Debates of Nov. 30th, 1995

Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had understood Reform Party members wanted to put up an additional speaker. I was leaving that time available. However, if they do not intend to speak then I would certainly wish to debate this bill. If they could perhaps indicate whether they do have another speaker, I would be happy to stand down.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am not here as a negotiator, just as a Speaker. I am simply putting the question to the House.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that there would be another speaker from my party. If the debate has come to a conclusion, I would like an opportunity for a brief summary.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There may come a time for that to transpire, but right now we are simply resuming debate. I give the floor to the chief deputy whip and there is approximately one minute remaining.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one obviously cannot speak a great deal on this important issue in one minute. However, let me just take the minute to acknowledge the importance of the issue that has been brought forward: the protection of the privacy of individuals in an increasingly technologized world.

I do not think any of us can go through a day without being aware of how much very personal information about us is available to a myriad of people without our knowledge and the fact that the putting together of that information can jeopardize our privacy extensively. That is precisely why the Minister of Industry is addressing this extremely important issue and fully anticipates bringing measures forward to the House earlier in the new year.

The bill is well intentioned. It has some flaws in it, however. It would be appropriate for the proposer of the bill to engage in another hour's debate on the matter, to make some points as have been made in the debate so far that he believes need to be considered by the government in drafting the bill, and to take the

points forward in debate on legislation that will come before the House. Potentially there will be amendments. We are open to having appropriate action on the matter for the protection of Canadians and their privacy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I put a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I asked him whether the interim report he transmitted to the Prime Minister on behalf of this committee included the option of putting before the House a simple resolution on the distinct society concept and whether that option was the one favoured by his committee.

As usual, the minister evaded the issue, saying it was not up to him to reveal the results of the work of this committee and that later on, at the appropriate time, the opposition would see whether that was the Liberal government's option.

We asked this question because we wanted to warn the government against proposing to the House a simple resolution to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. We simply wanted to tell the Liberal government that it was useless, that it was an entirely symbolic gesture that would in any case fail to satisfy Quebec because it did not go far enough and would be rejected by English Canada because it would involve too many changes, according to them.

We wanted to say this because in Quebec, the distinct society issue was raised in the Liberal Party's platform around 1984 or 1985. Robert Bourassa, who was subtle in his approach, had found this expression and used it as a synonym of the concept of the Quebec people, to make it palatable to English Canada. Basically, Mr. Bourassa thought that Quebecers would agree, saying that it was in fact a synonym of the Quebec people and that English Canada would agree in the belief that it meant nothing. History has shown that English Canada was right.

At one point the concept surfaced in the Meech Lake accord. It has often been said that this particular concept was more important than the one in the federal government's current proposal, the claim being that it would affect the way the Constitution was interpreted and that the concept of distinct society in the Meech Lake accord would even take precedence over the charter of rights and freedoms.

This was far from obvious. Eminent legal experts in English Canada, including Professor Peter W. Hogg at York University, claimed the opposite was true, and said quite clearly: "The new section does not take precedence over the charter of rights and freedoms. In fact, as a straightforward interpretative clause, it is subject to the charter".

Had the Meech Lake accord been accepted in its day, we would have found ourselves again before the Supreme Court, which would-contrary to what Premier Bourassa said-again have concluded that the agreement Quebec had signed in good faith did not take precedence over a fundamental element of the Constitution, namely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Obviously we have nothing against a constitution's containing sections aimed at defending citizens' rights, but nevertheless the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been useful to those wishing to block the aspirations of Quebec, to restrict its development culturally and linguistically.

That charter has helped these people, whom I could almost describe as malevolent, to hobble the development of Quebec and to make it so that today Quebec has no other solution than to promptly and firmly reject any notion of a distinct society and to come up with the proposition that was ours during the last referendum, which is to state loud and clear that Quebec is not a distinct society but a people, period.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, the member for Jonquière asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a question on the federal government's intentions regarding Quebec.

The Minister responded, quoting the Prime Minister, who had said the following:

To ensure the change and modernization of Canada, no change is excluded.

The Prime Minister promised he would act on the matter of a distinct society and the matter of a veto. He acted on these two promises very quickly, and Quebecers have seen that the Prime Minister is a man of his word, who keeps the promises he makes.

The committee discussed the matters of a distinct society and a right of veto, and we have already seen the initial results, which the Prime Minister announced Monday. The distinct society clause is one Quebec has long sought.

