Jim Jones

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice there is not quorum in the House. Can you please call quorum?

[Privacy Act, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena regarding the Privacy Act.

I do believe that privacy implications in the new age of technology are important considerations. There was a story in the media not too long ago about a woman whose tax information was publicly released because she had filed a complaint. In a subsequent federal court of appeal ruling about her case, the court struck down the disclosure rules that said such personal information could not be released regardless of the case.

This was a prudent decision by the court and it demonstrated the importance of privacy and protection in this day and age. In the decision there was no compensation provided to the woman whose privacy was inappropriately violated. I believe this is appropriate. It is on this point that I think the hon. member's motion is flawed.

The member calls for legislation that sets out a compensation provision for those whose privacy is violated. I believe that such an act would lead to large complications in terms of legalities. This could very easily create a paradise environment for lawyers.

To a greater degree, how does one determine or define injury as a result of a breach of privacy? Does an improper disclosure of one's personal information warrant financial compensation? I do not think in the vast majority of cases where disclosure occurs that the person requires financial reward because of such breach.

I do agree with the hon. member that there are weaknesses in the Privacy Act. For instance, I believe we need to pay greater attention to the implications of personal and corporate privacy in the rapidly advancing information age in which we live. I am not sure that the Privacy Act in its current incarnation can fully address the need for protection in cyberspace and beyond. This is an area on which I believe we must place more emphasis.

I do not think the member's motion is particularly focused on this area. In a world where information is so readily and speedily available, I think it is vital that the Privacy Act be able to respond to breaches of privacy in this area much as it currently does in terms of government not being able to disclose one's tax return and so on.

As for the second part of the motion concerning punishing those who breach privacy concerns, I think there may be more weight to this section. I doubt that anyone would disagree that it is important to ensure there are proper protections in place to discourage and to punish those who wilfully violate the privacy of another.

I again wonder what sort of approach the member would like to take on this issue. How do we define a punishment when it is next to impossible to define injury in a case like this? I would think that if sufficient damage was done, the individual would have the recourse of a libel suit or another civil pursuit.

At this level I do not think we necessarily need to bring in legislation as the member has suggested. Instead I believe it would be worth looking at more specific and in depth issues of privacy from the framework of technology and the exchange of information. This is where people need the most protection at this time, where personal information can travel broadly without even the knowledge of the person affected.

On this point I believe the member has a valid argument that perhaps a parliamentary committee should be struck to thoroughly investigate ways in which we can strengthen the protection that Canadians need in ensuring that their personal information remains just that, personal.

Again I return to the fundamental flaws in the member's approach to seeking greater privacy protection. It would be quite dangerous to firmly set out penalties and rates of compensation for the acts referred to in the motion. It sets up a legal framework for convicting offenders after the fact whereas what is most needed are preventative measures.

I believe the Privacy Act in its current state addresses most of the issues for which it was intended but I can agree with the motion that perhaps we could tighten it up to ensure there are no gaping loopholes as there were in the tax case referred to earlier. Whereas the most confidential and private of personal information is controlled by the government, there need to be virtually foolproof mechanisms in place to guarantee that John Doe's tax return does not end up in the public domain because he chooses to challenge it. This is a very important responsibility of the government and one that must be maintained and met.

Although I agree that some improvements need to be made in the Privacy Act and that it should be a concern and perhaps priority of the House to visit the privacy issues in greater detail, my colleagues and I cannot support Motion No. M-19 because it seeks to create a legal reference point that overlooks the larger issue.

As members we cannot reasonably determine what price tag to put on somebody's compromise. That is an area that the courts must define. What we can do is strengthen and tighten the framework of privacy protection by responding to the more minute details that are perhaps overlooked at the present time.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, these questions are very interesting. The questions that come to mind are why is the bill even here and what has been done since 1995 to resolve this issue.

I am transparently aware that the only thing the interprovincial affairs and justice ministers have done is to have a reference of three questions to the supreme court and a letter writing exercise between the federal interprovincial affairs minister and the interprovincial affairs minister of the Quebec government.

With what we have going for us, I would have worked a lot harder trying to resolve this issue with the interested parties, not only the people of Quebec but with the other provinces. Instead, it may be purely coincidental that this was brought out just before Christmas. It was the same old story as in the 1997 election. A book was published in the U.S. where the president of the United States waged a war because his popularity had waned. Maybe they brought this forth to conceal the impending fraud and scandal that are starting to emerge from the HRDC and the transitional jobs fund.

