Debates of June 11th, 1999

Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

Petitions

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition for 50 of my constituents from Nepean—Carleton dealing with the concept of marriage as a voluntary union between a single male and a single female.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I am presenting on behalf of my colleague from Medicine Hat. The first one asks that parliament take all necessary measures to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define the statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of constituents from the riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca I present a petition on behalf of 3,500 Victoria area residents who want God left in in the preamble of our constitution.

The petitioners from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca humbly petition parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other legislation which will provide for the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and laws.

These 3,500 signatures were collected readily on June 6 and 7.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all these questions being allowed to stand, does that mean we do not get to hear any answers at all until the fall?

[An hon. member]

Yes, that is correct.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

That is incredible.

Political Party Advertising

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, political parties should in their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the likeness of any individual without having first obtained the written consent of that individual.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here in the last hour of the last day of what will certainly end the spring session. Probably, as most people assume, there will be a prorogation and a new speech from the throne in the fall.

There is a certain closing of the circle on this motion. I presented it for consideration on the first day I had the privilege of sitting here as a member which was September 23, 1997. I want to take the House through what the developments have been since then.

To get into what has transpired and what led to this motion, one has to go back to December 1998 when the Prime Minister of Canada participated in a town hall debate on CBC television. People from various parts of the country were flown in to put questions to the Prime Minister.

One of those questioners turned out to be someone who is a resident of the city of Regina and the federal constituency of Palliser who asked a question on unemployment. The answer from the Prime Minister triggered a lot of interest and controversy for several weeks. As a result, a clip of that was seen on national and regional television. There were pictures in the paper and so on for several weeks thereafter.

Then we move forward to the election campaign that was called on April 27, 1998. About two-thirds of the way through that campaign, the individual was astonished to be told that her image and a voice-over of the question she had asked of the Prime Minister was being used in television ads by a particular political party. She immediately went to the party and was told that the ad would be withdrawn in a couple of days. She wanted to know how they had managed to run her likeness in their advertising without first obtaining any consent from the individual in question. Her name is Lori Foster.

Without putting too fine a point on it, it is fair to say she felt that she was given the runaround. There were commitments made that the ad was going to be withdrawn in a couple of days, that it was only running in western Canada and some other places, all of which proved to be untrue.

The ad ran right up until the end of the campaign, the last day of advertising prior to the June 2 election. It was certainly running nationwide because Ms. Foster was getting phone calls from her friends and acquaintances who live in Atlantic Canada. They said that they had seen her on television and had seen her picture in newspaper ads.

She had contacted the party in question. It was the Reform Party that ran that ad. She thought she had received assurances that the ad was going to be withdrawn immediately or very quickly. It was not true.

After the election on June 2, Lori Foster was one of the first individuals to contact me in my new role as member of parliament for Palliser. She said that she did not want what happened to her to happen to anyone else ever again. She thought it was a terrible invasion of her privacy. She had not been consulted in advance by the party in question before her likeness and her words were used in a television ad. She came to her new member of parliament and I took the matter to the House of Commons on September 23.

I want to quickly go over the technicalities. It is true that Ms. Foster did not sign a release at the time of the news broadcast on CBC television. She was advised by the corporation that segments of the program might be rebroadcast for news purposes as they subsequently were.

In her letter to me following the June 2 election, she wrote “By using my likeness and identifying me by name and city, the implication was that I was a supporter of the Reform Party. I do not want what happened to me to happen to others”.

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Ms. Foster in her letter. But I also want to say very clearly to the House that I do not want this to be interpreted as an embarrassment of one political party at the expense of all the others.

In my lifetime I have worked in the backrooms of my political party, the New Democratic Party. I know that in the life of an election campaign things happen extremely quickly. One party presents an attack ad. The focus on the party that was attacked in that ad is to get out a counter message as quickly as possible. Shortcuts are taken. I do not think we can take shortcuts when it comes to the privacy of ordinary Canadians. I would make a differentiation between what Ed Broadbent called ordinary Canadians and people who choose to run for elected office, once they have entered the theatre, have put on the greasepaint or whatever.

