Jim Jones

[Concentration Of Print Media In Canada, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and address Motion M-423, a motion which proposes:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.

The timing of this motion could not possibly have been scheduled at a more appropriate moment. Who would have thought that on the eve of the debate of this motion we would see a blockbuster takeover attempt such as that of the Toronto Star versus Sun Media.

It is a little hard to believe that it was merely five months ago that Torstar was calling for just the type of probe that this motion is seeking. Of course when this motion was introduced, I very much doubt that the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington was targeting his party's friends at the Toronto Star .

No, this motion is being made so that the Liberal Party, which has never shied away from big brother style interference in the marketplace, could effectively interfere in the operation of Hollinger Company. Make no mistake. Today we are not debating the inherent problems of dominant position within the print media. This could not possibly be the discussion for we already have an effective Competition Act to handle just such an issue. In essence, what we are really discussing is just how far government should go in its interference with private industry.

Allow me to say that if we were capable of setting aside our principles, it would be moderately seductive to entertain this motion. I would like to assure the hon. member that as a Conservative, I do not relish the potential future of the print media situation in the greater Toronto area.

Already I can envision a scenario on the eve of the next federal election. The Liberal mouthpiece Toronto Star headline will read “GST, free trade and helicopters aside, this time we really believe them”, and across town the Toronto Sun headline will read “Ditto”. It is enough to send shivers up your spine but it is not enough to warrant interference.

Let us examine the Torstar proposal on its merits. On October 28 Torstar offered $16 per share for all of the common shares of Sun Media Corporation on a fully diluted basis. The question becomes, is this is a good and fair offer? Indeed that is the question, however it is not for the Government of Canada to answer. It is instead up to the shareholders of Sun Media to decide.

Perhaps a 62% premium over the closing price last Wednesday is a very good deal. Perhaps it is not. Once again it is not for us to decide. Large and small investors will make this decision alike, including the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, Trimark Mutual Funds, Talvest Mutual Funds and others.

This is not to say that every merger that gets dreamed up in the minds of deal makers should remain outside the scope of inspection, not at all. But this is where I come back to the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act which my party implemented in 1986. The Competition Bureau has been given the necessary tools to complete this task so let it do it.

Print media is not a new media form, unlike the Internet explosion. This House would certainly have taken print media into consideration when it crafted this act just over a decade ago.

It seems we may very well be debating nostalgia today. The world we are living in has changed dramatically in the ways in which information is delivered. No longer are newspapers merely competing against a few radio stations and a couple of television networks. Instead news is now available on different networks 24 hours a day. The Internet is available 24 hours a day. This has forced the print media industry to re-evaluate its own efficiencies and competitive advantages.

Far from being an industry that is fading away, we have witnessed a rebirth in this nation. Canadians now boast two national newspapers that must be included in the competitive mix of every market in the country. Canadians in general have become news junkies as they read more, tune in more and surf more. Our media outlets, already among the most scrutinized in the world, thanks to the work of the CRTC have grabbed hold of the information age and in many ways lead the revolution.

My background is not in competition law but we should take a moment and review what we are looking at in terms of level of competition. I am certain my hon. colleagues in this House have all seen the breakdown of print media numbers as a percentage of circulation. According to those numbers, if this deal goes through, the Toronto Star parent company will control approximately 26% of the print media circulation. However, it is unfair to base any review simply on circulation. Should it not be reviewed as a percentage of holdings versus all other media outlets including broadcast and the Internet?

One phenomenon that has long existed in Canada is the acceptability of monopoly markets as it pertains to the newspaper industry. Historically we have learned that it is not reasonable to expect there to be more than one newspaper in our smaller market cities. In fact the 1970s saw the consolidation of outlets across the country. It was reasoned that the result was an acceptable level of competition due to the existence of non-print competitors as well as the reality of market forces.

Now I understand that my colleagues in the Liberal Party are loath to accept market forces at any time when they think they can get in and start interfering. However, there is nothing that can be done by legislators to increase demand. I trust this will not discourage those would be manipulators into believing that our media marketplace is not vibrant. In fact quite the opposite situation exists.

