Reg Alcock

[Broadcasting Act, September 17th, 2003]

moved that Bill S-8, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. This is a completely unanimous report, with the full support of all members representing all parties.

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a few remarks to the debate on the legislation. I will not go over some of the ground that other members have spoken to already.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the House leader in introducing the bill and to the member for Fredericton. I largely endorse what the member for Fredericton has said. His personal experience is a valuable guide for the House as we think about how the bill might be improved. By and large I support it. It is a move in the right direction.

I was just getting active in politics when the current bill was brought in and when we first adopted the principle of the public, through a tax credit, supporting the activity of political parties. At that time there was a lot of excitement about the tool that this provided to us in helping to encourage individual citizens to get involved in politics. We had a great deal of enthusiasm and hope at that time that this would give us a way to really focus our energies on citizens and electors and perhaps even then of some of the corporate concerns that were arising.

Over time, as that tool became weaker, because it was not upgraded and because inflationary pressures and such were not addressed, there was a diminution of the use of it and some concerns about it. This is a welcome improvement, in particular that this would take us back to that base. There is a saying that the best protection of democracy is an act of citizenry. If the bill becomes a way to encourage and support the activities of citizens in support of the political parties of their choice, that is a very positive step.

There are some things in the bill that are worth underlining. The problem, if I could start that way, with the current legislation is that it does not go far enough on the transparency and disclosure side. It was not until we got into this debate that I even realized it was possible for a member to raise funds that were not receipted. I thought all political donations had to be receipted, and I acted in accordance with that.

A lot of the concerns and worries we have about undue influence and all of that are always made worse by a lack of transparency. Those provisions that call for annual reporting by everyone who raises funds, an annual disclosure of the funds raised and what they are used for, would go a long way to restoring public trust. Frankly if people saw the reality of some of this, they would not be as concerned as some of them rightly are.

The second thing that is touched upon, or hinted at, or that is a possibility in the way the bill is structured, and it has been an active debate among myself and some of my colleagues, is the way the bill begins to pick apart some of the structural items in the organization of a political party. I certainly cannot speak to the organizational structures of other political parties in the House, but it makes a nice separation between the member and his or her association and the party. I would argue that we need to go even further and look within that in the provincial and territorial associations. One way to conceptualize this, and the way I conceptualize our party, is a group of individual associations which come together collectively to create the territorial associations which come together collectively in a federation to create the national party. The national party, like the country, is indeed a federation.

We got that model wrong when we started to centralize a lot of the authority and control for fundraising in the national party rather than for those who were fundraising. For example, I could raise all sorts of money, and am a very active fundraiser. I raised funds in a number of guises for theatres and social causes prior to being elected. The techniques and work of fundraising are something I understand well.

I could raise money right now and it would get sent in and receipted in Ottawa. That donation can be found on the website but it can also be found somewhere within pages and pages of information. It is hard to pick out whether it is a donation to me in my riding. There is nothing that breaks that out for us and there is absolutely nothing that happens in terms of my reporting what I do with the money. Those are important flaws.

The more that I am held accountable for the fundraising I do, the reporting of the use of it and the accounting for it, I think the more confidence people will have in the kind of work I do. I currently report on the money I spend in my riding because it is good practice. That would be a healthy change.

I note the Ontario members on the provincial side have, as all members have during an election campaign, the ability to continue throughout the year to offer tax receipts, collect the money and report on it. There are some useful changes.

On the picking apart of the corporate versus individual, I am a bit of an agnostic on a piece of that. I heard one member on the other side talk about how the Americans had a $1,000 cap on individual contributions and no corporate contributions since 1976, I think. That is right but they opened a big back door and drove all the corporate contributions into big packs. The packs are as powerful or more powerful a force in American politics than any corporation in Canada. I do not think that is a healthy thing, and I am not certain I would want to see us go in that direction.

