Debates of Feb. 14th, 2000

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 670

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion adopted.

The House resumed from February 11, 2000, consideration of the motion relating to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Criminal Records Act

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I took the floor in order to show how a committee can be a little mean. I think it was a sad day for parliamentarism and for parliamentary committees in Canada.

Bill C-7 is a very different story. Initially, this bill was introduced during the first session of the 36th Parliament. It was then called Bill C-69.

The Bloc Quebecois made an outstanding contribution on that bill. In fact, that contribution was acknowledged by the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. I have to tell the House he also did an excellent job. For once, he did not have to obey the Liberal majority. He was willing to discuss.

In the debate on Bill C-7, the five political parties have shown openness, flexibility, and diplomacy. Thus, the bill got the support of the five parties in the House.

I would be remiss if I did not say how regrettable it is that the government does not show openness more often in parliament, whether in committee or in this House. Lack of openness and narrow-mindedness are the main features of this government, as we can see with Bill C-20.

If the Liberal majority showed a bit more openness, if it took off its blinders and stopped being so highly partisan, as it is all too often, I believe we would see more often bills like this one, which has the support of the five parties in this House.

Is it not a worthy cause to bring all the political parties to support a bill? Is it not worthy cause to try to reach a consensus on a given subject? Should any government, any parliamentary majority not have as a rule to get opposition parties to support everything that can be supported, all elements upon which there can be some agreement? This is what I call leadership.

A government should always reach for the widest consensus possible. But because of its lack of leadership, its lack of vision and its narrow-mindedness, this Liberal government refuses to reach for a consensus even if it would be much better to do so, as was shown in the case of Bill C-7.

On May 14, 1999, this bill got the support of all the political parties in this House, it was deemed to have been read a third time and passed. Through a motion passed on October 14, 1999, the House permitted that bills that had not yet received royal assent be reintroduced during the second session and, on October 18, 1999, what is now Bill C-7 was passed by the House of Commons.

We will recall that, last fall, the government had decided to postpone the opening of parliament, because of its very poor legislative performance. Indeed, its legislative agenda was so thin that it was not sure it would take us to the Christmas recess.

The Prime Minister took advantage of this to keep his patronage machine rolling and appoint a friend of the government as governor general, as well as several other cronies. Thus. Bill C-7 came back from the Senate with several amendments. It is now again before the House to be read a second time as amended.

The main objective of Bill C-7 is both very simple and very noble. Its purpose is to prevent serious cases of sexual re-offending against children or vulnerable members of society.

If protecting young people, children and the less advantaged members of society is not first and foremost for lawmakers, I do not know what is.

During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice, we heard and listened with great interest and a lot of respect to the opinions of social groups involved in rehabilitating criminal offenders. We had to properly determine the safeguards included in this bill in order to ensure the preservation of society in general and at the same time of the reputations of those who have committed serious offences and have been pardoned. It is the balance between protecting human rights, including those of pardoned offenders, and protecting society, particularly its weaker and younger members, that we had to seek.

Offenders whose record include criminal acts of a sexual nature are therefore directly concerned by this legislative measure. Although there is a relatively low proportion of repeat offenders, even the slightest doubt is too much.

Parents who send their children to day care, to a playground, to school, to Scouts, to a club for children or teens need to be sure that these places are not teeming with sexual deviants.

There is no worse thought for a parent that the prospect of his or her child being the potential victim of a sexual aggressor. There is nothing worse. It is essential for every parent who decides to hand over responsibility for a child to any kind of organization to have absolute certainty that this child will be safe and cannot be preyed upon by some sexual pervert. And this does not only apply to the present. We are aware of all of the physical and emotional scars borne by adults who were victims of sexual abuse as children.

The bill also covers vulnerable members of society as well as children. These are some of the weakest members of our society, people of sometimes limited capacity who could also, like our children, fall prey to sexual predators.

There are cases as recent as this very week of sexual predators in positions of trust or authority with children, and these justify rapid passage of this bill. It is not a question of limiting the right to privacy of those who have been granted a pardon, far from it, but rather of going beyond lip service and taking concrete action to keep our children safe.

During committee deliberations, the Bloc Quebecois was assured by government members that the solicitor general's authority would be used with the greatest circumspection. The Bloc Quebecois also supports the amendments proposed by the Senate and hopes that the implementation of these new legislative provisions will make it possible to ensure that our children and other vulnerable persons are protected effectively.