If we look back to 1971 and the demise of the old Toronto Telegram , it became apparent that a void existed. A group of 60 displaced workers and $650,000 led to the formation of the Toronto Sun . This is not something that could have been addressed by parliament. Instead what was needed was a passion for the industry, proper financing and a void in the marketplace. Basic market forces and a group of entrepreneurs filled that void.

In the 27 years since then, the marketplace has changed dramatically. The Southam chain is now under new ownership, the once mighty Thomson chain is substantially smaller, and the Ottawa market's second largest newspaper will turn 10 years old this Saturday. I use these examples to illustrate my point that the print media industry is a dynamic one, yet some remain unconvinced.

There is a constituency out there that was addressed by the publisher of the Toronto Star , John Honderich, when he called for a royal commission five months ago. The member for Waterloo—Wellington responded to this challenge. I am not convinced that the gentleman who started this ball rolling would still be enthusiastically supportive of it today.

I understand the fears that are inherent in this motion. They stem from the basic reality that newspapers are not widgets. Newspapers go to the heart and soul of communities. Newspapers often fuel fundamental debate in this country. It is because of these factors that the marketplace will not tolerate uniformity. It will not accept uniformity of thought, nor will it accept uniformity of product.

If the Sun newspapers were to become carbon copy apologists for the Liberal Party of Canada, another newspaper would emerge supported by those who do not necessarily believe that the sun rises and sets on Prime Minister Mark McGuire.

In conclusion, it is not our feeling in the Progressive Conservative Party that a commission as set out in this motion is needed. We feel very comfortable with the present make-up of regulations and on how the Competition Bureau and the CRTC administer them. A commission of this type would result in unnecessary government duplication.

We are truly disappointed that this is a non-votable motion. In lieu of the events of the past week, it would be very interesting to ascertain the sentiments of my colleagues on the other side of the House.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, currently the provinces have not demonstrated a significant interest in having Ottawa collect or have more authority over taxes beyond what Revenue Canada does currently.

Ontario is looking to attain greater authority over its tax levers. It cannot simply be said to the provinces that someone will have more authority over their spending without providing them with more direct authority over tax policies.

Some of the provinces feel this agency may ultimately lead to less. If the provinces are not interested, obviously the agency will not save money or lead to greater efficiencies.

While we are on the subject of privatization, I draw to the minister's attention Bill C-54 which essentially deals with electronic privacy. This bill was tabled by the Minister of Industry for a very important reason. Canadians by and large do not have a sufficient degree of trust in the level of privacy accorded by the Internet. Without privacy legislation which Canadians are willing to buy into, electronic commerce would be a whole bunch of wishful thinking.

The same thing applies here. The combination of privatization, taxation and privacy is a very interesting dynamic, one which leads to great anxiety for Canadians. The question that needs to be answered is if most Canadians are unwilling to give personal information over the Internet, why should we suppose that they are prepared to have a large, faceless private agency with access to their most sensitive, personal information? Quite frankly Canadians are not interested in such a situation occurring. We can offload a lot of things but we cannot really offload leadership. That is what the government has tried to do.

Other than the issue of privacy Canadians also have traditionally expressed their frustration with the complexity of our income tax regime. There quite simply can be no justification for the fact that Canadians need to hire accountants to fill out their personal income tax forms. The notion that somehow a privacy agency will succeed in simplifying this process in a way that our present system cannot is completely without merit.

If we create incentives with all our public agencies or departments that recognize and award excellence as opposed to encouraging mediocrity we introduce market incentives without the existing agencies. We can achieve economies without necessarily creating new agencies.

In conclusion, the bill will not lead us toward a simpler tax system. It will not help us develop a fairer tax system. It will not achieve the goals of a flatter tax system. It is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and that is the kind of legislation whose day has passed us by.

[Division No. 247, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

A brand new revenue agency, that is what Canadians have been clamouring for. I dare say it was one of the most mentioned issues for all candidates as we went door to door during last year's federal election campaign.

