House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, when that government was in power it said no to the merchant navy veterans when they asked for what this government gave under Bill C-61. It said no to the merchant navy veterans when they asked to have discussed what we are discussing today.
The hon. member should cross the floor and say thank you to the Prime Minister for the Liberal yes instead of the typical Tory no.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, when Onex made an offer to purchase the shares of Air Canada, the Minister of Transport set out five principles to guide the government in approving any potential merger. This very day, Air Canada has just made an offer.
If either of these offers goes through, would Canadians have any guarantee of access to bilingual air services from coast to coast in Canada?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the five principles I have already stated: consumer protection, protection of level of service to small communities, protection of employee rights, promotion of competition, and promotion of effective control by Canadian interests, there is one other that is inescapable and unquestionable, namely enforcement of the Official Languages Act.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, is the solicitor general listening? The chronic underfunding of the RCMP is aiding and abetting rip-off artists. The RCMP have written to a Kamloops couple saying that due to the shortage of resources it is unable to continue the investigation into a $450,000 swindle. This is Canada, these are Canadians and they are being ripped off.
When will the minister come forward with funds to support the RCMP?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of some historic problems with the RCMP. That is why Treasury Board conducted a review.
During the review, the government was able to give $10 million to E Division in British Columbia. It was able to give $115 million to CPIC. The government has given a lot of funding to support the RCMP.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development said in her former position that she had compassion for native women.
They, on the other hand, have constantly complained about her inability to resolve their problems. Today, the minister is saying she has compassion for women who are denied employment insurance.
Now that she is looking after employment insurance, will she act as she did in her last department, or will she finally understand that the vast majority of women are denied employment insurance because of the eligibility rules? Can she understand that?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The government has spoken out loudly and clearly in support of women. Last week the Prime Minister doubled the parental benefits that will be available to families in the year 2001. He talked about making the benefits more flexible and more accessible. We are acting.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Labour Congress study confirms what we have known for a long time: woman have been penalized by the employment insurance reform.
The government said it wanted to address the new realities of the labour market. But women, young people, seasonal workers and independent and part time workers have all been abandoned by the employment insurance reform. The Liberal government has really missed the boat.
When will the Minister of Human Resources Development change employment insurance to really address the realities of the labour market for everyone?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the CLC is strongly supportive of the government's undertaking to double parental benefits. The CLC is also, as we are, very happy to see the most recent labour force statistics proving that after 20 years we now have the lowest female adult unemployment level at 5.9%.
Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Speaker, the federal court issued a clear ruling: the federal government must pay what it owes to its public servants under the principle of pay equity.
Will the President of the Treasury Board comply with that ruling and finally do justice to these public servants, who are predominantly women? Will the government comply with its own legislation and pay its public servants, or will it appeal once again?
The minister is a woman. I am convinced she understands the problems that women are facing. Today, she has an opportunity to show that she can make decisions that will be fair for women and of benefit to them.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, again, we support the principle of pay equity, of equal pay for equal work.
That being said, we have just received the ruling today. It is perfectly normal for a responsible government to not only take time to read the ruling, but also to analyse its impact, so as to make a well-informed decision. And this is what we will do in the coming days.
Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.
With so many conflicts going on in the world, little attention has been paid to the terrible tragedy of Sierra Leone. With a fragile peace deal now in place, what is Canada doing to support peace and stability in this area?
David Kilgour LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa)
Mr. Speaker, Canada supports the proposal to establish a new UN presence and peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone, including 6,000 peacekeepers. We have been working closely on the motion which we expect will be voted on Friday at the Security Council. We have donated approximately $10 million in the last two years. The member for Carleton—Gloucester was there recently as our special envoy to explain the importance we give to the peace process. We are basically doing as much as we can and we hope to do more.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is about that $10 million the minister was boasting about sending to British Columbia. Seven million dollars of it went toward well deserved raises for the RCMP officers. Another portion went to pay down the deficit, leaving only $1.5 million of the $10 million. The $10 million does not exist.
We have a problem. The commercial fraud and rip-off are not being investigated because of lack of resources for the RCMP. When will the minister come forward with proper resources for the RCMP to protect Canadian consumers?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I indicated a list of things that the government has put in place like the DNA databank and many other things.
There are 500 cadets in training in Regina at the moment and 164 of them will be relocated in British Columbia. The government is putting dollars into the RCMP.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
Today we have in our gallery two Speakers from Barbados and a delegation. I would like to present to members the Honourable Senator Sir Fred Gollop, Speaker of the Senate of Barbados, and the Honourable Ishmael Roett, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Barbados and their delegation.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Mr. Speaker, during question period I made reference to a report from the information commissioner. I would like to seek unanimous consent to table that report.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Does the hon. member have consent to table the report?