As legislators and guardians of democratic legitimacy, it is the duty of all members of the House to protect society's weakest and most vulnerable members, and the children who are its future. This bill is a concrete, first step in the direction of this laudable and noble objective, which should be paramount in our society.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois wholeheartedly supports the bill, why the Bloc Quebecois is glad to see that the five opposition parties support it, and why the Bloc Quebecois is disappointed that the government has absolutely no interest in taking a similar approach to other matters.

When we operate by consensus, when we, as a society, set a goal that cannot fail to meet with general agreement, all Canadians and all Quebecers stand to gain, as do the weak and disadvantaged members of our society.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to speak in favour of this bill. I want to congratulate all the previous speakers, particularly my colleague for Charlesbourg who gave a very impassioned and very eloquent speech. He cares deeply for children. Recently having had two young sons, twins, he knows of what he speaks.

Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-69, will further protect the public upon the release from prison of a pardoned sex offender with the disclosure of what would be relevant information should the circumstances so dictate.

It goes without saying that children are the crown jewels of our country and our future. A number of young children have appeared here on the Hill. I am speaking of young people like Ashly MacLean of Hopewell. They have so much to offer, so much promise and need our protection in every possible way.

Bill C-7 is a step in that direction, a step toward protection of our most vulnerable citizens. It amends the Criminal Records Act and makes criminal records for pardoned sex offenders which would normally be sealed available for background checks from interested parties. It uncovers information that is of vital importance to those individuals and organizations who work to protect children. Information is certainly power in these instances.

We have all heard of the high profile cases involving the horrific crimes of the Bernardos and the John Robys and the public outcry for tougher legislation to protect children and protect society in general. Tolerance is at an all time low, I would suggest, for deviant sexual abuse of any kind but particularly that involving our children.

Sexual assault is often not an issue of sex; it is an issue of power and control, the dominance of an offender over an individual. This dominance, this sexual violence or perversion and the exploitation of children is perhaps the most cowardly and heinous act that one can imagine.

The need to disclose information and protect children, those who are most vulnerable, and expose to individuals information of a past record will allow the relevant and connected organizations to do everything in their power to prevent the contact which could lead to this type of abuse.

Sadly, recidivism occurs often with those who involve themselves in this type of activity. It goes without saying that the lasting effects are almost incalculable in both the long and short term. It is not the physical but the emotional and psychological scars that individuals carry throughout their life when they have been subjected to this kind of abuse.

The high rate of recidivism among sex offenders in particular is most troubling. The potential for unknowing parents, organizations or individuals for leaving their children in the care of a pardoned sex offender is addressed to a large degree by the bill.

Presently community organizations or police departments would be prohibited from accessing files that involve the names of pardoned sex offenders. Bill C-7, in vetting each request and striking a balance between those who have the right to know and those who have the right to be protected and the right to confidentiality, is certainly a bill that we can all embrace. Access to previously unavailable information on pardoned individuals in these circumstances is what we strive to achieve.

Last year all members of the Conservative Party supported this bill as did all members of the House.

The successful passage of the bill through parliament before the recess was again a strong signal of non-partisanship and the co-operative effort that can result in very positive change. Previous members have spoken to it, and it was certainly a feeling that prevailed at committee and in the House, given the level of support the bill has received.

By the end of 1999, Bill C-7 returned from the Senate with amendments. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs cited some obvious and very reasoned concerns. One of those was the lack of expressed reference to the intent of the bill to pertain to records of pardoned sex offenders. Therefore the word sexual was added to clause 6 of the bill in order to make it clear that only sexual offences would be flagged under this proposed system.

Definite rules are then put in place, listing the sexual offences that may be flagged and the making of notations with respect to the records of those convictions. Police must have the consent of the offender and the solicitor general for the release of offender's records to potential employers or inquirers if the offender is in fact applying for a job.

Schedule of offences and the important terms such as children and vulnerable persons were removed from the regulations and placed in the bill. This allows these offences to again be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as opposed to being left to the discretion of the governor in council.

The term handicap has also been deleted from the definition and replaced with vulnerable person. It goes without saying that the term handicap is no longer acceptable in today's society, and it is more than just semantics to ensure that this bill reflects a modern view.

The Senate's position set out some very useful and poignant amendments that put a greater emphasis on what the bill seeks to achieve. It ensures a clear, narrow and limited exception in the Criminal Records Act. The changes with respect to sections 7 and 8 of our constitution and charter to protect privacy are reflected in the changes proposed by the Senate that maintain the balance between rehabilitation and the objectives of the pardon system and the need itself to protect children and others who are vulnerable.

