Debates of March 30th, 2000

Division No. 1258

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member has done that very nicely.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they are certainly thin-skinned.

The member for Calgary West was part of the nonsense when Senator Thompson was in Mexico. They marched with sombreros in these hallowed halls of parliament, with burrito juice and all manner of things running on to the floor of this great democracy. He was part of that. He was part of denigrating this great Parliament of Canada. This is from the people who were going to bring a fresh start, a new way of doing business to parliament. It is unbelievable.

Where was the leader from Calgary Southwest when we voted on Nisga'a and when we voted on the clarity bill? He was on the beaches of Mexico.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I know the hon. member is trying to be helpful, but the comments and questions are to be directed to the speech of the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was not part of that march. The comments seem to be going around a bit. Perhaps we could have a quick question and then a quick response from the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member of the NDP this. He talked about the Senate. Did he agree with the member for Calgary West, who, when Senator Keon from the heart institute found himself in a little trouble, demanded the resignation of Senator Keon? I was at the heart institute not so long ago as the chair of the Standing Committee on Health. Did the hon. member agree with that member?

I also want to ask him whether he agrees with me that those people opposite were strangely silent when their own member from Crowfoot found himself in some trouble. Why is it that those people opposite would be silent on one—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the question has gone on long enough.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I could try to respond to the member across the way, I do not comment on individuals in the other place.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member from Regina—Qu'Appelle has the floor.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did not comment on Senator Keon. He is a brilliant heart surgeon. I do not attack individuals in terms of their personal performance in either place. What I attack is the fact that we have an institution which is not elected, not democratic and not accountable to the people of this country, which is the institution of the Senate. I wish the hon. member would join us in that crusade.

Some 95% of the people of the country do not support the existing Senate. He should ask his constituents how they feel about it. They would tell him in no uncertain terms that they do not support the unelected Senate down the hall. It is not a democratic body. If he was reflecting the views of the people of Welland he would say that in the House of Commons.

I challenge him to go out on the main street of Welland and ask the first 10 people he sees whether they support the existing unelected Senate. I would be surprised if anybody said yes. They either want the Senate to be abolished or they want the Senate to be reformed. They do not support the existing house. The member should know that if he is in touch with his own constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to discuss the amendments to Bill C-6, the electronic commerce legislation.

There is significant opportunity facing Canadians at this juncture as we look forward to a brave new century. In my opinion we will see the greatest levels of opportunities available to Canadians in this bold new interconnected world that we have ever seen. The changes occurring globally, in terms of technological advances relative to the Internet, will rival those of any technological developments in the history of mankind. They will make other technological developments, including the railway, the airplane and even the telephone, pale in comparison.

These are the types of challenges and opportunities that we face as individuals in Canada, which is increasingly a very connected country. It is a connected country largely based on the interests and innovation of individual Canadians and, in many ways, despite the continued malaise, inattention and efforts by the government to hinder and impede technological adaptation and opportunity for Canadians with new vehicles such as the Internet.

I was appalled at the recent national Liberal convention, which I attended as an observer for my party. I also was a commentator for CBC and CTV. I was there for the weekend and I felt a bit like an undercover rabbi at a PLO conference.

It was an interesting experience, to say the least, but the fact is that what I learned disappointed me about the leadership of the Liberal Party at this time. Frankly, I had expected that the Prime Minister would have had a better idea of where the world was going in terms of some of these new technologies.

On Friday night the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister—

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us the relevance of this matter to the bill before the House. He is talking about a party convention that he, no doubt, was very pleased to attend, but what relevance does that have to the business which is before the House?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is quite correct. When I took the chair I had to ask the Deputy Speaker what we were debating because none of the debate seemed to be relevant to the bill at hand. Therefore, I would ask hon. members to concern themselves with the relevancy of their words.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his typically erudite suggestion that I get to the point on this issue, and I shall.

The point I was making was that on the Friday night of the convention the Prime Minister of Canada referred to this brave new economy in a way which disturbed me. He referred to e-commerce as a problem. He said that we have to deal with the problem of e-commerce; not as an opportunity, but as a problem; not in terms of how the Government of Canada can enable Canadians to access the levers of this brave new world and this brave new economy, but how we can deal with the problem of e-commerce.