This motion is not to suggest that if a political party wishes to run a picture of a rival and show him or her in a poor light that that is a judgment that should not be accorded to them. That is a right that they should have and this motion therefore should not apply.

For example, if somebody wanted to run an attack ad against the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition or the leader of our party, that comes with the territory. It does not come with the territory to single out or give the impression that someone who is in a clip on a news broadcast is identified in an ad, in this case a female whose likeness was identified in an ad, and singled out for fame or infamy as the case may be, at least not without the consent of the individual.

One of my purposes in addition to bringing this to the attention of the House today is to appeal to all of us as practising politicians. We have an obligation to work with our political parties and with the folks in our backrooms, all five parties in this instance, to ensure that certain rules and procedures are followed. Lord knows that political parties and politicians are not exactly at the top of the social scale these days. We need all the help we can get in terms of doing our job to the best of our ability without infringing on individual people's rights and privacy.

I am pleased that the chair responsible for House procedure is here and I believe will be participating in the debate. Following Ms. Foster's notice to me and advice on this matter, I did manage to have a hearing with that committee in January 1998. This is the committee that oversees Elections Canada and would be, I suppose, the committee that would be charged with making any changes to our electoral laws.

I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that committee has reported on its deliberations since the 1997 election and in anticipation of the future general election. I hope the debate today will focus attention on this particular issue. If the committee has not seen fit in its draft report to do something, that it would take this under serious advice and bring it forward at the earliest opportunity.

As far as I am aware, this is the only time that this particular issue has been raised in this parliament. It has certainly not been discussed in any way, shape or form here.

As I have tried to explain, I believe the matter is of significant public interest because the privacy of all Canadian citizens could well be at risk during election campaigns if we do not do something about this and do it quickly.

It is certainly true that electronic media are becoming more and more prevalent, some would say invasive, in covering election campaigns. The media, in the course of a day's work, approach thousands of ordinary citizens seeking opinions on electronic town hall meetings, news clips, streeters, full interviews and participation in documentaries. For the most part, citizens agreed, as Ms. Foster did in this instance, to participate in news programming, but would be surprised, as deeply surprised as Ms. Foster was, to learn subsequently that their image and likeness appeared on an advertisement for partisan purposes.

What is involved is indeed the question of privacy of citizens, the faith in the impartiality of the media and trust in the political process itself.

The issue is of importance in Regina. It received a lot of publicity just days before the June 2, 1997 election. Obviously what happened in Palliser could happen anywhere in the country.

I was pleased that when I appeared before a committee that looks at motions and considers whether they are deemed to be votable or not, I did receive a good hearing. I am very pleased that this motion has been deemed votable. It is my understanding that since this is the last day of this session that we will be bringing the motion back in the fall and there will be other members of parliament who will participate in the debate.

I want to report on what Canada's privacy commissioner had to say last year with regard to privacy matters. He said:

Yet we so take our privacy for granted in a democracy; it is so self-evident it has almost ceased to be evident. Respecting one another's privacy is an integral ingredient in the glue of mutual respect which helps hold a free society together.

I agree entirely with the privacy commissioner's remarks in this instance. I believe that we as politicians should apply his description and dicta to our own behaviour and that of our political parties.

I am appealing to the House and to the sense of honour and fair play that exists among members, to send the signal that they believe the privacy of our fellow citizens is something worth protecting especially during election campaigns.

My intention, which is embedded in the motion, is to protect individual citizens, ordinary Canadians, against the invasion of their privacy, in particular during campaigns.

I am aware that no one or no political party is forced to act on a private member's motion, and of course we accept that reality. However, I would ask members from all sides of the House in all five parties to admit that surely a citizen's right to privacy should not be invaded in the way in which it occurred with Ms. Foster in the spring of 1997.

I have, to the best of my ability, deliberately refrained from attempting to turn the debate into a controversial and partisan political issue, aside from stating the obvious facts. I have had an e-mail or two from the party in question asking why I was picking on them. That is not my intent. I think we do have to state the historical facts. We cannot rewrite history. That is what happened in May 1997 and that is what we are dealing with here today.

