeckers, namely growth and employment.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I talked about a referendum which we would win. The President of the Treasury Board should read the article instead of reading only the headline or the cartoons.
Does the minister not realize that—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Gilles Duceppe: Would the Minister of Human Resources Development kindly shut up, Mr. Speaker?
Does the minister not realize that, by making these remarks, she is telling us that Jean Charest, the promised saviour, Ottawa's messenger, has absolutely nothing to offer, that the message is meaningless and that dissension is setting in among federalists?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the troublemakers are the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, who have created dissension among Quebeckers with all their talk about a referendum. Quebeckers have already given a clear answer to the question: the majority of them want to stay within Canada.
When the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois campaign on a referendum, they cause dissension among Quebeckers.
The ConstitutionMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps boasting about meeting Quebec's traditional demands in the area of immigration, manpower training, education and more.
How does he explain the fact that, when the Liberals were in power in Quebec, he described these demands as mere whims but that, now that Quebec has a sovereignist government, he claims to have met them?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois do not have the interests of Quebeckers at heart. Their only goal is to promote sovereignty.
Their goal is to push through sovereignty and to hold a third referendum, as the Bloc Quebecois leader reminded us. It is to put a third referendum ahead of Quebeckers' interests.
Mr. Charest is the one promoting Quebeckers' real interests, namely economic growth and employment.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers in Sherbrooke know who is defending Quebec's interests in Ottawa.
What we know for sure it that nothing was ever settled in Quebec City under a federalist government. With all the bickering we witnessed this week, is it not time the minister realized federalists have absolutely nothing to offer Quebec but empty statements they cannot even agree on?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, every reform in recent years, every change in the past five years, every improvement in Quebec occurred while federalists were in power in Ottawa. It is because of the Liberal government's work on their behalf that Quebeckers have seen so much improvement.
Media ConcentrationMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago with greater diversity, yesterday's Liberals were concerned enough about media concentration to set up the Kent commission. Today with two chains about to control 70% of Canada's newspapers, Liberals just shrug.
Given the importance of editorial diversity in safeguarding democracy, will the government commit to legislation protecting editorial independence in the newsroom from ideological interference from the boardroom?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal government that established the rules dealing with media concentration under the Competition Act. There is a process in place right now that will be followed.
The director of investigations will be looking at this takeover, if it goes ahead, to ensure that all aspects of the deal reflect the statute, that is whether there is undue concentration, whether there is freedom of expression, whether there is too much market penetration. All of these matters will be looked at and are provided for under the existing statute.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, it is alarming that the minister does not show any recognition that the competition policy provides no such terms of reference and no such protection for diversity and democracy.
The fact is Canadians do not want government to control the newsroom. They do not want the boardroom to control the newsroom. They want reporters to cover the news free of pressure and free of bullying.
Will this government back legislation to protect editorial independence?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is putting forward a highly subjective view of democracy in trying to say that parliament should legislate editorial content.
The NDP is the party that supposedly speaks for individual Canadians and is reflective of the popular will. Yet it is asking us to impose, or to put a set of rules in place to impose editorial content on newspapers.
The Competition Act is a valid act. It is there. It will be used in this case as with other cases. I believe we will address the issues.
Canada Pension PlanMr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is being tainted by Liberal political interference.
Bernard Dussault the former chief watchdog of the plan was fired because he refused to be muzzled by the finance minister's information police, the case review committee which screens all requests for their political sensitivity.
Dussault was asked twice to fudge the numbers to make the minister look better. Dussault objected. He was fired. Why the cover-up? Will the government tell the truth to Canadians about why it fired the man who knew too much?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the question in the House before and he has got the answer.
The firing of Dussault is between Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dussault. It has nothing to do with the government. It has nothing to do with the Minister of Finance.
Perhaps this will be his supplementary question. There are normal procedures in place to deal with indemnification for civil servants engaged in legal disputes. A civil servant can make an application. If an application is made, it will be approved or disapproved according to Treasury Board rules.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned John Palmer. Last night it was demonstrated that John Palmer, the former boss of Bernard Dussault, is being muzzled by the government.
Last night when I asked Mr. Palmer about the soundness of the Canada pension plan, about the case review committee and about Bernard Dussault's firing, Mr. Palmer asked the chairman of finance committee whether he could answer the question and the answer was no. He was muzzled and I was cut off from asking a legitimate question.
Why is there a conspiracy to muzzle? Why is the Canadian government hiding the truth about the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether or not the hon. member was ruled out of order by a chairman of a committee surely is not a subject for question period in the House of Commons. One would think there are real questions to ask around here.
Aboriginal AffairsMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on April 28, 1998, according to access to information, the Tsuu T'ina reserve was granted $50,000 by the government to provide crisis counselling to members of the Jacobs family and other crises that took place on this reserve.
I talked to the Jacobs family last week. According to them they have not received one minute of counselling, not one minute.
What was the $50,000 used for? Where did it go? What was it granted for? What is its whole purpose?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister and the department are concerned that the family and those affected by this tragedy receive the services including counselling that they require. I can assure the member and the House that the department and the minister are taking steps to ensure that is done.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not only did this family receive absolutely no benefits from the grief counselling money that was forwarded to the reserve, but an access to information request has shown that $22,000 was given to the same reserve for media expenses following this tragedy.
Can the minister tell us what the $22,000 was used for and how it helped the family of Connie and Ty Jacobs?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the department and the minister are committed to seeing that those affected by this tragedy receive the services they require. They will do everything in their power to see that is done.
Ice Breaking In PortsMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the fisheries minister tried to blame a committee of experts for his decision to have users of Quebec ports pay for 80% of ice breaking costs. Yet, the minister's words have nothing to do with the facts.
How can the minister claim that his decision is based on a committee that never recommended to have those who only use 50% of the service pay for 80% of ice breaking costs?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been in the forefront for several years. In fact there has been intense consultation over the last four years.
If the member would only look at the supplementary estimates he would see that there were extra moneys for ice breaking as a result of those extensive consultations. The fact is that Canadian taxpayers are paying 82% of the cost of that ice breaking.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps telling us that he only charges the industry 17% of ice breaking costs.
Is he aware that, according to the industry, this is not 17%, but actually 28%? The parliamentary secretary is not aware of the issue, but is the minister aware of it?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the file because ice breaking fees are not only a problem for the province of Quebec. They are a problem for the eastern provinces in Atlantic Canada as well.
We have consulted extensively with the industry. The facts are that it is greater than 82% of the costs being covered by Canadian taxpayers.
Maybe the member should have a little lesson in geography because the facts are that when a commercial vessel goes to Quebec in the St. Lawrence it has to go around Newfoundland and that ice has to be broken as well.
Federal-Provincial RelationsMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the past week the government has pointed to minor administrative changes as an example of its willingness to work with the provinces. However, when the provinces ask for substantive changes like social union, Senate reform or control over the west coast fishery they are ignored.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to make changes to lead the country into the 21st century, will he step aside?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the changes that have been done in the past few years are not minor changes.
When we gave Quebec back the right of veto it had lost because of René Levesque a number of years ago, clearly it was a major change. By the way, in the same act British Columbia also got a regional veto.
If the member from the Reform Party believes that such a concession to British Columbia is minor, she should consult her voters once again.
Pearson International AirportMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will know that 520 support staff at Pearson International Airport have been on strike since October 2 and negotiations are at a standstill. While management and the union negotiate or battle in the media passengers are inconvenienced and workers are suffering.
The workers have had a seven wage freeze to contend with and now they are trying to subsist on strike pay. How many more sandwiches will be flattened on the tarmac before the minister recalls the parties back to the negotiating table?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.
I have appointed a mediator to this dispute. Both parties are not meeting at this time. I have asked a senior official in my department to contact both parties and attempt to get them to sit down and come up with a collective agreement, which is important for both sides.
Sheep Production In QuebecMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, in response to one of our questions, the agriculture minister hid behind legality to justify the unfair treatment given to Quebec sheep producers who are in dire straits.
How can the minister hide behind the legal aspect of the issue, while in western Canada the federal government used ad hoc programs to retroactively compensate grain producers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. member and the industry over and over again that the money in farm safety nets to assist in the farm income situation, after we have played our full and complete role and even recently increased the compensation caps for sheep, is in the hands of the provincial Government of Quebec.
I have written to the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec saying that I will sit down with him if he wishes to discuss some readjustment of those moneys to assist farmers who feel that they need more assistance in recovering from this situation. He has written back to me and said that he was not interested.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the federal government is to blame. In the past, several billion dollars were retroactively given to western grain producers through ad hoc programs.
Why is it that something that was possible for western grain producers is not possible for Quebec sheep producers?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again. The farm safety net money to support the income of Canadian farmers is distributed equitably for producers in the provinces across the country.
In other provinces the producers the hon. member is referring to could have drawn on NISA. In the province of Quebec the industry and the government decided to put it on price support. That was their decision. Unfortunately it was a decision made by their industry and by their provincial government that will not assist its producers in this situation.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
TradeMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We cannot hear questions and answers. The hon. member for Peace River.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we have a month of this to put up with in the future.
Canada's agriculture producers should be very competitive in world markets because of our natural advantages. Yet our market share in world trade in agriculture has slipped from 4% to 3% in the last 10 years, mainly because of huge subsidies by the Europeans and the Americans.
How would the parliamentary secretary intend to increase Canada's share back to where it was without resorting to subsidies?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is presently in consultations with the provinces and all industry groups trying to put together a united stand to take into the new round of the WTO.
As the member knows, that round will be coming up in 1999. We will be working with the provinces and all the industries to make sure that we have a very strong position to put forward at that time.
AgricultureMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is to close 235 elevators at 170 prairie delivery points.
The producer members who paid for these elevators will not be given the opportunity to buy them. As soon as the bins are empty, the bulldozers will move in and these elevators will be gone. As a bit of collateral damage, a lot of villages will lose a third of their tax base.
Will the government just once do something proactive for the benefit of farmers and put a moratorium on the destruction of these valuable facilities?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must be Friday. Up until 30 seconds ago I thought there was no such a thing as a silly question, but now I think we have resolved that.
The government has been doing things very actively for the benefit of farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board, for example, has been consistently working at generating high value and high prices for farmers.
Despite the fact that world markets have been declining, Canadians have been enjoying world price increases basically due to the Canadian Wheat Board.
FisheriesMr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Fishers in Quebec and on the Lower North Shore are hurting because of the federal government's mismanagement of fish stocks. Will the minister travel to the Lower North Shore to meet with the fishers and try to work out some real solutions for the future?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows, the minister of fisheries has said consistently that conservation is a priority in the fisheries.