I would now quote from Senator Beaudoin, a very renowned constitutional expert and prominent Conservative senator, who spoke to the bill when it was in the other place:

In closing these remarks, I must state that, when the committee studies any matter relating to criminal records, as is the case with this bill, or some related subject such as DNA, we always step up our efforts to be assured of compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we all know, sections 7 and 8 of our Constitutional Charter protect privacy. This is a fundamental value of our system. I believe that it can be stated that Bill C-7, which we have before us, respects the Constitution, including the 1982 Constitutional Charter, to the best of our knowledge.

As acknowledged by members who have spoken previously, it demonstrates that the Senate has made a very significant and important contribution in the amendments that we are speaking to today.

Child care organizations, those hiring new volunteers or paid employees, will now be able to identify a candidate who has received a pardon of a sexual offence. It is only permitted if the position is one of authority or trust relative to those children or vulnerable persons and the applicant has consented in writing. This is a very important safeguard that has now been inserted into the bill by our senators.

Organizations such as Scouts, Guides, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, coaches, day care workers and others will benefit directly where there is an implicit element of trust in the good work they do.

Flagging these sexual offenders will also alert police doing background screening checks to submit fingerprints with a request for any pardoned record that may exist. If the existence of an applicant's pardoned sexual assault record is confirmed, the RCMP or the police force that did the screening can request the commissioner then provide the solicitor general with any record of conviction of that applicant.

Proposed subsection 6.3(5) allows the solicitor general to dispose of all or part of the information contained in that record if he so decides. The RCMP or police forces may disclose the information to the organization that requested this verification.

However, in accordance with new subsection 6.3(7) the organization may only use this information in relation to its assessment of the job application. Also the new subsection 6.3(3) stipulates the following:

Except as authorized by subsection (2), no person shall verify whether a person is the subject of a notation—

This is very technical in nature but I would suggest very important because these safeguards and the balance sought are addressed by these very useful amendments.

Access to the offender's information is limited to authorized police officers and law enforcement personnel. The consent form must be signed pursuant to subsection 6.3(6) by the affected individual. By requesting consent the applicant could choose to either agree or refuse to allow the record to be unsealed. Refusal would be a signal to the organization wishing to conduct the search that the applicant may not be the appropriate person for the position. If the applicant gives consent obviously the authority of the solicitor general would still be needed to unseal the record in question.

Many volunteer agencies engage in a screening process of the applicant's background. However, screening is not done with the same degree of precision or thoroughness that we know occurs with a police check. Under Bill C-7 we will be permitted to put this information into the hands of those most in need, the organizations that by their very nature can potentially set up a situation where a young person could be exposed to a person with a prior sexual assault conviction.

Police record checks are not always effective. The CPIC system has been gutted in many instances in terms of the funding. Although the solicitor general has spoken with great ballyhoo about the injection of new funding, this is less than half of what is needed to bring the CPIC system up to par.

With that said, there is a sad reality to all of this. Research confirms that the vast majority of people who perpetrate sexual abuse against children are often those who do not seek out employment in that area. Oftentimes there is no prior conviction, that is to say they have never been convicted of a crime and therefore they would not show up on a police record system. This highlights the need for education and the need for participation in a public education effort to let people know there is more that can be done to protect children. The bill therefore is not a panacea by any stretch of imagination but it is certainly significant progress.

Volunteer organizations throughout the country are obviously aimed at the enhancement of children's lives. To this end I believe the legislation very much enhances the ability we have as legislators and people of this country who have been entrusted with the responsibility to put into effect laws that will help our law enforcement agencies. This will enhance protection for children.

Pardons themselves are very much an important part of the justice system. They serve a very important purpose. They are obviously of great benefit both to the pardoned offender and to society in terms of the stigma in allowing an individual to get on with life after having served a debt to society.

With respect to sexual offences the new legislation very much strikes that balance. In terms of priority and where we in this place should be focusing our attention the bill puts it very much in the hands of our legislatures and very much in the hands of our law enforcement and volunteer agencies to protect children in every possible way, to use all means, to use extreme caution, to go that final step to see that children will always be first and foremost in our efforts to protect them.

This is not a universal remedy or solution that can be found in the legislation but it can offer this additional mechanism of protection. It does not erode the integrity of the parole system. The exceptions it now provides in the parole system may appear small but they are very justified.

In the last 28 years nearly one-quarter of a million pardons have been granted for all offences in Canada. In relation to Bill C-7 only 4,500 of those pardoned concerned sex offences. The need to protect society has to be given greater strength. The bill moves us in that direction.

