1999-10-20

The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge and congratulate 10 outstanding women from the Waterloo region who were honoured in this past year's Oktoberfest Women of the Year Awards.
On October 18 we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Persons case, which allowed Canadian women to be members of the Senate.
On the eve of the next millennium, women across the country are ready, willing and prepared to ensure this nation's success far into the 21st century.
It is women such as the ones who were honoured last Thursday in Kitchener who make a difference, who add to the strength and vibrancy of Canada as a nation.
I acknowledge these women by name and category: Hilde English, professional; Corry Den Duyf, senior; Arleen MacPherson, humanitarian; Aneita Brown, homemaker; Catherine Schwark, employee; Gita Morar, community volunteer; Helen Jowett, entrepeneur; Yvonne Tousek, fitness and sport; and Cheryl Muranko, young adult. I congratulate these women.
Canadian FarmersMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in September I held several meetings in my riding of Peace River. The majority of those attending were farmers who are extremely concerned about what is happening to their industry.
They told me of how they were proud to have chosen the noble task of providing food for Canadians and for people from other countries in the world.
They told me of the devastation caused by 20 years of stagnation in farm income and the devastation caused by escalating input costs.
They asked if anyone in Canada cares if they survive or if they must accept the fate of bankruptcy and retraining for some other job at the age of 60.
They are afraid that governments are not concerned about their fate or the fate of the entire sector of agriculture.
Is that what this once great country of Canada has come to, capitulating to the European Union and the United States and abandoning our once proud farmers?
Nunavut LegislatureMrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of attending the opening ceremonies of the Nunavut legislature in Iqaluit and addressing the members of the legislature.
The importance of this day was recognized by many provincial governments from coast to coast, as well as the NWT and the Yukon, who had representatives attend the official opening of the Nunavut legislative assembly.
As the members of the legislative assembly start their third session they are happy to be in the newly completed legislative assembly chamber which reflects many aspects of the unique culture of Nunavut, including the seal skin seats in the chamber.
The members of the Nunavut legislature have exciting times ahead, facing important issues and challenges on behalf of their electorate.
I know my colleagues here will join with me in wishing the Nunavut legislature every success.
County Of Oxford Integrated NetworkMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening I attended industry's seventh annual salute to excellence in the management of information and technology in the public sector.
I was there to support representatives of the County of Oxford Integrated Network, known as COIN, which was nominated for an award.
To my great delight, COIN was awarded the gold medal in the building partnerships and alliances category. This award recognizes COIN's efforts on behalf of its partners within Oxford County to provide services to our citizens through technological advances.
In winning, COIN was selected over nominees from the RCMP, HRDC, the National Research Council and other federal departments. I congratulate all of those involved in COIN, especially Oxford County Warden Mark Harrison, County Librarian Sam Coghlan, COIN Manager John Moore, and Oxford's HRDC Manager Ed St. Gelais I applaud them all on a job well done.
Nuclear Test Ban TreatyMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a global outpouring of concern and disappointment regarding the American Senate's rejection of the comprehensive test ban treaty on nuclear weapons.
The abandonment of American leadership on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation is a distressing development in the already challenging struggle to achieve a universal commitment to non-proliferation.
The American Senate's abdication of its crucial global leadership role undermines international efforts to persuade Russia, China and other nuclear powers to ratify the treaty. The disappointment which has been expressed by America's allies and rivals alike is a testament to the importance of the leadership role which the United States must take on this issue.
International support for this treaty remains strong. As Canadians, our efforts must be concentrated on encouraging the eventual adoption of the treaty by the United States. We must also convince our American neighbours that international peace and security are not served by a new form of U.S. isolationism.
Vimy RidgeMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the sky rained shells and brave men died, 100,000 Canadians moved forth in a hell of inhumanity, testing their mettle and mortality of soul.
They advanced on unconquerable Vimy Ridge. On that same ridge tens of thousands had died before in vain British and French assaults. The goal—now Canada's turn.
Canada's finest young men won the contest that day, a victory for all the world to see. The greatest victory of World War I, Vimy Ridge, would enter Canadian history on April 12, 1917. Many would say that Canada took birth that day, born into the world of nations with respect, born by the blood of our young, born through their determination and skill. The spirit lives on to this day. It lives on in the name and scholastic pursuits of l'Académie Vimy Ridge in Edmonton.
Ywca Week Without ViolenceMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from October 17 to 23, the Young Women's Christian Association is celebrating the YWCA Week Without Violence
Despite all the progress that has been made and all the battles that have been won by women in the last one hundred years, we are still finishing this century on an ambiguous note.
The statistics are very eloquent: one girl in five abused by a boyfriend, one woman in three a victim of spousal violence at least once in her lifetime. A lot still needs to be done.
In light of these statistics, which are unworthy of the next century, I call upon the hon. members of this House to reaffirm their disapproval of this situation. I call upon them to support the organizations in their ridings that are involved in fighting these crimes, such as shelters for battered women.
This behaviour will become unacceptable to society only when it is universally condemned.
Rail TransportationMr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Monday in Thetford Mines there was a demonstration by several hundred people from Thetford Mines and Beauce in support of restoration of Québec Central train service between Lévis and Sherbrooke, via Beauce.
Almost all the economic and political stakeholders in our region support this project. Many jobs depend on it. If the branch line is restored, Prolab promises an investment of $48 million, which would create 75 direct jobs in our area.
Yet on two occasions the federal government has refused to support putting this line back in service. The government must stop turning a deaf ear, and must provide financial support for restoration of the Québec Central train. I invite it to lend an ear to this heartfelt cry from the people of this area, and those representing them.
What is the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec waiting for before he acts?
Ywca Week Without ViolenceMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the week of October 17 to 23 has been selected as the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence.
This violence free week challenges all Canadians to come up with solutions to control violence in their community. Thanks to the ongoing support of Clarica—formerly the Mutual Group—the YWCA Week Without Violence will reach tens of thousands of Canadians.
Violence of one sort or another has affected every one of us, or at least someone we know. Violence is found everywhere: in our homes, in our schools, at work and at play. The YWCA Week Without Violence has become an international initiative organized by more than 30 countries worldwide, including Canada.
I wholeheartedly support this initiative and I urge all members of the House, indeed all Canadians, to do their part in stemming the flow of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Canadian FarmersMr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): The Liberal government has the dubious reputation of throwing taxpayers' money at a problem. What happens if that money misses the target?
The agriculture minister continues to stand in the House and say that farmers are saved by his disastrous AIDA program. What he fails to mention is that fully three-quarters of Saskatchewan farmers, the ones most in need, have not qualified for any money.
In Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar the Reform candidate, Jim McAllister, who will soon be joining us here, has raised the issue of escalating farm foreclosures.
The sad reality is that over 1,000 Saskatchewan farmers are faced with losing their land base over the next year. What is the minister's response? His best advice to farmers in peril is to quit and look to the government to retrain them. There is a growing consensus among Saskatchewan farmers that they would best be served by the minister if he followed his own advice and resigned today.
Du Vallon SchoolMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Gatineau, a group of parent volunteers and the staff of the Du Vallon school have come up with a plan to make the schoolyard more natural.
The school is asking for $15 from each parent sponsoring a tree to cover the cost of its planting. On Saturday, Oct. 16, teachers, students and parents from the school spent the day planting trees—a total of 120 new trees and bushes—in the schoolyard.
I would like to pay tribute to the work done by students, parents and staff of the Du Vallon school in the hopes that this sort of project may be repeated in other schools in Quebec and in Canada.
National Co-Op WeekMr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is National Co-op Week and, as the NDP spokesperson for co-operatives and credit unions, it is my pleasure to congratulate them on their successes over the past year.
Marketing, economic and consumer co-operatives have always played a vital role in our economy. Rochdale Boulevard, where my riding office is located, is named after the founders of the co-op movement in North America, the Rochdale pioneers, whose principles were first developed in 1844.
In this globalized economy we now live in, co-ops and credit unions give individuals and communities the opportunity to take control of their own lives and their own futures. With assets of over $167 billion, 15 million members and 151,000 employees, co-ops make a significant contribution to our national economy, but they can do more.
For example, as the supply of affordable housing is disappearing, thanks to the Liberals, and homelessness is reaching epidemic levels we should be looking to co-op housing as part of the solution. The federal government should make it its co-op week project to restore funding to co-op housing.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to National Co-op Week, which is being held between October 17 and 23, and to recognize the important economic and social role co-operatives and credit unions play in many communities in Canada.
I would like to be parochial for a moment and particularly pay tribute to co-operatives in Manitoba, such as Credit Union Central of Manitoba, Federal Co-operatives Ltd. and Agricore.
Agricultural co-operatives play a major role in Canadian economy: in grains, oilseeds, dairy, poultry and eggs, livestock, fruits and vegetables.
Co-operatives are the grouping of people around a shared objective and operate not for profit but for the economic benefit of their members. They promote initiatives from the grassroots rather than from governments.
Whether it is in agriculture, financial services, insurance or housing, co-operatives are growing, adapting and changing to help shape a better world for all of us.
Quebec Minister Of FinanceMr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the separatists obviously keep shooting themselves in the foot these days.
This morning, we learned that the Quebec Minister of Finance now feels that outright independence is old fashioned. He just discovered that the Parti Quebecois' option is outdated. This is some discovery.
That same finance minister served under Jacques Parizeau, someone who pulled no punches when stating that Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada was something necessary. Bernard Landry also tried to downplay the polls indicating that separatism is on the wane.
In light of these developments, sovereignists should quickly hold another convention to find out if everyone is aiming in the same direction.
Breast CancerMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, Les Voix du Ruban rose are celebrating breast cancer day in Canada.
This non-profit organization is run exclusively by volunteers, which reduces management costs to a minimum and makes it possible to allocate most of the money collected to fighting breast cancer.
Les Voix du Ruban rose delegates the responsibility of distributing research funds to a group of people dedicated to that cause, several of whom know the disease not only from a professional standpoint, but also from direct or indirect personal experience.
The organization Les Voix du Ruban rose is well aware that breast cancer does not discriminate and can strike anyone. It is with unwavering determination that it is moving forward and pursuing its efforts to gradually eliminate this form of cancer. The organization provides vital support and comfort, as well as a voice to all the women who have to fight that disease. Let us give generously during its fundraising campaign.
The Late Allan LealMr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Allan Leal, who died in Toronto on October 12, 1999, had a distinguished career as a legal educator and civil servant. He had been named as a Rhodes scholar but because of military service never took up the appointment. He took his legal education at the Osgoode Hall Law School after the war, with a later degree from Harvard Law School. He was then Dean of Osgoode Hall and subsequently Chair of the Ontario Law Reform Commission and Deputy Attorney General of Ontario.
His deanship at Osgoode Hall came during the public controversy over the role of the legal profession in legal education. As the dispute came to a head, he proposed a union of the Osgoode Hall and University of Toronto law schools.
This was not to be. Instead, there emerged two separate university law schools with their own distinctive personalities and philosophies of legal education. The intellectual legal differences between the two schools have done much to shape Canadian jurisprudence today.
Breast Cancer Awareness MonthMr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Today breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in Canadian women.
Directly or indirectly, breast cancer affects us all. We all have a mother, a sister, an aunt, a daughter or a friend who has been struck by this devastating disease.
Nonetheless, we must recognize that much progress has been made in combating this disease and that more and more women are breast cancer survivors.
I urge all members of the House to wear their pink ribbons in support of the thousands of Canadian families affected by breast cancer.

Oral Question Period
Pay EquityMr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1978 the Trudeau government adopted the flawed concept of basing pay for civil servants on arbitrary assignments of value by bureaucrats and politicians. It misnamed it pay equity. Now the courts have said that the government has to pay $5 billion to correct the shoddy application of this flawed concept, and it is the taxpayers who are on the hook for the $5 billion.
I ask the Prime Minister where the equity and fairness are in that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has now been debated in many courts. The judgment rendered yesterday will be studied by the Department of Justice. After a review of the judgment, the government will make a decision when it knows all the possibilities. Equal pay for equal work is a concept we accept. I am very pleased to note that Reform is opposed to it.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, we support the concept of equal pay for equal work but not the assignment of arbitrary values by politicians and bureaucrats.
The reality of all of this is that instead of millions of Canadian workers getting a pay increase this year because of a tax cut, these workers can now kiss that pay increase goodbye because of a $5 billion bungle by the government.
Why should millions of workers forgo a pay increase to pay for a $5 billion bungle by the government?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the commitment made by the Minister of Finance on tax cuts is still there. We have already started with tax cuts and we will keep cutting taxes but we have a problem that must be dealt with. We will decide how to do it, and when, but the commitment to reduce taxes is a commitment we intend to keep.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, is the Prime Minister then saying that the government will make this $5 billion payment to correct this bungling and give all the tax relief it was going to give in the first place?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party should know that we have been very responsible in administrating the affairs of the nation. We managed to balance the books faster than we predicted.
Sometimes we have expenditures that are not forecast, but we have still managed to balance the books, have new programs and make tax cuts, as we said we would do in our political program for the 1997 election when the Leader of the Opposition was elected as well.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party supports equal pay for equal work and so does the majority of Canadians. However, it is the government's failure to clearly define what equal value means that leaves taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why is each taxpayer stuck with a $343 bill to pay for the government's bungling?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the concept of equal pay for work of equal value is a human right that the Reform Party members do not know. It is a social concept that they do not accept. We accept that concept and will carefully look at the judgment to respect the principle of that concept.
Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says it supports the principle of pay equity. It was a Liberal government which wrote the law. It was this Prime Minister who promised to pay on the basis of equity. It was this government that failed taxpayers by refusing to define the meaning of equal value.
My question is again for the President of the Treasury Board. Will she table new legislation to clearly define the meaning of equal value before the government is challenged again on its fuzzy thinking?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, our first step is to look at the judgment that we will receive from the federal court. We have to study it because the impact of it on our public service is really important. Let us look at the judgment. We will make a decision about it and then look to the future.
Audiovisual ProductionsMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP investigation between 1995 and 1997 into the government's film subsidy programs contained allegations to the effect that there were serious shortcomings in the way the programs were run. The attorney general refused to lay any charges.
Was the Minister of Canadian Heritage aware of the very serious allegations contained in the investigation report?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations I know of are the ones that Bloc Quebecois members have repeated three times now. That is precisely why I have called for an RCMP investigation.
If the member has information other than allegations, I urge him to contact the RCMP.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit surprising that the minister is suggesting that she did not know about the results of the investigation conducted between 1995 and 1997. The attorney general did. Would he not have spoken about them to the minister immediately concerned? We shall take the minister's word.