In February, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was looking at whether to make this a votable item or not, and I did feel that I received a sympathetic hearing at that time. I am anxiously waiting for the committee's report on this issue.

The report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated:

While concerns were expressed by some members of the Committee about the enforceability and limits of such a provision, other members supported this proposal.

I have accepted that trying to get changes to the act may be a rather long and perhaps futile process. It is for that reason that, rather than attempting a legislative change, I have prepared the motion.

Privacy to me is not political correctness. It is not a flavour of the month. It is a bedrock human value, which a former Canadian supreme court justice described as “at the heart of liberty in the modern state”. It is also not an individual right enjoyed at the expense of society as a whole. “Respecting one another's privacy is an integral ingredient”, said Commissioner Phillips, “in the glue of mutual respect which helps hold a free society together”.

Whether to reveal or conceal the details of our lives are decisions for us to make, not for others, and certainly not for the state, except in the most limited and exceptional circumstances.

Never has the matter of privacy been more vital to an individual's free existence, nor more threatened, than in the technologically advanced societies in which we live.

Political parties can respond to attack ads in a matter of hours. They often take shortcuts that do not include obtaining a waiver from the individual to use his or her photograph, likeness or voice in a particular ad. People will say that there is nothing in the rules so it can be done and the devil take the hindmost. I do not think that is good for political parties, politicians or for democracy in general.

I would appeal to the House to support this resolution which I firmly believe is as non-partisan as it can be.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I rose in the House I hesitated to say that I was glad to speak because democracy was being trampled on in the House. I was ashamed to stand in the House in those circumstances. Today, however, I am indeed proud to stand on behalf of the people of my riding of Elk Island, the most wonderful riding in the whole country, notwithstanding your riding, Mr. Speaker. I represent my constituents and all Canadians in what I am going to say right now.

I believe that in Private Members' Business we come closer to democracy here than in any other part of parliament. The rest of it, unfortunately, is too often just a total sham.

I want to first congratulate the member from Saskatchewan, the province where I grew up and received my good start in life, for bringing the motion forward for debate. I am also very pleased that it is votable since I am one who believes that every time a private member brings a motion it is because he or she feels it is important to him or her and it should be voted on. I am in favour of that. I am also anticipating that democracy will again work and the members here will soundly reject the motion.

I do not think this is a very well-founded motion at all, and I will give the House my reasons. I want to first assure the member that I am not reacting in a partisan way, even though in the letter he sent to all members of parliament he used about two-thirds of the letter to describe the occurrence with Lori Foster and the Reform Party's use of her likeness in its advertising. He then put a little disclaimer at the end and said that the example he used was not about the Reform Party, that it was just an example. I will take his word that he just used that as an example, and in the good spirit of parliament's last day, I will show him that I am not going to respond in a partisan way either.

However, I am going to speak against the principles of the bill because I think they are really not well-founded. It is important for us to hear once again what the motion is. To all of those Liberal members listening, to all of the other fellow members on the opposition side here and to those millions and millions of Canadians watching on CPAC, whose services we so appreciate, I want to again read the motion.

It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, political parties should in their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the likeness of any individual without having first obtained the written consent of that individual.

Some of the words that I have spoken show the basic flaw in the motion. Without the exclusion of members of parliament and others who have deliberately chosen to be in the public domain, the words “using the name or the likeness of any individual”, unfortunately, if this were passed, would include them.

The first thing this motion would need is an amendment to say that any of us who dare to stand for public office, who dare to stick our faces in the cameras or our mouths into the microphones, are open game. I accept that. Having run for public office, I know that my constituents are going to hold me accountable. I know that I am going to be held accountable in this place. I know from time to time I am going to be on television.

I am not on television very often because I have a problem with not saying enough controversial stuff. Unfortunately, the media only likes to pick on controversy and seems to somehow avoid the hours and hours of debate that we in the House engage in, which is sound, solid and based on good reasoning and good analysis. Consequently, I personally am not on television very much.

However, I certainly expect that, whether it is on television or radio, in our own ads promoting the Reform Party, that even some of my political opponents will want to say, “Guess what”, and then they will use my name. My opponents will say, “Guess what the hon. member for Elk Island said” and they will then use my name and maybe my picture. I think that is fair game.