It is unfortunate the government of the day would not put forward the same effort, the same resources and the same strident timetable that we have seen with respect to the bill. It should somehow rebalance its priorities in putting its resources into efforts such as this instead of into efforts such as gun registration which obviously do not seek out and do not particularly protect society in the way it would have us believe.

This type of public protection initiative and the support it has received here is an indication of the type of co-operative effort that can occur in parliament. It should renew some faith and restore some lost hope that we can, when the cause is right, rally around to pass legislation quickly and effectively that is aimed at protecting society.

As long as the government can ensure systematic and effective scrutiny of the police control processes and ensure that Bill C-7 is used only for checking criminal records and those involved in sexual offences, Bill C-7 is very much acceptable and necessary as a violation, a minor infringement, I would suggest, of the charter of rights and freedoms. It is certainly one that can be exercised in the interest of public safety.

We know the age-old adage that talk is cheap. This is action that speaks volumes. It is an unusual occurrence when we can do so in such a unanimous and unified fashion.

The greater good is what we must constantly strive for. Law enforcement agencies must strike a balance of equal treatment under the law always with a mind to protecting the innocent. We can do that in this place. A Progressive Conservative government would very much like to see the opportunity to move on laws such as this one, laws that put the emphasis on protecting society.

In conclusion, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to St. Peters, P.E.I., to Victoria, British Columbia, and all places in between in this vast country, this is a positive and laudable piece of legislation that the Conservative Party supports whole-heartedly.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Drug Approval.

Business Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Tuesday, February 15, 2000.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.

The House resumed consideration of the motion relating to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Criminal Records Act

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a very enlightening meeting with about 200 young people who are here with Encounters with Canada. They were asking very reasonable questions, having just spent some time in the Speaker's gallery watching question period, such as what in the world is going on. Why is there so much hostility? Why are we always going at each other?

It therefore gives me a tremendous deal of pleasure to speak very briefly to this bill and just recount how we arrived at this point. The bill and the co-operation there has been within the House of Commons among members of parliament are examples of some of the good legislation that we can work together on, that we can co-operate on.

I give special acknowledgement to my colleague from Calgary Centre who entered the House in 1997. He became the critic for the Reform Party responsible for issues surrounding families. He arrived without any parliamentary experience and very quickly studied and came forward with a very useful piece of legislation not dissimilar to this one. As a matter of fact, I suggest in a spirit of co-operation with the government that perhaps it was a catalyst on the part of my colleague from Calgary Centre that this legislation saw the light of day.

It went through the Private Members' Business process and was referred to committee following second reading. The solicitor general's department came forward with legislation that was very similar to my colleague's bill. Again, through a spirit of co-operation in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, an agreement was struck to co-operate and ensure that the same process being used for the solicitor general's bill would be used for the private member's bill, while negotiations went on behind the scenes to try to blend these two together.

It is not infrequent for members of my party and perhaps some Canadians to have nothing complimentary to say about the other place, but today I will say something complimentary. The other place is part of the Canadian government and the government process as it presently stands in Canada, and whether we have questions about that or not is irrelevant. It is there and it does a do its job with this bill. I think it made improvements to the bill which has now been referred to us here.

This shows the kind of work that can happen when there is unanimity and agreement on vital issues such as this. This shows that even when a bill like this comes forward from an opposition member, my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, that the House can respond in a positive way to his initiative.

It would be unseemly for me to take any partisan shots at this point in talking about the actions behind the scenes and the negotiations that took place. The bottom line to this exercise is that everyone in the process should be complimented for having seen it come to this point, and that the protection of children in Canada will be stronger as a result of this. As I said, I particularly want to acknowledge the tremendous hard work, dedication, perseverance and foresight of my colleague from Calgary Centre.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for Minister of Industry]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to 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.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

I will begin by putting things into perspective. The government is committed to fostering the growth of an electronic based economy in Canada, to prepare all Canadians for a new global economy and electronic commerce and to ensure that we are ready, willing and able to compete against the best the world has to offer.

For Canada to do that and to become a leader in the knowledge based economy and in electronic commerce, consumers and businesses must be comfortable with the new technologies and with the impact that these technologies will have on their lives.

Trust is very crucial. Canadians want to know that their transactions are private and secure, that legal and financial networks exist to support transactions and that the information infrastructure works.

A recent survey by Angus Reid found that 80% of Canadians think that their personal data should be kept strictly confidential. A 1998 Ekos survey also found that four out of five Canadians want the government to work with businesses to set rules for privacy protection.