The minister probably still recalls that many people told him what they want is tax reform but not lower taxes, not a simpler system. No, what they want is a new agency, one with wider powers, a new agency with less accountability to parliament, a new agency that runs outside the government with access to their most personal information.

I think the minister is confused. This is the Hallowe'en season and while he is very effectively scaring the Canadian public with this bill the time for pranks is still April 1. All levity aside, I do not want to ensure that the Liberal Party is fully aware of the fact that this bill in no way addresses tax reform. In the interest of accuracy I am sure it would not want to see some overzealous campaigner insert Bill C-43 in the 2001 red book as an example of the Liberal's commitment to reform.

This whole bill is predicated on the level of trust between the provinces and the Liberal government, a level of trust that simply does not exist.

Just to be certain I will spell out why this situation exists. It concerns unilateral cuts to transfer payments, outrageous levels of unemployment insurance, overtaxation and ridiculous postering statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health against the most respected premiers in Canada, including the premier of my province, Mike Harris. These are just some of the reasons why there is no level of trust at the first ministers level.

My hon. colleague from Kings—Hants has outlined the many shortcomings of this bill. However, we do not have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand why this national agency is destined to fail.

The government offloads responsibility to the provinces by making draconian cuts to health care, for instance $7 billion in the last term. The minister has said there is only one taxpayer. The provinces and municipalities have been faced with an ever increasing tax burden as a result of the government's failure to lead and to take responsibility for national matters, including such issues as health care funding.

The minister speaks of the provinces having greater opportunities to effect control and have control over the levers of this important agency than they now have with Revenue Canada. I suggest the provinces' lack of approval and their concern with this new agency is an indication that they do not believe in this. The provinces will not have greater powers and authority with this new agency.

I ask the Liberal government to take a short walk back to a time when it still pretended that keeping red book commitments was important. After the Prime Minister's ridiculous claim during the 1993 election that he would get rid of the GST, there was an attempt to create a renamed and more pervasive tax known as the BST, the blended sales tax. This little attempt at massaging the red book promises was only adopted in three provinces, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.

Coincidentally there are only three provinces in Canada with Liberal governments. I am sure many will be shocked to learn that these governments exist in the same three provinces, proving that the tentacles of this government run very long and that the tendency of elected Liberals to imitate the nodding heads drinking birds is not limited to our federal parliament.

Unless Prime Minister Bo Peep intends to elect a few more Liberal sheep in provincial legislatures across the land, he may as well stick a fork in Bill C-43. As I do not see anybody rising on a point of order to withdraw this bill, allow me to provide the minister with a course of action that would give him a fighting chance at actually implementing this new agency with a certain degree of success.

The first course of action would be put an end to the war against the public service in this country. We are all friends in the House and I understand that the public service was probably a bit too trusting when it took the Liberal Party at its word on pay equity. However, this government made a commitment and those people are filled with righteous anger. Therefore I suggest the minister rethink the likelihood that these public servants are going to be very interested in assisting in the privatization of their jobs.

Why should they be helpful? Bill C-43 is going to result in new people being paid higher salaries to do the exact same jobs which are being done now. Of course Canadians will be thrilled to learn that along with this new agency comes a whole new level of bureaucracy.

We see current employees who will lose existing rights, including job security and the right to bargain on staffing matters. Keep in mind that there will only be a two year job guarantee and we are effectively dealing with about 25% of the public service. We have to take a look at whether this agency would not be more flexible than Revenue Canada but less flexible in working with other government departments, including the finance department, and the provinces.

At various times of the year Revenue Canada has between 40,000 and 46,000 employees. Revenue Canada has many responsibilities, primarily the collecting of federal taxes and various fees, harmonized sales taxes in three provinces, personal income taxes on behalf of nine provinces and corporate taxes on behalf of seven provinces. The new agency is to assume all these responsibilities. The new agency is supposed to be as efficient as the department was without any increased cost to the taxpayer.