Now that she knows about the allegations raised by the Bloc Quebecois—and it is a good thing that we did raise them—has she ordered Telefilm Canada to clean up the administration of funding for audiovisual works?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, for three days now, Bloc Quebecois members have been making allegations. I repeat: if they have any information to share, they should get in touch with the RCMP. In case they do not have the RCMP's telephone number, I have it here. It is 993-7267. I invite them to make the call.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the latest episode of the series “In the Kingdom of the Cronies”, the minister stated that an investigation was necessary and that was why she had asked the RCMP to become involved in this new investigation.
What explanation does the Minister of Canadian Heritage have, since the attorney general considered there was no reason to lay charges in 1997, for the fact that she now finds every reason to justify a second investigation into the same matter, and what has led to the government to change its position now?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, if I remember rightly, last week the member from the Bloc Quebecois made allegations, and it is as the result of these allegations that I asked to the RCMP to investigate.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the minister's red herrings are very revealing.
Did the decision by the attorney general not to act on the investigation in 1997, a decision that was given a month before have the general elections were called, not suit her government to a T?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, very serious allegations are still being made. I invite the member, if he has allegations or information, to pass this information directly on to the RCMP, which is doing an investigation because of these allegations.
Pay EquityMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the government celebrated Person's Day to honour the long struggle for women's equality. On Tuesday the courts condemned the government for denying women's equality by denying pay equity.
The government has a choice, to honour the Prime Minister's commitment to pay equity or to continue to deny women equal treatment. Which is it going to be?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have recognized the principles so much that we have already negotiated and offered big money to the union. The problem is that there is no agreement on the amount of money that should be paid.
The previous president of the treasury board offered a substantial amount of money but the union rejected it. The court has now made a judgment which, as I just said, the government recognizes in principle. What we need to know is how much money has to be paid? A course of action will be determined after we have studied the judgment.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister insists that the government needs more time to study the judgment. Maybe it needs speed reading courses because Judge Evans' decision is crystal clear. He said, “This matter has dragged on for far too long and at far too great a cost for all concerned”.
For the good of civil servants, taxpayers and all working women, when is the government going to keep its commitment and settle the pay equity issue?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have already tried to settle that but there was no agreement on the amount of money, not on the principle that compensation should be paid; otherwise the government would have made no offer at all.
After we have a chance to study the judgment, we will be in a position to appreciate what our real obligations are and how to implement the judgment if we decide not to appeal it.
Competition BureauMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a nice simple question for the Minister of Transport.
In order to protect all consumers, will all the proposals for the restructuring of the aviation industry be required to go through the Competition Bureau merger review process?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of the proposals that have come forward are applicable to section 47 of the Canada Transportation Act. The Competition Bureau certainly has a role. It will be issuing its report within a matter of days. The report will be made public and will help guide the hon. member and everyone else on this important issue.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I need a little clarification from the Minister of Industry responsible for the Competition Bureau.
Yesterday, the Minister of Transport said that the Competition Bureau does not deal with levels of service and price gouging, but the minister's website regarding the Competition Bureau states exactly the opposite and in fact deals with these issues when there is a merger involved.
Would the Minister of Industry clarify that? Is the website information right or is the Minister of Transport right?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the role of the Competition Bureau is to ensure that the Canadian economy retains, as much as possible, a competitive nature. That is in fact the best way of ensuring that prices remain low.
Pay EquityMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government is completely confused on the pay equity issue. It has no concept of what real pay equity means.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the President of the Treasury Board that this bizarre concept of pay equity “is actually a human right unable to be denied”. Is that really your position?
The Speaker: Colleagues, all questions should be addressed through the Chair.
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, equal pay for work of equal value is the basic principle here. I know that the Reform Party does not recognize this. It was in its electoral platform that it would scrap that principle.
The Liberals believe in that principle. That is why that judgment is so important. We will now take the time to study it very closely.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, this is the most bizarre answer I have heard since I have got here.
The government is fighting in the courts the whole concept of equal pay. Every day its members stand in the House and defend why they cannot give the payout to workers in the union.
If the minister believes so strongly that this is right, why are they fighting it in the courts? Why are they not paying it out?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I do understand why the hon. member speaks about being bizarre. It is because we are speaking here about a human rights issue and that is why perhaps he does not know about it. It is a question of human rights and that is why it is so important.
The problem that we have is not on the principle but on the methodology. That is why it is so important to look at it very closely to understand the impact. As a responsible government we will act when we have all the information we need.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the decision on pay equity is clear.
It comes down hard on the government for using stalling tactics solely for the purpose of avoiding the obligation to settle with its employees.
Does the President of Treasury Board commit today to abandoning immediately any plans to appeal the decision? Does she not consider that the employees, women employees specifically, have suffered enough from the government's behaviour in this matter?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that public servants are hoping for a rapid conclusion to this matter, because there have been discussions on it between ourselves and our union partners for some years now.
We have just received a very important decision, as we wished clarification of section 11 of the act, and now with this decision we have it.
I believe it is totally normal for a responsible government to take a few days to examine the decision before taking a position, and I can assure our friends the public servants that this is what we will be doing.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, this is utterly unbelievable. It is the fourth time the decision has been in favour of the workers.
The President of Treasury Board keeps on saying that she and her government are in agreement with the principle of pay equity.
If the minister wants to prove without a doubt that she supports the principle of pay equity, why does she hesitate to apply the judgment in its entirety?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this government has committed to respecting the principle of pay equity. The proof of this is that we have already made payments to the union partners in connection with pay equity.
What put us on opposite sides of the question was the methodology per se. This is why it was so important to ask the courts to examine the matter. Now that we have the decision, we are going to examine it very carefully and we are then going to reach a decision accordingly.
ImmigrationMr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, bogus refugees have gone missing. At least 56 of the 600 migrants have either abandoned their claims or have been denied refugee status.
They all have something in common, however. The immigration department does not have the first clue as to where they are right, at this very minute. No doubt, however, the people smugglers who brought them here know exactly where they are.
Why is the minister allowing organized crime to profit from her lack of action?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely inaccurate and wrong in his contention. It is utter nonsense. I want to tell him that it is not the policy of the government to detain all failed refugee claimants.
The sudden arrival on the B.C. coast this summer posed new challenges. We have been making the argument successfully to detain the people in boats two, three and four. Those people who arrived in the first boat were not detained after we had identified them. We experienced a problem and because of the information we had we were able to make the case for boats two, three and four.
What they are proposing is undemocratic.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, everything in the minister's answer was really irrelevant. It is clear to Canadians that this system is not working well at all.
It has been over three months and the government system has completed six claims. Over 50 people are missing and more are being released every day. Of course we know that they will disappear.
I want to know why the minister is allowing people who came here illegally and have been denied refugee status to be released on Canadian soil.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is proposing that the state have the power to detain individuals when it has no evidence that those individuals will in fact flee.
We detain them and we have the right to detain if we do not know who they are. Until we have their identity we have the right to detain if we are concerned about criminality. We have the right to detain if there are concerns of flight.
The individuals the member referred to had shown up for all their hearings as part of the due process. I would say to him that unless there is evidence and we can make the case to detain it is not appropriate that we should do so.
Air TransportationMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the Air Canada Pilots Association filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency regarding the agreement linking American Airlines and Canadian International Airlines, and more specifically the provision providing that the American carrier has a veto over any major decision, including takeovers or mergers affecting Canadian International Airlines.
This basically means that American Airlines has a veto over any possible agreement between Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.
Does the Minister of Transport really believe that this arrangement complies with the National Transportation Act, which provides that foreign interests cannot in effect control more than 25% of an air carrier?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised this morning by the pilots falls completely within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency. I will not comment on the process, because it is not my responsibility to do so. It is up to the courts to deal with this issue.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have kept repeating for 10 days that they are setting five or six conditions, depending on who is talking, for any merger or takeover in the air transportation sector.
How can we believe that the government will ensure that its conditions are strictly followed, since the minister is not even prepared to ensure that the existing act is complied with?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have set five principles for the restructuring of our air transportation system, but there is one principle, which is very important and which is non-negotiable as far as the government is concerned, and that is the application of the Official Languages Act, which is important for all Canadians.
ImmigrationMiss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of the 600 Chinese migrants who arrived by boat this summer only six of them have been processed so far. It is hardly breakneck speed.
The minister just basically admitted that these people were rejected as refugees. We know that. They were then set totally scot-free. The minister seems to think that unless they just come forward and admit that they will run away she will not detain them at all.
Why is the minister releasing bogus refugees here on Canadian soil?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, while I will not discuss individual cases I will tell the member that the individuals she was referring to who have been part of the accelerated process, which was part of the IRB decision, were not in detention prior to their hearings.
They had met all their obligations. They had shown up for all their hearings. Because they were entitled to a judicial review before the federal court, there was no reason to assume that they would not continue to meet their obligations.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is fine if they are not detained beforehand, but if they are deemed bogus refugees perhaps it would be wise to detain them after. The minister does not have a sweet clue where these people are.
It is impossible for anyone to try to understand the logic behind a system that releases migrants after the hearing regardless of whatever it was that hearing determined. Due process should not mean disappearance instead of deportation.
Why will the minister not stop this little game of catch and release?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. The government will uphold the charter of rights and freedoms. We stand for due process of law. Unlike the Reform Party, we are not attempting to throw out compassionate and humanitarian traditions. We will not rip up our charter of rights and freedoms. We will not walk away from our international obligations.
We offer people due process. The individuals she is referring to had the right to a judicial review with the federal court. It is not the policy of the government to detain all failed refugee claimants before they have received due process.
FisheriesMr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again today, we cannot help but note that, since the Marshall decision, the fisheries minister has been running in circles. However, when he took over the portfolio, he said that, whether it was counting pennies or fish, it amounted to the same thing.
The fishermen and the aboriginal people are now sending him a clear message. They are saying they no longer have confidence in him or his government and they have rejected his mediator. They want to negotiate directly between themselves.
When will the minister stop behaving like a spectator in this matter and take a clear stance that might resolve the conflict?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I announced in the House the appointment of the federal representative, Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie is now out talking to the parties in Nova Scotia. He will be meeting with both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
His appointment was welcomed by all the groups as a very important step. I have all the confidence in Mr. Mackenzie. I think he will do an excellent job. He is out there talking to the parties right now. Let us let him do his job.
CultureMr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canadians want our government to protect their cultural identity and to preserve global cultural diversity. Both the foreign affairs and heritage committees have recommended strong international action to achieve this goal. What steps is the government taking to implement these important recommendations?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairmen of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage because both committees approached this very difficult issue with a new solution, that is the creation of a new international instrument on cultural diversity.
I would like to thank all of the members of this House, both sides of it, who worked on it, because yesterday, Cabinet decided unanimously that we would continue with a new international instrument to recognize cultural diversity because of the work of these members of the House.
National DefenceMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence wants to be informed if an access to information applicant is a member of parliament or a member of the media. He does this and he demands this so that he can be prepared for question period.
The information commissioner's report to me stated that this practice is not consistent with the Privacy Act. Why is the Minister of National Defence singling out members of parliament and members of the media and putting his interests above the interest of the privacy of all Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday that is absolutely wrong.
First and foremost I want the laws, whether they are privacy or access to information laws, to be fully complied with by the Department of National Defence. I issued a very clear instruction back on April 6 to that effect.
The privacy commissioner in his report yesterday indicated that had been done. Also yesterday the privacy commissioner indicated in his report that great progress had been made with respect to the Department of National Defence answering these very matters and ensuring that we abide by the law.
Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner says he is still monitoring the minister's office.
In a letter to the deputy minister on April 6, and again yesterday in the House of Commons, the minister confirmed that the preparation of his talking points for his briefing book is more important than the privacy of all Canadians.
The information commissioner has said that singling out members of parliament and journalists gives the appearance of political influence and bias. Why does the minister put his own political bias above that of the right of privacy of every Canadian in the country? Why is he doing that?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to understand any of the answers he gets.
I have said quite clearly that following the law and the regulations is first and foremost. I said at the same time that this information goes out I would like to know about it so that I can respond to questions from hon. members in the House, or the media or the public. I think that is fair, that we would be able to be fully accountable and I am fully accountable for what happens in my department.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
Two constituents of mine who were recently bilked out of $700,000 in a stock market swindle recently received a letter from the RCMP saying, “You have a valid complaint but sorry, we don't have enough money to continue with our investigation”.
As the minister responsible for the RCMP, if the police are saying that they are unable to enforce our laws, what action is the minister taking and what advice does he have for my two constituents?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware of the funding problem with the RCMP. That is why the treasury board conducted a review in co-operation with the RCMP.
I can also tell my hon. colleague that had he listened to the Speech from the Throne, he would have also heard that this government is even further committed to supporting the RCMP and law enforcement agencies across the country.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that this a great day for swindlers, crooks, thieves and con artists. It is open season.
When the police admit that they lack the financial resources to enforce our laws, what signal does this send to criminals? Swindle the public and if they are caught, nothing will happen.
If that is the best answer the solicitor general can give to resolve this problem, perhaps he should step aside and let someone else come in and do the job decently.
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, my hon. colleague has a hearing problem. That is not what I said at all. I said that this government is committed to the RCMP and law enforcement across the country. I said that had he listened to the Speech from the Throne, he would understand how committed the government is.
Air TransportationMr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, now that all the players in the airline industry affair have put their cards on the table, and so that consumers in this country do not become the real victims of this war for the skies, will the Minister of Industry promise not to extend the suspension deadline so that the Competition Bureau can do its work and protect the interests of Canadians?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, our use of a section 47 order in council was a success. Shareholders now have a number of proposals to consider. We will consider the facts when it becomes necessary to do so, in other words at the end of the 90-day period.
André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder if there has not been preferential treatment in this affair. What we are asking for is that consumer protection come first. It is time this government put individual citizens back at the centre of the decision-making process in all its undertakings.
Will November 9 mark the end of the suspension, at which time the Competition Bureau can resume its function and study the matter fully?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the member may think the Competition Bureau does not have a role to play. That is not the case. The Competition Bureau continues to play a key role in analyzing this matter. It is now in the process of responding to a request from the Minister of Transport and its role will continue during and after the 90-day period.
PensionsMr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
At the end of September the federal government announced that old age security benefit rates for October, November and December 1999 will be $417.42 per month.
Can the minister explain why the old age security benefit has been increased only slightly despite a rise in the consumer price index?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the old age security program, benefits are indexed quarterly against the CPI. There is a slight delay between any increases in the CPI and the changes to the old age security benefits. I can assure the hon. member that the August and September increases in the CPI will be reflected in the January 2000 cheques.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Indian affairs minister has said that the impact of the Marshall decision extends to other resources. He said, “Treaties are obviously an opportunity to share resources”.