He has held extensive discussions with the fishing industry. He has travelled from coast to coast to coast in the country to hear what fishermen and fisherwomen have to say. He is putting a conservation plan and a management plan in place which will ensure that there is a fisheries for the future whether it is for Quebec fishermen, Prince Edward Island fishermen or any other Canadian fisherman.
ImmigrationMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.
A recent report indicated that smugglers are bringing many illegal immigrants into Canada as part of organized criminal activity. This is very costly to the Canadian taxpayers. What exactly is being proposed to crack down on this problem?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the smuggling of people into Canada is part of the definition of organized crime and organized crime is indeed one of the top priorities of our department.
We have approximately 16,000 of them coming into Canada every year. We have adopted among the most severe penalties in the world in this regard. We are active on international forums to address it from an international perspective, which is the only valid one.
As we speak the solicitor general is discussing with his—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Foreign AidMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, apparently CIDA has suspended its foreign aid to Jamaica because $18 million of foreign aid is unaccounted for. Jamaican officials refuse to answer questions and turn over the files. In fact they shredded those files.
Why will the government not take the money previously earmarked for Jamaica and spend it in British Columbia on the RCMP which is fighting the drug trade and drug abuse? Why not use the money instead of wasting it?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very disappointed that an hon. member would want to reduce the level of Canada's foreign aid. I am certainly not part of the group that would want to advocate that and I am sorry to hear that is the attitude of the critic.
Second, on the issue of the funds spent in Jamaica, what he is referring to is a monetary program of some $18 million. That program was fully expended in Jamaica. The auditors referred to some difficulties in finding the proper documentation for 3% of the expenditures.
2000 ProblemMr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it is on top of the 2000 computer bug problem and that it will be ready for the new millennium.
Recent Treasury Board surveys show that many federal departments will not be ready and that national defence is one of the very least prepared departments.
If the government is ready, why is the RCMP cancelling all leave between December 27, 1999 and March 15, 2000? Why is the government preparing to deploy tens of thousands of military troops in the new millennium?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, yes, the Canadian government has been spending a lot of money in an effort to get ready for the Y2K problem.
In the latest report published by Treasury Board, we indicated the percentage of achievement of work on government-wide critical systems. This shows that most of the departments, if not all, will be ready for 2000.
However, we are not taking any chances. We are ready for all contingencies and we have asked the various departments, particularly the emergency preparedness group in the Department of National Defence, to be ready.
Bank MergersHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of financial institutions.
There are now clear indications that the proposed mergers of the banks are on life support, they are dying. In fact, even the Liberal caucus now recognizes that the proposed mergers are not in the public interest.
The real question is how is the government going to make it up to its disappointed friends on Bay Street. Can the minister tell us whether there will be a trade-off? Will there be a trade-off if the government says no to the mega mergers but yes to the banks selling insurance or getting into the auto leasing business or both? Is that the trade-off?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the member because we have set in place a process we are going to respect. It is a process whereby House of Commons and Senate committees will report on this.
We will not be able to look at the issue of bank mergers until we have heard from the office of the superintendent of financial institutions and from the Competition Bureau. After we have had that input and if we are then satisfied that we have sufficient information, we will be in a position to take decisions.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there are some 60,000 independent insurance brokers in this country like Regina's Frank Buck. This morning I want to give the minister an opportunity to speak directly to Frank Buck and his fellow brokers.
Can he assure them that the government will not allow the banks to retail insurance out of their branches? Can he speak directly to that question and answer it now?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, maybe the banks are trying to short circuit the process we put in place for coming to decisions on these very important issues for the future of Canada and its financial institutions and for the insurance industry as well.
The member may want to short circuit this process. We will not. We want to hear from Canadians and we want to hear from the committees.
TransportMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the era of post-panamax shipping is upon us. The port of Halifax is ideally suited for growth at the expense of our international competitors.
Yet the government risks losing this opportunity because the current port authority structure does not represent local interests. The Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce, the Halifax Shipping Association and the International Longshoremen's Association have proposed a new management structure to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister commit to these needed changes?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has been for the last couple of years. We just passed Bill C-9 which establishes Canada port authorities across the country with one federal nominee, one provincial nominee and one municipal nominee along with four nominees selected in consultation with users. The hon. member is trying to change a law passed earlier this year by the House.
The Halifax port authority will be treated like all other port authorities. Consultation has been going on. We have formed an advisory group representative of some of the interests he raised. It is representative through a selection of nominees that reflects user concerns.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, more than 20,000 future jobs in the region may be at stake if the full potential of the port of Halifax is not maximized. We need changes that reflect the economic needs of Atlantic Canada, not the control needs of the minister.
The joint proposal to alter the port authority is consistent with the new Canada Marine Act. In 1997 the predecessor of the Minister of Transport promised to provide local interests with a strong voice in the port's direction. This voice would make Halifax a panamax player instead of a port that unloads the top layer of containers on ships headed for New York.
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has his facts wrong. All the local interest groups in Halifax have been consulted as to the selection of members for this board. They will reflect a broad range of interests dealing with users.
The hon. member should go back to Halifax, talk with those individuals and generate a good selection of candidates so we will be able to have a first class board that will lead Halifax into the post-panamax world.
KosovoMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that international concern over the situation in Kosovo continues notwithstanding the last minute pullout of Serbian troops and heavily armed police. Can the parliamentary secretary provide the House of Commons with an update on the situation in Kosovo especially as it relates to Canadian participation in the 2000-strong verification force?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this important question. It gives us an opportunity to report to the House. We are in the implementation stages of the agreement that has been struck. Canada has committed to send verifiers. The House might be interested to know that many Canadians have expressed an interest in going to Kosovo and serving as verifiers. We are compiling a list at the present time and we will be submitting it very shortly.
I am happy to report to the House that humanitarian aid is getting through to the victims. Canada has now raised its commitment to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
Magazine IndustryMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister's ban on Canadian advertising in foreign magazines is one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation ever. The government's own studies indicate that lifting the ban would increase advertising revenue by 60%, creating more work for Canadians involved in the magazine sector. Why is she putting shackles on the growth of the Canadian magazine industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the shackles I am putting on are support for Canadian voices. The legislation is supported by every single party in this House except the Reform Party. Before the hon. member continues his campaign of disinformation, I underscore that this legislation will help the Western Catholic Reporter , Legion magazine, Today's Parent , Owl , Mennonite News , Chatelaine , Anglican Journal , Essential , Living with Christ: Complete Edition , Canadian League , L'essential , Journeaux du Barreau , The Mennonite Brethren Herald , Prairie Messenger —
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
The EnvironmentMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, in answer to a question about the position of the federal government concerning the negotiations to be held in Buenos Aires next week, the minister was unable to set out the position of the government in this area.
Can the minister tell us if she intends to pull another Tokyo on us and make a last minute decision on the plane as she did last time?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been working with over 450 scientists from across the country to develop an appropriate plan to make sure Canada will join the minus six society and make some of the important changes needed for this country and the world. I hope the member will support the enforcement of health and environment standards in Canada.
Pearson International AirportMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the busiest airport in the country is operating at bare minimum safety standards because of a lengthy work stoppage there.
First there was a near collision between a 747 and a Dash 8 and then the accident between an aircraft and a food services truck. Now for the second time landing lighting systems have broken down. It is only a matter of time before we have a major disaster at Pearson airport.
Will the Minister of Labour act now and fix the broken mediation process, assign a senior mediator to these talks and put the strike to an end before somebody gets killed?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of concerns which are not valid.
First of all, Pearson airport is operating safely. There have been some problems but our officials have been on the spot around the clock looking at the safety issues during this labour dispute.
What is of great concern is there appears to have been a criminal act conducted on the approach lights. That is being investigated not only by Transport Canada but by the local police because this could be a criminal matter.
FisheriesMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, in June the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans denied quota applications from Canso, Mulgrave and Lismore, three Nova Scotia communities requesting a share of the additional 7,000 tonne northern shrimp quota.
The minister's trite and insulting answer at that time was the fish come first. Obviously the minister was telling us that Nova Scotia comes last.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister how the minister can justify slamming the door on three communities, basically threatening their future existence.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by what I am hearing from the member opposite because what he is doing is really speaking in contradiction to what some of his other members are saying in committee.
In terms of Canso, what Canso wants to do is use foreign vessels to catch its quota. The minister, on the other hand, wants to Canadianize the fisheries.
I wish the Tory party would get its act straight and get on the same wavelength.
Steel IndustryMr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade that an investigation in the U.S. is underway with the potential to affect the steel industry in Canada.
Could the parliamentary secretary give some reassurance to steel makers in Canada that Canada is prepared to take action on this issue?
Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I can give these assurance.
NAFTA provides protection to those Canadian steel producers which export to the United States.
At the moment we do not know if the United States steel industry will petition, but if it does we know from NAFTA that Canada is excluded from safeguard action as long as it is not a substantial contributor to the serious injury.
Our steel industry is a good steel industry and we are fair traders. We will continue to protect it.
Veterans AffairsPeter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, in 1955 the Canadian government conspired with England and sold out Hong Kong veterans' claim rights.
In June the minister promised to investigate but has sat on his hands and has remained mute since. Japan enslaved our soldiers for four years and Canada has shafted them for another 50.
When will the minister publicly apologize for this terrible wrong and provide the long deserved recompense?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is very concerned about this matter and he has indicated before in this House that he is looking into it. He is trying to come to a resolution of this matter as quickly as possible.
FisheriesMr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In August, the coast guard brutally boarded the vessels of Gaspé fishers participating in a peaceful demonstration against the minister's incompetence. Today, we learned that the minister is making a disgraceful situation even worse by laying charges against the very people his irresponsible policies are hurting.
Does the minister recognize that the fishers were reacting to his inertia and that he is now making matters worse by taking steps to have them—
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to speak on a case that is already before the courts. I certainly can tell the member that if one is caught fishing with no licence in a closed zone in Quebec, P.E.I. or anywhere else in Canada, one will be charged. We are trying to maintain the fisheries for the future and prevent illegal fishing.
HousingMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Night Rider program in Thompson provides emergency shelter to people in need. Now it has become the victim of the government's cost cutting. Cuts to transfer payments have left the province, city and surrounding communities searching for enough money to make up for the government's abandonment. Night Rider serves local people as well as some nearby First Nations who rely on it because the government does not provide adequate housing on reserves.
There has already been snow in Thompson and winter temperatures drop below minus 40. If Night Rider goes under, people will die.
Will the government ensure funding for the Night Rider program or will it let Canadians freeze to death on the streets?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a concern regarding homelessness across the country. It affects not only the larger communities but it also affects smaller towns.
