House of Commons Hansard #76 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was auto.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I should remind the hon. member that even though the member for Toronto Centre was not a member at that time, he is a member now, so you will have to refer to him by his riding instead of his proper name.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply mentioned it to illustrate that the changes in technology issue has been a long time coming. Ten years ago, the Conservative Government of Ontario was looking at a smart card proposition. It was going to do that in conjunction with the banks, which were bringing out a smart banking card.
I believe that certainly half the problem is getting rid of the cards we have right now, which are the cause of a lot of the problems.
In any event, I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with that or whether he has any observations about where the smart card program is going to take us.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, because I feel he is quite right. The technology should first be applied to social insurance cards issued by the federal government, which are still nothing more than little pieces of plastic that can be easily seen and identified by everyone. Why not have a very sophisticated smart card that only certain people would be able to read? Indeed, such a card should not be used to rent a car or buy a cell phone. It should be used when beginning a new job, when going into an employment insurance office or when one needs a permit from the government. Thus, only people with official status should be able to read the card.
We are a long way from the little plastic card with a nine-digit number that has been around for nearly 30 or even 40 years. We have come much further than that. I agree with my colleague 100%. We must embrace technology. This bill will not cover everything. The government must also embrace technology. I agree. I mentioned awareness campaigns several times. They are a crucial and very important complement to the legislation.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec is governed by the Civil Code. I would like to add that I am the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that at the meetings of this committee, we frequently talked about the differences between Quebec, with its Civil Code, and the rest of the country, with its common law in French or English.
Are there any specific things that apply to this bill in the beautiful province of Quebec because of the Civil Code and that would be different in the rest of the country?
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question very much.
This is not my area of expertise. I am not a lawyer myself, as I was an architect in my professional life. It is difficult for me to say. I do know that the Civil Code has specific provisions that will have to be coordinated and considered for a law like this one, but I do not know what they are. I am sorry.
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with my friend and colleague across the way on the environment committee.
This is a very important topic. Identity theft is a serious problem in my riding of Langley. The typical thief is breaking into mailboxes and stealing identity documents through the mail. These individuals are addicted to drugs, usually stay up until all hours, and they work for organized crime. First, is my colleague experiencing a similar problem in his riding?
Second, from his comments it sounded like he was going to support this legislation going to committee, and I want to get confirmation of that.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague and friend that we will support this bill 100%. However, we would like to make some changes to it with regard to a number of points that I mentioned earlier and that we feel should be fleshed out. The bill that has come to us from the Senate is not complete enough and could be reworked in committee. We will be there to work very hard on this bill.
Yes, I have had some very serious cases of identity theft in my riding. I even had one case where the person almost had to be treated for depression. His identity had been stolen in the United States. He returned to my riding with no identity documents. He had lost everything. As I mentioned earlier, since documents are often made of just paper or cardboard without complex technology, even the government doubted the person who was saying that his identity had been stolen. So we need laws and we must also work with the Americans on this.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the questions and comments, but I have missed a couple of opportunities, so I thought I would take this opportunity to express a couple of views about Bill S-4.
We have seen this bill before. As a matter of fact, we have seen the bills on drug trafficking and issues such as auto theft and identity theft. These are all amendments to the Criminal Code, and I have to wonder why the government has not put together an omnibus bill to deal with these.
These are all very similar in terms of the concerns for public safety issues and dealing with organized crime. Many of the witnesses would be the same. The efficiency of this place would be improved substantially if these were in an omnibus bill.
I know what the government is doing. It is basically saying that if it puts the bills out one at a time and milks them through all the stages and the press releases, et cetera, it leaves an impression somehow that it is being tough on crime. Well, if it wants to be tough on crime, it should pass legislation, not just talk about it. That is what is happening here.
Many of the issues we talked about today in debate are privacy related. The Privacy Act came in about 25 years ago, when the computer of the day was the Commodore 64. Technology is very important. It is not just about smart cards, it is that the legislation we have to protect the privacy of Canadians is way out of date.
One of the big problems, in my view, is that the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for this act, has said before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that he is quite happy with the way the act is operating. That is unacceptable.
We had a bill on human pathogens and toxins. That bill prescribed the rules whereby private information on the health of certain Canadians would be shared with offshore jurisdictions and allowed to be passed on to others. The Privacy Commissioner did not even appear before the health committee. Why is that?
I hope that when the issue gets to the Senate the Privacy Commissioner will have an opportunity to express her concerns about this important issue, for which she had asked for a privacy impact assessment two years ago. The government has not taken her up on this. Why?
The House has to understand that when we address crime, it must be a comprehensive approach. It cannot just be punishment. It has to be prevention, remediation. It has to be a whole host of things, and I have not seen it. All I see are little rinky-dink bills for increased penalties or mandatory minimums.
We do not even have the resources for the policing authorities across the country to enforce the laws we pass here. We are not doing the job.
The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 11, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver East to the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are certainly in favour of this motion.
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 15, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain relating to the business of supply.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.
Opposition Motion—Securities RegulationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Opposition Motion—Securities RegulationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
