House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament September 2021, as Liberal MP for Malpeque (P.E.I.)

Won his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Fisheries October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, as the member very well knows, the minister of fisheries has said consistently that conservation is a priority in the fisheries.

He has held extensive discussions with the fishing industry. He has travelled from coast to coast to coast in the country to hear what fishermen and fisherwomen have to say. He is putting a conservation plan and a management plan in place which will ensure that there is a fisheries for the future whether it is for Quebec fishermen, Prince Edward Island fishermen or any other Canadian fisherman.

Ice Breaking In Ports October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of the file because ice breaking fees are not only a problem for the province of Quebec. They are a problem for the eastern provinces in Atlantic Canada as well.

We have consulted extensively with the industry. The facts are that it is greater than 82% of the costs being covered by Canadian taxpayers.

Maybe the member should have a little lesson in geography because the facts are that when a commercial vessel goes to Quebec in the St. Lawrence it has to go around Newfoundland and that ice has to be broken as well.

Ice Breaking In Ports October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been in the forefront for several years. In fact there has been intense consultation over the last four years.

If the member would only look at the supplementary estimates he would see that there were extra moneys for ice breaking as a result of those extensive consultations. The fact is that Canadian taxpayers are paying 82% of the cost of that ice breaking.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

In addition to modernizing federal legislation for the digital age and building the environment for electronic commerce to flourish, this act also addresses one very particular need in the information society in which we now live: the right of individuals to have some control over their personal information.

The rapid development of information and communications technology such as the Internet has brought about new opportunities for individuals, businesses, communities and governments. But to realize those opportunities there are some challenges that must be resolved. One of the most significant of these is the issue of privacy and the protection of personal information. New technologies provide new capabilities to collect and manage personal data. Canadians want to be confident that any information concerning themselves is accurate, up to date and, most importantly, secure.

Bill C-54 provides that assurance and much more. It will make private sector organizations responsible for the security and accuracy of the personal information they collect. For federal statutes it will introduce a degree of equivalency between electronic and paper formats and improve the ability of the federal government to conduct its business electronically. An opting out process would allow government bodies sufficient time to prepare for the impact of updating and re-engineering their business functions for the age of the Internet. It will assist the courts in evaluating the reliability of electronic records presented as evidence and it will give official status to electronic statutes and regulations.

Specifically regarding security, the legislation proposes ways to remove legal roadblocks to using electronic technology as a secure option for doing business with the federal government. It contains provisions for the development of secure electronic signatures for people doing business with the federal government. These will provide a model for electronic commerce in general. It will make federally regulated private sector organizations responsible for the security and accuracy of the personal information they collect.

The provisions of the act for privacy protection are based on the model code for the protection of personal information which was developed by the Canadian Standards Association.

However, as exemplary as this code is, it has been voluntary. Now we are enshrining its principles in law and we are making significant improvements.

To be successful any legislation regime which safeguards personal information must provide effective oversight and enforcement, and foster awareness.

As other hon. members have noted in previous debates, Bill C-54 is the result of a great deal of broadly based consultations. In those consultations Canadians made their point over and over again that individuals must have the right to launch complaints and to challenge an organization when they think its compliance with protection requirements has been inadequate.

The legislation before us gives individuals the right to complain and to challenge compliance with any part of the law. Thus it affords Canadians a key role in monitoring the organizations which hold personal information about them.

The private sector also has an extremely important role to play. There was strong agreement in the consultations that businesses should take an active role in monitoring their own practices and should co-operate with consumers in resolving problems. The first step in a normal complaint process should involve an individual complaining to the organization.

The organization should then look into the complaint and attempt to resolve it.

Accordingly, Bill C-54 makes organizations accountable for the information they collect, use or disclose. Furthermore, it requires that organizations put in place procedures to receive and respond to complaints or inquiries about their information policies and practices.

However, an individual might not always be able to obtain satisfaction through the organization. In such cases there must be a second avenue for redress. This legislation provides that avenue. Throughout the government's consultations Canadians expressed broad support for giving the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the authority to investigate complaints, issue recommendations, mediate disputes and conduct research on issues related to the implementation of the law.

Under Bill C-54 individuals will be able to complain to the commissioner regarding any aspect of an organization's compliance with the legislation, including improper collection and use or disclosure of personal information. The commissioner may also initiate complaints if there are reasonable grounds to do so. The commissioner will have the power necessary to investigate complaints, including the ability to enter the premises of any organization, examine any records, administer oaths and interview an organization's staff.

Furthermore, as part of the complaint resolution process the commissioner may suggest mediation or other forms of dispute resolution. When an investigation has been completed the commissioner will provide a report outlining the findings of the investigation together with any recommendations the commissioner deems appropriate to both the individual and the organization. The commissioner may follow up to ensure that the organization deals with the identified issues.

In our consultations consumers indicated that it was important that the legislation provide a watchdog who can ensure that the law is being respected. When the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that an organization is not complying with the law the legislation gives the privacy commissioner the power to conduct audits.

Consumers and businesses have also made clear their view that legislation to protect privacy in the private sector will be most effective if it includes measures to address emerging privacy issues proactively through consumer education. The government agrees that consumer education is absolutely key to ensuring that citizens are well informed about their privacy rights and are vigilant in protecting them. Therefore, the legislation gives the privacy commissioner an explicit mandate to educate the public. It also gives the commissioner powers to research and comment on any issues that affect the privacy of Canadians.

These various powers of the privacy commissioner are designed to ensure compliance with the law and to give consumers somewhere to turn when there is a problem. The commissioner will also serve as an important source of expertise and advice for organizations that are trying to comply with the law.

