Debates of Feb. 8th, 2000

Shipbuilding Industry

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for your clarification. Let me get to the essence of the whole debate here tonight.

I remind the House that last November and December the Standing Committee on Industry had already begun reviewing Canada's productivity and competitiveness with respect to shipbuilding. I want to make it crystal clear that the member's motion comes a little bit too late, as I said earlier. Let me emphasize the valuable work already done by the Standing Committee on Industry.

Before taking a few moments to review the testimony provided during the hearings, I want to once again remind all members that there is a national shipbuilding policy in Canada and it includes the following support. They said there is no shipbuilding industry. There is an accelerated capital cost allowance for Canadian built ships; a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA ship imports; domestic procurement by the federal government in the hundreds of millions of dollars; Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions; and a very favourable research and development tax credit system.

These are the very elements that the industry committee has examined. On November 16, the first day, the committee heard from several government officials. Committee members were provided with a global portrait of the shipbuilding industry. We have to look at it in that context, one in which most shipbuilding today is done in Asia, Japan, South Korea and increasingly I might point out in China. These governments heavily subsidize the sector.

The Japanese have built a strong niche in the construction of large vessels and have managed to hold on to that niche. The newly developed countries see shipbuilding as an outlet for their steel production and steel production is a key to their industrial development. Other countries, including the United States, have non-tariff barriers to buying foreign built ships.

Officials also maintain that overcapacity has been a problem for Canada's shipbuilding industry today. For some time now the industry has been undergoing rationalization. Officials have suggested that the industry itself acknowledges that rationalization has improved its competitiveness.

On a more positive note, officials pointed out in committee that the Canadian manufacturers are on a par with just about everyone in the world when it comes to designing innovative products, manufacturing them efficiently and marketing them to the world. They said that there are niche opportunities for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Ice-breaking vessels, ferries, offshore equipment and self-unloading vessels are areas in which we have a great international reputation. We are also well regarded as builders of military frigates. Unfortunately there is not that big of a market for them.

Officials from the Export Development Corporation also appeared before the committee. They reported that EDC has concluded 17 transactions with the shipbuilding industry for a total of $247 million worth in business. Here is one government program which indeed is showing a positive result.

Finance officials also explained how Canada's tax system supports shipbuilding, including giving the industry a higher capital cost allowance and noted that Canada has the most generous R and D regime in the G-7.

During the hearings the hon. member for Fundy—Royal referred to the financing available in the United States under the title XI program. I remind the hon. member for Fundy—Royal of his exchange with the finance officials concerning his suggestion that Canada should provide a combination of lease financing and accelerated depreciation. The hon. member also may believe that in providing these incentives the government would end up increasing federal revenues because there would be more economic activity. Finance officials clearly pointed out in their reply that rarely does the government's return on such incentives amount to more than a fraction of the amount of taxpayer moneys committed.

These are some of the points raised in the first day of the standing committee's hearings on shipbuilding. As you can tell, Madam Speaker, we had a vigorous and exciting debate during that session.

The standing committee went on to hear testimony from labour organizations including the Canadian auto workers, the Marine Workers' Federation of the CAW and the ship workers union of Lauzon. We were presented with a document entitled “The Shipbuilding Strategy for Canada” which talked about the need for a level playing field, emphasizing the role of the Jones Act in the United States in closing its markets to Canadian built ships. They offered suggestions including financing terms that would be similar to what the Americans have with their title XI program. Once again the committee had a very probing, thought provoking exchange with the shipbuilding industry.

On December 14 the standing committee met for a third time on the topic of shipbuilding to hear from industry representatives. The Shipbuilding Association of Canada spoke of the impact of subsidies on the market and the need for competitive financing arrangements. He referred specifically to the title XI financing of the American shipbuilding industry. The Chamber of Maritime Commerce spoke also about the advantages that labour practices and low labour rates give the shipbuilding industry in newly developed countries.

I would like to close by thanking the member for bringing forward the motion and giving us the opportunity to debate this issue in the House and the opportunity for the government to put some of the data on the floor.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to conclude this evening's debate. I compliment the members of the House who participated in the debate like my colleagues in the NDP. I know the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore has been a strong advocate in advancing this debate. The member from Lévis has been a champion for advancing the cause to have a modern shipbuilding policy that actually works compared to the one which we currently have that does not work.

However, my greatest compliments go to the member for Surrey Central for what he essentially has done for me in the riding of Fundy—Royal. He has augmented my vote by about eight to ten per cent. He categorically said this evening that the shipbuilding industry in Canada is dead. That was the cornerstone of his debate. The result that I can go to the polls in Fundy—Royal and say categorically that Reform will do nothing, zero, to augment the shipbuilding industry.