There is a long term solution and a short term solution. The long term solution involves not only the federal government, the provincial government but also the municipal government. It deals with matters of social assistance. It deals with the issues of cutbacks as a result of government belt tightening. It also deals with the deinstitutionalization of many people who were in hospitals but are now on the streets.
This is a complex problem and we should all work together to solve it.
Points Of OrderKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated her willingness to table a document. We would be very interested in this. I think you would find unanimous consent to have this document tabled so we could all see it.
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would be thrilled to table the document of literally over 1,000 magazines whose voices will be protected as a result of this legislation that is strongly supported by almost every party in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: If the minister wishes to table a document she may do so. We will consider the document tabled.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 8, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental FreedomsGarry Breitkreuz: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to amend an Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

On behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians who have written supporting my efforts, I have the pleasure of once again introducing my private member's bill to strengthen property rights in federal law.
Unfortunately, property rights were intentionally left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaving Canadians highly vulnerable to the arbitrary taking of property by government. My bill would fix this by making it more difficult for the government to override the property rights of its citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the House.
Nor does the Canadian bill of rights provide any protection of our right to be paid any compensation, let alone fair compensation for property taken by the government.
My bill strengthens the property rights provisions of the Canadian bill of rights by providing protection of our right to have compensation fixed impartially, protection of our right to receive fair and timely compensation, and guarantees every Canadian their right to apply to the courts when the government has violated their property rights.
Finally, approval of my amendments to the bill of rights would allow Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1998 knowing that we have finally provided the protection of property rights in federal law that the United Nations declaration called for so many decades ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 25 people living mainly in my riding. In this petition, the petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to repeal Bill C-68, the firearms bill.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today.
The first one is a petition signed by more than 300 people asking for mandatory labeling and comprehensive inspection of genetically modified foods.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a second, rather large, petition calling on the Canadian government and the United Nations to take action to oppose human rights violations against ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia. This petition is signed by several thousand citizens.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, you had to interrupt me—and I am sure you were not happy about it—before Oral Question Period when I was on a roll.
I will start the second part of my speech with another quote from Mr. Bourassa, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec who said on Wednesday, March 4, 1992, in reaction to the Beaudoin-Dobbie Commission's report:
What we find in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report is some kind of domination reflex, of dominating federalism. They think they must be involved in all sectors and that, for all intents and purposes, they could have the last word. We do not think this approach respects the Canadian Constitution.
That is what former federalist premier Robert Bourassa said.
Having said that, I should draw a parallel with this bill, which is a very good example of the dominating federalism to which we are constantly subjected in this Chamber and to which Quebeckers want to put an end. We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and many in Quebec agree, that the only way to get rid of this dominating federalism is to have a sovereign Quebec.
When it comes to the defence of consumers and the public, governments should sit up and take note. Many have said so. I was pleased to hear the Canadian Federation for Independent Business say how important it is to remember that consumers are not only individuals or citizens, but also small businesses that do not have the same financial means as the large corporations and that find themselves in the position of David versus Goliath, and this has nothing to do with the Bible as things currently stand.
It is important to remember that small business is a large part of Quebec's social and economic fabric. True, there are some large corporations, but there are also small businesses and we in the Bloc Québécois are trying to represent their interests as best we can.
This bill is extremely disappointing. It fails to give citizens the protection they expect. The Internet is not just for commerce and cannot be isolated from civil society.
We had a debate on telemarketing in the House. The government wanted to deal firmly with companies engaged in misleading telemarketing, by requiring them to sat very clearly at the beginning of the call who they were and what the purpose of the telemarketing was. I am in favour of this approach.
The Bloc Quebecois sought to introduce an amendment extending that to the Internet. Now we have a bill on electronic commerce which says nothing on that score. Yet, more and more people would like to use this medium—which is only a medium and not another universe, as the OECD acknowledged—but they will do so only if they have real protection.
The first step is a full protection, extending not only to electronic commerce, but also to personal information and privacy. This is what the bill is all about.
Those who speak after me will come back on that, but it will probably require international agreements.
To conclude, I will say that that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, expect the country to which we will belong for a few more years, Canada, to show leadership, the kind of leadership that will reassure the public. Based on the promises of this Liberal government and the previous ones, we were expecting real legislation, legislation that would protect privacy in the private sector.
Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that I was somewhat astounded by the comments made by members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois. Their misinformation on this very important matter is disturbing. Perhaps they do not understand what is being proposed in Bill C-54, but I think that is probably not the case. I believe they are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts.
I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on this very important matter. Let us do so by reviewing the facts.
The province of Quebec was the first jurisdiction to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation for information held in and by the private sector.
In 1994 the province passed an act representing and respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. This act grants individuals the right of access to personal information held by private sector businesses operating in Quebec and regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The legislation is overseen by the Commission on Access to Information which is responsible for conducting investigations and settling disputes.
I also want to point out that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which came into force in 1975 enshrines the right to privacy for residents of Quebec. Amendments to the civil code providing extensive rights of privacy were enacted in 1991.
Because it has legislation which is substantially similar to the proposed personal information protection and electronic documents act, Quebec in fact will be exempted from its application. That is important to note.
Like the Quebec legislation, the federal legislation will have two basic components: a set of fair information principles and a mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the law. The federal bill is based on the Canadian Standards Association code which, like the Quebec law, is based on the 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development “Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data”.
Let us be clear here because it is important. First of all, Quebec will not lose any type of protection as a result of our legislation. Moreover, our legislation will not force Quebec to do anything or to not do anything. Finally, Bill C-54 will complement Quebec's legislation. To suggest otherwise is misleading, false and quite frankly, incorrect. It is important that Quebecers and all Canadians know this.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I rise today I cannot help but think about the importance of this bill's title: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, etc.
What we have to remember is that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Industry, who is being asked to fulfill a twofold mandate, namely to protect the industry and consumers at the same time. We know that both the industry and consumers have powerful lobbies.
It should then come as no surprise that, in the dilemma that the minister is facing, having to choose between protecting the industry or protecting consumers, the Minister of Industry, who has been holding this position in the Liberal government since 1993, has so far always favoured the industry to the detriment of consumers.
There is a long list of projects he has pushed aside under pressure from lobby groups. I am thinking in particular of the Ginn Publishing case, in which consumers got the short end of the stick. I will give more examples later.
At the outset, when the Department of Industry was created, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government not to give the same minister two mandates that were so different from each other.
Section 4 of the Act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts states:
4.(1) The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to:
(a) industry and technology in Canada;
(b) trade and commerce in Canada;
(c) science in Canada;
(d) consumer affairs;
(e) corporations and corporate securities;
(f) competition and restraint of trade, including mergers and monopolies;
The Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the same minister defending the interests of consumers and those of industry since it is clear, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and most of all a mind to think, that the interests of business, represented by lobbies and large cash contributions to the campaign coffers of federal political parties, would prevail over those of consumers.
The bill proposed by Industry Canada is tailor made for this. The Bloc Quebecois has already seen the opposition between the interests of consumers and those of the industry. It has also seen the Minister of Industry's clear preference for industry rather than consumers.
I would like to remind the House of an interesting case, direct broadcasting satellites, better known as DBS. The government did not take the necessary steps to inform consumers that technological changes were occurring and it allowed consumers to acquire analog parabolic antenna systems, while the industry was converting to digital transmission.
The Minister of Industry intervened on behalf of the Prime Minister's relatives to make sure that the Canadian policy on DBS would suit their interests. The Minister of Industry waited a long time before warning consumers against buying parabolic antennae connected to the American broadcasting system and he asked the industry to circulate the warning.
However, the Bloc Quebecois intervened and asked the minister to launch a broad information campaign on this issue. On December 19, we wrote the Minister of Industry a letter along these lines:
As you are aware, almost half a million Canadians and Quebeckers now own satellite dishes that will soon be obsolete, because digital mode will soon be the only method used for broadcasting radio signals.
What is more, the Department of Industry is also responsible for technological development in Canada. You therefore played a role in developing the unregulated grey market of satellite dishes. You were aware that there would soon be a major technological change in satellite signal transmission methods but you did not inform consumers of these changes on the horizon.
I feel you were remiss in your responsibilities towards consumers who bought satellite dishes during the past year. Had you truly been interested in protecting their interests, you would have launched a full-scale information campaign to inform them about the technological changes just around the corner.
I therefore call on you, Mr. Minister, to take the necessary action to have your department immediately inform consumers and retailers, among others, by placing announcements in newspapers pointing out that satellite dishes are becoming obsolete as a means of capturing analog signals, so that sales of this kind of equipment cease; to launch an information campaign regarding DTH broadcasting so that consumers, whose interests it is your responsibility to defend, know exactly where they stand: the incompatibility of technologies, subscription required for basic service, the risks of purchase, given that the CRTC does not use the viability of businesses as a criterion for issuing licences to businesses, DTH—
On February 22, Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications wrote the federal Minister of Industry on the same subject. She said: “There are two ways around this problem: require applicants to offer consumers mutually compatible technologies, or have them rent the antenna, the decoder and the remote control from a DTH satellite service or from one of its accredited retailers until the technology is ready for market.”
On February 26, the minister answered my letter of December 19. He said that he understood my disappointment and the disappointment of the consumers.
I agree with you that it is unacceptable for some retailers to still be selling parabolic antennas to receive signals in analog mode without warning their clients that, soon, these signals will no longer be sent out.
In short, the minister sympathizes with the public, but he is doing nothing to protect them. The hon. member who spoke before me said that there was no risk for people in Quebec. I would like to quote here, in full, a comment on this bill made by the Commission québécoise de l'accès à l'information.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.
This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This is a sensible breakthrough which results from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines relating to personal information protection. However, the CSA code does not begin to respond to the objectives of personal information protection systems established by both Quebec laws, that is, ensuring citizens an objective and equitable settlement of problems and disputes that can arise in the growing area of the respect of this dimension of private life.
Thus, the Commission suggested to the minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts in other governments that a legal system had been put in place by Quebec. The Quebec system is, in the eyes of the Commission, the only answer that respects citizen's rights, considering the challenges of the information highway.
The draft bill the Minister of Industry and the federal government are proposing for personal information protection really is another reason for Quebeckers to achieve sovereignty.
Every day, we discover something about this government. When the session is over, the record will be full and Quebeckers will know what choice to make.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, the federal government must be really ashamed of its bill on personal information protection in the commercial sector to have decided late yesterday afternoon, in spite of parliamentary tradition, to put it on the order of the day for second reading today.
The government thus hoped to avoid a real public debate on its bill. For those who do not know about parliamentary conventions, I recall that on Mondays and Fridays half the members are not in the House so that they can have a little time to meet with their constituents. That is why parties usually agree on the coming business so that the members interested in the matters on the order of the day can be here to discuss them. But yesterday, the government unilaterally changed the order of the day.