I suggest that unless the provinces buy in and support this direction and this new agency, any claims by the government that this agency will lead to greater efficiencies and save the taxpayer money are suspicious at best. The only efficiencies that can be achieved will be those realized through a slower transfer rate of funds to provinces. As a former town councillor I can assure this House that in turn the municipalities will see foot dragging when it comes to receiving funds.

In essence this government is trying to implement a law that will cause greater discourse between voters and all levels of government. The government is saying we could save between $97 million and $162 million per year if all the provinces participated. That is a very big if. At this juncture currently the provinces have not demonstrated a significance interest in having Ottawa collect and have more authority in effect over taxes beyond what Revenue Canada does currently.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member of the Bloc Party for his question.

As I said earlier, I am not familiar with the privacy bill in the province of Quebec. For electronic commerce to grow, for the Internet to grow and for people to have confidence in doing business on the Internet since all transactions will be seamless, over the long haul we have to make sure there is a seamless integration of laws in this area in both the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps Bloc members would give me a copy of the Quebec privacy act. I would like to take a look at it. When we going through committee stage I am quite sure we will be open minded in this area.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his question.

He raises some good points but the bill specifically addresses e-commerce and how it relates to e-commerce. Also, from an e-commerce and Internet standpoint it relates to the jurisdictions of the federal government.

I do not know the Quebec privacy bill put forward but I would hope that over time this legislation on privacy and the regulation of the Internet, et cetera, will be a seamless integration between the federal government and the provinces. That is what will make the Internet and e-commerce grow.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

This is an area that is changing rapidly because of advancements in technology. Technology almost on a monthly basis is becoming more powerful. It is also becoming a lot more functional in capabilities. At the same time there is a tremendous reduction in costs.

One of the things I hear from the industry is that we have to watch that this is not just another tax grab as we move forward in regulating the Internet e-commerce area. What the industry wants to see is business taxes as usual.

If we as a country think we are an island we are wrong. We are going to see that this is probably one of the biggest paradigm shifts in this century. If Canada does the right things and truly can be one of the leading countries on Internet, we are going to position ourselves well for the 21st century.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to some very key issues regarding e-commerce. Now I turn my attention to the specific provisions of Bill C-54.

In many ways this bill is a starting point. As such we have only chance to get it right the first time. Many of the bill's components as they deal with the compilation, storage and release of personal information are merely an attempt to give legislative teeth to what was previously a voluntary code.

Privacy is a sacred trust that we often take for granted in this country. That is a good thing. The seamless implementation of privacy regulations should really come about unnoticed by Canadians. If this is the case then the confidence which exists before the legislation comes into effect has been preserved for the future. I do not want to be misunderstood. It is not my desire to hide any portion of the legislative process. However, I am sure I echo the sentiments of many when I suggest that none of us wants a repeat of the negative option billing fiasco we witnessed in the cable industry not that long ago.

Representation has been made to many of us from stakeholders in this process. As I said, we need to ensure that a balance is struck between the legitimate marketing efforts of business and the right of privacy that we all enjoy. If there is an error to be made one way or another let it be resolved that we err on the side of personal privacy.

The other components of Bill C-54 are general housekeeping sections that will move us along the road to becoming a model user of the Internet as a country.

I look forward to working with the other members of the industry committee as we begin reviewing this important first step in e-commerce.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, today we begin the process of crafting legislation to catch up with technology.

If Canada is truly to become a cyberspace world leader and carry the title of most connected nation, government must conduct itself accordingly. Indeed if a balance is struck between the privacy of Internet users and the legitimate marketing efforts of Canadian businesses, we could face a situation where Canada is the world leader in e-commerce importing.

Trust is at the very centre of this entire exercise. Internet users need to trust the security safeguards put in place by on-line marketers. Canadian industry needs to trust that legislation will permit them to responsibly do business on-line. The Canadian taxpayers need to trust that they are getting value for their money from their elected officials and that out of their work will come a comprehensive state of the art electronic commerce policy.