I would love the exposure that the Liberals and, if there are any left, the Conservatives and the NDP would give in my riding or elsewhere across the country by saying “This is what the hon. member said”, because if I said something, I hope I meant it. I hope I do not say things I do not mean.

If the opposition is going to give me additional exposure for having said something that I believe, I would want thank them for the free advertising. The hon. member over here is objecting.

I repeat what I said. If I have said something that I believe in, and hopefully I will not say things I do not believe in, then if somebody else quotes me and says this is what this member believes, and if that enters into political debate and helps Canadian voters make choices on whom to support, then let them use it. Maybe that is why they never use my particular statements.

We need the amendment so that we do not say any individual. Unfortunately, those of us who are in public life should not be excluded. It is part of fair debate. He mentioned that, but his motion does not reflect what he said in his speech.

What happens if we do make an amendment? Who draws the line? What about one of my staffers? What if he or she says something? I personally think that is okay because I hope my staffers also honestly reflect the things that are coming out of our office and our basic philosophical framework. If there is an inconsistency, it deserves to be exposed. I have no problem with that.

What about my wife or my family? I have a little more of a problem with that. Yet sometimes people's families say things or become involved in certain functions or activities which are perhaps in the public interest if the other member of the family is running for public office.

I would speak against this motion because it is unworkable. First, it is too inclusive. Second, it is unworkable. Who is going to determine where the line should be drawn?

We are engaging in an exercise to reduce debate, communication and dialogue, which is unfortunate. I really think that as Canadians we are strengthened by dialogue.

Every year we have young people coming from other parts of the country on student exchange programs. Quite often they come from Quebec, but they also come from eastern Canada. One thing I have observed is that when these young people move across the country and dialogue is increased, we get a much better understanding of each other. Any motion such as this, which would say that we cannot use a person's name or likeness in a debate or in fair comment, would reduce communication. Therefore, I again urge members of the House to vote against the motion. We have to have as much communication as possible to come to a fuller and better understanding of each other.

The last thing I want to say relates specifically to the case of Lori Foster. I know she was upset because what she said she obviously believed in. However, her statement was used in the promotion of a political party in which she did not believe. I respect her for that. I think I understand why she would be disheartened by this use of her likeness. However, the fact of the matter is that I do not believe she was misquoted. I do not believe she was in any way misrepresented.

I really wish that we could get away from this prejudice, and I am not applying that statement to her. I am speaking of us as individuals. We sometimes prejudge things, not by what is said, but rather by who says it. That is judgmental and prejudicial. I wish we could move away from that. I wish we could get down to debating ideas and avoid personal attacks. I really wish the message that was given that day on the CBC program would have simply been used as factual information in the case of the debate. Very frankly, I and my colleagues were among that group which wanted to address the questions that Lori Foster opened up on that particular occasion. We did that in all sincerity and in all honesty.

I am looking forward to the day when unemployment in this country is reduced dramatically, because we have a government on the other side that does real things in this country to solve that problem.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I had not planned initially to speak to this motion, but I have been asked to express my thoughts. They are my thoughts and not the thoughts of anyone else.

I think the intention of the motion put forward by the member for Palliser is honourable. I can relate to it personally. In the 1997 general election I was at the receiving end of some unsavoury practices used by the NDP candidate in Ottawa—Vanier. I am not photogenic at the best of times. I recognize that. He used a less than flattering picture of me, as well as my name. As a matter of fact, in one of his brochures he used my name more often than his own. That alone should give me reason to support this idea.

I can refer to the recent election in Ontario when the Tories used McGuinty's photo and name perhaps more often than they used Harris' name and photograph. That too should give me reason to support this idea.

I can also refer to the famous TV ads that the Reform Party ran in the dying days of the last campaign with pictures of four Canadians whom they thought did not qualify to be prime minister because they came from a certain province.

I sense what the hon. member is trying to accomplish and I would be tempted to support it, but I will not, for three different reasons. I think that even the member for Palliser might agree that what he is trying to do needs some work.

