Mike Scott

[Auditor General's Report, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general reporting on the state of aboriginal education says:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cannot demonstrate that it meets its stated objectives to assist aboriginal students living on reserves in achieving their educational needs. The situation is complex and urgent. At the current rate of progress, it will take over 20 years for aboriginal children to reach parity in academic achievement with other Canadians.

My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. How can he look aboriginal children in the eye in the face of such failure?

[Nisga'A Treaty, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last week, Willard Estey, retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, made an appearance before the Senate regarding the Nisga'a treaty. His written brief, which every member of the House should read, was also presented on behalf of retired Supreme Court Justice McIntyre and retired B.C. Supreme Court Justice Goldie.

These pre-eminent experts, whose credentials are impeccable, warned the Senate that the Nisga'a treaty is unconstitutional and illegal. Their brief states, “An independent self-governing nation state will be created within the boundaries of Canada”. The retired justices also stated, “There is good reason to conclude that the Nisga'a agreement contravenes the provisions of the Canadian constitution and accordingly cannot have the force of law”.

The judges call on the Senate to delay ratification of the treaty pending a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The House failed in its duty to uphold the constitution. It remains to be seen whether the Senate has the courage to do what the justices have called on it to do.

[Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette in congratulating my colleague from Prince George—Peace River who introduced Bill C-223 in the House of Commons for debate and for a vote. I am very pleased to support the bill. I think it is not only important, but imperative that we support the bill.

Two Canadians, mostly women, every week lose their lives to their spouses in domestic situations. I ask members of the House and I ask people who are watching at home to remember the deep sense of shock and outrage that we all felt across the country when Marc Lépine went on his murderous rampage and took the lives of 15 young women in Quebec some years ago. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, two women every week in this country lose their lives to spousal abuse. In the House of Commons we have just over 301 seats. It would mean that one-third of the seats in the House would be vacant every year as a result of murder through spousal abuse.

Where is the shock? Where is the outrage? Why is this not something that we are being compelled to deal with? Why is it that we feel this sense of shock and outrage over the Marc Lépine incident but we are doing virtually nothing to address the issue?

I suggest the reason that this does not have the sense of urgency that it deserves is because these spouses, mostly women, are not dying en masse. It is difficult for the TV cameras and people in the media to get their heads around it. It is difficult for Canadians to understand the depth of the problem because it is not immediate, it is spread out over time.

I suggest that it is just as important and as urgent, and we should be as equally distressed and concerned about the lives of these women as we were for those 15 young women who lost their lives at the polytechnique some years ago. We should be taking strong measures, within the ability of this place to take strong measures, to protect these women. We should do everything within reason to ensure that we protect the lives of Canadians where we have the ability and the responsibility to do so.

I hear the Liberal member who spoke some time ago making comments. He suggested that we are taking the wrong approach. I really do not want to be partisan on this issue, but I cannot resist. The member suggests that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River is on the wrong track with this legislation.

Let us compare what this legislation attempts to do with, for example, the Liberal's gun registry, the $1 billion boondoggle that is supposed to save lives. We were told by the government when this legislation was introduced that if it saved even one life it would be worth it. Yet we have the ability with this proposed legislation to enact protection that would really save lives and we have the Liberals across the way saying that we are on the wrong track. Frankly, I do not buy it. I think that Canadians should do like Bill Clinton—do not inhale.

I cannot believe that we cannot come together as parliamentarians and see the need and understand that there is something we can do.

Some people might argue that this would be an expensive measure. Let us not forget that we are talking about two people per week. We are talking about people who might take advantage of this or who might seek protection under this legislation. This is not going to be something that is going to be taken advantage of by many people. To enter this kind of protection program people have to divorce themselves not only from friends but from family, their lives and everything they know, and start over again somewhere else with new identities and challenges, and no support from family and friends. It is a very difficult choice that people who might take advantage of this program would have to make.

On two occasions women came to see me in my riding looking for assistance because they were scared out of their wits. It is a shame that in this country in the year 2000 we have women who feel they have to go underground to protect themselves and to preserve their lives, but that is the case.

We had the case of a young lady in my riding, her name is Tammy, who was in a relationship with a man. She ended the relationship. The man went into her house, commando style, in the middle of the night, forcibly raped her and threatened her. She pressed charges. The man went to jail for 18 months. He has now been released, but when she came to see me he was on the verge of being released. She was frightened. She said “I did everything that I was supposed to do to protect myself. I did not do anything to bring this on. The guy came into my house in the middle of the night”. He went to the extraordinary measure of taking masking tape, rolling it up and putting it on his vest so that he would have it handily available to wrap around her wrists and mouth. He broke into her house in the middle of the night, violated her space and forcibly raped her.