A lot more could have been done by working on plan A in trying to resolve this 150 to 200 year old situation instead of just bringing forth an act that talks about a clear question. It did not specify a clear question. It did not specify what is a clear majority, and there are a lot of other things it did not make clear.

A lot of Canadians have not been happy about this issue over a long period of time, but it will only give them a false sense of security.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address Bill C-20, the clarity act. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi.

This bill, the bill that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has the audacity to call the clarity act, falls just short of being rightfully tabbed the most unclear, the most ambiguous and certainly the most imperilling legislation ever proposed in the history of our great nation.

Today in the interest of time and procedure, it is the disingenuous, disruptive spirit of this bill rather than its blatantly flawed details that I will address during the time I have been given. As I read carefully through the bill I find difficulty in uncovering its merits.

The reason is that this bill simply has no merit. In fact I submit that it represents not only the wrong course of action for Canada but moreover its presentation to the House for consideration is nothing further than adding another instance of Liberal government dishonest, poll driven practices. I cannot in good conscience allow myself to look past the clarity act or past the motivations behind the government's proposed legislation.

The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is quite a brilliant individual. The member holds a bachelor of arts, a master's degree and a Ph.D. In addition he has served as a professor of political science, as a journal editor and as a research fellow. No one is questioning his expertise on Canadian constitutionalism. Indeed his expertise is the very reason why he was recruited to run for the Liberal Party. However, with such distinguishing credentials and given that he is so clearly gifted, it is truly puzzling that the hon. member would make the mistake of proposing this ill timed, ill conceived, and most glaring, this ill advised bill.

Perhaps I can serve as a beacon for the House and shed some light on my colleague's motivations.

When he was recruited to run for the Liberal Party, my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was a professed federalist; and he remains as such today as the banner boy for the federalist forces of Canada. During his byelection campaign we were introduced to the member as an experienced, reasoned academic who possessed practical and realistic ideas for saving Canada.

We were told by political analysts that the minister's strength as a candidate was his supposedly unyielding support for reforming and ultimately renewing confederation. He was called upon by the Liberal Party to quell Quebecers' wishes to separate from Canada.

The hon. member came to Ottawa as an adamant proponent of plan A, that is a proponent of negotiating and conciliating with Quebec toward a new constitutional arrangement.

Clearly the minister's recent bill is not indicative of the plan A approach but rather of the directly opposite plan B approach.

How are we to reconcile what certainly seems to be a glaring discrepancy? On one hand we know that the minister came to Ottawa as a fervent advocate of plan A and on the other hand we have this new bill, the clarity bill, which obviously comes to us from the plan B school of thought proposed by the same minister who previously had not simply leaned toward plan A but as we all know had built his reputation on furthering plan A.

What do members suppose would urge an apparently intellectual resolute individual like the hon. minister to make a 180 degree turnaround on such an important national issue? Given the recent history of the Liberals the answer is quite simple: the polls.

Polling conducted following the 1995 Quebec referendum indicated that constitutional fatigue and a sense of exasperation had descended upon Canadians. Having recently undergone two attempts at constitutional renewal, first in 1987 with the Meech Lake accord and then in 1992 with the Charlottetown accord, Canadians were admittedly tired of hearing about constitutional negotiation.

Following the referendum Canadians were so embittered by the near loss of our nation that many jumped aboard the plan B ship. This shift among Canadians was manifest in the polls of the day. Therefore, because of the prevailing sentiment in the nation at the time, many colleagues across the floor surrendered their once strong support for plan A and flocked to the masses as they adopted plan B, all in the name of electoral success.

My colleague turned a blind eye to the reality that plan A was and remains the most favourable course of action for the survival of our nation. The Liberal trademark weather vane government is assuredly not the type of leadership Canada needs as we prepare for our most important challenge since confederation.

For the first time in our history the stages of possible succession for a province and for the resulting breakup of Canada are defined. It is truly regretful that it has become common practice for our reddened leaders to govern the polls, placing utmost importance upon polls of the day rather than upon what is ultimately best for Canada. By bending and stretching when told, hoping to sweeten the public come election time, the government is not only depriving Canadians of the leadership they so rightfully deserve from Ottawa, but even beyond this the government is compromising the future of this great nation.