This legislation, to a certain extent, indicates that the government is in fact more capable of dealing with regulations and their implementation than it is with the other part of e-commerce, and that is dealing with its opportunities and reducing the intrinsic impediments which hold back Canadian individuals and companies from full participation and success in an increasingly interconnected, digital highway globally.

The government is very slow to respond to some of the tax issues which continue to hold back Canadians in terms of our global competitiveness, but is quick to respond on the regulatory side. I think that speaks volumes about a government that is far too quick to regulate and far too slow to bring down the barriers to unimpeded commerce and greater levels of opportunity.

The legislation addresses some important issues relative to personal privacy in Canada on the Internet. The battle between privacy and protection is an ongoing battle with regard to e-commerce on the Internet. These issues have partially been addressed by the government. I believe that the amendments from the other place were appropriate and helpful. Again the Senate has provided a level of constructive intervention and benefit to the legislation of the House.

It seems that time and time again we see this kind of constructive interaction between both houses. We need to be reminded that there is a reason for the current structure and for the nature of the Senate. Sometimes when I am discussing issues of this importance with members of the upper house I am reminded of the incredible level of knowledge and expertise that we have in that other place to deal with some of these increasingly complicated issues, whether we are dealing with e-commerce or more traditional issues, such as finance. I believe that in many ways the Senate banking committee has a significantly greater level of expertise than the House of Commons finance committee. I would argue that members of the Senate banking committee, by and large, have forgotten more about finance than members of the House of Commons finance committee know. I speak as a member of that committee and it is just a reflection on the high quality of membership we have on some of the committees in the other place.

The onus with this legislation is on the government to utilize laws and regulations to protect the rights and privileges of consumers. We support this legislation and we support these amendments, but I see some concerns about the government's efforts on an ongoing basis to regulate but not to recognize the opportunities.

One Canadian success story of an e-commerce Internet company was Zero-Knowledge, which recently raised a significant amount of money and is pursuing an IPO opportunity in the U.S. Its business is Internet privacy.

When we look at Internet privacy, if it can be provided increasingly by private sector entities like Zero-Knowledge, I would urge the government, the ministry of industry and the industry committee to study some of these private sector alternatives. There does not always have to be a heavy level of regulatory burden to achieve some of these privacy or protection ends. Sometimes companies like Zero-Knowledge, a Canadian success story, can help provide the tools to consumers.

The issue regarding health information is particularly important as we see companies like Healthion and Dr. Koop.com involved, as we see the continued integration of e-health vehicles with hospitals and, as time goes by, the technologies that will provide effectively the ability for health professionals to diagnose and treat illness increasingly via media, including the Internet.

In my home province of Nova Scotia there are start-up companies that are developing increasing levels of expertise in these areas, companies like Techknowledge and Caduceus. They are developing technologies that will enable health care professionals to provide a greater level of comprehensive service to patients, which ultimately will be more cost effective.

When we are dealing with health care information clearly privacy issues are very important. Again I urge the government to investigate all private sector opportunities or vehicles to protect privacy as opposed to always going the government regulatory approach.

When we are dealing with the issues before us relative to e-commerce we have to keep in mind a few basic principles. First, e-commerce and the Internet are based at this juncture on private sector leadership. There should be a minimalist government role and we should avoid unnecessary restrictions. Privacy is important. We have acknowledged that some private sector entities provide products which can be used to establish privacy.

In the area of e-commerce and Internet in general we have some real Canadian success stories with bid.com and some of the enabling technologies. There is a company now in Saint John, New Brunswick, called iMagicTV, which is developing technology to transmit television signals through traditional copper wires. I believe the technology has already been rolled out in parts of New Brunswick and will be in Halifax shortly. It will revolutionize and be a very commercializeable initiative.

Some activities are happening on our financial markets, for instance, with the automation of our financial markets, whether it is with E-TRADE Canada, a Canadian entity, or e-commerce friendly investment banking such as Yorkton Securities in Canada or Wit Capital in the U.S.