The problem is that the Reform member missed the fundamental issue. The cornerstone of what all 10 premiers are advocating, every single premier including the Progressive Conservative premiers Michael Harris, Ralph Klein and Bernard Lord, is tax reduction and an incentive based modernized shipbuilding policy based on reducing taxation. The problem is—

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the debate and I did not want to raise this issue because usually we are on point but the member has just misquoted and misrepresented me.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

You are right, Madam Speaker, it is a point for debate and it is a wrong debate, a wrong position.

The cornerstone has three prongs we are advocating which are having a loan guarantee program, bilateral trade with the Americans and tax reduction. I know Reformers are not real Conservatives by any means. They do not understand what tax reduction is in that regard.

To my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada, I know that they categorically want to help individuals. We are not asking them to spend any amount of money, but I have to remind the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal government that its own members from Atlantic Canada are advocating the need to improve its shipbuilding policy that is incentive based, not subsidy driven, so that we can get those men and women back to work.

Above all, perhaps the thing I am most shocked about is the very fact that every single time we have had a shipbuilding motion before the House they have never permitted on any occasion any member from the Liberal caucus who has a seat in Atlantic Canada to actually participate in the debate. I wonder why that is. Is it because the Minister of Industry is blocking it?

I know that the member from Moncton, the Minister of Labour, really wants to advance this particular debate. In order to do so I would hope that she participates in the debate tomorrow. We are going to be debating shipbuilding again with respect to the private members' motion by the hon. member from Lévis. What we are doing today from a shipbuilding perspective is not working. We have an unprecedented coalition of individuals who are looking for tax reduction, not subsidies, to modernize the shipbuilding industry.

We have had Reform members flip flop. This is nothing new for them. Two or three Reform members came to committee to say they support what we were doing. Then they came to the House and said that they did not support it. They cannot make up their minds. Maybe in tomorrow's debate we will get a new Reform speech and have a new perspective in that regard.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of the item of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Privacy Act

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

moved:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to remedy the weaknesses of the Privacy Act, including providing relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a result of improper disclosure of their private information and imposing penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions of the Privacy Act.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt but I want to point out something for the record before we start debate on the motion. In his comments the PC member misrepresented the facts, so I want to—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that we are now on a new private member's bill. The other one is a thing of the past.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion and to tell the House and those people at home who may be watching why the motion is important and should be supported by the House. I am referring to a motion that would require the Government of Canada to toughen up the privacy commission's role and responsibility in safeguarding the rights of Canadians and their right to privacy.

Every Canadian citizen has the right to the security of the person under our charter of rights and freedoms. It is my contention, and I think most if not all members of the House would agree, that the security of the person would include the security of the private information held by government institutions or other institutions which could in some way jeopardize or prejudice the individual if the private information were to be distributed among the public.

Most sensitive and private information on Canadian citizens is held by government institutions. We should think about the tremendous amount of information Revenue Canada has on each and every one of us as taxpayers and about all other information held by government in terms of birth certificates, marriage certificates and so on which the government routinely collects from us in one way or another, largely through Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada is the institution most people would be most concerned about because it concerns financial matters, but there are other matters as well.

A federal body of legislation known as the Privacy Act safeguards the privacy of Canadian citizens. The privacy commissioner and his office were established to oversee the administration of that act, to receive complaints from Canadians when they feel their privacy or their right to privacy has been violated, to investigate those complaints, and to make determinations on whether or not those allegations are well founded.

The Privacy Act is a good idea. As a matter fact it is absolutely imperative to have the Privacy Act, the privacy commissioner and his office to field complaints from Canadian citizens, to investigate those complaints, to make determinations and to discharge those complaints to the best of their ability. I take no issue with the privacy commission or the privacy commissioner.

The issue we are dealing with today is not that the Privacy Act is deficient in the sense of defining a person's rights, what private information ought to be held as private, and how government, financial and private institutions ought to act with respect to information that is sensitive or is considered to be private.

The problem we face right now is the Privacy Act has no teeth in it. In other words we have a body of legislation, and it is absolutely correct, which protects the rights of Canadian citizens and to safeguard their privacy and their right to privacy. However, if anyone violates that act, even if the violations are wilful or intended to prejudice the individual or individuals involved, there are absolutely no penalties contained within the body of the Privacy Act.

I ask members to reflect on how ludicrous that is. It is the same as having laws that govern how we drive our vehicles. We have posted speed limits and laws on how we conduct ourselves on the road when we operate motor vehicles. For example, it is against the law to be operating a motor vehicle if one is impaired. In most places in Canada it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. It is against the law to be driving faster than posted speed limits. It is against the law to disobey stop signs. There are penalties attached to each and every one of those laws and regulations. The penalties more or less reflect the severity of the violation or the potential violation of each of those regulations or laws.