Today Canada does not need a government that governs solely according to the public will without first engaging its own steadfast conscientious deliberations on the issue. Yes, it is true that we must actually solicit support from the public in order to gauge its inclinations.

However, basing questions of national interest on the fluctuating preferences of the public, particularly when the public may not be fully apprised of the complexities of the matter and particularly when the public may very easily be swayed by its own emotions, is not only thoughtless but I submit is the wrong course of action for the country.

The bill legitimizes the breakup of a great country that generations past and present have worked so hard to build. Canadians have been misled into thinking that the bill presents the most favourable course of action for Canada in dealing with the impasse Ottawa has reached with Quebec. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would have Canadians believe that laying down strict rules for the secession of Quebec is the only alternative left for Canada. However, this is most definitely not the case. There is an alternative to Bill C-20.

The alternative, the most favourable alternative for Canada, is to focus on reconciliation between our nation's two founding peoples. The alternative to the minister's bill is to do what was intended by our forefathers and by Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister: to fight for the preservation of Canada—and we have to remember this country is only 133 years young—to fight for the prosperity of all Canadians; to pursue aggressively the inclusion of all Canadians in the political discourse, and to stand firm and unite against challenges both external and internal.

The alternative, contrary to what my colleagues across the floor would have us believe, is not to facilitate the separation of the nation's two founding peoples but rather to work toward a constitutional resolution.

With the right leadership and with a concerted effort to draw political actors, officials and Canadians together, our continued union between Canada's founding peoples can doubtless become the most flourishing, successful and triumphant union ever forged.

The bill proposes to cede the right of secession of our provinces. With the bill the condition for the separation of Quebec and for other provinces will be set as law. Once met, those who would destroy what countless Canadians have given their lives to build and to preserve will have the guarantee of entering into negotiation. For what? For the destruction of our great land and for undermining the work, the effort and the unrivalled commitment of our forefathers.

In closing I offer the following to my colleagues in the opposition and those in the governing party who still have the courage of their convictions to think for themselves. I would encourage all of them to join us as we expose the Liberals for the improvident, distanced, poll driven defeatists they are. I would encourage them to do what they know is best for Canada: to oppose Bill C-20, the clarity act.

Canadians deserve better leadership than they have received from the Liberal Party and from the untrustworthy, vacillating Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We have a responsibility to Canadians. They must know exactly what the bill means for the future of our country. I am afraid that should the bill pass Canadians will gain nothing further than a false sense of security. The clarity act is the wrong course of action for the country.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening to the bill of the hon. member for Halifax West which seeks to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians, a code of ethics for parliamentarians. I think that is very important.

I believe the member makes a valid point with this piece of legislation. There are countless examples of elected politicians who dangerously straddle the fence between what is right and wrong in terms of conduct.

For example, the Prime Minister and his suspect use of the transitional jobs fund has led to repeated stories in the press about large federal grants going to shady businessmen in the Prime Minister's riding. In an instance like this one where there is even a political staffer being quoted in the newspaper as saying the process for doling out cash in Shawinigan was outside the standard practices of the Department of Human Resources Development, one has to wonder if an appropriate watchdog body's time is not due.

There is a big difference between sending everything through the criminal route and being investigated by the RCMP versus it being investigated by an independent body that would go after the conduct or the ethics of how a person behaves.

The Minister for International Trade, who has taken some serious criticism for his election fundraising and his use of the transitional jobs fund, is another example where a committee or body overseeing ethics might be a good idea. I do not think we need to set up witch-hunt committees. I do not think this is the point of the hon. member's bill. However, in a case like this one where the minister's practices are in question an ethics committee would be a logical tool in establishing the realities of the situation.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, who has also made fine use of the TJF for propping up projects in her riding, might be in a situation where a committee would be a wise body in straightening out the issue.

Through all the endless stories of the government's questionable approach to using public funds, the government repeatedly tells us and Canadians that all is okay with this behaviour because the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, acts as a watchdog for the Prime Minister and cabinet.

Mr. Wilson is not really an ethics counsellor. He is a staffer who reports to the Prime Minister. If he hears of any unfavourable conduct, his job is to straighten it out with the ministers and the Prime Minister and cover it up. A true ethics counsellor would look at it and if there were any inappropriateness his role would be to tell parliament or a committee of parliament. His role would also be to make it public.