We have seen great strides made in terms of venture capital for e-commerce in Canada, whether it is Digital Harbour or EcomPark that are providing the type of seed money required by Internet entrepreneurs to achieve their next step and ultimately, hopefully, public offerings. In that light we see a new CDNX, which I believe will emerge as Canada's NASDAQ north.

All these opportunities are existing now and are helping to spawn some of Canada's technology stars, whether it is Leitch Technology or Versus Technology. Whether it is a more traditional or technological leader like Nortel and JDS Uniphase, all these great things are happening because we are an innovative people. We have innovative individuals and innovative companies across Canada that are doing amazing, interesting and successful things.

Unfortunately I am concerned that we are not being led by an innovative government. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister refer to e-commerce as a problem in a way that did not seem to recognize from his perspective that in fact e-commerce represents more of an opportunity.

If we look at the degree to which the government is embracing some of the fundamentals of the new economy, particularly relative to tax issues, I think we can see that we are falling behind other countries.

Members opposite may look at the recent budget and say that there has been some tax reduction. However, before the recent budget Canada had the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and the second highest corporate taxes in the OECD. After the budget Canadians will still have the highest personal income taxes in the G-7. After full implementation of these tax measures over a five year period, Canadians will have the fourth highest corporate taxes in the OECD. This is assuming that none of the other 31 countries reduce their corporate taxes when in fact 27 of them already have stated plans to reduce their corporate tax levels.

Members opposite may say that we are heading in the right direction. However a tortoise heading in the right direction on the autobahn will still be road kill. In the global environment and on the interconnected digital highway of the global environment we cannot afford to be a nanosecond behind.

My concern is that as other countries make these gigantic leaps we continue to take these baby steps in Canada. This incrementalist, caretaker, day to day poll driven style of government is holding back Canada at a time when other governments are being increasingly innovative, governments like Ireland, for instance.

Ireland has enjoyed over the past 10 years a 92% increase in GDP per capita. I believe the U.S. has enjoyed about a 20% increase in GDP per capita and I think the U.K. has been in the same ballpark. Canada has had during that same period a 5% increase in GDP per capita.

In the 1990s Canadians have seen their personal disposable incomes drop by about 8% during a time when Americans have seen a 10% increase. Again, wealth being a relative thing, as individuals in other countries get richer we get poorer in Canada.

These phenomena are reflected in the Canadian dollar. Since 1993 the Canadian dollar has lost almost 10 cents of value under this government. Every time we see a drop in the Canadian dollar it is a reduction in the standard of living of Canadians.

All these things point to a greater issue: the inability of the government to embrace the new economies and to embrace the opportunities, not just the challenges or the problems of the new economies, of the new economy and to actually present the types of policies that will reduce the impediments to Canadians for full participation and success in that economy.

While there are some difficulties in relating the Irish example to Canada as a whole, there are some significant opportunities in making a direct comparison of what is capable in Atlantic Canada with the Ireland example. We could look at what we would do by reducing corporate taxes and even capital gains taxes, specifically in Atlantic Canada, and perhaps adjusting over a period of time our current system of equalization, which actually provides impediments and barriers and bootstraps individual provinces on the recipient end. These are some of the things we need to be looking at.

With the Internet and with e-commerce, borders are less relevant now. This is a challenge. It seems there is almost a decline in the role of governments in people's lives as the Internet and other vehicles connect people individually. This is both positive and negative.

It is positive from the perspective that as individual citizens are connected, even from a social perspective, there will be more difficulty for countries or for leadership in countries to wage war on each other. It will be increasingly difficult to convince people based on ethnicity or language that they do not like other people if they are already communicating with them via the Internet.

It will be increasingly difficult for the Milosevics of the world, the Karadzics and the Tudjman type leaders in the former Yugoslavia to wage war on each other as the citizenry is empowered and connected.

Let us not always talk of the Internet and e-commerce as problems. Let us talk about the brave new world that is available. Let us talk about the free market working most efficiently in the history of the free world with individuals, regardless of borders, having access to the same information, immediate price flexibility, and the ability to trade based on that information immediately. It is a very exciting time.