Human nature being what it is and human beings being what they are, we can only expect people to behave in a certain way when there is a real deterrent for them if they violate the laws upon which society is based. In the instance of the Privacy Act where there are no penalties or downside to violating the act, how can any Canadian citizen feel good about expecting the privacy laws to protect him or her?

I will tell the House how the lack of protection within the Privacy Act first came to my attention. A couple of years ago a fellow in Alberta by the name of Bruce Starlight, an aboriginal person living on the Tsuu T'ina reserve, wrote a private letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that was not circulated to anyone else. In his two page letter he made a number of observations and allegations with respect to financial mismanagement on his reserve. In her capacity as the minister responsible for that department he asked her to investigate and determine whether or not what he was alleging was true. Mr. Starlight did not receive a response to his letter from the minister.

About two and a half or three months later he received a knock on his door one night. It was somebody serving him legal notice that he was being sued for defamation for making allegations against his chief and council. Part of the evidence of his allegedly making defamatory allegations against the chief and council was the letter he had written to the minister with her actual office stamp on it.

That private letter was received in her office in Ottawa. To this day we still do not the exact trail, but it was handed back to the chief and council against whom the band member was making allegations. It put Mr. Starlight in a very difficult situation.

He contacted me, as a member of parliament and as critic for Indian affairs and northern development, and asked for my assistance. He asked “Is the government wallowed to do that? If I write a letter to a minister, which is considered to be a private matter, is the minister allowed to circulate my letter to anyone in a way that may possibly prejudice me, my family and my position in my community?”

We contacted the privacy commissioner and the privacy commission on Mr. Starlight's behalf and posed the same question. We asked the privacy commissioner to investigate. I have to tell the House and anyone out there who is listening that we received absolute co-operation from the privacy commissioner's office and from the privacy commissioner himself. We were very pleased with the way they responded to our requests. We were very pleased with the way they conducted an investigation. We are very pleased with the fact that at the end of the day they did come back to us and to Mr. Starlight. They concluded in a very substantial way that Mr. Starlight's privacy had been compromised very badly by the minister of Indian affairs and her department. The minister of that day is currently the minister for HRDC.

The privacy commissioner also advised us at the time that although there was a violation of privacy there was no penalty. There was no recourse for Mr. Starlight at all. The fact that he was put in a very difficult situation and in a position of financial hardship because he ended up having to partly finance a legal suit out of his own pocket did not give him any recourse whatsoever to go back and initiate any kind of action against the minister of Indian affairs and/or her department.

In the course of the investigation the privacy commissioner determined that there were at least 61 or 62 people within the minister's department and the higher echelons of the department of Indian affairs that had access to Mr. Starlight's letter. The privacy commissioner determined that it would be virtually impossible to determine the actual culprit or culprits in the violation of Mr. Starlight's privacy, short of getting honest and truthful statements from people who were involved, which I gather were not forthcoming.

The privacy commissioner made a number of recommendations to the department and to the minister for instituting better security surrounding correspondence. The minister and the department made public statements that they would take the privacy commissioner's advice and tighten up security.

In the meantime that does not help Mr. Starlight. It does not send the right message to government institutions when they see a minister and a minister's office in blatant violation of the law with absolutely no penalty to be paid in a milieu—and it has been patently obvious for the last few days that this is very true—where ministers of the crown routinely refuse to take responsibility for their departments and the bungling that goes on. The minister in question in this case, who is now the minister of HRDC, in my estimation is incapable of taking responsibility simply because she is not a capable minister. She is not in charge and never has been in charge of any department over which she has been given responsibility. What recourse do Canadian citizens have in that kind of milieu where nobody wants to take responsibility, in a situation where the privacy commissioner says that there were 62 people who had access to that letter and nobody has taken responsibility, and the minister responsible for the department is not taking responsibility?

There must be teeth in this legislation. There must be a penalty attached to violations of these regulations and it has to be a penalty commensurate with the violation. In other words, there must be real teeth in this legislation.

It is not much wonder that government is not interested—and we can see that by the lack of support this motion has received from other members of parliament, notably on the Liberal side of the House—in amending the Privacy Act to include tough penalties for those who would violate the act. I would suggest that most of the time it will be government that is actually in violation of its own act, in violation of its own laws.

I ask members of the House how Canadians can possibly have faith in the Privacy Act and in the work of the privacy commissioner and how they can feel their privacy and their right to privacy is secure and held sacred by the Government of Canada when the laws have absolutely no penalties and no teeth.