The 1760 treaty imposed restrictions on the Mi'kmaq's right to trade. It even required that they provide hostages as a guarantee that they would live up to the terms of the treaty, a treaty which did not mention fish or access to any other resources.
The Marshall decision cries out for clarification. Why will the minister not join the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition in seeking clarification of this confusing decision?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the supreme court judgment, he would see it clearly says that there is treaty right for fishing, gathering and hunting. That is pretty clear in that judgment. It also says this treaty right is a regulated right and not an unfettered right.
Certainly we are working with all the groups to make sure that we have a resolution that we can all live with. That is why we have a federal representative working with all the groups at this time.
Organized CrimeMrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Police Association sounded an alarm, criticizing the lack of resources for conducting the necessary investigations into death threats against parliamentarians and private citizens. The Government of Quebec, for its part, has increased the resources available to fight organized crime.
What does the minister intend to do about the glaring lack of resources for fighting organized crime?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I believe I just responded to that question.
The treasury board conducted a review. This government is fully aware of the funding problem. My hon. colleague should realize that the Speech from the Throne indicated quite clearly that this government has a strong commitment to law enforcement agencies. It also deals with the SQ and other police forces across the country in order to combat organized crime.
Airline IndustryMr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the European Union probing Canada's airline mergers, the United States also is concerned about its impact under the Canada-U.S. open skies agreement. Why can the government not be clear with Canadians on this question?
My question is for the industry minister. Is he going to extend section 47 beyond the 90 days? Yes or no?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the order under section 47 is in effect. The question of whether it would be renewed or extended is premature.
International DevelopmentMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the economic downturn of the early 1990s, Canada's contribution to international development assistance declined to below our traditional level of contribution. As a result of the better economic situation now, can the minister assure the House of her commitment to increase Canada's contribution to international development assistance?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Canada has contributed substantially by progress to the improvement of living conditions in developing countries.
The government remains committed to international aid. It pledged that it would be increasing international development assistance as stated in the Speech from the Throne. There is always more to be done in developing countries and the government is committed to doing more.
DevcoMrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has wreaked havoc on Cape Breton miners and their children, including Billy Martin of Glace Bay who has worked for Devco for 26 years and will not qualify for a pension.
I would like to ask the minister about Billy's kids and all the other miners' children whose parents have had their lives ripped apart by this government. Chris, Jason and Billy Junior are watching today. I want the minister to tell them what this government is going to do for them and all the other children whose parents will not get a pension from this government.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the human resources package announced at the time of the announcement of the Phalen mine closure, we also indicated that there were two other equally important components in the package. One was the attempt to privatize the Prince mine with the objective of maintaining up to 500 jobs in the coal mining business on Cape Breton Island. The other was $68 million for an economic development fund to find a new and more viable economic future for the people of Cape Breton.
Aboriginal AffairsJohn Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the Marshall decision of the supreme court leaves little but confusion in its wake. Who the decision applies to and the place of currently licensed fishermen and non-status natives in the new fishery are much open to question. The minister suggests they negotiate compromises to settle these issues, but rejects outright that non-status natives are covered by the treaty.
Does the possibility the courts could make non-status natives have access to treaty rights influence the government's negotiating decisions today?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I answer in my capacity as the federal interlocutor for Metis and off reserve Indians.
The supreme court judgment in the Marshall case was not totally precise in defining exactly who all the potential beneficiaries of the historic treaties would be.
On Friday the Government of Canada announced that we were appointing a federal representative to negotiate and discuss with all of the affected parties. Obviously we will want to ensure in the course of those discussions that the appropriate representation of aboriginal people in the Atlantic region is consulted about this matter so that all the views and all the relevant information can be on the table, rather than speculating in a vacuum.
Genetically Altered FoodsMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1994 the government has had in its possession several surveys carried out on its behalf indicating that 80% to 95% of Canadians support or demand the labelling of genetically altered foods.
Surveys by other organizations have confirmed this.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Why does the minister continue to ignore the clear wishes of the public and refuse to provide it with accurate labelling information on genetically altered foods?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that just three or four weeks ago the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors as well as the Standards Council of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada, processors and producers began work on a set of criteria that could be used for the labelling of genetically modified food in Canada.
Persons With DisabilitiesMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the provincial government in Nova Scotia stopped a $700,000 program to improve access to public buildings for persons with disabilities. This coincides with news federally that the request for a permanent subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities has been turned down. In light of the draconian cuts by the Nova Scotia government, we need strong federal leadership more than ever to ensure the rights of the disabled.
Without a committee to deal exclusively with the critical issues of the disabled, how can the minister assure us that these issues will not go right back to where they were before, and that is at the bottom of the heap?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, questions about how committees are structured in the House are handled by House leaders at House leaders meetings that are held every week. The hon. member knows that and she should raise it with her own House leader.
Airline IndustryJim Jones: Mr. Speaker, in Air Canada's press release, Air Canada says that it can only go ahead with its proposed airline merger if the Government of Canada has determined that it will abandon its dual airline policy.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the Government of Canada have a dual airline policy?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we are going through the very difficult process of assessing the needs of the airline industry. We have put in motion a process that has brought forward private sector solutions. Those solutions or a solution coming from the shareholders will be submitted to government to apply the public interest test against those principles. I invite the hon. member to come on Tuesday when I speak to the committee so that we can discuss this matter more fully.
Youth EmploymentMr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth. As chair of the Prime Minister's task force on youth entrepreneurship I had the opportunity to travel across the country to speak with young Canadians on business opportunities and employment opportunities.
Could the minister tell us what the business and employment prospects are for Canada's youth?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this issue.
The employment prospects for Canada's youth look very good. In 1998 we had the highest record increase for youth employment with 2.1 million working. In 1999 it increased again by 173,000 young people with new jobs. Since 1997, 14,000, 74,000 and 171,000 have been employed.
Over 85% of Youth Service Canada and 88% of youth entrepreneurship participants are either employed, self-employed or have returned to school six to twelve months after completing their projects. That is positive.
Presence In GalleryThe Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency François Huwart, Secretary of State for Foreign Trade of the French Republic.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Points Of OrderMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the member for Dartmouth raised a question in respect of her concerns about policy with regard to the disabled.
After referring to her disappointment that a certain committee was not set up to deal exclusively with the disabled, she then went on to ask a question of the government, presumably of the minister in charge of the disabled, as to how the minister would look after the concerns of the disabled in the absence of the committee she thought should be struck.
The government House leader then rose and contended that the question was out of order. There are two things here. The government House leader should not have been rising in the first place because the question was not about committee business.
However he contended, while he was on his feet, that it would have been out of order for the member to have asked the question, which is the question she did not ask. He maintained that it would have been out of order had she asked about the restructuring of committees. I contend—
The Speaker: Order, please. There are two points here. First, when a question is asked it is not asked of a minister but is asked of the government. Therefore anyone on the government side who wants to answer the question may do so.
Second, I know that all hon. members will realize that it is sometimes my prerogative to say what is in order and what is out of order. When the House leader says it is out of order, he is out of order. When the complainant says it is out of order, he is out of order. I am in order and we are going to get on with the business of the House.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to 10 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present the 40th annual report of a meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group which took place in Quebec City from May 20 to 24.
I would just like to explain some of the topics at this very important function. It was a success, not only because of the venue of Quebec City but also because it drew the largest contingent available from our colleagues in the United States. There were 27 congresspersons and senators there from the United States Congress. This is the largest group of United States legislators ever to attend a meeting outside their particular jurisdiction.
The important decisions that were reached, as I have reported several times in the past and which are very important to members of the House, were regarding the implementation of section 110 of the United States immigration and naturalization act. We all know the harm that could come if that was implemented by our colleagues in the United States.
I am pleased to report—
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is getting to the punch line but he is not going to give us the whole report, I hope. I know the member will finish up right now.
Joe Comuzzi: With those words of support, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the report in both official languages.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since Canada does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, I seek unanimous consent of the House to table a report on behalf of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group.
The Speaker: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, on August 1 to 7, a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians visited Taiwan to meet with Taiwanese President Lee Teng-Hui, as well as to visit with officials of the government and business executives doing business in Taiwan.
The Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group has circulated this report to all members for their comments and input. We are very pleased to comment in our report on the status of Taiwanese relations with mainland China, on Canada-Taiwan relations and on matters of economic and cultural exchange.
Marine Conservation Areas ActSheila Copps: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-48 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 36th Parliament.
Consequently, pursuant to order adopted Thursday, October 14, 1999, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, referred to a committee, considered in that committee and reported (with amendment).
(Bill deemed read the second time, considered in committee and reported (with amendment))
National Agriculture Industry Relief Co-Ordination ActRick Borotsik: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an act to establish a national committee to develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather, pests, shortages of goods or services or market conditions, and the co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation, and to study the compliance of such programs with World Trade Organization requirements.

Mr. Speaker, you have very briefly identified the subject matter of the bill. We have some difficulties in the safety net programs that have been developed by government thus far.
This piece of legislation would legislate a committee made up of all the stakeholder. The provinces and the federal government would then be able to come to the House to table those reports and propose legislation that would deal with natural disasters in agriculture, as well as other extraordinary circumstances, particularly like we are suffering today in agriculture.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Young Offenders ActMr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to to amend the Young Offenders Act to transfer older offenders who commit violent offences to adult court, to limit the application of alternative measures, to allow for certain young offenders to be designated as dangerous offenders, to establish public safety as a dominant consideration in the application of the law respecting young offenders, to remove privacy provisions and to make certain other amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising today to reintroduce my private member's bill amending the Young Offenders Act. I drafted and presented the bill during the last parliament, many months before the justice minister introduced a youth justice act.
My private member's bill resulted from the testimony and written submissions given to the justice committee from key stakeholders in the field of youth justice who persuasively argued for substantive and meaningful changes to the Young Offenders Act. Numerous witnesses made it very apparent to the justice standing committee during its 1996-97 cross-country hearings that they wanted meaningful legislation in which the protection of society was a priority.
My bill makes the protection of society the first and guiding principle of the criminal law as it pertains to youth. I sincerely hope that my bill is drawn and makes it to the floor of the House during this sitting of parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodeMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is on the suggestion of the Canadian Police Commission that is asking for assistance in dealing with those convicts who steal a car and use the vehicle in the commission of a crime.
It is asking that this be given special consideration which would involve consecutive sentencing for that crime. Consecutive sentencing is a very unusual word to the Liberal government, but I am sure it will understand the meaning of this document.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Myron Thompson: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant).

Mr. Speaker, once again this bill is being introduced on the recommendation of the police commission and all police officers throughout the country. They are asking for the ability to arrest, without warrant and at the time of wrongdoing, any person who is visibly seen violating parole or probation. This bill would enable them to do that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Employment Insurance ActMrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1999 (qualifying for benefits).

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which seeks to ease the qualifying rules, is part of a concerted action by the Bloc Quebecois.
It proposes, among other measures, to correct two inequities affecting newcomers on the labour market, young people and those who return to the labour market after two years absence, namely women who stay at home to raise their children. These people must work 910 hours, compared to other workers who must work between 420 and 700 hours, depending on the regional rate. This creates two categories of unemployed.
The bill also seeks to eliminate the two categories of unemployed created by the current legislation, namely those who worked 700 hours and those who worked less than 700 hours. It is impossible for those who have worked less than 700 hours to obtain parental leave or sick leave.
This bill is the same as Bill C-298, which I introduced in the House of Commons on December 8, 1997.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking the consent of the House to introduce a bill regarding Louis Riel. It is essentially the same bill that was referred to as Bill C-417 in the last session.
The Speaker: Does the House give unanimous consent for the request of the hon. member?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Louis Riel ActMarlene Jennings: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act respecting Louis Riel.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is familiar to the House as it was introduced before prorogation, is to reverse the conviction of Louis Riel for high treason and to formally recognize and commemorate his role in the advancement of the Canadian Confederation and the rights and interests of the Metis people and the people of Western Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Automotive Pollution Reduction ActMr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to protect human health and the environment by reducing automotive pollution.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was introduced in the previous session, died on the order paper. Therefore, I reintroduce it.
The purpose of this bill is to protect human health and the environment against certain types of harmful or potentially harmful automotive fuel and to reduce automotive pollution in Canada.
The bill would enact a provision requiring that no person shall produce or import for use or sale in Canada or sell or offer for sale in Canada any gasoline that has an oxygen content less than 2.7% in weight, any diesel fuel that has an oxygen content less than 5.25% in weight, or any gasoline that contains MMT.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsMrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition that has been certified correct as to form and content. Petitioners from the Grand Bend, Lucan and Strathroy areas have signed the said petition.
The petition states that the use of the additive MMT in Canadian gasoline presents an environmental problem affecting every man, woman and child in Canada.
The petitioners call upon parliament to set by the end of this calendar year national clean fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur content.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from Saskatchewan which states that the Senate of Canada is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable, that it costs the taxpayers some $50 million per year, and that the Senate undermines the work of the elected members of parliament who sit in the House of Commons.
Therefore the petitioners are calling upon us to begin measures aimed at the abolition of the Senate. It is a good idea.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 70 individuals from my riding of Vancouver Island North.
The petitioners are asking parliament to refrain from enacting legislation which would remove the name of God from the Canadian constitution and the charter of rights.
Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 73 residents of British Columbia, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, on the subject of nuclear weapons, asking parliament to support the initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention setting out a binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 41 residents of British Columbia, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, calling on the Parliament of Canada to support Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization.
Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today to the House under Standing Order 36. The petitions are signed by residents of Saskatchewan.
The first petition concerns the inability of the AIDA program to provide services to agriculture. It suggests that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should be replaced with an individual who has a better understanding of how agriculture is being affected today and how agriculture should be affected in the future.
Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 82 pages of signatures from residents of Saskatchewan who have asked me to present their petition to the House of Commons. The petition concerns the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners say that the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed to meet not only with farmers, but business people and concerned citizens in his constituency, and has failed to protect the true needs of Canadian agriculture. They too wish to have the minister replaced with an individual from the government side who better understands the issues not only of agriculture, but of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to file these petitions on behalf of the petitioners.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents.
The petition contains over 1,500 signatures from the residents of Guelph—Wellington and the surrounding area.