The first reason is that I think it is incomplete and somewhat superficial because he is dealing with the visual only, or the audio. He does not also deal with incomplete quotes. I had that done to me by the very same NDP candidate in the 1997 general election in Ottawa—Vanier. Something which I had said was taken totally out of context and was incomplete to try to paint a picture that was not a reflection of what I had said. It had been taken out of context. Not only was it out of context, it was incomplete. He took half a sentence. That kind of thing would have to be dealt with in the member's motion.

The second reason I will not support this motion is because of its angle of approach. The second half of his motion reads: “refrain from using the name or the likeness of any individual without having first obtained the written consent of that individual”. It is a restrictive and negative type of approach, as opposed to a positive one.

If the member had said something like “for all political parties and their representatives, their candidates, the people who work for them as volunteers, or paid individuals, to encourage civility, fair play, decency and common sense”, and real common sense, not the kind we are exposed to sometimes, “to encourage honour”, to take a positive approach to what he is trying to get us to support, then I think he might have a bit more success in obtaining support.

Too often we forget that these are very basic matters which are involved in all of our interpersonal relations and in society in general. The values that we too often demean or forget, that are too often left aside by the sensationalism, or the crass, or the rhetoric and so forth, are the things we should perhaps be encouraging in the arena of public policy, in the arena of politics.

Instead of refraining from doing this and that, and obtaining, if the member had suggested that we encourage all political parties to tend toward decency, honesty, civility and fair play, he would have a much greater chance of getting my support.

The third reason I will not be supporting his motion in its current state is that when the crunch comes and we have some people who do things that they should not be doing, such as was done in the example he used—and I believe that he is right—there is a great levelling factor, the electorate. I have tremendous respect for the intelligence of the electorate. It will see through things like that.

We have seen time and again attack ads which have been so outlandish they have actually caused the people to turn against those who generated those ads or that literature or the preposterous documentation that might be prepared.

I go back to my example of the 1997 general election in Ottawa—Vanier. I really believe that the poor showing of that NDP candidate was due in part to his kind of campaign. The brochure he put out left a very bad taste in many people's mouths. As representatives of the electorate, we have to rely on its intelligence to be able to see through some of the stuff which some people unfortunately put out.

The member for Elk Island has made an interesting point in that if a person is an incumbent, for instance, it will be rather difficult for the other candidates not to use that person's name and what he or she said. It is a matter of understanding how the system works. Yes, I would expect that at some point in campaigns the other parties might want to refer to something I said. If it is on the record of the House of Commons, Hansard , I cannot see why they should not be able to do that, and even use it in their literature or propaganda. The member for Elk Island made an interesting point.

Having said that, the bottom line is the electorate, the people who cast their vote, who have taken some time to look at what has been put out by some people, either on radio, on television or at the door, through the mail system or delivered by volunteers. Those people who have looked at it tend to be very sophisticated, much more so than we sometimes think they are, and they make decisions based on the tone of what has been put out.

To summarize, I believe that the intentions of the member for Palliser in putting forward Motion No. 97 are very valuable and very supportable, except that it is not complete in that he only covers visuals. He does not cover a distortion of someone's statement to an end that is obviously not fair to the person whose statement is being distorted. He fails to cover that. He fails to cover other things which I am sure other colleagues will mention.

The hon. member's attempt to correct a wrong is too far-reaching in the sense that he is covering things which others will bring up, and he is also failing to include certain things that should be included, such as the use of words; the content which is twisted to satisfy the ends.

Second, it is what I categorize as a negative as opposed to a positive approach. He should be appealing, in my sense, to fair play, to decency and to honour. To be able to represent people in this House is an honour. Politics is an honourable profession. We forget that at times and we let too many people slander this profession without fighting back. I think we should be fighting back.

I urge the hon. member to use a very positive approach. Let us call on the good and the decent among us, as opposed to restricting this and this because of this and that. Then I think he would have much more success in getting our support.

Finally, I think that when the crunch comes, we all should be very respectful of the intelligence of the electorate in determining what is true and what is twisted and what has been shamelessly used to reach one's end.