While I recognize that the legislation is a step in the right direction on the regulatory side, I wish the government would be more responsive on the other side, the opportunity side of e-commerce, as opposed to always dealing with what it perceives to be the problem of e-commerce. If we actually get out of the way I expect Canada can participate and succeed globally in this exciting new world.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. He had some interesting points to make, at least he thought in his own mind he did.

I want to comment briefly on the fact that it was our Prime Minister who in October 1998 first announced this very important initiative. From there it was developed over the course of time, ultimately came to the House and then went to the Senate. I was somewhat pleased the member indicated that the Senate had a role to play. I think we all know that in fact is the case and rightfully so in terms of the recommendations it has made, especially on the health side. As chairman of the all party Standing Committee on Health I was very pleased that it did so.

I was interested in the member's comment that somehow the government was holding back Canada in this area. I thought at the time that if anyone was holding back Canada today it was Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark is the leader of the Conservative Party. When it came to Bill C-20, the clarity bill, where was Mr. Clark? Why was he not standing up for Canada? He was nowhere to be seen. Why does he not stand up for Canada on this all important issue?

When it comes to the whole issue of health care in Alberta and Mr. Klein's bill-11, where is Mr. Clark? Mr. Clark is siding with Mr. Klein and talking about the importance of for profit private health care in Canada. He should be ashamed. It is not this side of the House that is holding back Canada. It is that side and Mr. Clark in particular.

Could the hon. member comment on some matters with respect to Bill C-6? Could he comment on the role of the privacy commissioner and whether or not he thinks the provisions contained in Bill C-6 vis-à-vis the privacy commissioner is an appropriate check and balance for this all important privacy bill? Does he agree that the one time five year review is of importance and necessary based on the proceedings of the House and what Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours expect, demand and otherwise want?

I would be interested in listening to the hon. member's comments on the one time review as well as the privacy commissioner's role.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate the hon. member's non-partisan and constructive comments. I would like to address his initial comments on my party's position on Bill C-20 and that of our leader, Mr. Clark.

The fact is that the Right Hon. Joe Clark does not need to take lessons on national unity issues from some young pup in the backbenches of the Liberal government. The near toxic level of arrogance that emanates from that side of the House is encouraging to members on this side of the House because it indicates that great change is coming.

Preceding great change and the decline of any entity, whether it is a society or in this case a government, there is always a near toxic level of arrogance: people are convinced that what they are doing is right because they are doing it. I am pleased to see that developing and would suggest it is almost an overdeveloped arrogance gland on that side of the House which will precede great opportunities for this side.

When Mr. Charest was leader of our party and there was an opening in the provincial leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, the federalist party in Quebec, not one member on that side of the House could muster up enough leadership ability to go into Quebec and lead the federalists. Where did they have to go? They had to go to the Progressive Conservative Party because we had more abilities and credibility with Jean Charest to lead the Quebec Liberals than that party over there with its 160-odd members and I mean 160 odd members.

Beyond that, in my opinion the best federalist positions in Ottawa were the ones that helped Jean Charest become the next premier of Quebec. That is the most important and commonsensical approach to this. We need to ensure and work with the top federalist in Quebec and that is Jean Charest. I believe Bill C-20 continues to emasculate the provincial leadership in the Quebec Liberal Party. It continues to attack our federalist partners in Quebec and undermines the efforts of Jean Charest to succeed as the next premier of Quebec. Instead of those people focusing on short term poll-driven pragmatism, they should be focused on leadership that keeps Canada together and not anti-Quebec rhetoric that divides Canadians and hurts Canada.

The second point relates to the Klein government's initiative on health care. The Klein initiative is being demonized by the Liberals opposite. They are referring to it as two tier health care because either they do not understand or they are intentionally misleading Canadians about the intentions of the Alberta government's legislation on health care. I hope the Liberals are not trying to intentionally mislead Canadians by demonizing what is being done there. I hope they are not trying to throw some label on it as being anti-American.