The petition calls upon the House of Commons to affirm the current wording of the charter of rights and freedoms, recognizing that Canada was founded on the supremacy of God. I support this petition.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of many constituents in my district of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, as well as from communities like Yellow Grass and Lang, Saskatchewan, a petition which outlines their concerns about the undemocratic Senate, the unelected Senate, the unaccountable Senate. They are very unhappy about the fact that two senators who have been found guilty of fraud are still senators. They call upon the House of Commons to abolish the Senate.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present petitions from residents of the Niagara and Haldimand regions.
The petitioners request parliament to amend section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act to allow members of a tradesmen's union to deduct employment expenses if they have to work out of town in situations where the contractor is considered local.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present several petitions on behalf of the good people of Dewdney—Alouette and surrounding areas.
I have approximately 1,200 signatures from individuals who are asking members of parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which would provide for the exclusion of the reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and laws, and I certainly agree.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to once again stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition containing thousands of names from residents of Blue River, Clear Water, Kamloops, Logan Lake, Chase, Savona, Hall Lake, Red Lake and others, who point out that the Senate of Canada is an undemocratic institution, composed of unelected members who are unaccountable to the people, that it costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 million a year, and that it undermines the role of the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada.
There is a need to modernize our parliamentary institutions and these individuals are calling upon parliament to undertake measures aimed at abolishing the Senate.
Gurbax Malhi: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of presenting the following petition signed by hundreds of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon parliament to ask the government to maintain and enhance the public pension system which is our right and heritage.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition today on behalf of many residents from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia who are very concerned about the Senate of Canada and the fact that they believe it is an undemocratic institution, is composed of unelected officials and is costly. In fact the constituents believe it is jeopardizing the role of MPs in the House of Commons and that it should be abolished.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.
It is my pleasure to table the first petition from people of Okanagan—Shuswap asking for sweeping changes to the justice system to provide stiffer penalties for dangerous sex offenders, pedophiles and other violent offenders.
They also request measures so that violent criminals serve their full sentences and that authorities be given more power to get information they need for a conviction, including blood and saliva samples, the elimination of defence on the grounds of insanity, drunkenness or drug impairment, and that the death penalty be reinstated for first degree murder where there is no doubt of guilt.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from the people of Okanagan—Shuswap asking for the rejection of Bill C-309. This is cited as equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.
The petition states that the strength of any society is largely dependent upon a solid family unit headed by a father and a mother living in a heterosexual relationship.
The rejection of Bill C-309 will help protect the definition of marriage in Canada.
Questions On The Order PaperDerek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions For PapersDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents ActDon Boudria: moved:
That in relation to Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 6The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 19, consideration of Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, as reported (with amendement) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I deplore the attitude of this government, which is imposing today, in only the second week of a new session, a double gag order regarding the bill on electronic commerce and personal information protection.
I must say that I had some hopes following the representations made by the Bloc Quebecois during the previous session, in the spring, and during the sittings of the industry committee, which reviewed this bill or, rather, its predecessor, Bill C-54. I had hopes that, following our representations and those of the witnesses heard by the committee, the Minister of Industry would reconsider his decision to impose this bill on Quebec and would withdraw it, or would at least conduct an in-depth review of this legislation.
I was wrong. It was not enough for the industry minister to see that Quebec as a whole stands united in its rejection of this bill, he is now denying us the opportunity to explain again what we thought he had not understood correctly. We were hoping to have a few more days to re-iterate the arguments we had already presented, perhaps stating them more simply this time so that he could understand them. We had hoped we could change the course of this bill, but today, with this gag order being imposed on us barely two weeks into the new session, I must face the fact that the industry minister is giving the shaft to Quebecers.
I am not mincing my words because I am totally outraged by the way the industry minister is treating Quebec. I recall that in the last session, in this very House, the minister gave us the assurance that Quebec would not be subject to the application of this act since Quebec already has its own act, and has had it for several years now.
The minister's words were just that, words; nowhere in the bill can we find the assurance he gave us verbally to the effect that the act would not apply to Quebec. Obviously, once again, the minister has decided to ram down the throats of Quebecers a piece of legislation they do not need.
I must point out that, last Saturday evening, while I was on an open-line show with listeners in the Vancouver area, one caller said that it might prove beneficial, in a number of issues, if other provinces joined Quebec in its protest against the involvement of the federal government in fields under provincial jurisdiction.
I told the caller that this had been tried on numerous occasions and that, unfortunately, we had always been disappointed. I must say that today is one more example of the insensitivity, lack of concern, and arrogance of the federal Liberal government when it comes to Quebecers.
Already in the early 1990s, Quebec had put the necessary money into researching, seeking input about and drafting a bill that is held up throughout the world as a model of what legislation to protect personal information in the private sector should look like.
But, rather than turning to Quebec's act for inspiration, the minister decided to put together a new one completely from scratch. This bill in no way meets personal information protection requirements.
As proof, because time is running out very quickly, I will recall to the House a number of eloquent statements we heard in committee that should have caught the attention of the minister, who is obviously either poorly informed by his officials or not listening to what we have to say, or perhaps both.
In committee, we looked at the constitutional aspect of the bill, and basically we can see that the federal government, the minister, is using e-commerce as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
One of the people we heard from was Derril McLeod, Saskatchewan's privacy commissioner. He said:
It is a surprising attempt by the feds to enact legislation in an area where it is highly unlikely that they have jurisdiction. The federal government can enact legislation on matters of federal jurisdiction, but not on matters of provincial jurisdiction.
That was Saskatchewan's Privacy Commissioner McLeod speaking.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec also made similar comments on constitutionality. To quote what they said to us at one of the sessions of the industry committee:
Given the constitutional jurisdiction assigned to the provinces by section 92.13 of the British North America Act relating to the protection of personal information and privacy, and the fact that the Quebec legislator has already passed legislation in this area, there is no doubt that a large number of jurisdiction conflicts will arise.
In other words, the Conseil du patronat is very much aware that the lawyers will be putting a lot of overtime into trying to get to the bottom of it, now that the federal government is trying to get into an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction.
In the end, the odds are pretty good that Quebec will win out over the federal government, unless for some reason the supreme court does not come out on the same side once again.
The area of application of the legislation was also the subject of a number of concerns expressed by the committee. We should point out that no federal company has challenged the Quebec legislation, but if the bill we have before us is passed in its present form, that will change. The Canadian Bankers Association confirmed, in fact, in its appearance before the Industry Committee, that the banks would in future come under the federal legislation alone.
What will be the reaction of Quebec consumers when such legislation takes effect? There will then be two systems in place in Quebec, one that protects people properly, and one that protects them far less well. The banks will be among the groups of companies covered by the second regime, and will protect individuals' information less well.
This bill does not make any sense, and I will show you a fundamental difference between the act currently in effect in Quebec and the legislation proposed by the Minister of Industry. The Quebec act states that consent must be expressed clearly and freely, and must be given for a specific purpose. Consent that is not given in accordance with the first paragraph is null and void.
The proposed federal act states that “Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used”. What does “reasonable effort” mean? This is a joke.
It also states that “The form of the consent sought by the organization my vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information”. I submit that one better not to say anything than say such platitudes. It states further that “In obtaining consent, the reasonable expectations of the individual are also relevant”. This is all Chinese to me. Finally, it says that “An organization should generally seek express consent when the information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent would generally be appropriate when the information is less sensitive”.
That is enough. The minister is making fun of Quebecers, and I will just not put up with it.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, fisheries.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 and the motions in Group No. 1.
Bill C-6 will have exemptions for private sector activities regulated by provinces that have already adopted legislation essentially similar to the federal act protecting personal information.
What does this mean? Let us talk about Quebec. I am from Quebec. The province of Quebec has already adopted legislation that is essentially similar to the act proposed by the federal government. Therefore, the organizations affected by Quebec's act will be excluded from the application of Bill C-6 with regard to transactions that are entirely conducted within the province.
The federal act, when it applies to Quebec and the other provinces, will affect federally regulated businesses—notably telephone companies, banks, airlines and interprovincial carriers—as well as all interprovincial and international personal data exchanges for business purposes.
This is very important, because Quebec's act does not protect personal information about me when I do business with a company outside the province of Quebec, or with a company that transfers personal information about me outside Quebec for business purposes.
The federal act will complete the protection given by Quebec's act to consumers of that province, and I am one of them. These acts will apply to different activities, and the federal act will fill the gaps still existing in the coverage of the Quebec act.
In Quebec, the federal act will affect situations where the activities of an organization are not regulated by the access to information commission. That relates among others to federal businesses not regulated by the Quebec act, and to the privacy protection problems experienced by Quebecers dealing with businesses outside their province.
Bill C-6 resolves problems and situations that simply cannot be handled by provincial legislation, regardless of how carefully it was drafted.
For example, given that data moves easily across the borders of the 13 provinces and territories, the privacy commissioner is in the best position to investigate transborder problems and resolve them.
A second example will be that of a business with its head office in Alberta, which gathers information on consumers in Quebec. Neither province is subject to the authority of the other, a federal system is necessary. Quebec businesses transferring personal information within the province and from one province to another will have no difficulty complying with the both sets of laws.
We could identify a number of situations in which a company in one province must act comply with two legal systems. Bill C-6 and Quebec's Bill 68 are perhaps drafted differently, but their spirit and their effect are quite similar.
The two laws require the companies to obtain the approval of the individual before gathering, using or disclosing personal information on him. Both give the individual access to personal information on him when it is kept by organizations in the private sector.
Both laws contain provisions concerning surveillance as ensured by the privacy commissioner and mechanisms of recourse for individuals who have been adversely affected or believe they have been adversely affected. But, most importantly, the rights and obligations set out in the two laws are essentially the same, because they have the same starting point, namely the guidelines established by the OECD in 1980.
Naturally, there are differences, but only because of the fact that the two laws achieve similar ends by different means. If I want to go to the Ottawa from Montreal, I can take a number of routes. What counts is: do I reach my destination?
Once Bill C-6 has been passed, Quebecers will have the best protected private life in Canada, since they live in the only province that has passed legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.
My esteemed colleagues on the other side of the House go on and on ad infinitum about how Bill C-6 is such a terrible bill and about how Quebec's Bill 68 is such a great bill. I am a Quebecer and I am quite pleased the federal government has decided to adopt legislation that will protect my private life and my personal information when it leaves the province. Right now I do not have that protection under Bill 68.
Yes, Bill 68 has a disposition concerning the transfer of information, but if I attempt to sue a company outside of Quebec that received my personal information, I will be thrown out of court. The first thing that will be said is that the provincial legislation does not apply to a company that exercises its activities outside the province. As a Quebecer I am very pleased that my government has decided to protect the personal lives and the private information of Quebecers, all Quebecers regardless of their political stripe.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-6, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
Bill C-6, which was introduced by the industry minister on October 15, is nothing new. It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the federal Minister of Industry, on October 1, 1998. It fits in perfectly with the recent throne speech. This bill, therefore, was part of the recycled material found in the throne speech.
The government is trying two years later to make new things out of its old 1997 stuff. Once again, the government lacks imagination. However, it certainly is not short on imagination when it wants to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Last spring and also for the last few days, the Bloc Quebecois has expressed its opposition to Bill C-6.
During the fight led by my hon. colleague from Mercier, I had the opportunity to speak two times. All Quebecers had asked that Bill C-54 not apply in their province. The Parti Quebecois government, along with the Conseil du Patronat, the Quebec Bar Association, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires, and Option Consommateurs, had asked that the bill be withdrawn. Quebecers unanimously requested that the bill not apply in Quebec to avoid confusion and to promote the development of electronic commerce.
It is not complicated. If the government really wanted what is best for Quebecers, it would withdraw the bill. I will give a few reasons.
First of all—and this is the federal Liberals' trademark—the Minister of Industry introduced it without consulting the provinces. This bill encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, it is a step backwards for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal information, and its application in Quebec will create confusion. It is legally flawed, and it uses electronic commerce as an excuse to make an incursion into civil law. These six major arguments that should convince the federal Minister of Industry to withdraw this bill.
Before my colleagues even had a chance to express their opposition, before several of my colleagues even had the opportunity to present their arguments, the government House leader, true to form, with the support of his colleagues, decided once again to bring forward a time allocation motion to curtail debate. Where is democracy going in this parliament? The Liberals use this kind of motion on a regular basis to prevent democratically elected members from speaking freely on important issues, such as the protection of personal information.
However, many Liberal members who chair committees have systematically leaked information to the media. Confidential reports have been disclosed in the newspapers even before being tabled in the House of Commons. The federal government has no respect for democracy. It is high time parliamentarians from all parties addressed this problem.
What are the Liberal members opposite doing to defend Quebec with regard to Bill C-6? Nothing. They are silent on this issue, as they are on the Onex proposal, even though 5,000 jobs are threatened. They have nothing to say on the issue of hepatitis C victims, on the issue of employment insurance and on the issue of pay equity.
In 1980, Quebec had 73 Liberal members in Ottawa, 73 out of 75, and they were also said nothing when the federal government patriated the Constitution in 1982.
When the very illustrious Pierre Elliott Trudeau occupied 24 Sussex, he must have said “Way to go, Jean. You are doing a great job. The members from Quebec are keeping their mouths shut. You can go on centralizing and doing what you want. You can keep on walking all over Quebec. Your gang of members has realized that your way was best”. All this is revolting. It is revolting to realize that, generation after generation, throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the federal Liberal government has kept to the same party line.
Between 1968 and 1984, with the exception of the brief reign of the Progressive Conservatives under Joe Clark, and from 1993 to the present, Liberal members have never broken the silence imposed on them, particularly when it comes to defending Quebec's interests.
Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is there to defend those interests. That is the Bloc Quebecois' raison d'être, and I am proud to be a member of this team of men and women who are fighting for Quebec.
So, as a good Liberal member, and a good minister from Ontario, the federal Minister of Industry therefore acted unilaterally and tabled his bill on personal information and electronic commerce without waiting for the results of the consultation he himself initiated.
I give you two examples. On June 12, 1998, at a meeting in Fredericton, the ministers responsible for the information highway agreed, and I quote from the press release given out after the meeting:
—to consult with each other, when appropriate, when considering the advisability of legislating the protection of personal information in the private sector.
On September 21, 1998 the federal Minister of Industry forwarded a copy of proposed legislation to his provincial counterparts, asking for their comments on a bill the government was getting ready to table. But there was no follow-up.
I repeat that this government is doing everything it can to interfere in areas that are Quebec's jurisdiction alone. The bill introduced by the Minister of Industry to protect personal information and electronic commerce was obviously long awaited, but the result was a big disappointment.