I partly understand it. If I were in the industry minister's place, I would be ashamed of the tricks he pulled to make us believe that personal information will be protected in this country. Before introducing this bill, the government should have recalled that a parliamentary committee had looked into the issue of personal information in a technologically changing world.
I quote from the committee report:
We do not believe that Canadians want ground rules to protect only their informational privacy—
As is the case in the bill under consideration, which only protects personal information inasmuch as it is collected, used or disclosed in the context of a commercial transaction.
I resume the quotation:
—leaving the rest of their privacy rights to languish in a lawless frontier.
In its report entitled “Privacy: Where do we draw the line?”, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities also wrote, and I quote:
Privacy is one of the most comprehensive of all human rights—broad, ambitious and valued around the world.
Traditionally understood as the “right to be left alone” in this technological age, privacy has taken on new dimensions. To experts, privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. To the average Canadian, privacy is a question of power—the ability to control one's personal information and to remain anonymous by choice.
It goes on:
As a human right, privacy belongs to everyone. The Members of this Committee have listened to as many voices across this country as possible. Canadians have never approved of peeping Toms or unauthorized wire-tapping, and our criminal laws reflect this. We know now that this same disapproval extends, for example, to hidden video cameras in the workplace, genetic testing for insurance purposes—
Under the subtitle “Privacy as a Commodity”, the committee writes on page 10:
—the use of technology not only affects individuals; it also has an impact on the commercial activity of the community as a whole. Many townhall participants feared that privacy has become a commodity that people are prepared to trade off for either a better level of service or product or the minimization of penalties.
Paul-André Comeau, the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec, warned against a debate about privacy that focused solely on the commercial value of information. This was, he said, “the slippery slope we are lured onto by the new technologies in their attempt at putting a dollar figure to each piece of information.”
It is onto this very slope that the Minister of Industry is luring us with his bill aimed at protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in the course of commercial activities.
The committee then quotes Darrell Evans, on page 21 of its report. I will do the same, as a bit of philosophy will not hurt this government, which has focused exclusively on trade and its own visibility:
I think the vanishing of privacy would be a victory of materialism over the human spirit. I find it very hard to picture what kind of room there would be for creativity on the part of human beings in such a world. I feel the virtual bars closing in faster and faster in a world like that.
We are constantly told it is a more secure world, of course, a more efficient world, a world that catches fraud much better, but to me, that is the victory of bureaucracy over human creativity. An old phrase comes to mind here, that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing—
What is our goal in all this? What do we seek for individuals in this? We want to put individuals in a place of causation rather than being a complete effect of technologies and of a gradual erosion of their privacy. If we are to maintain human freedom, I think that's what we have to do.
But, when Human Resources Development and Canada Customs match their records to check the forms completed by all travellers entering Canada to make sure no EI claimant has left the country while receiving benefits, the federal government itself violates human rights and privacy by wrongly placing under suspicion all Canadians and Quebeckers who have left the country until they have proven their innocence.
The Bloc Quebecois will follow closely the proceedings currently before the Federal Court in the matter of the Canadian government vs the privacy commissioner.
The House committee also suggested some fundamental principles that should guide the government in its bill on personal information protection:
Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy: physical privacy; privacy of personal information; freedom from surveillance; privacy of personal communications; privacy of personal space.
Everyone is guaranteed that: these privacy rights will be respected by others adopting whatever protective measures are most appropriate to do so; violations of these privacy rights, unless justifiable according to the exceptions principle—will be subject to proper redress.
Among the basic duties owed to others to ensure their privacy rights, the committee included:
The duty to secure meaningful consent; the duty to take all the steps necessary to adequately respect others' privacy rights—the duty to be accountable; the duty to be transparent; the duty to use and provide access to privacy enhancing technologies.
Finally, the committee recognized the following rights for citizens:
Everyone is the rightful owner of their personal information, no matter where it is held, and this right is inalienable. Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy anonymity, unless the need to identify individuals is reasonably justified.
To fully understand the scope of the problem, I would now like to quote Justice Gérald La Forest, of the supreme court:
We can only be sure of being free from surveillance today if we retire to our basements, cloak our windows, turn out the lights and remain absolutely quiet.
The legislation that the Minister for Industry is proposing today for the protection of personal information that is collected for the purpose of commercial transactions is not a legislation aimed at protecting the privacy of Canadians.
The Quebec government passed similar legislation in 1994 to uphold the right to privacy of Quebecers guaranteed by the Quebec charter of rights.
All of the Canadian privacy commissioners and consumers associations have pointed out to the minister how important it is to have strong national legislation on the protection of privacy, as this legislation will serve as a model for English speaking provinces that do not yet have a law for the protection of privacy in the private sector.
By being so permissive, the Minister for Industry has shown how sensitive he is to the business lobby which, in any case, finances the Liberal Party's election fund.
I will conclude by reading the following extract of the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec's access to information commissioner:
The Commission examined the consequences of the adoption in the Canadian federation as a whole of legal standards and principles to regulate the protection of personal information on the information highway. Under the terms of a project that were conveyed to the ministers responsible for the implementation of the information highway, protection would be provided within the framework of the voluntary code developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.
This long awaited bill introduced by the minister does not meet the objective stated at the outset, namely to protect privacy in a technological world that challenges this fundamental right.
What we have before us is a bill whose content is to be found in a schedule, a bill that gives no real powers to the commissioner. This is a bill whose form and content will both create confusion.
It is a bill whose wording lends itself to broad interpretation, a bill that includes a provision allowing the governor in council to amend the act without any parliamentary debate and democratic consultation.
It is not likely, therefore, that the bill will meet the public's expectations, because it is too flawed.
First, most of the provisions governing protection of personal information are to be found in a schedule of the bill. Such a structure—which is unusual, to say the least—could result in a number of problems, since the schedule will have to be read in conjunction with the rest of the bill. This will only make it harder for businesses to figure out their obligations and consumers' rights.
Moreover, the schedule is merely a model code for the protection of personal information drafted by the private sector and by consumers, as a framework to protect personal information, but strictly on a voluntary basis.
The minister did not follow through on the recommendations made by consumers and the privacy commissioners, who stated that the code provides a good starting point, but needs to be reviewed and amended if it is to be included in the legislation.
This shows how anxious the minister is to see electronic commerce develop in Canada, and it also shows the priority given to economic values, rather than to social values and the right to privacy.
Second, the legislation is muddled.
The conditional is frequently used in Schedule 1, for example, “should be specified”.
We may well wonder whether the use of the conditional in Bill C-54 means that the legislation is simply making recommendations without imposing obligations, particularly since the answer is not obvious. In clause 5(2), the bill provides:
(2) The word “should”, when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.
11.(1) An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.
Clearly this confusion and these contradictions will make for happy lawyers and unhappy consumers.
Clause 4.3.2 in Schedule 1, which sets out the CSA code, provides:
Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.
I would remind you as well that Quebec is a unique model in North America for its legislation regarding the protection of personal information. It has had this legislation for four years. Like the charter of human rights, Quebec's laws consider the protection of personal information a basic right. Article 5 of the 1975 Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides that every person has a right to the respect of his or her private life.
Clearly, Bill C-54 has as its sole objective to promote electronic trade while the right to protection of privacy in the private sector is relegated to the background. Its title alone makes this clear.
Worse yet, this bill will reduce, in some cases, the rights of Quebeckers acquired under Quebec law.
Let us consider an example. Under section 17 of the Quebec legislation, an employee in a department store would be entitled to see his personal file, even if kept outside Quebec.
With Bill C-54, he would not necessarily be able to view his file, because his request would be subject to legislation that ignores the right to privacy when the access to information request is made under labour relations provisions and is not of a commercial nature.
Moreover, as I said earlier, Bill C-54 is based on a voluntary model code prepared by the CSA. Let us see what the access to information commissioners of Quebec and British Columbia think of that.
On page 15 of his Annual Report for 1997-98, the Quebec access to information commissioner says “going along with this proposal, the CSA standard, would be a step backward from the current situation in Quebec as far as protection of personal information is concerned”.
The British Columbia commissioner, David H. Flaherty, compared the BC legislation, the European Union legislation and the CSA code which is the foundation of Bill C-54. He came to the conclusion that the purpose of the CSA code is not to protect the right to privacy; that the concept of personal information is most poorly defined; that there is no reference to data banks; and that the definition of consent is evasive compared to what can be found in other legislation.
Also, the tools provided in Bill C-54 are ineffective, since the commissioner cannot issue orders. In fact, Canadians will have to go to the federal court to solve disputes, but only once the commissioner has issued his opinion.
I could go on and on about this bill, but I am running out of time. However, I support the request of my hon. colleague, our industry critic, and urge the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce and personal information protection in the private sector.
The bill as it now stands will not provide consumers with the level of confidence they need to ensure the development of electronic commerce.
There are three facts that surface when one reads this bill: the bill allows the federal government to subject huge sections of the economy currently under Quebec jurisdiction to federal legislation; the bill is so confused that it could be interpreted any which way; and last, it is extremely weak, since it does not grant the federal privacy commissioner the power to issue orders.
When we think about it, we once again wonder why the federal government did not rely on the four years of positive experience Quebec has in this area.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the title of Bill C-54 once again because it is important to remember what the government is trying to do with this bill. This bill is designed to support and promote electronic commerce. We are in an era of expansion, an era of constant electronic evolution, and developments in this field are faster than in any other field.
I will quote the title of the bill:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act
What are the issues related to this bill? The issues are different, of course, for the various stakeholders. For the Minister of Industry, the issue is clear: making sure that Canada participate fully in the global economy, more specifically, as I said earlier, in the extremely rapid growth awaiting electronic commerce. The figures, which are just astronomical, speak for themselves.
It is estimated that the global electronic market could reach $200 billion by the year 2000, compared to an estimated $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.
Yet, at the last OECD conference, which was held in Ottawa, the minister acknowledged that the main barrier to the development of electronic commerce is consumer confidence. Everything must be based on the confidence of those on whom this technology will be used or who will be using this technology, namely, the consumers.
We must first establish confidence in the digital economy. Here, in North America, less than one netsurfer out of five is prepared to buy products on-line. This reflects their crucial concerns about the safety of transactions, the respect for privacy and the remedies offered to consumers.
We must reinforce throughout the world confidence in the electronic market by guaranteeing the security as well as the protection of consumers and personal information.
This is the challenge for the industry minister. But for consumers' rights advocacy groups, for consumers themselves and for the people's right to privacy, what is the challenge?