We are trying to deal with a concern about corporate influence by limiting or trying to find ways to squeeze down that activity. Transparency will be a greater tool than any other control but I am not concerned about the $1,000 limit.

I want to raise something on the question of public financing though. I listened to the member for Elk Island. He raised a concern about having someone come to his door selling Liberal tickets and him having to buy one. I do not think there is anything in the bill that would do that. I think he is saying that he has no objection to the current system where if he gets a donation for his campaign from someone, the public gives him $75 of the first $100. He gets public money back for that. The only the test of any activity is the fact that he is the member of a party and somebody is prepared to give him money.

However he is concerned about money being transferred to him on the basis of his having the electoral support of those same citizens. In a funny way he is saying that he does not think people should be forced to pay, even through the public purse, for political choices they do not want. Yet the proposal is that if there were x number of thousands of people who voted for him, then his party would receive money on that basis. I am not sure how solid his argument is.

It is a new area for us but the reality is that every party has to run an infrastructure, every party has to communicate with 301 ridings and every party has to raise money just to keep the organizational structures alive. The one thing this will do is clarify that. It will put it out for all to see. It will make it logical and predictable. I think it also will reduce some pressure on parties and allow them to get on with the work they need to get on with, which is to represent the citizens that put them there in the first place.

However in that same vein, I have a concern. It is one of those concerns that may be out there a bit. It always worries me when I see central control of some of these fundamental processes that could serve to exclude other groups from getting involved, and I would want to look very carefully at those provisions.

I recently read Preston Manning's book. I think the founding meetings of the Alliance Party took place because certain individuals were prepared to write some very large cheques to underwrite some conventions. I am not saying that to be critical.

There needs to be legitimate opportunities for people who descent, who do not like the existing parties and who have concerns about government to express that, to come together and organize around that. I would be cautious about it, if between elections we were to put funding rules in place that made it impossible for other groups to get active or made it difficult for them to get started. This would be a detriment to the nature of democracy in the country.

Beyond that, I am supportive of the bill. I look forward to it going to committee. I suspect there will be some interesting and important amendments made there.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again we have an interesting couple of questions. One of my statements along the way was that if the government said today it would introduce a national identity card, I would oppose it. I would absolutely oppose it, and I would vote for a motion like the one the New Democratic Party put forward, for exactly the reasons the member raises. I think that in this atmosphere of fear about terrorism and a demand for increased security there is exactly that problem. The problem is that we will willingly let go of a whole bunch of cherished liberties in order to get one potential good.

At the same time, what I worry about and what I am always listening for is this: Let us keep our minds open to the fact that the use of technology, the relationship of data within government data banks et cetera, may be a good thing if it is done under the right conditions. Part of those conditions for me would be--

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The response is huge, unfortunately, but I will try to respond a little bit.

I think we are on the verge of a big change in how we manage public space and how we manage government. I think that some of the problems that all governments face, including this one, derive from excessive secrecy and a lack of accountability; yes, it is a simple one. I think the Chamber serves a real purpose as a national values clarification place for the nation, where true values are debated and national consensus is arrived at, or could be, but this place has become increasingly irrelevant to how we govern ourselves. I think that is wrong.

The question is, how do we turn around something that is as large, complex and cumbersome as government? One of the tools is to re-frame the information environment, which means we have to be open to a number of things, including re-framing how we deliver privacy protection. Otherwise, it becomes a tool for continued bad government.

We cannot just respond to this by saying “we dassn't do it”. We need to open it up a little bit. Is protection of personal privacy important? Yes, exceptionally important. But is breaking down the culture of secrecy and giving us tools that allow us to really manage government important? I think it is, vitally important, and I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

But if I wish to exercise certain activities I have to have it.

The member said that it would be a requirement to have a national ID card, a requirement to possess it and a requirement that it be produced for police on demand. He said there would be a penalty, possibly including jail time, for not having it. Where is that written? I have read the minister's speech and statement and have discussed this with him, and nowhere can I find that. Maybe that is the Alliance view as to how this kind of policy would be delivered.