In conclusion, on behalf of Quebecers and all stakeholders in Quebec who have in turn spoken out against Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, we are again asking the federal government to show, just once in this legislation, just once in this Parliament, that it is listening to Quebec and to Quebecers, and to withdraw Bill C-6.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To make your life a bit easier, if there is unanimous consent, we could proceed on the assumption that all motions in Group No. 1 have been deemed votable and the vote deferred until tonight, as we just did for the first motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division is deemed to have been requested on all votable motions and deferred.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-6, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 1 with the following:
“character, including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-6, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 4 with the following:
“(d) any organization in respect of personal information that the organization collects, uses or discloses and to which the legislation of a province respecting similar matters applies.”
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-6, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 4 with the following:
“(3) Every provision of this Part applies despite any provision, enacted after this subsection comes into force, of any other Act of Parliament, unless the other Act expressly declares that that provision operates despite the provision of this Part.”
Charlie Penson: moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-6, in Clause 6.1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 4 with the following:
“6.1 For the purposes of clause 4.2.4 of Schedule 1, the consent required before information regarding the health of an individual can be used for a new purpose, despite having been documented under clause 4.5.1 of that Schedule, must be expressly stated by the individual after having been given an opportunity by the organization to either expressly grant or deny the use for that new purpose.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 5 with the following:
“could be useful in the investigation of a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, and the information is used for the purpose of investigating that contravention;”
Charlie Penson: moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:
“(c) subject to subsection (6), it is used for statistical, or scholarly”
(b) by replacing line 23 on page 6 with the following:
“(f) subject to subsection (6), for statistical, or scholarly study or”
(c) by adding after line 10 on page 7 the following:
“(6) For the purposes of paragraph 2(c) or (3)(f), an organization may not use or disclose personal information regarding the health of an individual without the knowledge or consent of the individual unless the organization has obtained the prior approval of the Commissioner, after having demonstrated to the Commissioner that the organization has sufficient and appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the information is adequately protected against improper use or disclose”
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 6 the following:
“(c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
(ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
(iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;”
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 6 with the following:
“tion to an investigative body, a government institution or a part of a government institution and the organization
(i) has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed, or
(ii) suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs;”
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 6 with the following:
“able and is specified by the regulations;
(h.2) made by an investigative body and the disclosure is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province; or”
Charlie Penson: moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 6 with the following:
“(3.1) Despite clause 4.4 of Schedule 1,
(a) the organization shall inform the Commissioner of the purposes for which information regarding the health of an individual is collected before the time of collection and the manner in which and the time within which it is to be collected;
(b) the Commissioner may review the scope of the information being collected and the time and manner of the proposed collection, and may limit the collection or the time or manner of collection if, in the Commissioner's opinion and taking into account the identified purposes, the scope is not reasonable or the time or manner is not fair and lawful in the circumstances; and
(c) any information regarding the health of an individual must not be collected or used by or disclosed to a financial institution within the meaning of the Canada Evidence Act.”
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 7 with the following:
“(4.1) Despite clause 4.3.1 of Schedule 1, where consent with respect to the use or disclosure of information is sought after the information has been collected but before use, the consent obtained by the organizations must be fully informed and expressly given.”
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“out in paragraphs (3)(a) to (h.2).”
Charlie Penson: moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“(6) For the purposes of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, the knowledge and consent of an individual that is required in respect of information regarding the health of the individual is fully informed consent, whereby the individual has been advised adequately of the information being collected and of the persons or group of persons from whom the information is sought, and is given the right to examine the information before it is used or disclosed and to withdraw consent previously given.”
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7.1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“7.1 For the purposes of clause 4.5.3 of Schedule 1, the guidelines shall be developed and the procedures implemented in a confidential manner consistent with the sensitivity of the information.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Charlie Penson: moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-6, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:
“tion that the request is not being withdrawn; and (c) the cost does not exceed a cost that is directly attributable to copying the information and that is reasonable in the circumstances.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-6, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 8 the following:
“(2.1) An organization shall comply with subsection (2.2) if an individual requests that the organization
(a) inform the individual about
(i) any disclosure of information to a government institution or a part of a government institution under paragraph 7(3)(c), subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(i) or (ii) or paragraph 7(3)(d), or
(ii) the existence of any information that the organization has relating to a disclosure referred to in subparagraph (i), to a subpoena, warrant or order referred to in paragraph 7(3)(c) or to a request made by a government institution or a part of a government institution under subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(i) or (ii); or
(b) give the individual access to the information referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii).
(2.2) An organization to which subsection (2.1) applies
(a) shall, in writing and without delay, notify the institution or part concerned of the request made by the individual; and
(b) shall not respond to the request before the earlier of
(i) the day on which it is notified under subsection (2.3), and
(ii) thirty days after the day on which the institution or part was notified.
(2.3) Within thirty days after the day on which it is notified under subsection (2.2), the institution or part shall notify the organization whether or not the institution or part objects to the organization complying with the request. The institution or part may object only if the institution or part is of the opinion that compliance with the request could reasonably be expected to be injurious to
(a) national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs; or
(b) the enforcement of any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or the gathering of intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law.
(2.4) Despite clause 4.9 of Schedule 1, if an organization is notified under subsection (2.3) that the institution or part objects to the organization complying with the request, the organization
(a) shall refuse the request to the extent that it relates to paragraph (2.1)(a) or to information referred to in subparagraph (2.1)(a)(ii);
(b) shall notify the Commissioner, in writing and without delay, of the refusal; and
(c) shall not disclose to the individual
(i) any information that the organization has relating to a disclosure to a government institution or a part of a government institution under paragraph 7(3)(c), subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(i) or (ii) or paragraph 7(3)(d) or to a request made by a government institution or a part of a government institution under either of those subparagraphs,
(ii) that the organization notified an institution or part under paragraph (2.2)(a) or the Commissioner under paragraph (b), or
(iii) that the institution or part objects.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-6, in Clause 17, be amended
(a) by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:
“17. (1) An application made under section 14 or 15”
(b) by adding after line 19 on page 13 the following:
“(2) In any proceedings arising from an application made under section 14 or 15, the Court shall take every reasonable precaution, including, when appropriate, receiving representations ex parte and conducting hearings in camera, to avoid the disclosure by the Court or any person of any information or other material that the organization would be authorized to refuse to disclose if it were requested under clause 4.9 of Schedule 1.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-6, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 41 on page 17 with the following:
“(a) specifying, by name or by class, what is a government institution or part of a government institution for the purposes of any provision of this Part;
(a.01) specifying, by name or by class, what is an investigative body for the purposes of paragraph 7(3)(d) or (h.2);”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-6, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15 on page 18 with the following:
“(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, provide that this Part is binding on any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada to which the Privacy Act does not apply.”
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-6, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 19 with the following:
“House of Commons that may be designated or established by that House for that purpose.”
Mr. Speaker, we have now come to Group No. 2 of motions in amendments to Bill C-6, which replaces former Bill C-54.
First, I would like to say how sorry I am that the government has imposed closure on this extremely important bill. As we were about to embark on very important discussions on the group of amendments before us, the government decided it had had enough. It did not want to hear about it any more.
Even though the bill is full of holes, duplicates jurisdictions and creates huge application problems in Quebec, the government decided yesterday, by means of a time allocation motion, which we voted on earlier, that there would be essentially no debate on it and that it would not be debated here any more in the coming days.
However, this bill is of great concern. Some of the motions we are currently debating come from the government. Specifically, they are Motions Nos. 15 and 16, which refer to a very large elastic to permit the government to be excluded from the application of the bill.
I will explain. Originally, the bill provided that there could be exceptions to the protection of personal information, for bodies investigating offences, for example. These people would not be required to comply with the law on personal privacy.
During consideration in committee, this became much broader, going from exempting the people doing the investigations to exempting people investigating activities suspected of posing a threat to Canada's security.
At this stage, the committee decided on a much broader definition of possible exemptions with respect to personal information. Yet this is a bill that should promote the protection of personal information. Now, the government is starting to broaden the definition of possible exceptions.
After consideration in committee, and after the witnesses had been heard from, the government came up with other amendments. It is important that this be understood. These are amendments which witnesses who appeared before the committee were not given an opportunity to comment on.
The exemptions to the application of this legislation are still being extended. As if by chance, the exemption is being further stretched to take in federal institutions or subdivisions thereof. This would mean that now they could be exempted from protecting personal information when they request it for three reasons: national defence, the conduct of foreign affairs, and national security.
When there is a suspicion, not when there is an infraction, but when there is a suspicion. Who is going to define suspicion? Who is going to get up one fine morning and say that they suspect sovereignists in Quebec of threatening national security and that they therefore want particular information about them?
So, federally regulated companies governed by this legislation, such as a communications company, or CSIS, or just anybody can announce one day that they want information.
They request this information from one of these businesses, and it should provide information on e-mail sent, for example that relating to other businesses in the transportation field such as private shipping companies. The federal government could require a private company to provide a list of deliveries made, where they were made, and what kind of item was sent.
Who is going to define what suspicion is? Who is going to define what national security is?
This bill had a definition that was very restrictive to begin with, and has now become too broad. Just as we happen to be about to begin discussing these provisions, here comes another gag order to stop us from doing so, to limit the time we will have for discussion, to ensure that the bill is pushed through, while there are still very legitimate concerns on the table which the government ought to respond to.
It is all very fine to say that there was a parliamentary committee, but the last series of amendments came along after the committee hearing stage. The witnesses did not, therefore, have access to these amendments when they came to testify. &gt;I am convinced that a number of groups have reservations, and a number of individuals have fears as well.
I listened to the Liberal member who said a while ago that now she would feel better protected. Not me. I do not feel better protected. In Quebec, I lived under legislation that was already in place on the protection of personal information. Now there is duplicate federal legislation, except that it is full of loopholes and flaws, which might tempt the government to try some political manoeuvring with the provisions in its legislation. That is extremely worrisome.
As well, the government is using different concepts in its amendments. At one point it speaks of reasonable grounds to believe, while at other points, such as the one I have just referred to, it refers merely to suspicion. For infractions, reasonable grounds are required, while for national security a mere suspicion would suffice.
CSIS tried to infiltrate the Reform Party because it was deemed a threat to national security. Where is that going to stop? I would think Quebec sovereignists have good reasons to believe this bill could lead to considerable abuse.
For example, if my riding association transfers information to the national headquarters of our party and sends the membership list through a company like Bell or Sympatico e-mail, this information could become available. If they want to get it, they will have access to it. The organization or individual concerned would not even know. They would not be informed.
But that is not all. If an individual thinks some federal organization is looking for information on him or her and asks a private company whether it has transferred personal information to that organization, the authorization of the person who has requested the information from the company before giving an answer to that individual.
Let me go back to my example. CSIS makes a request to get information on what I send by e-mail through Bell or Vidéotron. I then ask the company whether it has given any information to CSIS. The answer I would get is that they have to get an authorization from CSIS before they can give me that information. That is quite something when one realizes this is a bill that should protect personal information.
The door is wide open. Someone might say “The risk of abuse is real. We should take another look at this”. Well, now is the time to do it, not once the bill is in effect.
This does not change anything to the rest of our complaints about the fact that there already exists appropriate legislation in Quebec. The Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Conseil du patronat and the CSN, which came to testify before the committee, all said “Do not create a duplicate jurisdiction in Quebec, but recognize instead the primacy of Quebec's law”.
Several of the Bloc Quebecois amendments included in the group that we are debating seek to confirm the primacy of the Quebec law in that area. The federal government could easily decide that in a province—namely Quebec—where legislation protecting personal information already exists, it applies and even federally regulated businesses are subject to it.
This is what the Quebec bar association proposed in its brief. It said that, rather than do the opposite and come up with its own legislation to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, the federal government should recognize what already exists in Quebec and ensure that the provincial legislation also applies to federally regulated businesses. That would solve the problem.
But instead, the government is driven by a desire to be more involved, to have more control, to have its own legislation, always for noble reasons, such as the fact that no such legislation exists outside Quebec.
This is not Quebecers' fault. Our legislation is one of the few, in fact the only one in North America, currently in effect. If the other provinces take five years to react, it certainly is not our fault and we do not have to pay for it. This provincial jurisdiction was already being exercised by one government that had decided to legislate. As far as I know, the government of Quebec also plans to improve its law soon. It is already very good, but it has to be amended to take the fast evolution of electronic commerce into account.
In closing, I really wonder what the motives of the government were, when it cut discussion of this bill short. I am convinced that the government will not respond to what has just been said on possible abuse and failure to abide by the rules governing protection of personal information for reasons of national security or other reasons. I am convinced that the members will not deal with all those important issues, which deserve a response. The government must seek further advice from the stakeholders. It should do its work properly, not push the bill through by Friday, thereby preventing in-depth discussion of its provisions.
I am extremely concerned when I see a government that wants to be seen as protecting personal information but leaves the bill riddled with loopholes, particularly for its own ends.
If the law is good for everybody, how is it that the government is trying to be exempt from its provisions or to exempt some of its components or activities from them? I think there is reason to be worried.
We will obviously oppose some of the government's amendments in this group. We urge the House to support our own amendments, whose purpose is to have the primacy of the Quebec law recognized and to solve at least this part of the problem raised by Bill C-6.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to discussing time, let me point out that plenty of time was allocated to discuss the bill in the last session.
With respect to discussing the second group of motions, I am puzzled about how the Bloc can deny all Canadians the opportunity to provide this privacy protection which they need, have been asking for and of course deserve. That is why Motion No. 3 must be rejected.
Motion No. 4 clarifies that even non-profit and charitable sectors of our economy, when engaged in commercial activities such as the barter and sale of membership and donor lists, are covered by the bill. This is a very good motion and one which we should support. I congratulate my colleague the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his creativity and insight in bringing forward this motion.
With Motion No. 6 the Bloc again would have us deny Canadians the personal information protection they have been calling for. Therefore we must reject this motion.
Motions Nos. 7 and 46 will undermine the protection that is given to Canadians by Bill C-6. We will not ignore the needs and expectations of all Canadians to have their information and privacy protected with an effective law.
Motion No. 8 will clarify that part 1 of the bill will prevail over subsequent legislation only unless the subsequent legislation specifically provides otherwise. It also clarifies that part 1 prevails over amendments to existing legislation unless the amending act provides otherwise. I urge members to support this motion also.
Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18 and 19 introduce a subclass of personal information. Bill C-6 affords the same level of protection to all personal information and we must therefore reject these motions.
Motion No. 12 is clearly a delaying tactic on behalf of the Bloc and cannot be accepted.
There are five motions to amend clause 7 of Bill C-6 which are closely related, Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20. These amendments make changes to three existing provisions and introduce two new provisions in order to ensure that Canadian law enforcement and other investigatory bodies continue to carry out their mandate in the manner they currently do.