I strongly urge the House to make this a votable motion. I ask for unanimous consent that we agree to make this a votable motion and that we send it to the justice committee for a review and ask it to report back to the House as to how that could be done.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are now debating Motion No. 19, which I will read to the House. It reads as follows:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)( b ), to remedy the weaknesses of the Privacy Act, including providing relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a result of improper disclosure of their private information and imposing penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions of the Privacy Act.

We just finished a lengthy study of the Privacy Act. It started after the last general election and went on for some time. Then, last fall it was put, somewhat hastily, on the government agenda again. Since it was among the commitments made in the throne speech, Canada wanted a privacy act.

I remind the House that we were opposed to this legislation not because of its purpose per se, which was to give Canadians an act that would protect the transmission of personal information, but rather because of the fact that, in most cases, particularly in the case of Quebec where such legislation already exists, several areas were already covered, in fact all areas were already covered.

Some areas are covered by federal legislation and others by provincial legislation. There will be a difficult adjustment for companies whose activities come, for one part, under federal jurisdiction and, for another part, under provincial legislation. But that is nothing new. We see that in so many areas and that will happen now with the protection of private information.

We have a great deal of difficulty accepting the principle that, because no other province was taking action, Quebec was pushed out of a jurisdiction it was exercising.

The federal government could very well have recognized in this legislation the precedence of the Quebec consumer protection legislation. Especially since the federal government bragged that its legislation was very similar to the Quebec legislation, with a few adjustments, and that it had borrowed big chunks from it. If both legislation are similar, all the more reason to give precedence to the provincial legislation. Companies, even those under federal jurisdiction, and federal institutions in the province could then be told to abide by the provincial consumer protection legislation.

A whole bunch of overlapping would have been avoided because the current legislation provides for a transition period. For a few years, the act will be only partially in force, but in time its scope will increase and problems will arise along the way. As a matter of fact part of the act is in force now while the rest will be later, in three years.

We strongly opposed it. My colleague from Mercier initially led the charge on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Several groups from Quebec came to testify on this bill. I am thinking about—and the intergovernmental affairs minister is going to accuse us once again of bringing out mothballs groups, but I will list a few of those who supported us—the chamber of notaries, the bar, people who cannot necessarily be accused of being part of any political family, let alone the sovereignist family.

The Conseil du patronat cautioned against it. Quite a few groups, including trade unions, the CSN in particular, submitted briefs. The Quebec access to information commission highlighted all the potential problems and difficulties associated with its implementation.

In practice, some definitions are different, for example, what is a signature. When we talk about e-commerce, some notions which were defined in the civil code can now be found in the federal act. Their meaning is different because these two approaches—the one based on the civil code and the one based on the Criminal Code or the federal privacy legislation—are very different.

We are not trying to artificially create a problem where there is none. There are technical problems, and the groups themselves will have to live with that: the lawyers of the Bar, the business people represented by employers and the workers represented by central labour bodies.

Of course, not everyone in this group necessarily has a monopoly on the truth. How did it happen, however, that we found ourselves in the situation—in the case of Quebec—where only the representatives of the Liberal Party were in favour? Perhaps two or three individuals whose motives and often whose links to this government are questionable and who pay lip service to this bill.

There was therefore very little support for this legislation in Quebec. However, we understand the aim of it: that Canada be governed by a law since there was none outside Quebec. However, I am told some provisions existed in Ontario and perhaps in some other provinces, which were not as extensive as the consumer protection act. It is understandable for Canada to want to be proactive and have a law. That said, if the other provinces do not want to exercise jurisdiction, that is not our problem. And if the federal government thinks that it should exercise it instead, it should have entered into an agreement.

The ministers of the Government of Quebec have requested meetings and, to my knowledge, they never even received an acknowledgement of receipt or nothing was done to have highly technical and specific discussions to see how to deal with the situation.

Now we have a Reform Party member who, no sooner is the debate over, already wants to amend the act. To my knowledge—and I may be wrong—this legislation was supported by the Reform Party. They could have promoted it more when the bill was being reviewed. There is, among other things, this idea of compensating those who suffer prejudice.

Would this not—I am not an expert on this issue mind you—open the door to compensation whenever there is prejudice? When this happens between parties in a civil case, there are recourses for individuals. Now, must we systematically set out in the act that there will be prejudice and that compensation will be paid to those who suffer prejudice?

As for the second part of the motion, dealing with applicable penalties, this is already covered. Whether we like it or not, legislation already exists, and there is a penalty for failing to comply with its provisions. In fact, there is whole series of offences.

What does this motion mean with regard to penalties? How far are they willing to go? What does it mean in practical terms?

The motion is relatively precise in that regard. The notion of prejudice is new. It can be understood that it is only a matter of principle. The notion of sanctions or penalties already exists. Why is it not explained more clearly in the motion? It becomes difficult to support a motion the second part of which is vague, and probably deliberately so.

