Debates of Oct. 19th, 1999

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The chief government whip on a point of order.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all the party whips. Pursuant to Standing Order 45 I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded division just requested on Bill C-2 until later this day at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent to defer the division to 6.30 p.m. as agreed to by all the whips?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will call it again if need be but I believe five members rose and I am prepared to defer it. Therefore the vote is deferred until 6.30 p.m.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The notice paper contains 157 motions in amendment with respect to report stage of Bill C-6.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47 to 49, 57, 59 to 97, 100 to 157.

Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 26, 34, 35, 44 to 46, 50 and 51.

Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 52 to 56, 58, 98 and 99.

The voting order for each group is available from the clerk. The Chair will repeat this order for the House as each vote is taken.

Members are of course aware that the notice paper contains many motions at report stage with respect to Bill C-6.

Motions Nos. 100 to 155 are of concern to the Chair because they depart from usual House practice. These motions would drop all clauses in schedule 1. Normally, a single motion would suffice.

I have decided to allow these motions at this time. However, in the future only one motion will be accepted. I have so instructed the clerks in Journals. They will advise members wishing to place such motions on notice that these would not be accepted.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 27 to 33, 36 to 43, 47 to 49, 57, 59 to 97, and 100 to 157 to the House.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification on what you have just said.

Did I understand correctly that for this one time only you will allow Motions Nos. 100 to 157 to stand individually but that in the future you want them in a single group, which in any case does not alter the present situation since these motions are all in Group No. 1, which will be debated starting today?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is absolutely right. Today, we will study all of the motions before the House, as the member indicated. I said that in the future we will permit one motion only instead of several.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-6, in the title, be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 27.1.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 4.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.7 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.8 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 4.10 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 3.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should inform the House that after that 20 minute speech debates are limited to 10 minutes.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, an act to support electronic commerce and protect personal information.

I will start by saying that we have many problems with this bill for several reasons. This explains why we are proposing so many amendments asking for the withdrawal of the bill or, at the very least, the suspension of its implementation in Quebec.

When we deal with the second group of amendments, we will have an opportunity to discuss more specifically one particular amendment that would make this possible, should the government have the will to do so.

The purpose of the bill is, in a rapidly evolving technological context, to foster the development of electronic commerce while respecting the confidentiality of the information we supply or agree to supply, or the use that could be made of personal information provided without knowing how it is going to be used.

It should be noted that, for the past five years already, Quebec has had a law protecting personal information. The introduction or implementation of a federal act will create administrative chaos, making life very difficult for businesses. One can understand the will displayed by the federal government in this respect. In the other nine provinces, there is no law protecting personal information. Therefore the federal government has decided to go ahead and legislate. Too bad for the other provinces if they do not want their own law and are willing to withdraw from a field of jurisdiction that could be theirs. This is not the case in Quebec.

Quebec has already clearly stated, through a law, its intent to protect personal information. Moreover, the civil code contains provisions making specific reference to it. Quebec businesses have to abide by the civil code provisions as well as the law.

This is why many groups appeared before the Committee during the hearings and told the government “You are placing Quebec in a very bad position, when we already have a provincial act that protects both privacy and access to information. With this new act, businesses will not always know which act to enforce and which definition to use in specific cases. Some organizations will have to abide by the federal act, others by the provincial act and others yet by both or part of one and part of the other”.

Of course, the government will say “Listen, this will only take effect in three years because, in the first three years, the new act will not apply to all fields, data or businesses”. But, in three years, it will get much more extensive and will apply to everybody.

The Cabinet could make an order to withhold a particular field of activities or ensure that some sectors get under another act. But this will have to be decided by the federal government after careful consideration of its objectives and criteria. Since we all know that the Civil Code and the common law do not always have the same approach on certain issues, there will undoubtedly be differences of opinions and policies as well as differences between mechanisms adopted.

I can quote a number of people who addressed this issue at the committee's hearings. I will start with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, which came to say “Inasmuch as the constitutional jurisdiction over the protection of privacy and personal information given to the provinces by section 92.13 of the British North America Act, it is obvious that the legislator”

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to have to interrupt, but since you still have six minutes to go, I thought it would be best to do so at this point. I am going to table a report, and then we will proceed to Statements by Members. You will have the floor again after Oral Questions.

Privacy Commissioner

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the 1998-1999 report of the Privacy Commissioner.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Alexina Louie

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent Alexina Louie on receiving the Jules Leger prize for new chamber music for her award winning work, “Nightfall”, a piece for 14 solo strings.

Established in 1978, this prize is a national award designed to encourage Canadian composers to write for chamber music groups and to foster the performance of Canadian chamber music. This is the only governor general's award given for music, and Alexina is the first woman to receive it.

Alexina Louie's work has received both national and international acclaim and recognition. Ms. Louie has previously been named composer of the year and received a Juno award and a Chalmers award for her compositions. Ms. Louis has also received the Socan award for being the most frequently performed Canadian composer. As a composer in residence with the Canadian Opera Company she is currently working on a main stage opera which is to be performed in the fall of 2000.

I say congratulations to Alexina.

Organ Donations

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government just released its response to the organ donor crisis in our country. What an enormous disappointment it was. With 150 Canadians dying every year waiting for a transplant and with one of the worst donor rates in the entire developed world, it took the government four months to respond, during which time 66 Canadians died.