The House resumed 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 standing committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will now start where I left off earlier. I will remind members who are joining us just now that we are debating Bill C-6 promoting electronic commerce and the protection of personal information. I was explaining that Quebec already has legislation to protect that field of activity and that a new federal law will only make things more complicated for the organizations that will have to abide by it, in view of the double jurisdiction that will exist because the federal government did not recognize the precedence of the Quebec act in this field.
In fact, in its March 1999 brief, the Conseil du Patronat stated “However, since subsection 92(13) of the British North America Act clearly gives the provinces jurisdiction in the area of protection of personal information and privacy and since Quebec has already enacted legislation within its jurisdiction and its borders, many jurisdictional disputes can be expected”.
Of course, when the Conseil made that statement, it expected the federal legislation as it stands today to be passed. The Conseil further stated “As for Quebec consumers, they would constantly be forced to try and determine which legislation applies and choose between two types of remedies, depending on whether their information is protected by one statute or the other”.
It is important to really understand the situation because consumers will have some recourse if they feel their personal information has not been protected. However, they will have to know if it was the federal legislation or the Quebec legislation that was supposed to protect them.
Also, the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information appeared before the committee to explain about all the problems the implementation of both these acts would cause in the field and to stress that, in the end, Quebecers have a lot to lose given the complexity of this legal issue and the fact that they are the most protected consumers in the country. If passed, this bill aimed at protecting consumers in the rest of Canada, in other words the nine provinces that do not have such legislation, will penalize Quebec consumers because the federal government has not recognized in its bill the existence of Quebec's act and the fact that the province has jurisdiction over this area.
Other groups made their voices heard. I am thinking for instance of the Barreau du Québec, whose brief also stressed the complexity of such an act. It said “This means that from now on a huge number of Quebec based businesses will be subject to the federal act rather than Quebec's, which will not make it any easier for citizens trying to know what their rights are in this context of legislative changes. Moreover, businesses based in Quebec will have to master a new personal information protection system slightly different from Quebec's”.
Obviously, there are many differences since, as I explained earlier, Quebec is governed by civil law while the federal government follows a totally different approach, the common law. The Barreau further stated that it supports the recommendation made by the Access to Information Commission, which reads “In order to avoid any confusion and insure that Quebecers continue to enjoy the benefits of a full personal information protection system, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended in order to provide that the act will not apply to businesses already subject to the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector Act”.
Accordingly, businesses would be subject to the existing act. The federal government could reach its goal of having an act in force across Canada, but which could be different in the case of Quebec. Businesses are already familiar with it and comply with it. The Barreau goes further still, saying “In our view, the bill should incorporate Quebec's act, even with respect to federal areas of jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication of legislation in Quebec”.
This is a very interesting point of view. Normally, the federal government's approach is always the opposite. The federal government is the one interfering in provincial jurisdictions. The Barreau du Québec is saying that there is already an act so, to avoid any confusion, it should apply even where the federal act normally would. This is an interesting approach that was supported by various groups which appeared before the committee, but all of which met with the insensitivity of the federal government, the same government that, one week ago, brought us a lovely throne speech full of lofty goals on paper. We can see that, when this government says, for instance, that it wants to work with the provinces to improve the quality of life of Canadians, in practice that is not what interests it.
What interests it is to extend its authority, to acquire greater and greater control, to be the government that plans our economic and social development and controls the protection of personal information, and so on.
Day after day, in one issue after another, this government bulldozes ahead, taking over one jurisdiction after another. And, if no amendments are made, this is what is going to happen again.
We are at report stage. There is still time for the government to amend the bill. It could include provisions acknowledging the existence of Quebec's act and providing the legal framework necessary for the development of e-commerce—we are not just talking about personal information in the electronic domain in this bill; its scope is much broader—as well as ensuring the protection of personal information under the legislation that already exists in Quebec.
In this way, a reasonable balance and a workable solution could be found. I hope that there are still some sensible people left across the way and that their beautiful speeches will translate into something concrete. That is something we will see in the course of the debate and there will be an opportunity to hear what a number of my colleagues have to say about the bill this afternoon.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-6 which was formally known as Bill C-44.
We agree that there needs to be some certainty in the area of privacy. We agree there needs to be some certainty in the rules surrounding the whole electronic commerce section of business, a fairly new area. We are a little concerned that the government was probably a bit remiss in not trying to get a more co-operative approach from the provinces before embarking on its experiment in terms of privacy in the area of business, but we recognize that it is required.
My understanding is that there is a three year timeframe for the provinces to introduce their own privacy legislation. I think it is regrettable, though, that a consensus could not have been reached to allow for the provinces to be part of a program that would introduce legislation on their own. The federal government has decided to go out on its own, and my hon. colleague reminds me that it is a three year phase-in.