She did what she was supposed to do. She went to the police and made sure that he faced retribution. But our criminal justice system is such a laugh in this country that he was only incarcerated for a relatively short period of time, and when he was on the verge of getting out she came to me and said “What am I supposed to do? This guy is a little bit angry with me. Surprise, surprise. What am I supposed to do?”

Tammy considered at great length going underground. She considered at great length changing her identity and relocating to another part of Canada, starting a new life with a new career and divorcing herself, cutting the ties with her family and friends in order to protect her life. Had this legislation been in place at the time that Tammy came to see me, it would have given her the option and opportunity to do that without her having to do it herself.

There are women right now in the country who are going underground. They are being forced to do it because our justice system is not protecting them. They are having to do it with their own resources and in a haphazard manner because they do not have the expertise and the ability. This legislation would provide them with an option, a way out. It would provide protection. It would save lives in contrast to the billion dollar boondoggle known as Bill C-68 which the Liberals brought in a few years ago.

In closing I urge all members of the House to carefully consider what is being contemplated here. It is nothing less than saving the lives of Canadians, in particular Canadian women. It can be done. This legislation provides the tools to do it. I urge all members of the House to take the opportunity to vote yes. Vote in favour of this legislation. Let us protect Canadian lives.

[Points Of Order, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance on this point of order.

In response to a question that was put to the Prime Minister by my colleague from Edmonton North, the Prime Minister gave an answer in which he insinuated that I had written a letter on behalf of an organization in my riding requesting support from one of these transitional jobs fund grants.

I can assure the House and assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no such letter exists nor was one ever written.

I would like your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in determining how the record—

[Privacy Act, February 8th, 2000]

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.

[Privacy Act, February 8th, 2000]

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.

[Privacy Act, February 8th, 2000]

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.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 8th, 2000]

Could the government provide a list of all Chiefs in Canada and the amount of their salaries for the following fiscal years: ( a ) 1994; ( b ) 1995; ( c ) 1996; and ( d ) 1997?

Return tabled.

Question No. 21—

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there you have it. Self-congratulations is the basis for public policy in this country. The other party members all have a well worn spot between their shoulder blades where they have been patting themselves on the back.

The hon. member discounts out of hand the expert advice we received. He is a member of the committee and he sat there and listened to the advice from the likes of Professor Stephen Scott, a professor of the law faculty at McGill University; Mel Smith, former constitutional adviser to no less than three premiers in British Columbia; Gordon Gibson, the former leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia; Gordon Campbell, the current leader of the official opposition, the Liberal Party of British Columbia; and Professor Tom Flanagan from the University of Alberta. They are recognized experts in their fields who have said that this is indeed a violation of Canada's constitution. It is the subject of two lawsuits in British Columbia brought by the B.C. opposition Liberal Party and by the Fishery Survival Coalition. The member stands up and completely discounts this out of hand.

Along with the remarks that he has made about the Reform Party and the aspersions he has cast on us, is he casting aspersions on these people as well? Does he put them all in the same boat as the Reform Party? Is he suggesting that these constitutional legal experts are deliberately attempting to mislead Canadians by fabricating myths?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, since the member in her intervention repeatedly referred to me and things I have said not only today but earlier on—actually I have been involved in this issue for five and a half years—I feel it appropriate that I respond.

I must point out to the House and to anybody who might be watching out there that the member did exactly what I predicted she would do. She slags anybody who disagrees not on the basis of the issue or not on the basis of the substance of the treaty but on the basis that we somehow have dark motives, that we are somehow people of lower moral character because we do not agree with the government's policy direction. That is the first thing I predicted would happen.

She admitted in her intervention that the agreement is flawed but did not talk at all about what the flaws are in the agreement. She totally discounted the expert advice we received from constitutional legal experts, such as Mel Smith, Professor Stephen Scott, Professor Tom Flanagan and a host of others. She glossed right over that and said that irrespective of what these people have told us as parliamentarians that she is right, that somehow she has elevated herself to be a constitutional expert and an expert on the charter of rights because she says so and that is just the way it is.

I will ask the member a legitimate question. If she is so sure that this is not an extra-constitutional document, that this document does not violate the constitution, which is the subject of two separate legal challenges in British Columbia, that the charter of rights and freedoms applies and that the charter of rights of the Nisga'a people will not be diminished under this agreement, why would she and her party not support the one amendment we wanted last week above all other amendments, the amendment to guarantee that the Constitution of Canada and the charter of rights and freedoms would apply and that the self-government provisions in chapter 11 would not be constitutionally entrenched? Why did she not support the one amendment that would have guaranteed a higher likelihood of the charter applying and a lower likelihood of this being seen as a back door amending of the constitution?

Why was she and her party not prepared to support that one amendment? Of all the other defects and flaws in the treaty, that was the one we wanted. We are not happy with many of the other defects, but that was one that we felt was important to have so that if there are any problems in the future, and we know there will be problems, they can be fixed. Why was she not prepared to do that?