Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2001

All-Numeric Dates Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I can do it in three minutes, but I wanted to comment that the member for Peterborough was often at the high noon in his reform proposals. However, this time I have to say it is more like at the dawn. The member for Peterborough and the member for Elk Island in my view have failed in their proposals to allow for the fact that we are in the computer age.

Space on a computer screen is money. Space on a computer screen is jealously guarded. I note in this particular piece of legislation that the devil is in the details. We see in clause 5 that what is specifically proposed is that the year be represented, going from left to right, by four digits, followed by a space or hyphen, followed by two digits for the month, followed by a space or hyphen, followed by two characters for the day.

The problem there is that it is a total of ten characters. I would suggest that if the member had considered using Roman numerals for the month, he only would have had a selection of 12 characters or letters to choose from. He would have been able to reduce the space for January 1, 2001 to 01I2001, which is seven characters, or he could reduce it to I101 which is four characters. Indeed it does not matter which order he uses the letter. He could mix it. He could put the letter at the beginning or the end and have 1I01 or if he forgoes the 01 to represent the year he could have 1I1.

In medieval days they recognized that there could be confusion between the letter I and the number one and they substituted the letter J . So we could have, for January 1, 2001, 1J1. I cannot stress enough the potential elegance that is available if we were to use Roman numerals.

For example, August 18, 2001 would be 18VIII01. Not only does that evoke the Romans and the coliseum and encourage children to understand the history of numbers, but I point out that my suggestion is entirely in keeping with the intention of this legislation, which is a representation of dates in an all numeric form. Sometimes we forget that Roman numerals are not letters at all, they are numbers.

I would urge the member to reconsider this legislation. Certainly if it goes forward and is debated in the industry committee, I would think that the industry committee should consider my proposal because, if we use Roman numerals, we can do without the hyphens and we can have a maximum of eight characters rather than ten on our computer screens to represent unambiguous dates.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues. I would say to my colleague who last spoke that I was very interested in what he had to say. The next time, and I hope it is at the industry committee that we debate the bill, he and I can debate in Latin. We will really move it along.

I thank all my colleagues for their support and interventions. I gladly withdraw clause 6. The bill was written in the 20th century, which was a long time ago. I still remember the logic of the 32. I cannot myself remember the logic of the 90 to 99, so I would gladly withdraw that.

Security and safety have been mentioned. I have tried not to use that example, but this is a serious matter. Either we have a completely unambiguous way of expressing dates, be it writing them out in full or having columns with year, month and day over the top or we give up numeric dates. I do not want to come back to the House in some years time and say “I told you so” when something serious goes wrong because of a lack of standardization.

I appreciate the support from most members for my method of expressing the date, but the point here is the unambiguous expression of dates. In the computer age we are going to use numbers so it should be the unambiguous expression of dates in numerical form.

I thank members and look forward to further discussion at the standing committee of industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper

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

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on an issue that I raised on April 27, 2001. I am not sure how I should put that date considering the debate we just had.

At that time, I asked the Minister of Health a question, one of many I have asked the Minister of Health and his department, about an electronic device that was designed and built near Truro, Nova Scotia. This electronic device makes a noise to scare away birds from oil spills, farms and airports. It can be programmed to address any kind of bird and can be adjusted to any situation. It is currently sold in 26 countries around the world and is a great option to other ways of scaring birds away from oil spills, airports and farms.

However, for some reason, the Department of Health, somewhere along the line, designated this item as a pesticide. I feel it was designated as a pesticide so the department could charge tax on it. This is a burden on a small business that should not be there. It is not a pesticide. It has no residue, no contamination and no problems.

As I said earlier, it is sold in 26 countries around the world and only Canada has designated it as a pesticide. Why would the other countries designate it as a pesticide?

I have raised this question many times and have not been satisfied with the answer. The Department of Health did reduce the amount of tax because it felt it was a cumbersome burden on small business. However it is not a matter of reducing it. It should be eliminated. It makes absolutely no sense for this tax to be charged on an electronic device because it is designated as a pesticide.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will stand in the House and give me the good news that the department will eliminate this electronic device from the list of pesticides.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member spoke to the minister. I can assure him that he takes his concerns very seriously.

I would like to try to explain here how the Pest Control Products Act applies to products that scare away birds.

All products claimed to be usable in the fight against harmful organisms are subject to the Pest Control Products Act. The expression fight against means among other things that harmful organisms are kept away, are attracted, prevented from infesting or eliminated. These organisms may be weeds, insects, molds, rodents and even bacteria in swimming pools.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada certifies a whole range of products for such purposes.

The device the member is referring to is designed to scare birds away in order, among other reasons, to prevent aircraft from crashing. We should all understand that it is important to ensure that devices claiming to improve human protection are tested as to their effectiveness. In other words, whether they do what they should. Certified products must also bear a label carrying instructions for safe and effective use.

Under the Pest Control Products Act, the annual cost to continue certification of pest control products represents 3% of annual sales, with the maximum cost payable of $2,690 and the minimum of $75. These costs enable the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to run ongoing programs to protect Canadians, such as the monitoring of compliance, renewal of certification, reassessment of old pesticides and special examinations.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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 7.15 p.m.)