The government's solution to this crisis is to ponder it, study it and examine it, despite the fact that there is a 13 point federal-provincial agreement and despite the fact that the health committee put forth an exhaustive, doable plan to save Canadian lives.

Why was there no commitment to have a national registry for potential donors and recipients? Why was there no commitment to train and identify organ donor co-ordinators? Why was there no commitment to have a national effort to put an organ donor card on every single patient's chart in our country?

If this government cannot resolve the organ donor crisis which is really a motherhood issue, what hope is there that it will have a chance to resolve the more complex health care challenges?

Women's College Hospital

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 1999, I was honoured to be asked on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to unveil a historic sites and monuments plaque commemorating the importance of Women's College Hospital in providing medical services for women by women.

Women's College Hospital has always played a vital role in the community. Today's commemoration is a deserved recognition of the hospital's contribution to the women's movement, to the community, and to medicine.

The plaque reads:

Women's College Hospital has earned a distinctive place in Canadian medical history. From its beginnings as a small outpatient clinic in 1898 to its development as a modern teaching hospital, the institution symbolizes the struggle of women to claim their place in the medical profession. It offered them opportunities in teaching and in hospital practice, which were often unavailable or extremely limited elsewhere in the country. The hospital has made innovative contribution to the treatment and diagnosis of disease through its vital focus on health issues affecting women and families.

I would also like to thank Lindalee Tracy for the film Passing the Flame: The Legacy of Women's College Hospital .

International Network On Cultural Policy

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in June 1998, Canada hosted the first international meeting of national ministers responsible for culture. At that time, the international network on cultural policy was created.

After a year of existence, the Network has a membership of some forty representatives from a wide diversity of countries, such as France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, South Africa, Italy, Senegal, Barbados, Mexico and the Philippines.

The second informal meeting of the international network on cultural policy was held last month in Oaxaca, Mexico. The purpose of this meeting was to ensure the viability of the network as a dynamic international forum for issues related to cultural policy.

The ministers of culture of Quebec and Newfoundland were members of the Canadian delegation to Oaxaca, and their presence enriched our participation, as well as the discussions in general.

Canada is pleased to provide the network with a permanent liaison office which will follow up on the Bureau's activities.

Grain Transportation

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has a near monopoly on grain buying on the Altawan and Notukeu rail subdivisions in my riding.

Because the pool is able through zone allocation and car flexing to use its grain car entitlements elsewhere, the elevators on that line have been plugged for more than two weeks.

The railway company will not deliver cars to the few competing elevators or to producers who wish to load their own grain because the competition alone cannot assemble a 50 car train. Farmers in the area are therefore forced to haul grain as much as 80 kilometres over substandard roads while their local elevators are idle.

I am not suggesting that the pool and the railway company collude, but they do share a common interest in limiting the amount of grain shipped off of that line. As less grain is shipped, the line becomes less viable and line abandonment becomes more easy to justify.

As usual, the interests of farmers are being subordinated to those of the grain companies and the railways.

Robert Mundell

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Mundell, a professor at Columbia University, has been awarded the Nobel prize in economy. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has recognized the work of this Canadian economist, a pioneer of the European monetary union, barely a few months after the introduction of the Euro.

In the early sixties, Professor Mundell did a great deal of research on monetary and economic union, at a time when no one dared question the use of national currencies.

The academy said that “Robert Mundell displayed remarkable and quasi-prophetic anticipation regarding the future problems of international monetary arrangements and financial markets”. It is unfortunate that the Liberal government refuses to listen to this great economist and will not do like the Bloc Quebecois and seriously consider a North American monetary union.

One of the best ways to prepare for the future is to build it, not wait around passively, like this government is doing on an issue that comes under its jurisdiction.

Endicott Peabody Humanitarian Award

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to congratulate our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, on being named the winner of the inaugural Endicott Peabody humanitarian award for his lead role in helping to rid the world of anti-personnel land mines. Our minister will receive the award on Friday from the United Nations Association of Greater Boston.

A former governor of Massachusetts and vice-president of the Boston UN association, Mr. Peabody spent his retirement years working for a variety of peace groups that focused on land mines.

The treaty banning anti-personnel land mines became law on March 1, 1999. It has been signed by 135 countries and ratified by 86.

This is not the first time our minister has been recognized for his work on land mines. He was also honoured last October when he was awarded the Council of Europe's North South peace prize. Congratulations.

Trucking Industry

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to bring to the attention of the House that many of the key representatives of Canada's trucking industry are with us in Ottawa today.

It is important to remember that trade is one of the engines of economic growth for Canada. With a relatively small population spread thinly over a vast distance, Canada does not have the luxury of neglecting transportation and trade.

In my riding of Etobicoke North we are close to the Pearson airport and the 400 highways. We know very well why the trucking industry is so vital to Ontario's economy. Total commercial trucking accounts for approximately 400,000 jobs.

I am pleased to see the trucking and railway industries working together to ensure an efficient and safe transportation system that will continue to benefit local and national businesses and, in turn, keep our economy strong.

That is why we must work closely with Canada's trucking industry to ensure that we have an environmentally sound and sustainable transportation system into the next millennium. Working together, Canada's trucking industry keeps Canada rolling.