For these people, the challenge is also quite clear. It is to provide an international agreement and national legislation that will effectively protect privacy and consumers' rights. We cannot accept any technological change, whether it is economically desirable or not, that leads to systematic and uncontrollable intrusion into people's privacy. We must thus ensure that consumers will be protected in their daily private lives.
There are other people who will be involved in this, for example, the privacy commissioners in all the provinces. They have to protect a human right, the right to privacy and thereby protect democracy.
In testimony before the human rights standing committee on November 21, 1996, Bruce Phillips gave the following examples. A direct marketing firm sells the list of about 80 million American households organized by ethnic origin. Let us suppose that a marketing firm sells such a list and says: “Out of the 80 million names that I am providing you, there are x million people from Germany, x million from Romania, x million from Israel”, and so on.
In organizing the list by ethnic origin, let us say that among the 35 groups identified, we find Armenians and Jews. The information provided gives both the number of children and the age ranges. It is easy to imagine how glad a terrorist organization would be if it could get its hands on this kind of information and use it for its own violent purposes.
Here is another example. In Canada, the Department of Human Resources Development and Customs Canada are currently matching their data bases in order to track cheaters—people who are supposed to be available for work and who travel to Florida during the winter because they cannot find a job. The human resources development minister matches his data with those of Customs Canada to spot people who may be cheating the EI.
Despite the ruling of the privacy commissioner condemning this procedure, this information is being used. Under the system implemented by the government, all travellers are presumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise. This is computer technology at work. This kind of operation would not be possible without the power of communication and data processing technology.
Here is another case. In BC, Pharmanet has a register containing all prescriptions being given out in the province. The purpose of this system is to avoid the prescription of incompatible drugs, but the content of this data bank can be made available to law enforcement organizations. It is far from certain the privacy of people is being protected.
Still another example. The number of hidden cameras is on the rise. In 1996, there were 200,000 hidden cameras in the U.K. alone. We are told daily how wonderful it would be to have cameras on street corners, near red lights or just about anywhere.
As invasion of privacy becomes increasingly commonplace, it is extremely important to find ways to protect privacy.
Basically those are the issues raised by the various stakeholders who made representations about this bill.
What about the bill? Does it meet the expectations it created? Does it meet the expectations of consumers and privacy commissioners, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? The answer is far from clear.
The ethics in Bill C-54 are quite different from those in the Quebec law as revealed by their respective titles. The Quebec legislation is entitled An Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, whereas the title of the federal legislation starts with “An Act to support and promote electronic commerce” and then goes on to say “by protecting personal information”.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has only one minute left.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to complete my remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have leave to complete his remarks?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the question I was asking is: Does this bill meet our expectations? As I said, the answer is far from clear.
First, the legislation has different titles at the federal and provincial levels. The provincial legislation's main goal is to protect personal information and privacy whereas the thrust of the federal bill is to support and promote electronic commerce. The protection of personal information comes second.
Whereas the Quebec legislation is aimed at protecting privacy and applies to every organization, the federal legislation only applies to commercial transactions. Electronic commerce is the main object of the bill. Personal information also means businesses' trade information.
The federal act should not hamper the very same trade activities it seeks to promote. English newspapers talk about this bill in terms of a “lightheaded government approach to cyberspace”. One can reasonably state that the Quebec bill is stricter and more encompassing both in its form and its definitions, its clear wording and the power to issue orders it gives the commissioner.
I will immediately move on to my conclusions, because I will not have enough time for all my remarks in the five minutes at my disposal.
What impression do we get from a more careful examination of Bill C-54? First of all, this is a jumbled and shaky bill, full of ifs and whens, whose central feature is a schedule that includes without any changes the voluntary code of the Canadian Standard Association.
When a bill says that an organization should do this or that, we cannot be sure it will do it, because it is not necessarily required to do so.
Second, this legislation will make federal-provincial linkage extremely complex, at least in Quebec. Our legislation being stricter and more specific than the federal bill, we will end up once more with legal wrangling over the interpretation of both pieces of legislation, and lawyers will make a fortune out of this.
Third, this bill grants new discretionary powers to the governor in council. Indeed, he will be able to amend schedule 1, the core of this legislation, simply by passing regulations. He can amend it as he sees fit to take any change to the CSA standard into account. As a result, the industries normally subject to the legislation will be in a position to amend the legislation without parliamentary debate and with the minister's consent.
We know the pressures that some companies can exert on the governing party through their contributions to campaign funds.
Finally, I would like to underline the fact that this bill is mainly concerned about electronic commerce, relegating people's fundamental right to privacy to second place.
Democracy is under constant siege, as we have seen in other countries. Some of the people visiting Canada tell us that, in their countries, democracy is trampled on a daily basis. Because Canada is a democratic country, as Quebec will be when it becomes independent, it is important that we do everything we can to protect people's privacy and not let any legislation weaken the mechanisms in place to protect this privacy.
No matter how important new technologies are, they should never take precedence over the protection of privacy, which is the very foundation of the democratic society we all value.
Business Of The HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place between the parties and the member for Calgary West concerning the taking of the division on P-22 scheduled for Monday, November 2 at the conclusion of Private Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for the following motion:
That if a recorded division is requested on P-22 Monday, November 2, 1998, the said recorded division shall be deemed deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Tuesday, November 3, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revisions Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc Quebecois makes the statement that the minister has dropped consumer interests over industry interests with this legislation.
I remind the House that the Bloc voted against government legislation like that of Bill C-20, amendments to the Competition Act intended to fight deceptive telemarketers. This legislation was intended to protect Canadians from coast to coast. Our seniors are a particularly vulnerable population who are targeted by telemarketers and consumers in general. The Bloc voted against that legislation.
On Bill C-54 I remind the House and the hon. member from across the way, and the divide is pretty big on this legislation between the two sides of the House, that without consumer confidence in electronic commerce industry that industry cannot grow. Canada has an interest in seeing that it is one of the players in the electronic commerce industry nationally, across North America and internationally.
The government understands that the key to successful electronic commerce is to establish trust with consumers. That is one of the main objectives of this piece of legislation. It will do it.
This legislation will create the condition so that there will be consumer confidence in this budding electronic commerce industry in Canada and will then allow us to become a major player internationally. We have to put the person back into personal information, and this legislation does that.
Let me inform the hon. member from that wide divide across the other side of the House that there are quite a number of organizations that promote consumer interest.
Those consumer organizations, to name a few, are the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, La Fédération nationale des associations des consommateurs de Québec, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Option consommateurs from Quebec, my native province.
When it comes to the use, collection and disclosure of personal information this bill represents concrete action, something this government is known for doing. We take concrete action. We deal with issues one at a time but we deal with them. We do not let them live on, destroy confidence of investors, of Canadians, of Quebecers like the PQ government does in Quebec with the referendum issue. But I digress. Let me come back to the main point.
I am a Quebecer. Quebecers already have good legislation in Quebec on this issue. This legislation is not impeding on that legislation. It complements that legislation.
The opposition, particularly the Bloc, does not want to say that because, as the PQ, it wants to muddy the waters in order to push its agenda forward, whether or not that agenda is in the best interests of the people of Quebec and the people of Canada. We see it again here. It is muddying the waters, distorting information. If I were a journalist and those members were journalists we would call it yellow journalism. But they are not journalists.
These amendments will create consumer confidence in Canada in our budding electronic commerce industry. This legislation complements the legislation which exists already in the province of Quebec, my home province, my place of birth.
This legislation will also complement the actions which are already being taken by community organizations and public interest groups. This legislation will allow them to do their job better. This is concrete action to ensure Canada has the real opportunity of becoming a leader in the electronic commerce industry today and tomorrow.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the Liberal member. I would have given her even more time to speak, as it is such a source of pleasure on this side of the House every time she speaks.
I am also pleased, and it is an honour as usual, to speak while you are in the Chair. Unfortunately, I do not get to do so often.
This is the second time I have risen in this House to debate this matter, which, I would say, is fundamental to a democracy such as ours.
The protection of personal information is a fundamental issue, which warrants our constant attention. This attention must be increasingly sharp, as our society is becoming more and more electronic.
A few years ago, my colleague from Lotbinière talked about the upcoming invention of fax machines. We had phones, now we have fax machines, cell phones, which are easy to tap into, and the Internet. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Therefore this House should take into account what the future has in store, even if we cannot know what that might be. This is why the bill that will eventually be passed must protect personal information as much as possible.
We have a curious government opposite, with its Prime Minister, who makes jokes about the respective merits of baseball bats and pepper spray. The listeners of the radio station 93 FM in the Quebec City region awarded him the “bolo” prize. I mention this, because with the bill before us, the government should get a second “bolo” award.
The bill totally ignores what is happening in Quebec. Contrary to what my Liberal colleague was saying before me, the proposed bill does not complement the legislation in Quebec. It is a step backwards from it. The legislation in Quebec, known as the act respecting the protection of personal information, has been widely praised.
As far as protecting personal information is concerned, Quebec sets an example. Quebec is the only government in North America to have such an act. Unfortunately, the federal bill does not seem to have be sufficiently inspired by the Quebec law.
Instead of talking nonsense, like members opposite, I would like to quote three independent, impartial and non political authorities, who are very clear on this issue.
First, there is the MacKay report tabled not so long ago. The MacKay report, and in particular the Owens report on the protection of personal information carried out for the MacKay committee, that said that a literal interpretation of the Quebec legislation shows that it applies to banks as well as other financial institutions.
Mr. Owens also indicated and I quote:
The Quebec legislation includes a whole list of duties that are stricter than what is stipulated in the codes. In particular, the standard concerning consumer consent is more severe than the standard found in voluntary codes. A file must be opened to record the information and only the necessary information can be collected; finally, the legislation specifies a process to be followed to transfer to a third party lists containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of individuals.
However, Bill C-54 is based only on the CSA code. So, we would be backtracking compared to what is being done in Quebec.
Second, I would like to quote from the 1997-98 annual report of the Quebec commission on access to information, an independent, non partisan organization that has a lot of credibility in Quebec. The annual report says:
The commission has examined the consequences of introducing Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the Canadian Standards Association.
It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.
This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on privacy.
However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the personal information protection system established under the two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an impartial and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may arise with regard to the protection of this most important aspect of one's privacy.
The report says also:
Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the Commission the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.
This needs to be stressed, for the benefit of my hon. colleague who had her head in the sand. In the commission's view, the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.
This is not the PQ or Bloc members, or even separatist, speaking, but the Commission de la protection des renseignements personnels, an independent organization. Once again, we see that the government does not listen to what anyone says in Quebec, except the sheep in the Liberal government. Even completely independent organizations do not have that ear of this government that could not care less about the situation in Quebec.