Motion No. 13 to amend clause 7(2)(a) broadens the type of offences that organizations can investigate using personal information without consent where they believe there has been a contravention of the law.
Motion No. 15 will add new paragraph (c.1) to clause 7(3) to allow disclosure of personal information without consent to government institutions which require the information in order to undertake investigations or enforce or administer laws at the discretion of organizations. This new paragraph clarifies for organizations the circumstances under which they may accede at their discretion to the legitimate requests of government institutions for personal information, for national security, law enforcement and administrative purposes where they have lawful authority. This amendment allows the status quo to continue.
The intent of the bill is to regulate the commercial use of personal information. For instance, in the case of the publicly funded health care system, the bill is not intended to impede the flow of information necessary for the protection of patients' health and the improvement of the administration of health care. To clarify this, the minister tabled this amendment on October 15 which specifically addresses the need to share information without consent when it is necessary for the administration of a law or a program.
The information highway offers opportunities to improve the efficiency and accountability of our health care system. Organizations like the Canadian Institute for Health Information assists in this endeavour.
Bill C-6 is intended to facilitate these initiatives as it provides a basic set of fair information practices around which all stakeholders can harmonize. In the pursuit of a harmonized privacy protection regime for Canada, we encourage all the provinces and territories to move swiftly to legislate broadly in their own jurisdictions.
Motion No. 16 to amend clause 7(3)(d) reflects the previous two amendments in Motions Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of consistency. It will continue to allow disclosures by organizations on their own initiative to national security and law enforcement agencies where the organization has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a contravention of a law or a breach of an agreement. This amendment requires a consequential amendment to clause 7(5) which is contained in Motion No. 20.
I urge members to support Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 which merely codify the status quo and allow businesses to continue to co-operate with law enforcement agencies where appropriate. These amendments do not grant new powers to government institutions nor do they create additional burdens on businesses. I urge members to vote in support of Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20.
Motion No. 21 must be rejected because Bill C-6 gives all personal information the same protection. We will not treat one class differently from another. Motion No. 22 attempts the same thing and must also be rejected.
With Motions Nos. 23 and 25 the Bloc is continuing with its delay tactics. Therefore I recommend that these motions be rejected. Motion No. 24 must also be rejected because Bill C-6 already deals with this specific issue.
Motion No. 26 would amend the bill by detailing the particular circumstances in which a company would not reveal information to an individual, following his or her request for access to his or her personal information, the fact that a national security or law enforcement agency had contacted the company and the procedures that must be followed in such instances.
Where a government institution objects to disclosure because an investigation or national security would be compromised and the organization denies access of this information to an individual because an investigation or national security could be compromised, the organization must notify the privacy commissioner in writing and without delay of refusal.
These amendments do not provide law enforcement with additional powers. Moreover, the amendments do not restrict the individual's access to his or her personal information collected by the company. These amendments simply safeguard investigations. For these reasons, these amendments must be supported by all members.
We must reject Motion No. 34. As I have said before, the Bloc does not want to give all Canadians the privacy protection they have called for.
Motion No. 35 will amend clause 17 and will provide that federal court hearings under part 1 of Bill C-6 be conducted with every reasonable precaution to avoid disclosure of any information that an organization could refuse to disclose to an individual. It clarifies that the court can receive representation ex parte and conduct hearings in camera in these circumstances. We must support the motion.
The Bloc is using delay tactics with Motion No. 44 and I recommend that we reject the motion.
Motion No. 45 to amend clause 26 allows the governor in council to make regulations specifying, by name or by class, what is a government institution or part of a government institution for the purpose of part 1. It also clarifies that the specification of an investigative body for the purpose of part 1 can also be done by name or by class.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. parliamentary secretary's time is up.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today on part 2 amendments to Bill C-6 which was formerly Bill C-54.
This is a fairly new area for me. I just became the industry critic for the official opposition about a week ago. The former critic, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, has done some excellent work in this area. I know he has the support of a lot of advocacy groups that would like to see some changes made to the bill. I will talk about them in a few moments.
When I was following the bill in my capacity as a trade critic for our party, I thought it would deal essentially with the e-commerce aspect. If there was to be a privacy bill, I thought that it would be a stand alone bill. I would have preferred if that had been the case. We know there is a need to update Canada's law with regard to electronic commerce. Technology has passed a lot of things by. There is product moving around the world on aircraft these days, such as UPS which wants to have electronic signatures which will speed up the whole area of getting paid faster and so on.
The bill is essentially divided into two areas, privacy and electronic commerce. I will deal specifically with the part 2 amendments. We will be supporting the government amendments because they will clarify the bill, make it easier to understand and make sure the privacy aspect is respected.
We will not be supporting the Bloc on its amendments because we see them as a delaying tactic. However, I do have some sympathy for the Bloc members' concerns about the federal government again muscling its way into provincial jurisdiction and not using a co-operative approach. It is deplorable that it would rather use the stick than the carrot to achieve its goals. I suggest the government should learn that we can get a lot further with the carrot approach.
I have concerns regarding what I would see as provincial jurisdictions in a few areas that the federal government is moving into. The federal government has moved, with its jurisdictional levers in using the hammer approach on the trade and commerce aspect, by saying that if it cannot get co-operation it will do it on its own and if they do not put in legislation within a three year timeframe, federal legislation will to apply. That is a pretty crude instrument to use.
I am concerned that the provinces will need to introduce privacy information and legislation in the area of health care and all the social areas that the public is so concerned about. We need privacy surrounding medical records and records in terms of who is on social welfare. Those kind of things need to be introduced quickly by the provinces to protect that area.
We know the federal government has moved in the area of health care that is within its jurisdiction. It is nibbling at the edges, but if the provinces do not put in their own legislation, it is not clear what will happen in the area of health care privacy as introduced in the bill.
Quite frankly, a lot of people have good reason to not trust the government as to what its intentions are. We saw it muscle into provincial jurisdiction over the years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 70 years this century. We have seen the amount of workload and the number of bureaucrats increase. It is partly because it has muscled into provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The old BNA of 1867 was pretty clear on what that jurisdiction was and that needs to be respected. I think we would have a lot stronger country for it. However, because it is not clear, it is important that the provinces act on their own to protect those interests.
I am concerned about the use of time allocation again. I know there is a bit of a filibuster going on by the Bloc members. I think they have some reason to do that because of this idea of getting into the area of provincial jurisdiction. However, we have to remind the Liberal government that it is soon going to be approaching the Brian Mulroney record of 65 time allocations. I think this is the 55th time in six years that this Liberal government has restricted parliament by the use of time allocation. Mulroney took nine years to get to 65. The Liberals are going to beat him to it. They sat on this side of the House when they were in opposition and deplored it, as well they should, but they are now using the same blunt tactics again.
I want to get to the point about the amendments that my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has introduced which will help clarify some of the social areas regarding health and health information. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. I will take a moment to outline the general thrust of those motions.
Those proposed amendments would require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and expressed consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose which the information which was originally collected. The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to make sure that it exists. We think these amendments move to strengthen that, in particular with respect to health information.
The proposed amendments will also require that any non-consensual of disclosure of personal health information for research and scholarly purposes be approved in advance by the privacy commissioner. This would provide the necessary balance between the need for available research data and the right to privacy. The Liberals may again argue that they do not want to give the privacy commissioner binding powers.
The proposed amendments would prohibit the outright disclosure of personal health information to financial institutions. This is a very strong proposal that would ensure that banks do not attempt to collect health information that could be used to refuse mortgages and other financial services. We think that those amendments will strengthen the legislation.
In principle, we support Bill C-6 and we are going to be supporting those portions of it that we think are helpful.
There is a fine balance as we move to the new technologies. Information technology is advancing very quickly, for example the Internet. I know that it is a fine balance to try to strike that there should be open and free discussion, free speech. We do believe that the government has an obligation to protect the privacy of our citizens and therefore support the broad thrust of Bill C-6.
I want to just point out in the time I have left that my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona has had pretty broad support for his amendments. I would urge the government to take that into account and vote for them this afternoon.
I want to read two endorsements I picked out of several. They are still referring to the previous title of the bill, Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6. Philipa Lawson, a consumer advocate with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who has been closely following the progress of Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6, writes to me saying that the Reform Party deserves to be congratulated for its important new amendments. He states that our personal health information is among the most sensitive and private information about us. It is highly vulnerable to abuse and therefore deserves special legal protection.
I have another endorsement from Thomas B. Riley, the chair of the Canada's Coalition for Public Information. He states, “I am writing to express our support for the amendments to Bill C-54 that Rahim Jaffer, the member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona, is proposing to table in the House of Commons. We believe in the importance of Bill C-54 and the importance of adding amendments related to health information”.
I would suggest that there is a number of groups that believe it is important to strengthen the legislation to make absolutely sure that health care, health information and the social area information is not being abused. I believe these amendments would strengthen it. I would therefore ask that the government put its support behind these important amendments to strengthen the legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: I would simply advise hon. members, and I know the hon. member for Peace River will be particularly interested, that I myself ran into difficulty when quoting works with members names in the works. Members cannot quote something and thereby use a members name when they are not permitted to do it directly. I would urge hon. members to refrain from mentioning one another by name and stick with the constituency name or title as required under the rules.
John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the debate. I am speaking to Motion No. 4, an amendment which I put to the legislation.
I am confident that this amendment will have the support of all sides of the House. I look forward to the report stage vote to see whether indeed all members support Motion No. 4, if I may advertise it.
I believe my amendment addresses one of the nastier problems in society, the problem of fundraising and donor lists being sold and bartered across various organizations leading to immense quantities of junk mail that we all receive and everyone is inflicted with.
I live in a village in central Canada. Just a few weeks ago I received an unsolicited phone call. It was from a woman asking me to donate to I think it was the wheelchair handicap society. I asked her where she was calling from and she said that she was calling from Halifax. We exchanged a few pleasantries about the weather, then I asked her how she got my name, seeing that I was in central Canada, and she said that I was on her list.
My amendment addresses the issue of how I came to be on that list and how people, how relatives and how senior citizens come to be on lists where they receive unwanted solicitations, unsought solicitations and solicitations that often cost them a great deal of money.
Now for the evidence, and I have evidence. For instance, I have here before me an Internet bulletin that was directed toward the Canadian Direct Marketing Association. It quotes a broker for direct market lists. This person says that some of the best lists to get hold of if one wants to sell a product by direct marketing or telemarketing are for example The Economist , The Financial Post , Scientific American or Télémédia, or the Wellness Letter .
We can say fine, the legislation as it exists does cover organizations such as those because they are commercial organizations and consequently they will be required to obey the provisions in this privacy act. However, this individual is advising fundraising organizations, primarily charities. He went on to say that he feels that organizations should also consider renting their donor lists because it is already happening in the U.S.A. He cites the American Lung Association, Greenpeace and the March of Dimes.
That article appeared on the Internet in 1995. I can imagine that a great deal of progress has been made in Canada toward organizations, charities and non-profit organizations, selling their lists without, I would point out, the consent of the people who have contributed to those organizations.
Indeed by coincidence, I have a proposal from a direct marketing firm in Maryland, U.S.A. to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is a Canadian charity. This is a proposal on how the organization, if it can get the donor list of MADD Canada, can sell to that list with various advantages to MADD Canada. In fact MADD Canada does not have to put up any money. There is a procedure whereby the telemarketer covers its costs before the charity receives the benefit of the telemarketing campaign.
There is an interesting clause. This is a letter of intent. This organization called Creative Direct Response Inc. of Maryland is proposing to MADD that ownership of a client's donor file, that is the list of donors, shall be vested exclusively in MADD Canada at all times. That sounds good. Then it goes on to say that MADD Canada agrees that while the file is theirs at all times, CDR has a lien against MADD Canada's donor file until all mailing lists outlined above are paid up in full. What is a lien? A lien is possession. It is a payment. It is obtaining something for pay, for barter. Barter.
I also happen to have a list of some of the Canadian organizations that have dealt with Creative Direct Response Inc. of the United States. We have to assume that these organizations have come to some sort of agreement similar to what was offered to MADD Canada. It is called the Canadian exchange list summary.
Of course, when we are talking about exchange, we are not necessarily talking about the exchange of money. We are talking about the exchange of lists for the purposes of making money. I think the term that would cover that is barter. They are bartering something.
Here is an example of some of the organizations that have bought into this arrangement with Creative Direct Response Inc. of the United States. We have here the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Blind Sports Association, the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Corporate Donors. I wonder how they got that list and I wonder if the corporate donors know they are on the list. There is also the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and so on.
And what do we have here? We have the B.C. NDP as well, and if I turn the page, we have the Ontario NDP. Those are two political parties. I have to be fair here because we can also find the Ontario Liberals. We have to be careful that we do not throw stones around here, because I think if one examined the donor lists, the exchange lists of other telemarketing organizations, one would find pretty well all the political parties.
The point of all this is that these names are appearing on these lists without the knowledge of the people who are actually contributing to the organizations. The situation is that one may give money or take out a membership in a union or a political party or some other type of organization and that organization may be selling that list to other organizations. Indeed they may be selling that list abroad to the United States.
I must hasten to add incidentally that MADD Canada did not go through with the deal. That is very praiseworthy of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I would only wish that the many organizations on this list I was citing had shown the same type of prudence, shall we say, and responsibility as MADD Canada and not gotten into this type of arrangement.
At any rate with the bill itself, I am going to explain briefly how my amendment works. If we look through the bill we will find that clause 16 gives the penalties that exist in the bill. Basically, it says the court has the option of awarding damages to whoever complains under the conditions of the bill, including damages for humiliation the complainant has suffered. That may be very important when it comes to unwanted solicitations.
We are working backward. The next section that is relevant is schedule 1 in the bill. It describes principally what the bill does. It states what the terms of privacy are that must be fulfilled by the various organizations covered by the bill. I think the most important principle in this bill that is covered in schedule 1 is the idea that when organizations use personal information, they must get the consent of the people they are getting that information from. That is very clearly spelled out in schedule 1, section 4.3.1.
The section just above that also stresses in the case of mailing lists, which is what I was just talking about, organizations providing the list should be expected to obtain consent before disclosing the list of personal information to other organizations.
Then we come to my amendment. It amends in clause 2 the definition “commercial activity” which means any particular transaction, act or conduct that is of a commercial character and adds the words “including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists”. Checkmate.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak this afternoon to this group of motions.