That is not what is being addressed here. What is being addressed here is that it is time for us to stop saying that the way to deal with things is not to change anything. It is wrong-headed. It is foolish. There are benefits here for citizens in getting government right.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, 3 of the 16 cards I have in my wallet are in fact government cards. For example, I have my health card, my birth certificate and my driver's licence. Nobody suggests that it is an infringement on my privacy rights to have a driver's licence that the police can demand.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened, but frankly not surprised by the tenor of the debate today. It is an incredibly important debate. It is one I suspect that we are going to come back to frequently over the next few years.

I would say that by and large I agree with many of the fears that have been raised on the other side and I will come back to them in some detail. I think they may lie at the heart of this.

The issue of forms of unique identifiers and the use of technology in public space is an incredibly important issue. It is an issue that I research and work with a great deal, both in the U.S. and in Canada.

I am not surprised by the fear. Fear is encountered all over the place. I have a little thing I do with crowds when I talk about this. I ask them to imagine themselves going to a group of their friends and starting a conversation on government use of information technology. How many lines would have to be spoken before the words “Big Brother” or “George Orwell” would be on the table or raised? This malevolent, all controlling, destructive image of government is a very powerful image. The problem is that there is no other image.

We do not have this light, cuddly, and citizen friendly view of government. It does not exist. When members say things such as, “I do not trust the government to do this”, I say that I agree with them. I do not trust governments just yet to do this. When they say, “I do not think they have the technological competence”, and there are examples of that, I agree with them. I think those are good arguments.

Unfortunately, the text of the motion that was put forward seems to be a 21st century equivalent of book burning. We will not talk and think about it. It is wrong. Do not do it. Let us back away. And that is also wrong.

Part of this is rooted in a human tendency to fear change, to fear difference, and to fear thinking about how we might do things in a different manner. Part of it is a fear of technology. Most of the members in the House are of an age cohort who did not grow up with technology. They do not have that kind of day-to-day comfort that our children are acquiring right now.

It is interesting in that context, and if we think about the world wide web, that the most recent version of the Internet that most people know, really did not go live until after the government was in office. Netscape, which was the first truly consumer friendly graphical interface, was launched in November 1994. It is that recent. Our capacity to adapt, enhance, and to integrate what all these changes and new powers mean are quite limited.

I am not concerned or I am not saddened so much by the fears that come up here. I think there are grounds to have those fears.

I am, though, concerned about the nature of public debate. How do we, people who represent the citizens of Canada, have a discussion about a topic like this that just does not dissolve into they are bad, we are bad? We will just harangue each other with old images that fit old stereotypes without ever getting down to saying that there might be some ways in which we could do some things differently that would enhance government, that would make government more transparent, and that would make government more accountable.

It is passing strange to me, frankly, that a couple of members have spoken and referenced the current Privacy Commissioner as an authority on this. This is the same Privacy Commissioner when the access to information commissioner said that members should be allowed to see the schedule of the Prime Minister as an accountability measure. This Privacy Commissioner beat him up for it, for something that can be done in other countries.

This Privacy Commissioner, if we note editorial opinion around the country, does not have the kind of credibility necessary to champion a cause as important as privacy. I think the right to a private life separate from government is a right. It is a right that is not extended in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it should be. I think the right to privacy is my right to do things separate from my government and without its control and direction.

Historically, though, it has been confused also with the right to anonymity. My right to practice my religion in certain contexts in the not too recent past may have imposed a price on me that I did not want to pay, an ability to get a job or in some more odious cases in pre-war Germany, much more serious consequences.

The right to my exercise of private freedoms were often confused with anonymity and secrecy and I think it has created problem. What is one of the big problems in public management today? What is one of the big problems in how citizens or legislators relate to government? It is the virtual impenetrability of government. It is the culture of secrecy that exists within our public service. It is the inability to see what is happening in government.