Let me quote for the benefit of my colleagues another person, one who is not a Quebecker this time. The government is more likely to be sensitive to these arguments. The federal privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, said, and I quote:
“Building Canada's Information Economy and Society” is revealing in that it lends priority to economic issues over social issues. As such, the focus on electronic commerce precedes the goal of protecting personal information; the paper also indicates that the federal government wants to engage Canadians in a variety of network activities first and then develop protection of privacy later.
When this government's own creatures recognize that Bill C-54 does not protect personal information at all, not at all, perhaps an alarm bell should sound in the heads of our leaders.
I would like to conclude by saying that the purpose of this bill is to promote electronic commerce, not to protect privacy. This is a fundamental flaw in the legislation, and we look forward to this government taking into account the general consensus reached in Quebec, and even outside Quebec, on this issue. The government should reconsider and amend the bill to ensure that it provides real protection of privacy.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise following the excellent speech made by my colleague from Charlesbourg, who has two great qualities. He is a lawyer and a humanist, and I think being a humanist makes him prouder than being a lawyer.
I would like to dedicate my speech to the charming member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but first, I want to wish all the best to the Bouchard government. As we all know, that government is headed for an election and will be re-elected with an overwhelming majority, although we are not taking anything for granted.
That government will be re-elected because it has done a good job. Spontaneously, when reflecting on the outgoing government, one obviously thinks of how it defended Quebec's interests at every turn, but one also thinks of a whole series of very important measures.
There is the $5 day care program. I think many people in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine benefited from that program. There is also the work the CLDs are doing on employment.
I could provide numerous examples of a dynamic government that has protected Quebec's interests and paved the way to sovereignty, always keeping in mind the need to implement a social democratic project.
I am taking it upon myself to prepare the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who, as we know, is a sensitive woman, to the inevitable fact that, if we all do our part, it will be re-elected, because it was a good government. I invite my colleagues to take part in a show of exuberance.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Réal Ménard: Today, we must deal with the bill before us. Members can imagine the paradox. This started as an ordinary Friday, like any other. However, the Bloc Quebecois—under the great leadership of the hon. member for Mercier, and since there is far too little leadership from the government across the way—changed everything and will do its utmost to block this bill, when it could have passed very easily.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Réal Ménard: Let us talk about this bill. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine should pay attention, to the extent of course that she can.
We are dealing with a bill that goes against one of our human rights, namely personal information.
Anyone with a bit of common sense would have thought that the Minister of Justice would be the one to rise in this House, since we are dealing with human rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the human rights declaration, the Canadian charter of rights which is, in many respects, mediocre, but which nevertheless has the merit of providing some protection for one's privacy.
Because this government is warped, because its thinking is muddled, it is attempting and proposing to deal with the whole issue of the protection of privacy, an area which is of paramount importance, as pointed out by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. Today, with computers, new technologies and electronic data processing, there is a considerable flow of information in the private sector.
The very title of the bill is unbelievable. Any law student at UQAM, Université Laval, University of Ottawa or wherever who handed in a draft with a title as convoluted as the one I am about to read would be immediately and roundly criticized by the professor.
I ask members to brace themselves—again, I urge the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to listen—and take a look at the title. They will understand the Bloc Quebecois' objections. Had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this government of sheep, this blind and insensitive government, would once again have tried to pull a fast one on Quebec.
The title says it all. It goes like this:
An act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.
Talk about confused. What blatant dishonesty—I think the word is parliamentary—telling us that the bill we are debating today is an attempt to respect people's privacy.
I hope that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has a law degree, if I am not mistaken, will remember her introductory course—
Marlene Jennings: With high marks on the bar exam.
Réal Ménard: What do they say in introductory law? They say that the best legislative texts are the shortest ones.
If the law maker is unable, in one sentence—subject, verb, object—to express an idea, the public is in trouble.
I want to point out, and we can never do so often enough, that what we are seeing today is not a desire to protect personal information originating with private organizations, but a basely mercenary attempt to make it easier for business to access private information.
We will not let that happen. Clearly, it is not too late. If the government, which as members know belatedly included the new elements, wants to co-operate with the opposition, we can have the bill withdrawn. We could ask pages immediately to go from desk to desk to collect the copies of the bill.
No, that will not happen, because the government is stubborn. As my grandmother used to say it is “hardheaded”. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here and we will not allow the government to move unchallenged toward dictatorial powers. That should be made clear.
I hasten to say, to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine in particular, that there is a Quebec model in the area of co-operation and respect for human rights, a model enacted by the Parti Quebecois which, as we all know, will be re-elected.
That model has been endorsed by the people of Quebec. A few years ago, Quebec passed a bill that protects privacy in the public sector, which goes without saying, and another bill passed in 1994 by the National Assembly, the only assembly in North America controlled by francophones and other Quebec residents. In 1994, the National Assembly extended the protection of the act to personal information in the private sector.
I challenge the government members to name one organisation in Quebec that did not applaud this excellent measure, that not only did not applaud it, but that also did not wish it applied throughout North America?
Would it not have been wiser for the government to learn from this and to propose a bill including principles similar to those found in the Quebec legislation.
I see that my time is almost up. However, in the spirit of true co-operation that exists on both sides, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would be so kind as to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend my allotted time by 10 minutes or so, to share with the information I have with the House.
I would appreciate this extension and I would ask the hon. members to be co-operative in this regard, because I worked really hard to prepare this speech, and I have things I wish to share with the House. The responsibility of the opposition is to ensure that the government always improves itself. As everyone knows, it is a full time job. It is also an exhausting job.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): The hon. member's time has expired.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is surely no doubt that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring increased confidence in this process is without question a good idea, but is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have the same opportunity to this new technology?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time allotted to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I think that you do have to ask the House whether it agrees or not.
I would appreciate it if you could take the time to ask the House whether it gives its consent, and I am sure that you will do it with class.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): I would be happy to put the request of the hon. member to the House. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering why the government would refuse the hon. member a bit of extra time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee): The hon. member realizes that unanimous consent was not accorded at that time.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is surely no doubt that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring increased confidence in this process is, without question, a good idea.
However, is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have the same opportunity to this wonderful new technology? The government is forever talking about advancement in technology and computer training, how we will not keep up with the rest of the world if we do not support these efforts. I agree.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe that all Canadians should have that opportunity. Seventy per cent of Canadians are without Internet access. One of the greatest barriers is cost to the individual.
My colleague from Churchill River during question period today raised the concern that in northern communities we do not even have adequate road access.
In my riding there are communities that are just now getting single line phone access. There is one community where there are three phone lines: one in the school, one in the council office and one in the health centre. There was one pay phone which was removed when those three phone lines went in.
I have spoken before of the town of Lynn Lake which lost banking services and had to fight for an ATM. I know this same situation will apply in rural as well as northern remote communities.
As a former school trustee I recognize that districts, with the huge cuts that governments have made in education and transfer payments, are fighting to keep technology within the schools. Tech costs and the Internet on-line costs are very prohibitive.
When we had a publicly owned telephone service in Manitoba, I at least felt that we all had relatively equal access. Of course, that is no longer the case.
Larger centres may benefit, but rural remote areas are paying the price. Smaller businesses will be hard pressed to survive because of the prohibitive cost.
I was just in Chile and I can say that the majority of its citizens cannot afford what should be a basic service, let alone electronic commercial banking. Is this what we want in Canada?
If government is not willing to ensure that access is available to the majority of Canadians, it is not acceptable. What it is doing is putting in place the foundation for greater disparity between the rich and the poor.
Another aspect, of course, is job loss. There must be consideration given to alternative training, job opportunity and support for affected workers.
I do not think there are very many Canadian workers or businesses who trust the employment insurance and human resources department to be there on their behalf. Most believe it is only the finance minister who controls those dollars. Do we need more unemployed in Canada?
The privacy of health information is, without question, another concern to many Canadians.
As we hear of computer hacks breaking into all types of programs, it is not unreasonable to worry about other personal information being made available to outside interests: banks, insurance companies, employers or the man or woman down the street.
This bill fails to protect the privacy of Canadians and it fails to ensure equal opportunity for all Canadians. I will not be supporting it.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe taking the floor after my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke eloquently, will not be an easy task.
I will say it once more, this bill reflects Canada's two solitudes, as the saying goes, two different visions.
Indeed, Bill C-54's thrust is quite different from the thrust of Quebec's legislation. The titles of both laws give us an important clue. Quebec's legislation is entitled an act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, and the federal legislation is entitled an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.
While Quebec's law provides for the protection of privacy and applies to all organizations, the federal law applies only to commercial transactions.
Instead of presenting a real bill that would be aimed at protecting privacy in the private sector, the Minister of Industry is promoting electronic commerce, as his good friend at the OECD, Donald Johnston, is asking him to do, and he is again challenging the fundamental right to privacy.
Broadly speaking, the Minister of Industry is proposing a weak bill; the body of the law is to be found in its schedules and it does not give the commissioner any real power. Moreover, its form as well as its content will cause confusion; its wording will be wide open to interpretation; it will have a Henry VIII type clause, whereby the governor in council can amend the law without parliamentary debate and without democratic consultation.
This last point is crucial because its deprives us of a large part of our sovereignty as parliamentarians. One could talk a lot about all the changes made to parliamentary structures during the last few years. Let us mention, for example, the millennium scholarships that will be managed by a private foundation, as well as all the other organizations and foundations that are being created by the government and which, ultimately, with transfer political power to private institutions.
What is the use, I wonder. of electing people if those who form the government keep giving away powers to institutions that will manage certain programs without be accountable to the public. This really concerns me. Once again, that is what we will see with this bill.
Clause 27 says that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to amend Schedule 1 to reflect revisions to the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information.
This clause fully gives the federal government the right to amend the bill by order in council without having to come back to parliament. It will thus be able to amend the legislation as a result of pressure from large Canadian corporations, since we know that neither consumers nor citizens organizations contribute to campaign funds of Canadian political parties.
The nationwide harmonization of legislation on this issue seems to be a major criterion for ensuring some consistency in the protection of personal information, but we were entitled to expect that the federal government would build on the four years of experience in Quebec in the protection of personal information. This is not what happened.
The Bloc Quebecois deplores that the government decided not to give the privacy commissioner the power to issue orders. This power, which is sadly missing from his capacity to carry out his responsibilities in the public sector, should have been formally provided for in the bill before us today. The absence of this provision will affect the credibility of this bill.
Moreover, we fear that, with these weaknesses in the bill, the minister will never be able to reach his primary objective, which is to promote consumers' confidence in the development of electronic commerce.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has no confidence whatsoever that the government will provide the privacy commissioner with the resources he needs to do the additional work that has been given to him in the bill.