I think that members of this House all have sufficient experience in their own ridings to know that people in the end understand really what is going on and that they can tell the difference and do not have to be instructed otherwise.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. M-97. The intent of this motion is to encourage political parties to refrain from using the likeness or name of an individual in advertising without first obtaining the written consent of the individual.

While this motion is fraught with some flaws in terms of implementation and enforceability, the wording of the motion is nebulous enough that it can serve as a means to encourage parties to refrain from that type of negative action. It would not constrain unnecessarily or create some sort of regulatory burden that would be excessive, oppressive and unenforceable.

The use of someone's likeness in an advertisement is an issue far larger than political parties and should be addressed with some study relative to advertising regulations and marketing in general. It raises some ethics questions. Someone's name or likeness should not be used in an advertisement not just for a political party but for virtually anything without their written consent. This is something the House should consider.

The motion focuses solely on political parties and on political advertisements but I think there are wider and broader issues involved. Companies that manufacture any product should not use somebody's name, image or likeness without some type of written approval first. The reference to a person's likeness is vague in the motion and I have some concerns about that.

In my opinion the motion is vague. It basically urges parties in this House to refrain from this type of advertising. We would do well to support the motion because it sends out a message.

There is a more fundamental issue relative to political advertising as it has evolved, particularly over the last 10 years. There is an ever increasing level of nastiness and negativity in political advertising. Much of it emanated from political campaigns in the U.S.

The first example was when George Bush beat Mike Dukakis for the U.S. presidency. At that time Willie Horton ads were used. Willie Horton was released from the Massachusetts penitentiary system. He committed murder, rape or some other heinous crime. The ad was used against Mike Dukakis and had a significant impact. This was the first use of such overtly negative advertising. Since then there has been an ever increasing level of negative ads.

In the last federal election many Canadians were appalled, shocked and disappointed with the ads that one party ran. The ads showed the faces of Quebec political leaders with crosses marked over them. This implied that in some way one's origin in this great country should have an impact as to whether or not others should vote for that individual. These were very negative ads, particularly in the national unity context which is so precarious. In the national unity context, for a party to run those types of negative and incendiary ads that were aimed purely at political leaders from Quebec I thought was very inappropriate, irresponsible and unfair.

A broader issue that is not addressed in this motion but perhaps should be in the future would be the negativity of political advertising. The motion could be broadened to look at other products as well. I do not want to make political parties commodities any more than I fear they already have become, but we should be looking at something to that effect.

We should also be cognizant of the trends that are occurring in political advertising and organizing. Increasingly political consultants and organizers are becoming almost corporatized. There has been a growth in the political organization industry. Ultimately that will come at a cost. The cost will be the level of authority and power that traditional grassroots organizations have. In the future it is going to be more and more difficult for political parties and individual constituency associations to run the campaigns.

In the whole electoral process it seems that increasingly elections are being fought more by consultants, spin doctors, pollsters, media advisers and less by constituency organizations, poll captains and the like as was traditionally done in the past. That is not without its risks in terms of the strength of the grassroots democracy we all value.

I commend the hon. member for having brought forward this motion. I do not see a downside to supporting the motion. It sends out a sound message to political parties. It does not unnecessarily constrain political parties with any sort of oppressive regulatory burden or sanctions. It sends out a worthy message. I believe the motion should be supported.

I wish all members of the House a very enjoyable, safe and restful summer. I look forward to seeing them in the fall as we continue the important deliberations of building a Canada that will be prosperous and fair for all Canadians into the 21st century.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cast a shadow on the enthusiasm of our colleague from Palliser, who was saying he was honoured to be among the last speakers in this final hour of this last day of this session, which, it seems, will end today and, in all probability, will be prorogued.

Right off, since he will not unfortunately be the last speaker in this last hour of this final day since fate decrees that I will probably be the last speaker, I must unfortunately tell him that the Bloc Quebecois will not support his motion, not because it is not a good one, not because the reasons for it are not praiseworthy or reasonable, since they are. The reasons underlying this motion are totally credible, reasonable and honorable under the circumstances.

However, I think it is appropriate to clarify things to some extent and to explain why the Bloc will unfortunately not support the motion.