While this position provides lovely optics for the government, the fact remains that he reports to the Prime Minister. He does not report to the House but to the individual whom he is supposed to monitor. This is absurd and completely counterproductive to the whole notion of having an ethics watchdog. What is the purpose of having somebody policing his boss? The position despite the charming title is a political one where an individual is tasked with keeping the Prime Minister and ministers out of trouble.

There is a need for an individual who reports to the House on the ethics of government. However I am not sure it is necessary to monitor every member of the House of Commons and the Senate. By the simple virtue of being elected by the citizens of Canada we are automatically asked and expected to hold a high standard of conduct.

However, if we were to look into it further, the U.S. House of Representatives model may be worth examining. Its committee on house administration is charged with overseeing and, if warranted, examining the ethical behaviour of congressmen. This might be a good approach to look at rather than the existing ethics counsellor who is really nothing more than a political fixer for the Prime Minister and his ministers.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for his comments and his question. I have the same difficulty that he does with the composition of the board. As I said, there are six regions that the government is setting up. The provincial people will designate who would normally be the deputy minister of tourism for their particular province. I think it should be made more fair and that the composition of the board should change if we really want to advance tourism and ensure that every one of the six regions which are promoted in the bill has a powerful say at the table about what should be done.

This is a dynamic industry. It is probably a hidden asset for Canada which we can exploit. When I first saw the bill and received the presentation from the department, my initial concern was the composition of the board and it is still my concern.

However, at this point in time I am supporting the bill at second reading so that the bill can go to committee. I will be further addressing that issue because I have a concern in that area as well.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, I have some concerns about the composition of the board, with 16 members reporting to the federal minister and one member from each of the provinces reporting to the deputy minister.

However, by moving it from an agency of Industry Canada to a more autonomous body, a crown corporation, I think we have a better opportunity to exploit the opportunities that exist in tourism. It is a vital industry. Hopefully the industry will grow because of this corporation.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to an issue that is fundamentally vital to the Canadian economy, the issue of tourism. Bill C-5 is an initiative that will see the Canadian Tourism Commission transformed from its present status as a special operating agency into that of a crown corporation.

The Canadian Tourism Commission was originally set up in 1994 by order in council and under the guidance of the Department of Industry. Its mandate is to manage, plan and implement programs that generate and promote tourism in Canada.

The bill before us represents an evolutionary step in the process by turning the agency into a crown corporation. Such a change will result in many fundamental differences, all of which are designed with the intent of providing greater flexibility to the CTC, thus allowing it to better serve the tourism industry.

Most of the components contained in the bill are without controversy. For instance, there seems to be broad support offered by the provinces. This support is predicated upon several factors.

First, the act gives a legislative mandate to the function of marketing Canada as a tourism destination. That mandate specifies a significant role for industry, provinces and territories in national tourism marketing. This role of the provinces raises a few questions as to why we are not respecting the equality of all provinces in the bill, but I will touch on them later.

The second reason provincial governments seem inclined to support the bill centres around the restrictions placed on the CTC specifically. The commission may not initiate or finance programs involving the acquisition or construction of real property, immovables or facilities related to tourism. This ensures that the commission's interest will be focused on marketing. In the past federal tourism funds have somehow been used with mixed success on facility development programs.

The third and most important reason has to do with the perceived commitment by the federal government to have the marketing of tourism led by industry rather than by government. I say perceived because as the legislation presently stands the corporation will be made up of 26 directors.

Sixteen of the directors will be appointed by the Minister of Industry and will serve at the pleasure of the minister. The other 10 directors will essentially be made up of provincial deputy ministers of tourism or their equivalent. I am doing the math and it does not look good for the provinces. Worse still is the notion that the minister maintains a comfortable majority on the board by having 16 pleasure appointments that he can yank whenever one steps out of line. Honestly everybody wants to rule the world but we must protect against this.

When I reviewed the stated objectives of the bill I was not struck by any intentions that would be overtly out of line. The CTC objectives include sustaining a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry; marketing Canada as a desirable tourist destination; providing information about Canada's tourism to the private sector; and supporting a co-operative relationship among the private sector, the Government of Canada, the provinces and the territories. No alarm bells here.

How can these initiatives be achieved if the deck is stacked against provincial representatives to begin with? If the true intention is to sustain a vibrant industry we should not introduce a predetermined barrier to that dynamic.

I want to make clear that I am not discussing patronage. I do not question the intention of the minister. The reality of the situation is clear. Provincial representatives will certainly watch out for their own regional issues.