The Prime Minister of Canada's resolution finally accords Quebec Canada's full recognition, because Parliament is the only place representing all Canadians from all regions.

The Prime Minister had promised during the last week of the campaign that he would act to reinstate the right of veto that René Lévesque had lost. We will reinstate it, and this is a big step toward resolving Canada's problems.

The changes required can and must be made within Canada. This is the message sent to all Canadians, including the members of the official opposition, by the October 30 vote.

As the minister said yesterday in the House, his committee is currently studying other questions, including rationalizing powers among the provinces and Canada, and will submit recommendations to the Prime Minister when they are ready.

Our aim is not to destroy Canada, but to build it. This is what the majority of Canadians and Quebecers have asked us to do, and, because we believe in democracy, we will try to continue to build Canada.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following on my question to the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions, I wish to emphasize that many of my constituents in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka have had their retirement savings jeopardized by the collapse of Confederation Life. They have come to ask for assistance because as every day passes they are suffering financial uncertainty as a result of the collapse of this financial institution.

Obviously what has happened as a result of the collapse of Confederation Life has affected each and every one of them, but some are paying a higher price for the collapse because of their own personal financial circumstances. It is for these people that I urge a speedy dissolution of the assets of Confederation Life, an expedited liquidation process, so that all Canadians affected by the collapse receive their money as quickly as possible.

Not long ago I presented a petition in the House with over 500 signatures on behalf of a group of Bell Canada pensioners who were frustrated not only with the collapse of Confederation Life but also with their inability to convince their employer, Bell Canada, that it had an added responsibility to the company's pensioners. These pensioners believe that because Bell Canada not only chose Confederation Life as the administrator of its group RRSP but also encouraged its employees to participate in the plan, it must now take responsibility for those actions.

The petition I presented calls upon Parliament to initiate an investigation into the collapse of Confederation Life with particular reference to Bell Canada's responsibility toward its employees' funds. I too would like to see this matter resolved expeditiously.

Unfortunately, this whole matter is essentially in the hands of the liquidator and the government's ability to intervene is somewhat limited as a result. We know that when a financial institution goes into liquidation it ceases to be a regulated financial institution and responsibility for the distribution of the estate passes to the liquidator under the court's supervision.

My concern right now is with the length of time it is taking to get through this liquidation process. One of the greatest priorities is to recover as much per dollar as is possible by getting the best price on the sale of assets. That is a given. It is my hope this process can be hastened in the interests of those who have been affected by the collapse. We need to get those funds that are guaranteed paid back to the investors, the men and women in this country who put their faith in this company, Confederation Life.

Retirees with the Bell group RRSP investments below the CompCorp limit will eventually be fully compensated for the time value of their money. The failure of Confederation Life did not affect Bell's principal pension plan, but in the case of amounts above the $60,000 CompCorp limit, until the liquidation process is completed it is impossible to determine the proportion of benefits that will eventually be paid.

Granted, in the two previous liquidations of life insurance companies in Canada, policyholders received a significant portion of the benefits owed by the companies, but this is small comfort to those whose life savings are now in jeopardy. These funds are of significant concern to my constituents and many other Canadians. I appreciate their difficulties and I want to do all I can to help resolve this issue and to encourage Bell Canada to accept the fact that it has an obligation to work with its employees and former employees to come to some kind of understanding or compromise.

It is my sincere hope that Bell Canada will address this issue with its present and past employees and will work judiciously to resolve what has become a contentious matter.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a particularly touchy subject for my colleague and for those affected by this problem, of course.

I recognize this is a very difficult issue for those Canadians, including Bell pensioners, who had investments in Confederation Life. There are several factors that should serve to diminish the

adverse consequences of the failure of Confederation Life on Bell pensioners.

First, the funds at issue were part of a supplemental savings plan that were intended to augment pension income for Bell pensioners. Bell's principal pension plan is separately managed and was not affected by the failure of Confederation Life.

Second, I am informed by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation, CompCorp, that the group RRSP in question is guaranteed by CompCorp to a maximum of $60,000, including principal and interest. Amounts over $60,000 will be recoverable through the liquidation process.

Finally, a hardship committee has been established by the liquidator to review requests in cases of unusual financial hardship. The intention is to ensure that funds are immediately available to those most in need.

Regarding whether anything can be done to speed up the liquidation, responsibility for the liquidation of Confederation Life is a matter for the liquidator under the supervision of the court. As such it would be inappropriate to intervene.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In accordance with Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been passed. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)