In any case, it is very difficult for us to support a motion aimed at amending a piece of legislation that is hard for us to live with. The fact that this piece of legislation has been adopted does not mean that the problems I alluded to earlier will not arise with regard to the different definitions in the federal legislation. I used signatures as an example earlier, how an electronic signature is defined, and so on.

Of course, there will eventually be some degree of harmonization, but in the meantime, it may very well be that consumers will not enjoy the same protection as they did before. When only one act applied in Quebec, businesses under federal jurisdiction—and I am thinking specifically about the telecommunications sector—complied with this act. Everybody came under the same legislation and it was known. Now there are two acts.

Consumers will see businesses using the excuse that there is a transitional period, that the federal legislation will be fully in force in a few years, that there are two definitions, that things are complicated, and so on. And there will be consumers who will find it all very confusing and will wonder which of the two pieces of legislation applies, and which protects them and how.

This is a very complex issue in a sector that is already complex and is evolving very rapidly.

Some of these principles were defended during the committee proceedings, but it might have been better to debate them or to make amendments back then, rather than support the bill, as the Reform Party did when it came time to vote. To my knowledge, we were almost the only ones to oppose the bill. Today, some members are voicing opposition, but they had much less to say when it might have done the most good.

I will conclude by saying that it is very hard for us to support this motion, which is not votable in any event, but had it been votable, it would have been very hard for us to support it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Motion No. 19. I thank the hon. member for Skeena for raising the issue and for bringing it before the House.

I believe that it has enough merit to be made votable. I would have liked to have seen that. I am disappointed, as I know he must be, that the committee and members of the House chose not to allow that, which will terminate the debate after only one hour.

I tried to listen carefully to understand the motivation. I think I understand what the member for Skeena had in mind when he put this motion forward. I find the motion vague, but I suppose that is the nature of motions. It gives a general direction; not a specific task, as would be set out in a bill.

I understand that the Privacy Act can be a source of frustration for some in that it does not have the teeth, as the member put it, to really change patterns of behaviour because there is no real discipline involved. There is no real penalty involved for violations.

The member used the example of a motor vehicle violation. People would not be stopped from speeding if there were no penalty associated with it. We will not get voluntary compliance, and that must be what the Privacy Act is relying on. It is asking people to change their patterns of behaviour, but there is no threat of consequence if they do not choose to do so and do something wrong.

I recognize the whole issue of data services these days. The storage of data is becoming very complex. There are huge personal privacy and public interest issues associated with it.

One of the worst examples that I can think of, in which the member would be interested, concerns the province of Manitoba. The previous Tory government in the province of Manitoba contracted out the Manitoba health data services to a private firm. It was a local firm, albeit, but everyone's personal medical records were in the hands of a private company.

That was bad enough. A lot of us did not think that was a good idea. It was on a fee for service basis. That company then further contracted it to Dallas, Texas. So now all of my personal medical records, my mother's records and everybody else's records in Manitoba are stored in Dallas, Texas. We do not know under what circumstances. We do not know if the people there sell membership lists to pharmaceutical companies that may want to mail a letter to a person who has a specific medical condition.

The fact is that it is no one's business and there should be a tighter grip on very private and very personal medical information. I think it is fundamentally wrong. This is one example of how a person's privacy can be jeopardized by new technology and the way the world is moving in those directions.

I am a little disappointed about the incident that gave rise to the creation of the motion. It was quite narrow in scope. We are really talking about one individual who had a problem with one letter. I am sympathetic. I think it was wrong that the letter became public without the person's knowledge or consent. However, I also feel that if the letter was full of accusations about wrongdoing, people have a right to know who their accusers are. It is a basic tenet of law. It is a basic tenet of natural justice and fairness that we get to know who is making accusations about us.

Therefore, I am not totally stressed by the idea that somewhere along the line the Indian band in question found out who it was that was essentially blowing the whistle on some alleged wrongdoing.

That leads me to another point I would like to make. This incident may be better addressed through legislation trying to craft whistle blowing protection rather than amending the Privacy Act. What Bruce Starlight was really doing, I suppose, was blowing the whistle on some alleged wrongdoing in the enterprise of which he was a part. He must have been associated with that Indian band.

I ask the hon. member to consider the much broader issue of whistle blowing when he looks into this further. This was not a workplace situation. In this case, it was blowing the whistle on an organization in which the person was a member.

In a workplace, it could become even more complex. Many recent incidents have surfaced where a worker comes forward, blows the whistle on some alleged wrongdoing in his or her workplace and ends up getting disciplined for it. This is getting to be a very big issue.