The answer is that the provinces will have three years to introduce legislation in this area of privacy. However, if they are not able to do that or choose not to, the federal legislation will take precedent and become the legislation in the land in the areas of privacy in commerce and business.
That still leaves the other amendments that we will be dealing with in section 2 to which I want to speak later on. We agree that there needs to be rules and legislation surrounding the area of privacy. Although we would have preferred to have a co-operative approach, most of the provinces will be introducing their own legislation to cover this area in the next three years. Therefore the federal legislation will probably not even come into effect. The provinces may have better legislation in those areas of their own which they want to put in place, and I would encourage them to do that in this timeframe.
The Reform Party supports the part 1 amendments.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Madam Speaker, I cannot say how delighted I am to speak on Bill C-6 on personal information protection and the electronic documents act.
The reason I am delighted is that today we were talking about perhaps the birth of a whole new economy for the country. Others have described it in the last 24 hours as electronic commerce becoming the central nervous system of business, society and even of government.
We truly are into a form of commercial revolution, the consequences of which are almost unpredictable. The fantastic growth in the use of the Internet in terms of business to business relationships as well as consumer to business relationships is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate this, Internet traffic doubles every 100 days and every second of the day seven new clients sign up on the Internet. It truly is a revolution that is happening before us.
Like all revolutions we actually do not realize there is a revolution going if we are part of it. One day we wake up and realize that the entire world has changed. I suspect during the industrial revolution people were not standing around talking about the revolution that was going on, except when they looked back and realized the tremendous change that had occurred.
I believe, as we have heard from the Minister of Industry, the Prime Minister and government spokespersons in a variety of capacities in the last number of weeks, that Canada is to become the most electronically connected country in the world by the year 2000. There was the commitment the other day to set up 600 Internet sites across the country and to mobilize 10,000 young people to serve those sites to ensure that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast, no matter where they live, no matter the size of their community, no matter the resources at their disposal will have access to the Internet of one kind or another.
Obviously there is a crucial issue that has to be dealt with and Bill C-6 attempts to do that. I refer to what happened last month at Microsoft when hackers broke into the hot mail service, exposing 40 million accounts and the integrity of the e-mail system. This kind of high profile breach of security obviously is something that consumers are concerned about.
Madam Speaker, I know that you are an e-commerce fan and I suspect that when you talk to your constituents about electronic commerce the kind of thing you hear is what the rest of us hear and that is that people are concerned about the security of the information they provide.
When we send off our credit card number or when we carry out a business transaction, is it secure? Do we have confidence that the person receiving that information is the person that we expect to be receiving that information?
In Canada the electronic commerce section will grow from $1 billion in 1997 to about $13 billion by 2002. There is an incredible rate of economic change that is occurring before us. In 1998 there were 414,000 active commercial websites and by 2002 it is predicted that number will jump to 1.6 million. It is astonishing economic activity that is occurring before us. Bill C-6 attempts to build in some security in terms of personal information.
Today we are dealing with the motions in Group No. 1. I want to say on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party that we will be opposing the motions in Group No. 1 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. The reason is obvious. Bloc members believe, and they make a compelling argument, that we should have one system for the province of Quebec and one system for the rest of the country. Obviously that is going to be a messy, patchwork system of protection. We represent all Canadians in the House and we want to have a policy that will protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
My friends in the Bloc Quebecois argue that there is already protective legislation in the province of Quebec. They are right in that respect. It is lacking in most other jurisdictions of the country. However, to pass federal legislation that does not include all provinces and territories I think would be folly. We do not want a patchwork of different standards across the country. National standards are crucial. For that reason we feel that we must oppose this group of amendments.
It is not right or fair that some Canadians should be deprived of privacy protection because their provincial government has been slow to act. The reality is that there are some provinces that are dragging their feet on this issue. I suspect one of the reasons is that they really do not know what to do. The provincial governments are looking to the federal government to say that rather than all of the provincial jurisdictions introducing their own protective legislation, why not have a decent standard from coast to coast to coast introduced by the federal government, which is what Bill C-6 is all about.
In other policy areas where there is federal and provincial overlap both levels of government will be required to co-operate to ensure the strongest protection is given to Canadians and to reduce any confusion.
I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. friend from the Bloc Quebecois, who argued that in his judgment the legislation presently in place in Quebec would be adequate. Let us ensure that whatever is the best piece of legislation to protect the consumer will be the piece of legislation that will dominate.
In conclusion, we support the federal government in its efforts to exercise its commerce power in respect to privacy protection. We support the intent of the legislation generally, and for that reason I am afraid we will have to oppose the motions in Group No. 1.