I want to say from the very start that the New Democrats actually applaud the efforts of the Reform members of parliament to strengthen Bill C-6 to protect medical privacy. We believe these motions are extremely important because medical records contain the most intimate, personal, potentially embarrassing and stigmatizing information that is ever collected about us, Mr. Speaker. You know that situation from your own experience. It affects all of us since at some point in our lives we all seek medical care of one kind or another.
These motions are extremely important because medical information is very vulnerable to abuse, which I suppose is the quiet theme throughout Bill C-6. We must remember that the primary purpose for collecting personal medical information from the patient is for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of that patient. This is the reason we confide information to our physician in the first place. If we cannot trust our physicians or medical clinics to keep highly sensitive and personal facts confidential, a crucial foundation of the relationship between the patient and the doctor is undermined. If that happens, patients will be less willing to divulge personal information and this could affect the diagnosis and treatment.
These motions before us underline exactly what is at stake for patients in this debate. The decisions we take on these motions as policymakers could have a profound impact on the delivery and quality of health care in our country. We New Democrats believe that there can be no trade-offs in this debate. There can be no balancing of medical privacy with other competing interests. Trade-offs do not serve the patients or the medical establishment at all. Patients are owed the right of confidentiality and we must ensure that this is enforced.
We support the Reform motions that seek to guarantee each patient in the country the right to medical privacy.
We strongly support Motion No. 18 which prohibits financial institutions from obtaining the personal medical information of citizens. They do not need this information and can only very weakly attempt to argue that they need access to this type of personal information about Canadian individuals.
New Democrats believe that simply because of changes in technology, in other words the computerization of medical records, patient privacy or values should not be compromised.
We will support the Reform motions that make a significant effort toward strengthening the provisions of Bill C-6 in respect of medical privacy.
I now refer to some of the Liberal motions. I know you study the motions carefully, Mr. Speaker. These motions respond to a concern raised by government and law enforcement agencies in respect to investigations. We support these motions because they are needed in order to maintain the status quo when it comes to government and law enforcement investigative procedures.
Earlier today we expressed concern about this because we have heard that the funding for the RCMP investigation branch in British Columbia is woefully short of money. It is to the point where a spokesperson for RCMP Division E on the west coast of Canada said they would have to call off police investigations because they simply did not have the financial resources to proceed.
This sends a very inappropriate signal to those in society who we consider to be unscrupulous people, people who are con artists or swindlers of one kind or another. Basically it says that in British Columbia if people who are participating in some illegal or fraudulent activity, stock market manipulations or swindling get caught, which is highly unlikely, even then probably nothing will happen to them because the RCMP simply does not have the resources to proceed with an investigation.
As members of parliament we have to listen to this RCMP spokesperson. We all know RCMP officers or members of their families. They are reluctant to complain publicly about anything to do with their effectiveness as police officers or their ability to enforce the law. Therefore when a spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police writes a letter and makes it public to say that he is sorry that they cannot uphold the law in that part of Canada, then there is something terribly wrong. That is an RCMP officer's way of screaming to the public. We would think that writing a letter is still pretty quiet but for the RCMP this is a major statement that they are in serious financial trouble.
I know you are deeply concerned, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are often troubled about these sorts of issues, but let us face it. It is something that we have to take a lot more seriously. I urge the solicitor general to give this more thought.
Going back to the Liberal motions before us, I want to make it very clear that the New Democrats will support these motions. They are needed in order to maintain the situation now when it comes to investigative police work. These motions basically mean that private groups must disclose, without consent, personal information on citizens to government and law enforcement agencies when they are requested to do so for investigative purposes in the interest of national security.
Ideally, to be fair, New Democrats would prefer that if law enforcement agencies ask for personal information on citizens that they be required to obtain a search warrant and establish reasonable grounds for both the need and the purpose of obtaining the personal information. However, in this case we believe it is more important that Bill C-6 be passed now and that consumers be given the privacy protection they deserve which in our judgment is what this bill does. We would like to see it a lot tougher but it is not a perfect world.
We will certainly not be an obstacle to law enforcement agencies carrying out their responsibilities. I want to make it clear that while we support the Reform and Liberal motions, we would like to see the bill strengthened in a number of areas to ensure greater privacy protection on behalf of Canadians. However, it is a significant step in the right direction.
We are dealing here with what can only be described as the modern day version of the industrial revolution. We are changing the way Canadians do business. We are changing the way we as individuals conduct our business affairs.
When it comes to electronic commerce, where on a daily basis we are seeing seven people signing every second of the day on to the Internet, there is a small but very significant revolution taking place before us. I suppose like most revolutions we often do not know they are taking place until they are kind of over and we realize there has been a major revolution or a major change in the way things have occurred.
We are in one of these processes. As we attempt to become one of or perhaps the most electronically connected country in the world, providing leadership to other countries in terms of what to do, Bill C-6 is a major step in that direction. It indicates as a priority the need to protect the privacy of information and to ensure people feel secure that when they provide information electronically they will not be revealing anything they are not intending to reveal.
Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information and electronic documents act.
Before I comment on this group of motions, I would like to welcome the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valley as the new NDP member, the member for Peace River as the Reform member and the member for Témiscamingue as the new Bloc member of the industry committee. I know we share many political views. In a lot of ways we do not agree, but I look forward to their active involvement and participation in the committee.
Unlike the Group No. 1 motions which consisted exclusively of amendments of my Bloc colleague, Group No. 2 motions comprise amendments of a variety of members both from the government and the opposition. I will try to address as many of the amendments as possible during my 10 minutes.
I should like to differentiate from the Bloc on one of its amendments. Motion No. 51 would amend clause 29 which deals with a mandatory review of the act every five years. On a side note, I find it interesting that the Liberal government would support this clause when the government House leader recently expressed his discomfort with mandatory statutory reviews.
Motion No. 51 from the member for Témiscamingue would delete the reference to a statutory review by a committee of both houses of parliament, opting instead for a committee exclusively of the House of Commons. This is just the latest example of needless Senate bashing.
Senators have made valuable contributions to joint committees, the latest example being the joint committee on child custody and access. Were it not for the battle waged by Conservative senators and courageous Liberal senators like Senator Anne Cools during the last parliament, we would not have had the review of the Divorce Act as it relates to child custody and access.
I therefore do not feel that we should tie the hands of future members of parliament and future governments by not allowing them to review their statutes with their colleagues in the upper house.
Nobody disagrees that the Senate as currently constituted needs to be changed, but until that happens let us not prevent senators from making meaningful contributions to our system of government. For example, the House Standing Committee on Industry heard from three noted constitutional law experts: Roger Tassé, Jacques Frémont, and Claude Massé. With all due respect to my committee colleagues, we would have benefited from having a noted constitutional law expert like Conservative Senator Gérald Beaudoin asking questions of these benefits. Let us oppose Motion No. 51 to keep the door open for Senate expertise on statutory review.
I commend my Reform colleague from Peace River for the amendments he brought forward under Group No. 2. They reflect a concern expressed by several health care organizations, several of which I had the pleasure of meeting prior to their appearance before the industry committee. The amendments clarify the definition of personal information and disclosure as they relate to the health care field.
I recognize that the Ontario government would prefer this definition to be left with provincial governments. I agree, but I worry what will happen to medical practitioners if this law passes without some guidance as to their use of personal information.
The PC Party of Canada will offer guarded support to Motions Nos. 11, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. This position is not my first choice. The federal government should have sat down with the provinces and territories to negotiate a harmonized definition of personal information as it relates to health care, but by and large the Liberals refuse to compromise or co-operate. As I did during my remarks on Group No. 1, I will give credit where credit is due to the government on its amendments in Group No. 2.
Many in the insurance and law enforcement community objected to the overrestrictive provisions on the disclosure and use of personal information. They were concerned this would seriously hamper efforts to fight crime or cases of insurance fraud. I was pleased to reinforce the concerns expressed by organizations such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada. With this in mind I trust with these amendments we have struck a better balance for all concerned parties.
We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy legislation, but we do not feel the government has adequately taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and Quebec governments. We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of the new regulatory regime of Bill C-6 on the private sector.
In many ways this is a frustrating process for the simple reason that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus support the aims and principles of what Bill C-6 is trying to accomplish. However it cannot be lost to even the casual observer that the Liberal government is zealously attempting to buck the reality of our economy. The reality is that our neighbour to the south is our biggest trading partner. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of xenophobic colleagues across the way will change that. Our tax regime is oppressive when compared to that of the United States. Thus foreign investment dollars end up south of the 49th parallel.
On the brain drain which the government has ridiculed as being a figment of our imagination, it was refreshing to see that it woke up long enough to address it in the throne speech last week. Brain drain is another natural consequence of Canadian politics being out of step with that of our American colleagues. It is simple cause and effect. That is why I have tried in vain to convince my Liberal colleagues on the industry committee that by pushing through the electronic commerce bill, a bill modelled on the European approach and in direct opposition to the American approach, we are headed for a competitive headache.
Foolishly I had hoped that the long summer break and extended delay caused by the prorogation of the House would have motivated the minister to take the time to try to improve Bill C-6. Unfortunately we still have a bill that deliberately antagonizes Quebec, Ontario and the United States as well as scores of associations whose well-intentioned submissions to our committee were ignored. Arrogance remains the order of the day.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 proposed amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act. The majority of the Standing Committee on Industry of which I was chair in the last session strongly supported Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6.
In the last session from December 1, 1998 to March 18, 1999 the committee held 28 hearings and heard from more than 70 organizations, producing over 45 hours of testimony outlining the merits and deficiencies of the bill. Bill C-54, as it was referred to in the last session, was then deliberated in committee on three separate occasions for more than eight hours. The committee put forth more than 50 improvements to the bill and passed these amendments on March 25, 1999. I had the privilege to report the bill back to the House as amended on Tuesday, April 13, 1999,
The privacy commissioner was one of many witnesses who told us why the bill was so important. In his first appearance at committee he noted:
I support and my office supports this bill. It is in my opinion, long overdue. If fills a necessary gap in the protection of data in the Canadian community. It recognizes the necessity to establish legal privacy rights for citizens of this country, no matter where they live or in what particular activity they are engaged. It puts Canada close to the same level of privacy recognition and data protection that now exists in almost all of western industrialized Europe and various other jurisdictions. It puts us ahead of the game with the United States.
Bill C-6 is intended to protect personal information in the private sector and to give electronic signatures a basis in law. It provides clear ground rules for business and helps improve consumer confidence, resulting in an environment that will foster the growth of electronic commerce in Canada.
The purpose of the bill is to establish rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of all individuals and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for a reasonable purpose. This is necessary in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and exchange of information.
As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the committee's hearings was to listen to expert witnesses from various sectors of industry to determine how the bill could be improved to ensure the individual's right to protective privacy and industry's ability to make an honest living.
Consequently many changes and suggestions were made. To begin the committee added the definition of commercial activity to subclause 2(1). The committee heard from Anne Cavoukian, the privacy commissioner of Ontario, that the definition was necessary to distinguish commercial activities from non-commercial activities.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated that such a definition was necessary. As the Public Interest Advocacy Centre indicated in its submission, some activities by private sector enterprises may or may not be considered commercial, for example data processing within the organization for administrative purposes, data sharing among businesses for the purpose of detecting bad credit risks, collection and use of personal data by professional bodies.
Where provinces fail to act there will be an incentive for data users to characterize their activities as non-commercial so as to avoid application of the legislation. It would therefore be helpful to define the term commercial activity so as to provide more certainty for both data users such as academics, researchers and non-profits and data subjects.
Several witnesses including the Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Bar Association asked for or provided suggested wording to define commercial activity, and commercial activity is now defined in terms of the nature of the transaction itself rather than the activity of the organization per se.
Therefore commercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct, or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character. The definition of personal information was modified in subclause 2(1). Several witnesses such as the Association of Canadian Archivists, the Writers' Union, the Western Forum of Credit &amp; Financial Executives and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters criticized the definition as being too broad. Others such as Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Valerie Steeves, the Ontario privacy commissioner, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Medical Association wanted it to be more specific with reference to data elements such as health records, anonymized records and biological tissue samples. The proposed definition will therefore capture all personal information about an identifiable individual, except business addresses and phone numbers.
The committee also heard strong arguments as to why the definition of use should be deleted from the bill. In recommending this change Telus and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce testified that they wanted to ensure companies would be able to transfer information from one division to another within an organization. The committee listened and acted on this request. Principle 5 of the schedule will however ensure that information transferred within an organization is used only for the purposes for which it was collected.
The purpose clause of the bill was also amended, clause 3. The original purpose clause attributed the right to privacy to Canadians. It was felt that this was too restrictive since we wish to assure our trading partners that their information is protected. It was important to recognize this international aspect and afford the bill's protection to all personal data coming into Canada. It will also assist in meeting the adequacy test found in the EU directive on protection of personal data.
It also avoids complications regarding non-Canadian residents, tourists and landed immigrants. As the privacy commissioner commented, Bill C-54 represents a significant step toward filling in the gaps in the patchwork of laws and policies that offer data protection in Canada. It promises to bring Canada into line with international data protection norms. This advance is long overdue. Most European countries and many other jurisdictions around the world long ago extended the right to the protection of personal information held by the private sector.
Today we are also talking about changes to clause 7. Several changes were made to clause 7 at committee stage. Several groups came to us and talked about other changes that should be made. Regrettably at committee stage we did not have everything in front of us.
Because of the complex issues we are now able to make an amendment and Motion No. 17 would allow organizations to disclose information to the private sector investigative bodies which are listed in the regulations in order to investigate breaches of agreements or contravention of laws.
This addresses a number of the concerns of witnesses, particularly in the insurance industry. This new section will allow these listed investigative bodies to share information. The amendment completes the exception that was provided for in clause 7(1)(b) for collection without consent for fraud detection by extending it to disclosure.
There are many things to talk about today with respect to this bill and how important it is as we move forward. I would like to let members know that the committee felt that because of the importance of the privacy provisions of the bill, and the need to assess the impact and workability of the provisions, Part 1 of the bill should be reviewed every five years. That is good news.
In her second appearance before the committee the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Anne Cavoukian, welcomed this change. She stated:
I am pleased that the bill calls for a mandatory five year review as a means of judging the overall effectiveness of the legislation in practice. This review, to analyse the working of the law in practice, both on a national level and a provincial level would note which provinces, aside from Quebec, have adopted corresponding legislation where any gaps or omissions may appear in the country's privacy coverage.
I would like to thank all members of the committee for their hard work on this bill. I believe that the amendments put forth both at committee and in the motions presented today by the government forge a stronger bill for all Canadians.
As the Privacy Commissioner said in his first appearance at the committee:
It is not a perfect bill. I cannot recall in my own experience, in one capacity or another, ever seeing what could be described as a perfect bill. But it goes a long way toward doing what has to be done.