We would like to believe that the public sector is a good employer. I would like to think that it would welcome whistle blowing, that it would want to know if there is something going amiss in its enterprise. Instead, the first swift and immediate reaction is usually to fire the person. The employee does not have any recourse because it is just cause to fire someone for taking any steps that might be to the detriment of the operation.

Another basic tenet of law is that there is an implied loyalty that is required between an employer and an employee in that situation. An employee is not allowed to do anything that will really damage the reputation of the company or the boss. Therefore, when an employee comes forward and makes public facts that might shut that operation down or cost it money, or essentially blows the whistle on anything that it might be doing, he or she is breaching that implied loyalty of employers and employees.

I would rather have seen the issue of Bruce Starlight addressed in the larger context of whistle blowing legislation of some kind.

We are looking forward to the day in the not too distant future when that sort of thing is welcomed. I think 35 out of the 50 states in the United States have whistle blowing legislation that is very strong in their public sector. Again, they recognize that a good employer probably wants to know if someone is pilfering money, polluting or any number of things that they might be doing that are not quite copacetic.

I was interested to learn from the member of the Bloc Quebecois that the Privacy Act just underwent a comprehensive review. I would have thought that would have been the time where we could have made amendments to the Privacy Act to try to add teeth, as the member said. I do not know how that opportunity was missed but I did not have any personal dealings with that.

I know most Canadians do want a Privacy Act and most Canadians do worry about what happens with their personal and private information, whether it is their credit card number or, as in the example I gave of the Manitoba health records in the hands of a private firm, and we have lost all ability to edit or control how that material is going to be used or if it will be made public.

From what the hon. member for Skeena tells us, there is no penalty if a person does breach the implied trust relationship that exists between my information and the person who is holding my information. I think it is a very legitimate point and makes for an interesting debate. It is frustrating because these debates go nowhere when the item is not deemed votable. It is only an academic exercise we are playing here but to raise the issue on the national stage is a bit of progress we can measure.

While I support the concept and I admire the member for bringing the issue forward, I am somewhat frustrated that it is so narrow in scope that it is really only addressing one individual who had a problem with one letter that went public. I am not even sure that it was so wrong for that letter to be made public because somebody who is accused of doing something wrong does have a right to know the accuser. The accuser also has a right to be free of discipline or suffer any negative consequences for bringing these things to people's attention. This brings me again to the point that I wish this issue was dealt with within the context of whistleblowing, not Privacy Act amendments.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena regarding the Privacy Act.

I do believe that privacy implications in the new age of technology are important considerations. There was a story in the media not too long ago about a woman whose tax information was publicly released because she had filed a complaint. In a subsequent federal court of appeal ruling about her case, the court struck down the disclosure rules that said such personal information could not be released regardless of the case.

This was a prudent decision by the court and it demonstrated the importance of privacy and protection in this day and age. In the decision there was no compensation provided to the woman whose privacy was inappropriately violated. I believe this is appropriate. It is on this point that I think the hon. member's motion is flawed.

The member calls for legislation that sets out a compensation provision for those whose privacy is violated. I believe that such an act would lead to large complications in terms of legalities. This could very easily create a paradise environment for lawyers.

To a greater degree, how does one determine or define injury as a result of a breach of privacy? Does an improper disclosure of one's personal information warrant financial compensation? I do not think in the vast majority of cases where disclosure occurs that the person requires financial reward because of such breach.

I do agree with the hon. member that there are weaknesses in the Privacy Act. For instance, I believe we need to pay greater attention to the implications of personal and corporate privacy in the rapidly advancing information age in which we live. I am not sure that the Privacy Act in its current incarnation can fully address the need for protection in cyberspace and beyond. This is an area on which I believe we must place more emphasis.

I do not think the member's motion is particularly focused on this area. In a world where information is so readily and speedily available, I think it is vital that the Privacy Act be able to respond to breaches of privacy in this area much as it currently does in terms of government not being able to disclose one's tax return and so on.

As for the second part of the motion concerning punishing those who breach privacy concerns, I think there may be more weight to this section. I doubt that anyone would disagree that it is important to ensure there are proper protections in place to discourage and to punish those who wilfully violate the privacy of another.

I again wonder what sort of approach the member would like to take on this issue. How do we define a punishment when it is next to impossible to define injury in a case like this? I would think that if sufficient damage was done, the individual would have the recourse of a libel suit or another civil pursuit.

At this level I do not think we necessarily need to bring in legislation as the member has suggested. Instead I believe it would be worth looking at more specific and in depth issues of privacy from the framework of technology and the exchange of information. This is where people need the most protection at this time, where personal information can travel broadly without even the knowledge of the person affected.

On this point I believe the member has a valid argument that perhaps a parliamentary committee should be struck to thoroughly investigate ways in which we can strengthen the protection that Canadians need in ensuring that their personal information remains just that, personal.