However, even if all provincial governments are in agreement on a specific policy, the minister maintains a very heavy hammer to pound in order to achieve what he wants. This is not enough for my party to oppose the bill at this time, although I look forward to exploring this further at the committee stage.

Another point in this bill that concerns not only myself but also the tourism minister of Prince Edward Island is the regional representation breakdown for the appointed directors. The bill, in clause 11, delineates six different regions of the country. They are as follows: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Alberta, which is combined with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and British Columbia, which is combined with the Yukon.

Bill C-5 does not respect the fundamental equality of all provinces and that will be explored further. However, there is another issue that I want to raise, which has to do with the relative importance of tourism to the economies of the individual provinces. While the gross figure for revenue generated by Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia may not come close to those generated by other provinces, their tourism dollars as a percentage of GDP speak volumes for their need to have effective representation.

I raise these issues out of a desire to improve the bill and to respect the fundamental nature of Canada, but by and large the minister has done a commendable job in producing a bill that has such initial broad support. I have had positive feedback from the governments of Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island for the general aims and principles of the bill. Since those are provinces governed by members of my party, I know they are therefore quite reasonable and astute on such matters.

Tourism endures the peculiar legacy of being big business carried out by thousands of small operators. This commission is a very important initiative since tourism injects nearly $47 billion a year into our economy. These are not constant dollars that we can count on to be there year after year. We must do our part to assist tourism operators to grow their revenues.

In 1998 Canada witnessed a drop in visitors from some of our major overseas markets. Japan was down 14%, France was down 8% and Germany was down 5%. When we consider that tourism employs over 500,000 Canadians directly, plus a multitude of spin-off jobs, it is an industry that is too important to keep our hands at bay. Of course, an active hand does not mean an interventionist hand. I am aware that the minister understands that, which is why he is endeavouring to make it an industry driven venture. It is a difficult task, to be sure, especially when we consider that government nets 31 cents out of every tourism dollar spent in Canada. It is certainly an incentive that would have some advocate a more activist role for government. That is why my party is supportive of Bill C-5 and its less intrusive approach.

Tourism is Canada's 12th largest revenue generating industry, with 40% of that revenue generated in my home province of Ontario. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I have a vested interest in assisting this bill forward.

In order to understand and judge the viability and worth of any government project, I find it useful to start from the premise of what the situation would be if it did not exist. There is no need to reinvent the wheel to answer that question. All we need to do is look to our neighbours to the south where we see a situation that has a certain amount of disarray to it. The U.S. federal government did away with the U.S. travel and tourism authority at few years back. Now the U.S. tourism industry is actively lobbying for a new national body.

If we start from the premise that this body is absolutely necessary, and for the most part I think we are there, then it is incumbent upon us to get it right. We must be open to all input on proper structuring, especially from industry members themselves, since at present the private sector and the provinces are paying more than 50% of the tab.

In the limited time I have had to meet with stakeholders, it has become clear that we are just scratching the surface with tourism now. What we need to achieve is the creation of a commission that will allow the industry to maximize our potential growth areas with destination strategies and growth in areas like adventure travel and ecotourism. We also need to develop a strategy that will assist rural tourist operators in their ongoing struggle to obtain financing.

Obviously we are not going to be able to address such specific issues in an effective way as a parliamentary body. That is why I hold out such hope for this commission.

If we do our job properly, we will have a tourism commission that will be a model for other nations for years to come. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting Bill C-5 at second reading.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question. It is not a simple one to answer, but basically we are beside the greatest economy in the world. I do not know why we are trying to forge a different economy of high taxes when the United States encourages innovation and free enterprise.

We have to get our taxes, both corporate and personal, more in line. There is a whole new revolution going on, for example, with Dell Computer and the e-commerce world. Ninety per cent of Canadians today, when they are buying products on e-commerce, buy them from the United States. They are not buying in Canada. Dell is doing $30 million a day, every day of the year, and it has just started.

We also have to encourage people that if they work hard they will enjoy the fruits of their labour. For example, in Santa Clara, 64 millionaires are created each day. I bet those people for a year or so had the dream of becoming rich and knew that if they worked hard, once they realized their aspirations they would get to keep their money.

We seem to tax it away, do some sort of income averaging and give the money to everyone. We have to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit at the school level, and when people work hard they should be able to keep their money. We have to reduce taxes both at the corporate and personal levels.