In terms of provisions, there seems to be a problem in the text of the motion itself which provides “Political parties should refrain”. First, they use the conditional, which means that the motion as such will not truly be binding. Second, there is the choice of the verb “refrain”. This is not a very strong verb and does not say that we must not do so but rather that we must avoid doing so. In my opinion, this motion is not as rigid and restrictive as it ought to be.

Furthermore, I can well understand that the hon. member drafted this motion in response to a problem that arose in the last election campaign. A lady was greatly surprised to find not only her image but her words as well being used without her authorization in an advertisement. The political advertisement was for the Reform Party.

After this rather particular case, we came to realize that, for our fellow citizens, being used in a campaign can indeed cause a problem.

I should state right off that there is a distinction between ordinary citizens and public figures. When men and women decide to get involved in public life, they are agreeing to the widespread use of their picture, their name and their words, and to some extent this cannot be controlled.

It must be acknowledged that during an election campaign it goes without saying that we can use the image and words of public figures. This motion does not take that into account.

Nor does it take into account the fact that in an election campaign there are frequently photographs or videos with a scan over a crowd or of us standing in front of large numbers of people behind us. It is virtually objectively and logistically impossible to ask each and every one of those persons to authorize their inclusion in a promotional photo or video for the party in question.

I think that where we see eye to eye with the member for Palliser is when he tries to ensure that we cannot use the image or the words of individuals as promotional tools, such as making them appear to say things they did not actually say or take a stand they did not necessarily take. We could agree with him on that.

Unfortunately, as it now stands, the motion before us does not allow this sort of distinction. It is too general. It is not sufficiently enforceable. For all these reasons, therefore, as I pointed out earlier, we will be voting against the motion.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this motion not because we feel that it is legitimate to take the images or words of our fellow citizens and, as I mentioned earlier, have them appear to be saying things they did not necessarily say, or take stands they did not necessarily take.

That is not the case. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois obtained written authorization from everyone who appeared in any of its campaign advertising. So it is not because we oppose the actual principles underlying this motion. As I said earlier, those principles are entirely laudable and legitimate.

The problem is that the wording of the motion does not remove this obligation in the case of public personalities who have allowed their image and words to be broadly disseminated without requiring authorization, nor does it remove it in the case of people who might be included in a crowd scene, and it is virtually unfeasible to seek the authorization of each and every member of a crowd.

For all these reasons, and with a certain twinge of regret, I must tell the member for Palliser that we are unable to support his motion but that we find the underlying principles entirely laudable.

Like other members, I would not want to fail to wish all of my colleagues a fine summer. Contrary to what our fellow Canadians may think at times, when we say that the work of the House adjourns in mid June or at the end of June when they think “You are on holiday”, we know full well that we have a lot of work ahead of us in our individual ridings.

We will be spending an enormous amount of time with our constituents, which unfortunately we do not have the time to do between September and June. Over the summer, we will have an opportunity to meet them, to travel around our ridings, to take part in events there and to be with these people who have put their trust in us and deserve an opportunity to discuss a whole series of current event issues with their representatives in this House.

I wish a fine summer to each of you. Perhaps during this period, we will each find a few days to spend with our near and dear ones.

I wish you all a good vacation and especially, a fine summer in your ridings.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be grateful if you would seek unanimous consent to return to motions under Routine Proceedings.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, since I last spoke there have been further negotiations with the parties, and I would ask you to seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), and specifically, to the study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, six (6) members of the committee and the necessary staff travel to Moncton, New Brunswick; Summerside, P.E.I.; St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Gaspé, Quebec; Sudbury and Toronto, Ontario; Sherbrooke and Montreal, Quebec; Vancouver, B.C.; Edmonton, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; and Winnipeg, Manitoba in the fall of 1999 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites and meet with officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the motion were to include a statement that we are approving a sum not to exceed $117,700 that would be agreeable.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the figure in the documents is $116,466 and that the hon. member has rounded it off, but I certainly would accept that point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

To be clear, I gather that the motion is being amended to provide that some words such as “provided that the sum to be expended for travel shall not exceed $117,700”.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.