As members are aware, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. When these individuals talk about an Americanized health care system as being negative, they should take a look at the Canadian health care system right now and what they have done to it over the past several years. This government and this Prime Minister have been the Dr. Kevorkians of the Canadian health care system. They have done everything they can to euthanize the Canadian health care system. At the same time, these pompous, arrogant Liberal individuals, who are pounding their chests like Tarzan and walking and strutting around Ottawa like roosters so proud of what they have done with health care, have in fact decimated health care.

For them to try to operate some type of policy of brinkmanship and standing up to the provinces, whether it is Ralph Klein or the province of Quebec or any other province that is trying to innovatively approach some of these complex issues that their government has put in front of them, is absolutely ridiculous, rhetoric driven and dangerous for Canada.

I think the sooner we get these guys out and solid Progressive Conservatives in, the better for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member by saying shame on him and his party for referring to the Prime Minister and the government as being the Dr. Kevorkians. Members of his party cannot even make up their mind how to vote on the clarity bill. They flip-flop every day.

The Kevorkians are those Conservatives, those Brian Mulroneys, those Kim Campbells and those Jean Charests who could not even balance a budget in nine years. They had that opportunity. They left us a country that was sadly described as almost a third world banana republic. Today, I can look at the member in the face and say that we are a country that stands above the rest.

I was in Germany and the finance minister said “What a miracle, how you guys turned things around”. That is what this government has done for this country. It has brought in surpluses, balanced budgets, employment and dignity to the household. Yes, we are trying to turn around and rebuild that health system that they initially began to destroy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his softball question. I assume he was trying to help me and not hinder me with that kind of light and fluffy intervention.

The fact is that the previous Progressive Conservative government, the Mulroney government, reduced the deficit as a percentage of GDP from 9% in 1984 to about 5% when it left office. What the Mulroney government inherited was a huge problem, in that it was like that old country and western song “give me forty acres and I will turn this rig around”. It took nine years just to slow down the velocity that Canada was heading in and in the wrong direction.

During that period not only did the government reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP, but the government also implemented some of the most important and visionary structural changes to the Canadian economy in the last 50 years, including free trade, the GST and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. These were policies that recognized where Canada needed to be in the 21st century.

I wish I had an opportunity to ask the hon. member what his position was on free trade and on the GST. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that the hon. member was, as were most of the Liberal members opposite, vociferously opposed to some of those initiatives.

I would ask all members of the House, particularly those opposite, to recall their intransigence in opposition to some of those visionary changes. Today The Economist magazine is saying that it was those structural changes by the previous government that were responsible for the elimination of the deficit in Canada. It was not the pontificating Liberals on the other side of the House, but those in—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, time is up.

Before we get to the next orator, I want to remind all members, because I am sure other members are just as confused as your Speaker at the moment, that we are really on Bill C-6 moved by the Minister of Industry, the personal information protection and electronic documents act. I happen to have a copy of the Senate amendments that we are debating if anyone is even in the least interested.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am very interested in this very important Bill C-6. As chairman of the health committee I was very interested in the amendments that the Senate recommended with respect to this all important area as it relates to privacy and other matters in our very globalized and commercialized area.

I want to say however to the member for Kings—Hants, who made comments with respect to Dr. Kevorkian, euthanasia and other matters, that it is far better we talk about those kinds of issues than the slow death of the Mulroney era and who and what they represented in terms of the strangulation of our great country.

I also want to point out to him that I was very pleased to be called “a young pup” by him; far better a young pup than an old dog. The Conservatives are nothing under Joe Clark than an old dog with no teeth. I can assure the House that dog will not hunt.

I do want to point out that Bill C-6 is a very important bill. It was first announced by the Prime Minister in October 1998 and it underscores a commitment by the Government of Canada to bring forward legislation of importance to all Canadians wherever they live in our great country. I want to point out by way of background information that approximately 80% of Canadians think that the government has a key and lead role in this all important area. It is important to note that—

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not major in mathematics but I cannot count anywhere near 20 people let alone 20 Liberals listening to this wonderful speech. I think it would be a good idea if this gentleman's colleagues were here to listen to what he has to say.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin has called quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.