It should come as a surprise to nobody that Canada is poised to be one of the world leaders in e-commerce. Unlike almost every other nation in the world, our massive geography has dictated that we seek innovative solutions to draw our population closer. This should not be lost on my colleagues in the House today.

Bill C-54 is the first step in developing an e-commerce structure. In many ways it is the 21st century equivalent of the first spike. The Internet continues to grow exponentially with implications for every Canadian business, government department and indeed every Canadian resident.

It will be a privilege for me to work with my colleagues on the industry committee in a diligent and non-partisan effort to achieve responsive legislation. However, this issue goes well beyond the boundaries of the industry department. Just as the Y2K bug impacts every facet of government and what we try to accomplish in this House, so does the Internet.

E-commerce will have far more implications than just privacy issues. This government needs to come up with a comprehensive plan which addresses the issues of uniformity in the digital marketplace, on-line eavesdropping by security forces, public private on-line relationships, competition, the role of small and medium size enterprises, Canadian heritage and culture, and the list goes on and on and on.

One Canadian executive made an interesting observation on this issue and I think it bears repeating in this House. He said that a fax machine is only valuable when the rest of the world has a fax. Value explodes exponentially with membership. Extending his advice to its logical conclusion would see government treat this very carefully so as not to allow the fledgling Internet commerce industry to falter. Possibly this is legitimate advice but there are other ramifications to this.

There are industries that are immune to Internet competition. When a family in Markham decides they want to have a Saturday night barbecue, it is unlikely they will turn to the Internet to supply their hamburgers. It is probably reasonable to assume that given the choice, most people would rather step into the warmth and smell of a bakery to buy their rolls than to order on-line.

Many consumer choices remain which can be reviewed and ordered in a visually pleasing format on a computer screen. Perhaps the message here is that the butcher and the baker are safe but the candlestick maker should beware. There is no doubt that my analogy is simplistic but it does lead me to the discussion of the pending showdown between downtown and cybertown.

Incentives are a very intricate balance in the marketplace. Some are intrinsic such as the desire to be self-employed. Others can be nurtured through regulations such as those that favour the use of tax implications. The important issue to note is that there are artificial incentives created by legislation. It is almost certain that an equal and opposite disincentive is created as well. The job of legislators should be to determine what is a disincentive and debate it rationally.

Recently the federal revenue minister announced that the government is not interested in creating new taxes for e-commerce. I wish to commend him for that position. Canadians have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not have the stomach for any new taxes. Instead we should be looking for ways to cut taxes. The question we must ask ourselves is how we apply existing tax legislation in a fair, predictable, revenue neutral fashion.

At the present time a situation exists whereby online retailers, set up in Prince Edward Island as an example, ship to other provinces like Ontario. They are not required to collect sales taxes. Instead consumers are responsible to remit their own sales taxes to the provinces in which they reside.

This may come as a shock to the revenue minister so I ask him to brace himself, but by and large these taxes are not being remitted. It is not an insurmountable problem. Time and time again Canadian industry has shown its willingness to comply with the necessary regulations which allow government to collect the revenue needed to provide the services Canadians demand.

At issue is the interim situation. There appears to exist a marketplace where those who open storefronts, employ sales clerks and pay commercial property tax will also have to endure a competitive disadvantage. They are required to collect sales taxes that their online competitors need not collect. I suggest that this situation be addressed sooner rather than later. There should not exist a timetable for when tax regulations will be fair. Fairness must remain an inherent fundamental.

I have dealt with a purely domestic Internet tax issue, so now I turn my attention to taxation and the international marketplace. At the recent OECD e-commerce ministerial conference held in Ottawa much of the focus was on the principles of e-commerce taxation.

There was fundamental agreement in five areas. They included the following. The first was neutrality. This would see that taxation would seek to be equitable and fair as it pertained to both e-commerce and traditional forms of commerce. The next was efficiency. This would target compliance to ensure that it would meet the dual objectives of limiting costs in administration. Next came certainty and simplicity. This would ensure that taxation levels and collection procedures were transparent and predictable. Then came effectiveness and fairness. This would limit the potential avoidance and evasion and guarantee that the right amounts of tax were collected at the right time. Finally there was flexibility. This provision was included to assist legislators in the attempt to keep pace with emerging technology.