Again I return to the fundamental flaws in the member's approach to seeking greater privacy protection. It would be quite dangerous to firmly set out penalties and rates of compensation for the acts referred to in the motion. It sets up a legal framework for convicting offenders after the fact whereas what is most needed are preventative measures.

I believe the Privacy Act in its current state addresses most of the issues for which it was intended but I can agree with the motion that perhaps we could tighten it up to ensure there are no gaping loopholes as there were in the tax case referred to earlier. Whereas the most confidential and private of personal information is controlled by the government, there need to be virtually foolproof mechanisms in place to guarantee that John Doe's tax return does not end up in the public domain because he chooses to challenge it. This is a very important responsibility of the government and one that must be maintained and met.

Although I agree that some improvements need to be made in the Privacy Act and that it should be a concern and perhaps priority of the House to visit the privacy issues in greater detail, my colleagues and I cannot support Motion No. M-19 because it seeks to create a legal reference point that overlooks the larger issue.

As members we cannot reasonably determine what price tag to put on somebody's compromise. That is an area that the courts must define. What we can do is strengthen and tighten the framework of privacy protection by responding to the more minute details that are perhaps overlooked at the present time.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, we have before us a motion that would lead to the establishment of a legislative committee of the House to prepare and bring in a bill to remedy what the hon. member refers to as the weaknesses of the Privacy Act. The bill would include relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a result of the improper disclosure of their private information and it would impose penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions of the Privacy Act. Let me say at the outset that the Minister of Justice does not support this motion.

There are two laws that affect the protection of personal information held by the federal government. First, section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. This section has been interpreted to deal with privacy.

Second, the Privacy Act protects personal information collected by the federal government. The Privacy Act was brought into force in 1983 with the agreement of all parties in the House. The act provides individuals with access to their personal information held by the federal government. It further gives individuals some controls over the government's collection and use of this personal information. It also protects the individual's privacy by limiting those who may see this personal information and for what purpose it might be used.

The Privacy Act sets out the principles of fair information practices thereby requiring the government to collect only the information needed to operate its programs, to collect the information directly from the individual concerned whenever possible, to tell the individual how long it will be used, to keep the information long enough to ensure access by the individual, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and completeness of personal information.

It should be noted that no federal legislation is in place to protect personal information held by the private sector. In response to concerns raised by Canadians, the government recognized the pressing need for statutory reform regarding the practices of private sector organizations in relation to personal information.

In October 1998 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act, to address these concerns. Bill C-54 was introduced in this session as Bill C-6 and was adopted by the House in October last year. When part I of Bill C-6 comes into force it will apply to organizations in the private sector and will establish their obligations for the protection of personal information. The government is very proud of Bill C-6 and of the value Bill C-6 will add to the privacy laws in Canada.

As the government continues to scrutinize closely the developments in the area of the privacy law, part of the government's ongoing work is to monitor the practices and trends, both in the public sector and in the private sector, involving the collection, use and disclosure of personal information and to consider ways that laws relating to privacy can be improved.

In his motion the hon. member for Skeena raises a number of interesting points that should be taken into account in the government's ongoing review of the Privacy Act.

We do, however, have some reservations when it comes to reviewing and amending the present privacy legislation. We feel it would be premature to strike a legislative committee to look at a reform of the Privacy Act.

This said, the government continues to carefully monitor the current laws relating to the use of personal information. Now that a framework for the protection of personal information is nearing completion with Bill C-6, improvements to federal laws can be considered on a more measured scale. The government will ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are heard, assessed and weighed.

Canadians have demonstrated to us that they value the protection of their personal information and that they appreciate the responsiveness of the government to their concerns. Government will continue to respond to the concerns and needs of all Canadians.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments that have been made by members of the House. I appreciate the level of debate that has taken place today.

First of all, I believe the member for Winnipeg Centre made the suggestion that maybe it was not wrong and he did not have too much of a problem with the fact that a member of an aboriginal band in Alberta wrote a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that letter was leaked back to the chief and council.

For the benefit of the member and for the benefit of other members of the House—and it may not be understood by members—a letter to a minister of the crown written by an individual is considered to be privileged information, the same as any letter received by any one of us from one of our constituents is considered to be privileged information. As members of parliament we do not take that information and share it with the press or with other individual constituents, unless we have expressly received permission to do so by the original author of those letters or those communications. That is considered to be privileged information.

It is not up to the member for Winnipeg Centre or anybody else to make judgments about whether it was the right thing to do. The fact is, that is the law and the law was violated, and it was violated by members of the minister's department.