We know, for example, that the Copyright Board, an organization that makes quasi judiciary decisions, did not get additional resources after passage of Bill C-32, that doubled its duties. Today, the industry minister is forcing it to consider cost recovery.
Earlier I mentioned that the federal government did not seem to have been inspired by the Quebec government's experience. What about that Quebec legislation?
In Quebec, this right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975. There is nothing ambiguous about section 5:
Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.
The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”, from which I will quote the following sections:


Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.


The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of privacy of a person:


(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;
(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other that the legitimate information of the public;
(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.


Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may gather only information which is relevant to the stated objective of the file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information to third persons or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.


Except as otherwise provided by law, any person may, free of charge, examine and cause the rectification of a file kept on him by another person with a view to making a decision in his regard or to informing a third person; he may also cause a copy of it to be made at a reasonable cost. The information contained in the file shall be made accessible in an intelligible transcript.


A person keeping a file on a person may not deny him access to the information contained therein unless he has a serious and legitimate reason for doing so or unless the information is of a nature that may seriously prejudice a third person.


Moreover, the Quebec government is the only government in North America which legislated personal information protection in the public and private sectors. Experts state that the Quebec legislation governing the private sector is among the best in the world.
To have a better idea of the benefits of the Quebec law, here are a few of the provisions that could have been used as a model for the federal legislation.
First, the objectives of the law are better defined in the Quebec law, since privacy has to be protected regardless of any commercial concern.
Second, the Quebec law clearly covers all businesses, either profit-making or non-profit-making, while the federal legislation provides for personal information protection only within the framework of commercial transactions.
Third, the Quebec commissioner has the power to issue orders while the federal commissioner has no power whatsoever, as has been already demonstrated.
Section 45 of the Quebec law provides that a group of persons may appoint someone to represent them in a class action suit. There is no such clause in the federal legislation.
For the Minister of Industry, the stakes are clear: to ensure that Canada fully contributes to the global economy, particularly to the spectacular growth awaiting electronic commerce. The figures are astronomical: it is estimated that the global electronic market could skyrocket to $200 billion by the year 2000 from $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.
Yet, the minister recognized at the last OECD conference in Ottawa that the main stumbling block to the development of electronic commerce was consumer confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a few minutes left and I deplore having to conclude my speech in what seems to be a very empty House. Is there not a provision in the Standing Orders of this House that requires a quorum?
Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Where?
The Deputy Speaker: I just counted them. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean's time has expired.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to check your mathematical skills, you would find that there were only 18 members present, including yourself, when you said that we had a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I counted 20 members. Members are counted if I can see them. I could see 20 members. I counted them personally. I am satisfied that there were 20 here.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am rather proficient in French, but not that much in mathematics; however I am sure that students in primary and secondary schools would have seen, when you said that we had quorum, that unfortunately there were not 20 members present, even though some of our colleagues count for two.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but when I looked in the House and around the House, there were 20 members, I counted them more than once. The matter is settled.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we were to look in Beauchesne's, we would find that only members in their seats can be counted.
I know that you have too long an experience in this place to think that rules could dictate otherwise; we know for a fact that we did not have quorum. We are asking you to reconsider.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member considers the precedents, he will realize the Chair can see members anywhere in the House, and even in the gallery.
I counted 20 members present. I can see them in the House here. This decision is final, and I cannot hear any more points of order on this. The Chair has ruled and the matter is closed.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could you quote from Beauchesne's?
We maintain that you cannot count members that way, and
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Réal Ménard: We ask for a quorum check once more. This is a matter of integrity.
You cannot check the quorum the way you say it can be done. I am ready to abide by your ruling, but I should be able to find a basis for your ruling in precedence.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
We have quorum. As I indicated to the House, I made my decision based on precedents. I have often discussed this issue with House officials during my 10 years in the House.
I am convinced members can be counted if they are in the House, even if they are not at their seat. There has been enough discussion on this point, and the matter is closed.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have a couple of minutes to address this topic. I do not have a lot to express, but I have had constituents come to me and I would like to raise a matter with the House.
The primary concern that people have had with the bill that is before the House and the regulations of the Internet and so on is that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. The concern is that these regulations are the beginning of an attempt to regulate commerce over the Internet in such a way as to discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. That is a key point.
People are really concerned that when we begin to meddle in this the intention may be good at the beginning, but these regulations will discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. It will somehow force those who want to do business over the Internet to establish themselves outside Canada.
We need the assurances of the government that it is not heading in this direction.
Furthermore, the other concern they express is that when we begin to regulate, at some point we may begin to tax. This may be the tip of the iceberg. There may be taxes coming down the pike that would tax the various transactions that are going to take place over the Internet, especially economic transactions. This is a concern of people and I have to raise that concern. I am glad I have had a few moments to do that.
I understand the debate is about to collapse, but my constituents would not want to see trade and commerce over the Internet hampered by what might be at this point an innocuous attempt to bring in a tax that would begin to discourage entrepreneurs from using the Internet to transact all kinds of transactions.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, while protecting personal information, so that consumers can engage in electronic commerce with confidence.
For the benefit of this House, let me first explain in general, easy to understand terms what this legislation is all about. When we talk about electronic commerce, what exactly are we talking about?
We are talking about making purchases or transactions—bank transactions, transactions with suppliers, with manufacturers, with clients—electronically. These types of transactions have been in existence for quite some time. Telecommunications have been with us for thirty years or so. They have been relatively well structured in terms of standards for 25 years.
As for electronic data interchange, it has been governed by international standards for more than 10 years. In fact, electronic data interchange is used relatively often by many businesses.
For the past ten years or so, large businesses have been using it in their dealings with suppliers. That means that a supplier does not send a written bill to his client, but rather an electronic bill that is received on the client's computer, allowing the client to authorize payment after verifying that the goods or services have actually been delivered.
What is happening today is an acceleration, and I was going to say a democratization of this process. Electronic data interchange is not longer restricted to large corporations and government. It is now accessible to the average person through, among other means, the Internet.
So far so good. However, if I give my credit card number when I make such a transaction, I want to be sure that this number will not be used for other purposes than those for which I wrote it on the electronic form.
I want to be sure that somebody will not use my credit card number to travel around the world. Of course, I would only find out about it when receiving my statement at the end of the month. It would be terrible.
True, particularly well equipped hackers might be able to get at that information. But we have the tools to make it very difficult for them. One should not generalize and panic.
We have to recognize that in everyday life, you and I and a lot of other people are using their credit cards in a lot of establishments, restaurants, clothing stores, to subscribe to a magazine. Our credit card number is handled by strangers.
When I go to the restaurant and I pay with my credit card, the waiter takes it away for a while to pass it through a mechanical device or a magnetic tape reader to charge the check on my account at my credit card provider. During those few minutes, he or she could take note of my number to use it improperly.
However, in 99.99% of the people are honest and that kind of fraudulent use of credit card simply does not happen. But it is true that there are fraudulent uses of credit cards.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, could you, please call the House to order?
Réal Ménard: Yes, this is ridiculous. And it is such a great speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all hon. members would want to hear the speech by the hon. member for Laurentides. I, for one, can hear it very distinctly. I would ask her to continue without being interrupted.
Monique Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I personally listen to my colleagues with great pleasure.
As I was saying, if a dishonest person wanted to get some credit card numbers to use it for his or her own profit, that would be perfectly possible unless protective measures are taken. That is where all the question of electronic commerce facilitation kicks in.
If I feel that my purchasing something on the Internet might reveal things I do not want to be known, such as what I am buying, how much I paid for it, what my credit card number is or other confidential information I might give, if I am not convinced it will all remain confidential and will be used for the intended purpose only, I will be very reluctant to engage in any electronic transaction. I would not do it.
Of course, if the legislation were to require businesses to take the appropriate steps to ensure that all electronic transactions are secure, confidential and protected, then we would feel much more at ease and e-commerce would blossom.
What are the two problems that can arise in terms of protection of personal information? First, there is the illegal access to the information by someone who is not entitled to see the data. Of course, none of us would like information about us to fall into the hands of people who should not have access to it. That is the first problem.
Then, there is also the misuse or illegal use of the information. Someone who should not even have had access to your information is using it to harm you or for some other illegal purposes. So, it is important to ensure that the information can only be accessed by the people who are entitled to see it, by the final recipient, and used for the purposes for which the information was made available.
In this area, Quebec has been fully protected for four years now through its Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. The bill before us today, Bill C-54, only deals with businesses. It does not extend to any other activity and has some serious deficiencies.
This is extremely important because, whether we like it or not, electronic commerce is bound to expand. It is here to stay.
We have nothing against the fact that the rest of Canada is passing legislation. It makes sense to do so. However, we want to make sure that the act in effect in Quebec will remain in effect, and we do not want yet another imbroglio after all the ones we have had in the past.
We can make a judgment on how the Canadian federation has worked in the past. We can condemn duplication. We can say that things should have been done differently. We can propose ways other than those used in the past. If there is one area where the industry does not want two levels of legislation, and does not want to get dragged into problems relating to the constitution and to the interpretation of the act, it is definitely that of electronic commerce which, in any case, will be significantly affected by the need for international agreements.
The bill opens the door to several interpretations, and it also provides a discretionary power to the governor in council. But the governor in council is really the cabinet. It is the government which, under clause 27( d ) can decide to change the application of the act, without having to go back to parliament.
That principle is not often found in legislation and, under the British tradition, is avoided as much as possible so there is no abuse of power, particularly in areas as contentious as the protection of personal information, where the government itself could be involved while having the power to change the law if it did not want it to apply in the way it was intended when it was adopted.
We can also wonder if the bill meets the expectations of consumers and of Canada's and Quebec's privacy commissioners. The respective titles of both the Quebec and the federal act are very explicit. While the Quebec act is designed to protect privacy and governs all organizations, the federal act applies only to commercial transactions. We can see right there that the ideology is totally different.
In conclusion, we, of the Bloc Quebecois, find this bill totally unacceptable because it is confused, because it uses the conditional, because its main component is a schedule and because it can be amended by the governor in council without debate. This bill will make federal-provincial relations extremely difficult for Quebec and will open the door to more federal interference.
This bill focuses on electronic commerce, giving second billing to the fundamental concept of privacy, to the protection of privacy. This bill, in its present form, gives no power whatsoever to the commissioner, has no teeth and ignores the unique experience of Quebec with regard to protecting personal information in the private sector.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it is very important as we enter the 21st century and as we are poised to participate in a global knowledge based society that we debating the issue of e-commerce and the issues of the Internet in the House.