With that the Privacy Commissioner predicted that various suggestions would occur during the hearings for the bill's improvement. They did and the bill was improved. Today there are further motions which improve the bill even more.
Regardless, though, I think Mr. Phillips' opening comments as Privacy Commissioner speak to the significance of this bill. He stated:
I want to make it clear now that I would be very sorry to see this bill fail because of what I consider to be minor deficiencies. It recognizes the basic principle that people have a right to some control over their personal information no matter where it is being used in the Canadian community. That is the first and most important principle of good privacy protection. It embodies the notion of consent for usage. It embodies the notion of transparency in its usage. It embodies the notion of knowledge of things that are being done with people's personal information. It is a good bill in that respect.
I hope that all members of the House support the government's motions and amendments today and will support Bill C-6.
Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like, following the remarks by our colleague from the Liberal Party, to say “The Bloc Quebecois will support this bill”. But you know that the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill, not because it would not provide good services to our Canadian friends, but because it, unfortunately, is being forced on Quebec by the Minister of Industry, and Quebec has already had, for many years, a law in effect, which is effective and meets our needs.
I am perhaps in a somewhat special position, because, if I go back to 1992, before I became a member, I was the president of the Association de sécurité informatique de la région de Québec. As such, I had the opportunity to submit a brief from our association to a parliamentary committee of the National Assembly on the subject of the establishment of a law to protect personal information in private enterprise, a Quebec law.
The Liberal government in office at that point, that of Mr. Bourassa, introduced the legislation. It was passed, it took effect and it is recognized worldwide as one of the best laws to protect personal information in private enterprise.
When we see the bill that is before us today, we are pleased that, seven years after Quebec, Canada has finally decided to provide personal information protection for Canadians. However, as an expert on these issues, I dare say that the bill proposed by the minister is rather weak compared to the law that has been in effect in Quebec for quite a few years now.
The Minister of Industry could have used the Quebec experience as a model. Instead, as is unfortunately too often the case, he chose to ignore it and, worse still, he wants to impose his legislation on Quebecers.
The Standing Committee on Industry heard a number of witnesses state their concerns. I want to mention one such concern expressed by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the CSN, which is a well-known central labour body.
The CSN said:
This bill is likely to create a problem by establishing two systems, depending on whether the information is used outside Quebec or not. Indeed, a business could be subject to the Quebec law but, as soon as the information was transferred outside the province, the federal legislation would come into effect. And it would not be easy for an ordinary citizen to know where his information is gone.
As members can see, the Minister of Industry's bill creates a problem because the minister wants to impose his legislation on Quebec. This means that Quebec businesses, which already invested money in 1993 and 1994 to comply with the requirements of the Quebec law, will have to spend money again to comply with the federal law, whose requirements are different, sometimes significantly. In any case, the federal law will provide less protection than the Quebec law.
This is a major problem. Quebec businesses have already taken measures to ensure the protection of personal information. Now, they will have to comply with a new law, and this means additional costs. Worse yet, some Quebec businesses that have until now been subject to the Quebec legislation will be able to withdraw from the Quebec legislation because they come under federal jurisdiction—I have the banks in particular in mind. The Quebec legislation is stringent, but it treats people fairly. Instead, they will be covered by the federal legislation, which is less stringent, and less protective of the individual.
In such a context, the effect in Quebec of Bill C-54—or Bill C-6 now, since its number change—will be the opposite of what was intended. The bill we have before us is intended to inspire consumer confidence in e-commerce, yet the perception in Quebec is likely to be very different.
In Quebec we know that legislation has been in place for seven years, legislation that inspires trust. Now certain sectors of activity which make considerable use of e-commerce, such as the banks, an important sector, a strategic sector, will be covered by legislation that is not as good as the Quebec legislation.
In such a context, what are the consumers going to do? They are going to exercise more caution, they will be more hesitant to use electronic resources. This is the exact opposite of what the bill is intended to do.
What would the elegant solution have been? The Minister of Industry referred to it when he stated that Quebec, and any other province that would like to have its own similar legislation, would be exempted from application of the federal act. That was a noble intention; it would have allowed the Bloc Quebecois to support with pleasure the fact that Canadians are acquiring legislation to protect personal information.
Under the circumstances, however, we cannot in any way accept this duplication of legislation. While I am at it, I will quote Ian Lawson, an independent expert who testified before the Standing Committee on Industry precisely on this issue.
He said “In order to resolve this problem of double legislation, the people of Quebec and the lawyers of Quebec will have a lot of work to do”.
Why will lawyers in Quebec have so much work? Because businesses will have trouble knowing where they stand. Things will be very difficult to sort out.
The Standing Committee on Industry had every possible opportunity to inform the minister about the impact on Quebec of this legislation, although it is good news in the rest of Canada. The Minister of Industry chose to ignore that advice.
But there is worse, even for the rest of Canada. The bill exempts from the authority of parliament entire, important sections explaining how this legislation will apply to Canadians and Quebecers.
In fact, the very terms that will be used in the related regulations are contained in a schedule which can be amended at will by the present or any future minister.
Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told the Standing Committee on Industry “I have a problem with the fact that the code of the CSA”, which is a standardizing body, “is simply attached as a schedule. The principles of the code should have been incorporated into the legislation itself. I fail to understand why it was not felt advisable to try to use them as a point of departure for drafting legislation that meets the needs of Canadians in several respects where the Code, which, as you know is a compromise, might not be up to the task”.
Here we have a university professor telling us that the bill, despite its good intentions, has a entire section on which the regulations will be based that will not come under the authority of Parliament.
The Canadian legislation, the bill proposed by the minister, is weak. Quebec has much tougher legislation that is a far better response to the needs of consumers. The Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a bill, because it is nothing less than interference in Quebec's jurisdiction, and I am therefore glad indeed that sovereignty is on the horizon. That will exempt us from all these kinds of problems.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know my time is very limited, given that we have pulled time allocation on this particular debate, but I want to address the bill very quickly.
The official opposition is supporting the bill, as was mentioned by my colleague from Peace River. My colleague from Essex earlier stood to talk about the merits of the bill. However, she did say that the bill was far from perfect, although a number of amendments put forward by the government would bring it closer. I would argue that if the government chose to support the amendments put forward by the official opposition, the bill would be even closer to being perfect.
I encourage my colleagues opposite to support the motions. I will read them into the record. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21 and 22.
Sitting through the industry committee hearings during the last session I had the time to hear from many different witnesses, a number of whom were from the health care profession. Some of them were health care service providers who had a lot of concern about privacy when it comes to the transfer of documents, especially documents of a personal nature pertaining to health care.
Because I do not have time to expand on the motions, I want to read a quick summary of what the motions deal with, especially in the case of pertinent health care documentation.
The proposed amendments should require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and express consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose for which the information was originally collected.
The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to strengthen the legislation, with respect to health information in particular.
This is not to come into conflict with the fact that health care is a provincial domain, but just to set the tone in order to strengthen information pertaining to health care and the privacy issues surrounding that particular information.
The proposed amendments would also require that any—
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to order made earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, to speed up the process, I believe that, should you ask, you would find unanimous consent to say that the questions on all the votable motions before us are deemed to have been put and the recorded division deferred until tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to deem that all motions in Group No. 2, now before the House, have been put and the recorded division deferred?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motions in Group No. 2 stands deferred.
We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3. Shall I read them now or is there consent to consider them as read?
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find there is unanimous consent to deem the motions in Group No. 3 to have been moved, the questions put and the recorded division deferred until tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to proceed this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-6, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 12 on page 20 with the following:
“organization in respect of personal information that it collects, uses or discloses within a province whose legislature has the power to regulate the collection, use or disclosure of the information, unless the organization does it in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business or the organization discloses the information outside the province for consideration.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-6, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 20 with the following:
“tion that is collected, used or”
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
John Manley: moved:
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-6, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 20 with the following:
“Parliament or a prerogative of the Crown, other than an instrument issued, made or established under the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act or the Nunavut Act.”
Pierre Brien: moved:
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 21 the following new clause:
“32.1 Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between this Part or the provisions of the other Parts of this Act that relate to this Part and other applicable laws of a province, particularly with respect to
(a) a signature, the law of contracts or other non-contractual forms not requiring a signature, formal requirements for entering into a contract or rules determining the place where the contract was entered into;
(b) proof of a document, the determination of whether it is an original or a copy, the retention of a document or the establishment of its legal significance; or
(c) proof and admissibility in evidence of any matter and the administration of those laws, the laws of the province prevail over this Part and those provisions to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.”
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Jim Jones: moved:
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-6, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 40 with the following:
“Parts come into force on a day or days that are not earlier than three years after the day this Act is assented to, to be”
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 7The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47 to 49, 57, 59 to 97 and 100 to 157 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the previous vote to Motions Nos. 7, 55, 58 and 98.
I believe you would also find consent to apply the results of that same vote, but in reverse to the following motions: Motions Nos. 8, 13, 16, 17, 20, 26, 35 and 56.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 39The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 7, 55, 58 and 98 lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 8, 13, 16, 17, 20, 26, 35 and 56 carried.
The question is on Motion No. 3. If Motion No. 3 is negatived, the question on Motion No. 4 will have to be put.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will vote in favour of this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP this evening vote no to this motion.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my constituents would want me to vote no to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 8The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 negatived.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 6, 12, 23, 25, 34, 44, 46, 50 and 52.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed in such a fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 36The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 6, 12, 23, 25, 34, 44, 46, 50 and 52 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to have members who voted on the previous motion recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc vote no to this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this evening vote no to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston, I would vote no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 9The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal member's voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes. This is a good amendment.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting no on this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote yes to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting yes on this motion.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 13The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 18, 19 and 21.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 17The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 18, 19 and 21 lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 14.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting no on this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this evening vote nay.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting yes on this motion.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would support the Reform Party on this motion and vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 16The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why all these members of parliament are sitting here this evening? I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to allow members of parliament to leave and allow the whips to continue on with the voting.
The Deputy Speaker: While I am sure the hon. member for York South—Weston has struck a cord and cheered the hearts of many, it appears there may not be consent for the proposition. I see some heads nodding no.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following: Motions Nos. 22, 24 and 99.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 24The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 26The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 24 lost.
(The House divided on Motion No. 99, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 42The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 99 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for the members voting on the preceding motion, except for the member for Windsor West, being recorded as having voted on the motion currently before the House, with the Liberal members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting no on this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote yes on this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting yes on this motion.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I will support the government.
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 18The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 45.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yes to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting no on this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present vote yes to Motion No. 45.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting yes on this motion.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I would support Motion No. 45. I would vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 32The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 45 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 51.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to say that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, of course, members of the Bloc Quebecois support this excellent motion by our colleague from Témiscaminque.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening vote yes on Motion No. 51.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members vote nay.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 51 would prevent the Senate from participating in a five year statutory review. I would support that motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 51, which was negatived on the following division:)
Division No. 35The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 51 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. If Motion No. 53 is negatived, there will be a vote on Motion No. 54.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes to this motion.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois are against this motion.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening vote yes to this motion.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members vote nay.
John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote yes to Motion No. 53.
(The House divided on Motion No. 53, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 37The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 53 agreed to.
John Manley: 
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion for concurrence.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 43The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Adjournment Proceedings
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the late show to clarify the question I had last week for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Since the Marshall decision was handed down by the supreme court, the lobster fishery in the maritime region has been thrown into absolute chaos. It has pitted families against families, workers against workers and fishermen against fishermen. It has also raised the issue of racism between non-natives and native groups. The reason is the lack of leadership by the federal government.
For years and years previous Conservative and Liberal governments and the current Liberal government have denied the aboriginal people traditional and proper access to natural resources. Every single time the aboriginal people came to the House of Commons or to the government to negotiate those outstanding treaties, the government of the day told them to pound sand and take their case to court.
After the Delgamuukw decision, after the Sparrow decision and now after the Marshall decision, the government is like a deer caught in the headlights on an oncoming semi truck. It stands there and says “Duh, what do we do now”. The unfortunate part is the people of Atlantic Canada do not have time to wait.
Back in April the Auditor General of Canada released a very damning report toward the DFO. It stated quite clearly that the shellfish industry was in serious trouble. Last April the auditor general clearly said that DFO was managing the shellfish industry exactly the same way it managed the groundfish industry prior to the 1992 collapse of the cod stocks. On top of that, there is the collapse of the salmon stocks. Now there is the collapse of the lobster, shrimp, scallops and crab stocks and every other species that is out there because of the lack of proper enforcement by the government.
My question is quite clear. We had a solution that we presented to the minister 34 days ago. It is now day 35 of the Marshall decision and there still has been no clear action from the government. The fishermen of lobster fishing area number 33 are meeting tonight because people from the Burnt Church Indian reserve are laying traps in the Halifax harbour which will lead to more conflict and more confusion. There is still no leadership from the government.
We are saying to the government loud and clear that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must get their butts out of Ottawa and down to Nova Scotia. They must start talking to these people instead of sending other people to do their work for them. They must take a leadership role. They must go down and resolve this situation immediately. If they do not, I fear for the lobster stocks themselves.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know his legitimate and ongoing interest in these matters. Therefore I am pleased to provided those answers on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The House knows of the recent Marshall decision, the consequences emanating from that decision and the policy responses of the government to deal with the problem of bringing the two disputed parties together for a negotiated settlement.
In that vein, Mr. James Mackenzie, our chief federal representative, has been very active in making contact with both aboriginal leaders and representatives of the commercial fishing industry. Mr. Mackenzie has been making initial contact in following up with both aboriginal leaders and representatives of the commercial fishing organizations since he was first appointed on October 15, 1999.
Mr. Mackenzie is currently in the maritimes holding meetings with commercial sector representatives. He met yesterday in White Point, Nova Scotia, with representatives of the commercial fishing industry. He is continuing to meet with commercial representatives in their towns and fishing communities to lay the groundwork for agreements that will facilitate the orderly operation of the fishery next season. Mr. Mackenzie is holding discussions with commercial representatives and seeking their views on an appropriate role in the process.
Commercial representatives can be assured that they will be fully consulted. Once a process is designed the government will be looking at funding these needs.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made the development of a short and long term strategy, which is responsive to the supreme court decision and takes into account the interest of the commercial fishing sector, his number one priority. He has indicated his continued willingness to meet with commercial fishing representatives and to listen to their concerns.
In addition, we are meeting with the aboriginal fishers and my own minister has done so. We will continue to look for a negotiated and peaceful settlement that is fair to all.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)