Fair minded, far reaching in their scope, even highbrow, all these terms could be used to describe these principles. The dilemma is that taken together the principles seek to equalize a world of incongruent tax regimes. Perhaps they could be implemented in a single nation state or even negotiated for a long term phase-in within the realm of a free trade agreement. However this is not the world we live in today.

Quite frankly there is no international formula for taxation that could possibly balance the playing field. If we were trying to negotiate such a treaty we would be beginning a long arduous process which would entail all the same pitfalls as currently are being encountered with the MAI. How do we respond to this?

The House is charged with the duty of protecting and fostering Canadian interests. As far as I can see we have to choose to be a player in a liberalized trading world or we can follow the path of protectionist policies, a trail that most assuredly leads to a dead end.

The Progressive Conservative Party, as the author of the greatest, most successful free trade agreement in the nation's history, is not about to turn its back on free trade. However we must be realistic about the competition that exists out there.

The cold reality is that Internet commerce cannot help but be brutally efficient. Price comparisons will be performed in a matter of seconds, eliminating what used to be an entire Saturday of window shopping. Price as a determinate will become the overriding decision maker on the Internet. When we understand this and couple it with our knowledge of our completely uncompetitive situation, when we compare our tax system to our neighbour's to the south, the situation is a serious one.

If the success story of the Ontario provincial government has not provided the Minister of Finance with enough evidence that tax cuts create growth, perhaps the uneven environment may spur him on. By and large regulation of the Internet has been a failure in every jurisdiction that has tried to overstep the boundaries of common sense.

On November 23, the CRTC will begin hearings into what kinds of regulations, if any, are needed for new media and the Internet. The commission has been vilified for this and has been accused of empire building. The Progressive Conservative Party believes that this is exactly the kind of exercise we must engage in. Certainly that is not to say we will support any move to censor the Internet. In fact quite the opposite is the case. The private sector must determine what the future holds for the Internet. However the public sector has a role to play in facilitating the debate.

One of the realities we must accept is that the Internet is expanding at a rate which far exceeds our ability to respond with legislation. The biggest impediment to any regulation is the fact that rules can only be imposed through national laws. Yet the medium itself is global in scope. Therefore government will have to rely on the private sector to produce new technology which individuals can use to access or eliminate specific Internet content as they see fit. Government's role will be greatly curtailed in the exercise.

The expansion of this technology that was originally devised as a research tool for academics has surpassed all of us. Recently an IBM executive referred to the phenomenon as a digital revolution and labelled its impact as being no lesser in scope than that of the industrial revolution. Like the industrial revolution the Internet and e-commerce have the ability to change the way business is done, the way governments are organized, and the way economies are structured. The major difference though is that this revolution is happening 10 times faster than the industrial revolution. Beyond that the Internet is doubling in size at a rate measured in months rather than in years.

I am certain that the CRTC will generate many worthy submissions and be provided with volumes of advice. However it seems clear that any attempts to control levels of Canadian content on the net would result in abject failure.

Instead it is time for government and the Canadian industry to work together in this pioneering venture. As model users of how the Internet can be adapted to the needs of Canadians we will have the greatest impact. Uniformity of policy from nation to nation will become a much touted idea. By responding early we have the greatest opportunity to leave a lasting Canadian imprint on this emerging technology.

The challenge before us is no less than monumental. Perhaps the most daunting realization we have to come to as legislators is the elimination of our influence. Instead of imposing our will we will have to become more proactive in our spheres of influence. The days of paying lip service to providing incentives must come to an end. There is no way to legislate others to invest in Canada. Thus we must back up our knowledge based economy with incentives and access to capital, something which the industry minister failed to do when he recently tabled the revamped Small Business Loans Act in the form of Bill C-53.