We need to create in Canada domestic policies that provide an opportunity to Canadians not only to compete globally but to succeed globally. That means more than simply changing our approach to e-commerce. That means creating domestic economic policies that succeed and allow Canadians to succeed. That means effecting change in the structural barriers we have to competitiveness and productivity in the Canadian economy, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, reducing the tax burden, reducing the regulatory burdens and allowing Canadians to grasp the levers of the free market in a global sense.
This new world of globalization that has been demonized as of late due to some failures in domestic economies represents more opportunities to Canadians than threats. But we have to ensure that the policies we create and the legislation we pass in this House are able to guide Canadians and this very important industry for Canadians into the 21st century.
This is particularly relevant if we consider the very sparse population over a large country. We have already demonstrated because of that situation and the position Canadians are in an ability to succeed in e-commerce. My part of the country, Nova Scotia, has one of the fastest growing high tech industries in the country. We are succeeding because of the quality of life issues, the death of distance as a determinate in the cost of telecommunications and our proximity to markets like New York and Boston.
Now we, as legislators, have to work with our provincial legislatures to ensure that we create policies that allow provinces like Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba to succeed in this environment.
I agree with the principles of trying to at least come to grips with regulating the Internet. It is extremely important that we come to grips with this challenge. It is not a matter of whether we come to grips with the challenge but it is how we will do it.
the Internet is a lot like an adolescent in some ways. Governments are seeking to treat the industry as an adolescent, to try to create rules to control this adolescent.
When we are parenting or creating regulations for adolescents we have to realize that adolescents are in a period of change and transition. This industry is in a period of change and transition. It is important that we do not create rules and regulations that reflect the realities today but that are not adaptable to the realities of tomorrow because this industry is changing extraordinary quickly.
We have to balance this whole privacy issue. Privacy versus consumer protection is going to become increasingly important. They need not be mutually exclusive in what we do. There will be stresses to make it very difficult, particularly if we consider the global consequences of what we do relative to the Internet.
I can look at something on the Internet from Finland, for example. Finland may be guided by completely different rules than Australia. If we look at something from Finland, we may as Canadians be looking at a medium that is controlled by completely different legislation from something from Australia. It is very important that we do not deal with this complex global issue in isolation.
Canada has an opportunity, I would argue an obligation, to pursue this on a global basis through the OECD perhaps and to demonstrate the type of strength that Canada has been able to demonstrate in the past as a middle power as being very effective in guiding the changes necessary to ensure we balance privacy versus protection in this industry.
I was interested in hearing the comments of my colleague in the Reform Party. It is interesting because the Reform Party is averse to regulation in this area because it may lead to tax. It is kind of a difficult position in some ways for some members of the Reform Party. In a sense as the party of social enslavement and economic freedom, it brings the whole contradiction of its policies into line because effectively it wants to give people all kinds of freedom with their cheque books but it wants to control what they do in their own homes. There is an inherent contradiction in those policies, in particular when we are dealing with issues like the Internet.
I point that out because as the party of economic and social freedom, our party will be consistently vigilant in defending the rights of Canadians to succeed in a free market and to also enjoy freedoms in their own homes and with their families and in their country, the types of human rights absolutely necessary to the quality of life in this country.
It is extraordinarily important that we address the fundamental economic issues as well as the tax issues relative to e-commerce. I received recently a briefing on some of the e-commerce tax issues. These are becoming increasingly difficult, in particular with complex financial instruments like derivatives. How are we as regulators going to track these increasingly complex financial instruments? How can we tax these financial instruments and these exchanges through commerce?
Although I do not have all the answers I probably have more than some members opposite. We need to work collectively, not only within the House but with all our provincial counterparts and in a global sense with other countries, to ensure we are creating regulations for the Internet that will grow and will not inhibit our opportunities in this extraordinarily important area in which Canadians can prosper and succeed in protecting the privacy of Canadians.
At this juncture we are debating the MacKay task force and discussing changes in the Canadian financial services sector. No other sector has been as dominated by technology as the Canadian financial services sector. We are grappling with the idea of trying to control the Canadian financial sector. We are trying to create a balance between competitiveness, consumer protection and the success of our financial services sector into the 21st century. We must recognize that this industry is controlled largely by changes in technology.
Some people have bank branch myopia. They somehow think the prevalent provider of banking services is still the bank branch. It may be now but in 10 years we will find it difficult to explain to a new generation that we used to go to a bank branch to withdraw money and to talk to a loans officer. More and more of these functions will increasingly be done in front of a computer terminal. That is why any legislation debated in the House needs to consider the incredibly dynamic risks and opportunities of this new medium of e-commerce through the Internet.
We will miss the point if we ignore the impact of technology on sectors like the financial services sector and if we pursue policies and procedures like the Liberal witch hunt on the banking industry that was conducted last summer. The Liberals are wont to sacrifice good public policy at the pyre of political palatability. That is the Liberal way.
I commend my colleagues opposite. There has been a proselytization that should be commended. As we debate e-commerce in a global environment, we should remember that it was not that many years ago that many members opposite fought vociferously against the free trade agreement which paved the way to allow Canadians to compete and succeed in the 21st century. It was our party that was proud and steadfast in defending the principles of free trade and in defending the opportunities for Canadians to compete in the 21st century.
I suggest David Orchard would find a more natural home among the social and economic Luddites opposite.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I not get a chance to reply to that vociferous attack on Reform about—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid not. We are in a position where it is 10 minute speeches for everybody and there are no questions or comments.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce.
First of all, let me read the title of the bill. It is highly important in this debate, because it sets out the main goals of Bill-54. The title reads as follows:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.
Members will have realized that this bill promotes the development of electronic commerce instead of the protection of personal information.
Marlene Jennings: What is the short title?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate comments from the members opposite, it shows that they are listening, but maybe they could listen carefully.
This bill should deal primarily with the right to privacy. It is ironic however that the Minister of Industry should have chosen to include the privacy provisions in a schedule of the bill. But what is a schedule?
A schedule should contains additional or secondary provisions. And in this case, we can see where the minister has put what should be considered as the main element of the bill, the key element. He has put it in the schedule.
Moreover, the provisions contained in this extraordinary schedule are vague and open to interpretation, excessively so. Let me simply give a few examples of some of the unclear wording of this bill.
Clause 4.2.3 of schedule 1, says on page 41:
The identified purposes should be specified—to the individual from whom the personal information is collected.
Clause 4.2.5 of the same schedule says:
Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.
I could go on like this at length since I know of at least eight of those conditional clauses in schedule 1.
One does not need a Ph.D in linguistics to understand that the use of the conditional has nothing to do with an order to do something. There is a world of difference between shall and should. However, fearing nothing except, of course, the business lobby, the minister even specified in clause 5 of the bill, and I will quote because it is really worth it—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It seems that for some hon. members, the difference between the present and the conditional has no meaning. This might explain why things are so bad here.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Is there no whip on the other side?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Obviously, there is much enthusiasm for the speech of the hon. member for Laval Centre, but I would ask enthusiastic members to be a little more restrained so that we can understand what the hon. member for Laval Centre is saying.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the use of the conditional, for the benefit of the many people who are following this debate. The use of the conditional points to a recommendation rather than an obligation.
Those who still had a doubt about the good faith of the minister are now forced to recognize that the provisions of schedule 1, which provides for the repeal of provisions relating to the protection of privacy, have no imperative or mandatory character.
While reading the bill, I stumbled onto clause 11 relating to complaints. It floored me. I suggest that members listen carefully to my reading of this clause and hold on to their seat, because it could a rough ride. This clause reads as follows:
An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision—
—of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.
This is a major problem. How can recommendations that are not real obligations be binding? I am at a loss to interpret these provisions, but I would like the minister to explain this masterpiece of ambiguity and confusion to me. This does not augur well for citizens' rights.
There is more. Paragraph 4.3.2 of schedule 1 stipulates:
—Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.
The words “shall make a reasonable effort” can be interpreted many ways. It would have been clearer to say that organizations shall ensure that the individual is advised. Obviously, this government is not very good at creating obligations to protect real people.
Schedule 1 says “Organizations are encouraged to indicate the source of this information”.
If I were to accept as an obligation every invitation extended to me, my life would be very unhappy indeed. The provisions in this bill show to what extent this legislation is inadequate and does absolutely nothing to protect personal information.
However with the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, more than ever it is of the utmost importance to protect personal information collected by the private sector. This bill meets the expectations of neither Quebeckers nor Canadians.
Protecting personal information is all the more important as the right to privacy is a fundamental right just like the right to freedom and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 50 years ago, states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
In Quebec the right to privacy is protected under section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which says clearly “Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.”
The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”. Section 35 provides, and I quote:
Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
Section 35 goes even further:
Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may only gather information which is relevant to the stated objective of the file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information to a third person or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.
It is with pride that I point out that the Government of Quebec is the only government in North America to have passed legislation, as early as 1982, governing the protection of personal information in the public sector. As for the private sector, it was dealt with in 1994.
With respect to privacy, Quebec clearly has all the tools it needs to ensure that personal information concerning Quebeckers is protected.
At the federal level, there is legislation respecting the protection of personal information in the public sector, but one concerning the private sector was long overdue. In 1982, then communications minister Francis Fox announced his intention to legislate on privacy in the federally regulated private sector. In 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General endorsed this recommendation in a report.
In his 1996-97 annual report, the privacy commissioner saluted as a fundamental and highly significant event the undertaking by then justice minister Allan Rock to enact before the year 2000 a bill protecting privacy in the private sector in a real and effective fashion.
The government has recognized that technology makes it impossible to provide adequate privacy if the legislation does not apply to both the private and the public sector. Bill C-54 does not meet the requirements, because its topic is indeed electronic commerce, with privacy as a side issue.
It is quite clear that the minister is focusing on the expansion of electronic commerce at the expense of privacy. But what matters to the privacy commissioner and to all our fellow citizens is that the fundamental right to privacy be protected. In fact, it is about protecting democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise on debate today, but the hon. member for Kings—Hants attacked my colleague from Yorkton—Melville during his brief remarks because he dared to express some concerns regarding how much regulation the bill might result in.
One of the biggest problems that business faces in Canada today is regulation from government. Past Tory and Liberal governments have both functioned on one guiding principle. Now they wish to extend this principle to the electronic commerce world. It seems the principle is: if it moves, regulate it; if it happens to stop moving, tax it; and if it is on the verge of going under, subsidize it.
That is one of the big problems not only with this bill but with a lot of bills that are passed through the Chamber. The government continues to regulate, license and overregulate industry until businesses are forced out of business.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member, I am sure, will want to continue with his remarks when the bill is next taken up. However I regret to inform him that the time for adjournment has come. He will have nine minutes remaining in his remarks at the next opportunity.
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)