In listening to the debate I heard talk from other members and other parties about Bill C-6 and the government's initiatives with respect to the Privacy Act. I say to hon. members, and the parliamentary secretary in particular, that is all fine and well, but the parliamentary secretary would know that Bill C-6 is designed specifically with the private sector in mind.

Bill C-6 does nothing to address the concerns and the rights of individuals with respect to private information that is held by government institutions, and in this case by federal government institutions. There is no institution or organization that holds more personal private information on Canadian citizens than the federal Government of Canada. Therefore, it is the federal Government of Canada that this legislation is targeted toward, or ought to be targeted toward, more than any other organization. That is not to say that the private sector and the initiatives in Bill C-6 are not good initiatives.

I share the concerns that some institutions in the private sector have access to tremendous amounts of private information and I share the view that those private institutions ought to be responsible for the private information they hold and ought to be held accountable in law when they willfully break the privacy rights of Canadian citizens.

I would also respond to the parliamentary secretary, who said that it is difficult to ascertain what damages may be awarded when violations occur. Maybe it was the member from the Progressive Conservative Party who said that. I am not sure. I certainly would not want to attribute comments to the parliamentary secretary if in fact it was somebody else. However, I would say this. There are many instances in law where it is difficult to determine actual damages when there have been wilful violations. I use as an example the laws with respect to defamation, slander and libel. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine what actual financial harm has been done when one individual wilfully defames, slanders or libels another citizen. I do say, though, that as difficult as it might be for the courts to make those determinations, they are granted that purview and do their best to discharge that duty. The mere fact that there are penalties ascribed in law to people who would wilfully slander or libel is a tremendous deterrent and it makes us much more responsible as individuals when it comes to considering how we are going to conduct ourselves. That is why it is imperative that the Privacy Act be amended, that teeth be put into it so that there are real, tough and strict penalties that are attached to violations of those laws so that Canadians can feel much more secure about private information that is held concerning them, in particular private information that is held by the Government of Canada, but by other institutions as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, four months ago I stood in the House asking for a commitment to a national child care program and received a half-baked answer about how the government supposedly tried and was stopped by provincial governments.

The fact is that if the government had the will to do so, it could implement a national child care program right now. Instead, the government has tried to pass the buck of responsibility as it has with many other programs and services.

What happened to the 150,000 spaces for children in child care that was promised in 1993? The government promised $720 million for child care in 1993, but it has in fact cut spending. In too many provinces, like my home province of Nova Scotia, the child tax benefit is clawed back when families' main source of income is social assistance, a perverse attempt at addressing poverty which has ensured that the needs of children in poor families have not been addressed.

If the Prime Minister and the Liberal government really took the needs of children seriously, they would know that the parents of these children have clearly stated that a federally funded national child care program is what both the children of Canada and their parents need to start off on the right path.

Liberal double-talk on child care is just one more example of how the government has been saying one thing and doing another. Over four months ago the government made a speech about how children would be a priority in the 2000 budget. But what has it done over the last six years in power? Broken promise after broken promise has meant simply more poverty and more poor families.

We all agree on the benefits to children of quality care in and outside their homes in their early years. We all agree that children are a priority. We all know that money exists to make a national child care program a reality. We all know that the only reason we do not have such a program is because of the lack of will and commitment to Canada's children shown by the Liberal government in its race to the bottom.

As the mother of two children and as a Canadian I think it is unacceptable that only 9% of children in need of care have access to regulated child care.

Today I would ask the government when it will finally agree that we need a federally funded national child care program and when it will commit to a date when it will provide access to quality, affordable child care for all of Canada's children.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, the question of the member which has come back a couple of times indicates to me that this member does not really understand the federal-provincial arrangements through which this country is governed co-operatively by both levels of government.

The member said that if the government had the will it could implement a national child care program right now. That is simply and purely incorrect. The federal government could not implement such a program because caring for children is part of the responsibility of the provinces. We simply could not do it without provincial co-operation.

She also asked what happened to the 150,000 child care spaces that were promised in the 1993 red book. We fulfilled that promise when we came forward with an offer to set aside $400 million and asked the provinces to come forward and use that money to build child care spaces.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

You asked the provinces?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, we invited the provinces. Not one province came forward and said “Yes, we want to build this program with you”. After a time, the money was set aside from that program because no one stepped up to the plate to use it. That is what happened to the 150,000 spaces that were suggested in the red book.

Our Speech from the Throne in the fall indicated that this government has no higher priority as a government than children. But that statement does not lead directly to the establishment of a national child care system.

We recognize that while parents have the primary responsibility for the care of their children, raising the next generation is everyone's concern. We know that early childhood development and care is essential to raising healthy children. That is why early childhood development is a key theme in the national children's agenda through which—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member as the time has run out.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.57 p.m.)