Canadian citizens and consumers are rightly asking that personal information be adequately protected in the new digital economy. Experience has shown that industry self-regulation has not been up to the task. As a result, international data laws have to be developed that might restrict the flow of information to countries with inadequate privacy protection standards. With this legislation the government has done so, with privacy protection that will be simple yet effective, consumer friendly and not overly burdensome for the industry, especially for small and medium size firms.

It is made in Canada legislation that strikes the right balance for our conditions and it will help ensure that technological innovations will be able to serve our economic needs while not infringing on our fundamental rights.

It is the system that Canadians need to safeguard information privacy in the private sector. Therefore, I move:

That the question be now put.

Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries October 29th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the member. I was preoccupied with how wrong the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore was in starting his remarks when he talked about the cause of the decline of the fishery. All along he has been saying it has been the foreign fishery and he comes up with a new line tonight. The member is eventually going to have to get his line straight.

Let me speak directly to the concerns of the member regarding the work of the Canadian Coast Guard. He is apparently under the impression from our session in committee that the coast guard had transferred up to $200 million to other parts of DFO and that this would impede it from fulfilling its marine safety responsibilities.

In this regard I am very pleased to advise the member that he is quite mistaken. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also responsible for the coast guard, has made it very clear on several occasions that safety at sea is and will remain a top priority of the department. So is conservation. It is the coast guard which provides the vital at-sea capability necessary to meet both these objectives.

As the minister has confirmed on a number of occasions, the coast guard is an arm of government that by its very existence and its visible presence represents the obligations and authority of the nation in our waters, our ports, our territorial seas and our fishing zones. Those opposite need have no fear that the Canadian Coast Guard is about to wither away and disappear.

Committees Of The House October 27th, 1998

You were offered them and you refused them.

Committees Of The House October 27th, 1998

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is saying that is not correct. It is correct. It was for conserving the fishery.

Would he not agree that the minister is changing the fishery but conserving it so that there will be a fishery of the future? He has a vision on where to go.

Committees Of The House October 27th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for some time. Earlier this morning I listened to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I hoped that by the time we reached the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands a little common sense would creep into what members opposite are saying.

What we have seen here is rants from the opposition without any substance. There was indeed a good consultation process. The committee came up with some good recommendations. If the members opposite would just read the response of the minister, they would see that the committee report had done some substantial gain in terms of moving DFO a little further down the path to better represent fishermen.

We have listened in terms of the consultation process. The member said in his speech that he did not expect to get everything the committee recommended. Nor did we. We heard from fishermen in earnest and we made very tough recommendations.

The problem with members opposite is that when the facts on foreign fishing are outlined to them, they do not agree with them even though they are the facts and are articulated in terms of observer reports by DFO, by NAFO and by others. They throw those arguments out. They do not want to hear the facts. They want to believe what they believe and not listen to the facts. That is what we are getting from members opposite.

He talked about the people who signed the report. Let me quote a dissenting report in the east coast fishery report signed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who recommended that any program beyond May 1999 would be premature at this time. The member likes to stand in the House and leave the impression that he wants to help those fishermen out when he recommended against a program, likely on the orders of his leader, to help them out. In the recommendations TAGS was extended and fishermen are benefiting from that.

There is a renewal strategy in place. Members opposite should recognize that rather than this rant without substance. We did strengthen management of a renewal strategy program. We put $1.9 million into recruitment and training programs for fisheries officers. We are training fisheries officers now so that there will be better enforcement, so that we protect against illegal activities in the fisheries program, and so that we move ahead and have a fisheries for the future. There is substantial change.

Will the member opposite not agree there has to be change in the fisheries and that hard decisions have to be made? The minister was recently given a conservation award in New York.

Supply October 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am aware and I fully understand the concerns of some Nova Scotia communities with respect to their lack of fishing opportunities. However, this is not just a Nova Scotia phenomenon. Every year DFO receives many requests for access to various fisheries from people in similar situations. The total allowable catch, TAC, increases in the northern shrimp fishery announced in May 1998 were allocated according to principles which were developed for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stakeholders, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec to ensure that the benefits of the fishery were shared in as fair and open manner as possible.

As one of these principles is that those adjacent to the resource will have priority in fishing the resource, new entrants from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. were not included in the temporary sharing of northern shrimp. Nova Scotian interests received a share of the increase through existing licences held by Nova Scotian companies, which represent two and a half licences out of seventeen. The existing licence holders received 90% of the increase off northern Labrador and 10% of the increase off eastern Newfoundland.

Fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, northern Quebec and the lower north shore of Quebec benefited from the increase. In addition, those who received temporary access in 1997 received the same level of quota in 1998. The traditional offshore fleet also shared in the quota increases.

Following the May 15th announcement, DFO approved temporary sharing of the gulf shrimp and Scotian shelf shrimp resources with fishermen in Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec. The sharing in these fisheries was also consistent with the principle of adjacency, with access based on the department's sector management policy which governs the access of inshore vessels.

Supply October 26th, 1998

Madam Speaker, this will not take long. The member should be congratulating us on foreign fishing. Whereas it was 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s, it is down to 2,000 tonne per year now.

The member for Prince—George Bulkley Valley has demonstrated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He must have been down there with the finance committee. That is what it demonstrates.

Is the member suggesting that the EI fund should be used for tax reductions rather than for employment measures? Is that what he is suggesting?

Second, would he not agree that the government is doing a lot in terms of creation of jobs through the transitional job fund, the Canadian opportunities strategy, the youth employment strategy, new hires programs and others?