What is the answer whenever one tries to expose that information? It is that the information could not be accumulated because it would violate privacy. Privacy gets used as a protection in a club to prevent good democratic leadership and good public accountability.

The other thing that is important to think about is that privacy in the form of anonymity is largely a myth. We give it up every day. I am one who weeds out the cards that I carry because I hate to carry a lot of plastic in my pocket. I think I carry a minimum of 16 cards. I carry one for my health plan, one credit card, one bank card, an Air Miles card, and a Safeway club card because I can easily go in and get all kinds of discounts when I buy groceries for my family. In doing that, I give up a huge amount of personal information in terms of my buying patterns, my consumption habits and all of that. That is the purpose of those cards.

In private space we are only beginning to get our heads around what this does to our rights to exist as individuals separate from either the demands and desires of the company or of government. The concept of privacy that we see promulgated by our current Privacy Commissioner, and as I hear repeatedly on this side of the House, is that it simply does not exist. It is government in a number of forums and other organizations. It is argued that credit card companies know more about us than anyone else because they can see where people are and what they do on a daily basis.

Because of our instant reaction to privacy good-change bad, we have not allowed ourselves to explore how privacy could be, and I would argue needs to be, reconceptualized to deliver the right of privacy to all citizens, but allow us to enhance our right to hold our government to account. I see a reconceptualization of this as an enhancement of democracy and our rights as citizens.

When we look at the narrow issue of the identity card, I agree. I am an agnostic on this. The establishment of one unique identifier that is mine and mine alone has a huge advantage in terms of the kinds of changes that could come about in terms of my ease of service. I like the Quebec model, which was essentially a voluntary model, that said people could simply sign up for it and they did not want it, they did not have to have it. People had the right to refuse and remain anonymous.

For this I applaud the minister. He is a personal friend of mine. I know he has thought about and struggled a lot with this. He genuinely sees this not as sneaking in some form of public policy. He says this is an important issue. He can see a value to it and is saying he wants to have a discussion about it. If the discussion were to simply spend a few hours saying it is a bad thing and we should never discuss it again, I think we would have missed a huge opportunity. The House should take up the challenge and members from all sides should spend some time focusing on this.

I am reminded and should inform the House that I am splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

The establishment of a national unique identifier is an important enhancement to public life in Canada. There are four preconditions for me: first, that we take the reform of government and public management seriously; second, that we enhance public accountability through reorganizing and changing the laws and structures that govern how we hold public information; third, that we strengthen democratic leadership and accountability from the public side to this chamber; and fourth that we challenge the culture of secrecy that exists within the public service and that we accelerate. We have a chance now. There is new legislation on the table on access to information. There is a chance to review the privacy legislation.

I think we should take up that challenge and review both those bills with an eye to centring both of those important pieces of legislation around the rights of citizens. I think that within that we will find that having a unique way of identifying citizens will be a huge enhancement to the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of the government that we as Canadians enjoy.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tempted as I am to respond to the health questions and point out that the member's health information is only as secure as the lock on the dumpster behind his doctor's office, let me venture into the civil liberties debate.

I too have a quote from a civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, from the Harvard law school. He said:

Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same.... A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping.... From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few.

How would the member for Winnipeg Centre respond to that?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the member opposite had to say as he rejected any thought, any discourse or any debate on this topic. I agree with some of his concerns about government moving in this direction at this time and I will speak about that later in debate.

A whole series of changes have taken place in the world in which we and our constituents, the people we serve, live. They have served to do various things to diminish personal privacy, because privacy is largely a myth right now given the pervasive nature of the kind of tools that we use to live our lives. Tremendous benefits have come to us through creative uses of technology in other aspects of our lives, benefits and efficiencies that are not received through government.

Is the hon. member opposed to the nature of a compulsory national identity card, or is he just generally opposed to government having anything to do with technology?