Canadians have called for legislation that would define a single set of rules and establish a level playing field where the same marketplace rules apply to all. The direct marketing industry, information technology companies, telecommunication companies and banks all realize that we need a clear federal legislative privacy framework in Canada. They also recognize that flexible but effective legislation will help customers accept electronic ways of doing business and, of course, less expensive for them.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the member's speech. On the last vote that was carried unanimously, I believe the Reform members had five members standing and they wish a recorded vote,

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I accept your point of order. However, I was in the Chair at the time and I did not see five members standing. We were very careful to make sure of that case. The motion was carried unanimously. If there was to be a point of order on that it should have been made at the time.

Obviously through unanimous consent we could revert back. If the hon. member cares to move a motion requesting the Chair to ask for unanimous consent to revert, I will do so. It is up to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this only happened a few minutes ago and it appears that there will be no unanimous consent. There were five members standing and, as you can appreciate, I consulted with you on the proper procedure. We have taken a few minutes to bring this point of order forward because it appeared that you had not observed the five of us standing.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I appreciate that but I just said that I did not see five members standing. If that was the case, and I could very easily have been wrong, it seems to me that the member should have made the point at that time. However, I will be happy to put the question to the House if the member requests it. If not, it is over and done with. We are not going back. We are on debate.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just before the interruption I pointed out some data. It was in response to demands such as this that the government developed a strategy for electronic commerce that the Prime Minister announced in September 1998. This strategy, designed to establish Canada as a world leader in the development and use of electronic commerce, was built around seven firsts in the areas of: consumer protection, tax neutrality, cryptography policy, standards, secure electronic commerce, digital signatures and privacy.

Today I am proud to report that with the final passage of this bill we will have achieved the seven firsts.

The protection of personal information has been recognized as a fundamental pillar of the global information society. For example, the European Union has a directive that came into force in 1998 that requires member states to block the flow of personal information to countries without adequate data protection. They are looking for the same elements that we have included in Bill C-6. The EU and Canada consider that legislative frameworks for the protection of privacy and personal information are a vital component of electronic commerce strategy and are beneficial to the evolution of the information society. Internationally, the European Union and Canada have committed to supporting a standard based approach to complement national frameworks.

Bill C-6 has already cleared the House and many hours have been devoted to its debate and passage. However, I would be remiss if I, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, did not take a moment to personally thank the Standing Committee on Industry for the excellent and exhaustive work it did to ensure that this legislation met the needs of all the stakeholders, including industry, consumer groups and Canadian citizens.

The Senate unanimously supported the bill's principles and agreed with its broad based approach to the protection of personal information. The standing Senate committee on social affairs, science and technology, the committee that studied the bill, described the bill as a masterpiece of electronic commerce that struck a very significant and delicately drawn balance between business and consumer interests.

While the bill was being examined by the Senate, Canada's health sector voiced serious concerns. This sector, uncertain as to the scope and applications of the bill, was concerned that it would not be able to get its systems and procedures under way in time. Many within the health care sector felt that they should be excluded from the legislation altogether. In response to these concerns, the Senate has proposed amendments to the bill that will allow the health sector one extra year from the time of proclamation to meet the requirements of the bill.

It should be stressed that the health sector is not being exempted from the legislation, nor should it be. Personal information is just too sensitive to be left unprotected. In no way do these amendments change the basic tenets of the legislation. The health sector is simply being given more time in which to prepare. As the bill is scheduled to be proclaimed and come into force on January 1, 2001, the amendments will give the health sector until January 1, 2002 to prepare for the coming into force of the legislation.

During this additional transition period, Industry Canada is ready to work with the entire health care sector, including commercial organizations, the provinces, Health Canada and other stakeholders to clarify any uncertainties on how Bill C-6 applies to them. Reasonable and practical solutions exist within the framework provided by the bill to ensure that the personal health information that is collected, used and disclosed in the course of commercial activities is protected by law.

Time is of the essence. This is a message that the government and stakeholders, including provincial and federal privacy commissioners, have voiced repeatedly. The Minister of Industry recently a received a letter from the Information Technology Association of Canada. Letters were also received from Canadians in support of Bill C-6, which included the Public Interest Advocacy Group, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Health Coalition, Electronic Frontier Canada and Democracy Watch. The Canadian Marketing Association and the Insurance Council of Canada have also recently written to the federal government urging it to give royal assent immediately.

I agree with these stakeholders who are supportive of the bill. Consumers, businesses and the government are calling for royal assent of Bill C-6. The bottom line is that Bill C-6 is too important for the future of Canadians to delay it any further. For that reason, the government concurs with the amendments made by the Senate. Let us all work together to make this happen.