Recently the Liberal newsletter, otherwise known as the Toronto Star , offered up some free advice on how these incentives might be implemented. The suggestion was that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide incentives for Canadian businesses to advertise on Canadian Internet services.

Whether this suggestion has merit or not is a point for debate. However the overriding principle that we need to grasp and incorporate is the need to pursue e-commerce legislation with an eye to the carrot and not the stick.

The OECD estimates that by the year 2003 e-commerce transactions will reach $1 trillion, a number so large in scope it represents 54% of the U.S. direct marketing sales industry. Governments and business need to develop solutions which will make this bulging phenomenon available to all.

Computer costs have come down dramatically in recent years. However personal computers are still out of the reach of many households. If this gap is not addressed now, it will only result in a larger chasm in the future.

One of the greatest reasons for the rapid growth of the Internet is its ability to allow expression which goes right to the heart of what it is to be alive, to be human. Knowing this we cannot accept that some might be disenfranchised.

This is not a subject which should fill us with fear. Predictably many in the union movement have reverted to their Luddite ways and decried the potential loss of jobs. There is no basis for such fears. Instead the reality is that many new high salary positions have been created and in fact remain unfilled as demand continues to outstrip supply. These same positions are ones which traditionally have not leant themselves to trade union affiliation. Perhaps those in the labour movement who engage in such fearmongering should examine their own motivations. It seems that job losses are not their greatest worry but instead it is their own influence which worries them.

Other issues that need to be addressed include law enforcement for serious egregious offences which are committed over the Internet. Bill C-54 begins to deal with this issue in its amendments to the Canadian Evidence Act. The proposed amendments would create an admissible provision which defines electronic signatures. This will make it difficult for online fraudsters to lurk behind some perceived anonymity. It is also my hope that this provision will assist in the identification of hate promoters that will continue to permeate the Internet.

This issue will continue to be revisited as long as this virus continues to exist in Canada. Whether it is on line or otherwise it strikes me as ironic that tools such as the Internet, which has so much power to unite the planet, continues to provide a haven for blatant distorters of truth. I call on all my colleagues in the House to work together so we can begin the process of eliminating this plague.

Copyright infringements are a serious concern which cannot be successfully addressed by one nation. Canada needs to show the same leadership on this issue as we have exhibited in the past when it comes to protecting creative capital. A point that we all need to be reminded of, plain and simple, is that copyright violations are theft and there is a victim.

The head of the digital crime unit, the Federation Against Software Theft, FAST, recently confirmed that Internet crime is growing. The Internet is a primary tool used for software theft. It is also used increasingly for the distribution of counterfeit software and other intellectual properties such as music. It is imperative that we give law enforcement officials all the tools they need in this battle.

I have spoken to some very large picture issues regarding e-commerce. Now I would like to turn my attention to the specific provisions of Bill C-54.

[The Late Paul Tardif, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on August 3 of this year Canada lost a fine example of excellence in citizenship. Paul Tardif held office as a school board trustee and an Ottawa city alderman before serving as a Liberal member of this House for the riding of Russell.

Success in Russell was not to be ours during Paul Tardif's watch. In light of the fact that he was known for his keen mind and jovial wit, I know he would take it as high praise if I referred to him as a thorn in the side of the Progressive Conservative Party.

He was first elected in a 1959 byelection, just one year after the Diefenbaker sweep. He followed that up with three successive election wins, each with an overwhelming majority. The electoral success he enjoyed is only possible when candidates are able to transcend the process and compel people to vote with their hearts. In the hearts of the people of Russell and Ottawa is where Paul Tardif remains.

On behalf of the PC Party caucus I would like to extend our thoughts and prayers to the family of a man who defined the term public servant.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

With respect to legislation on tourism, I am not aware if funding is adequate in that area.

The area I am concerned about, which this act does not address, is the knowledge based sector. I believe that at least 10% of all funding should go to the knowledge based sector because the knowledge based sector is the future of this country. We should be willing to take a risk and look after that industry too.

The five year timeframe is something that we will be discussing in committee, so I will comment on that later.