Reg Alcock

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with what is a very important and complex question.

The first thing I would ask members to think about on issues like this is the spectrum. We have people who are driven philosophically at one end of the spectrum who believe we should have no compliance. We have people at the other end who believe we should not have electricity. I am not being extreme. Always we have to sit somewhere in the middle.

The reason I gave the example about the practitioners saying we had to have privacy legislation is that in order to have the commerce at the level we want, in order to have my mother buying her groceries via TV, we have to guarantee her we are going to protect her. There is no question about that.

It is in the interest of business to have a good privacy regime. It is in the interest of everybody. In the consultations the minister had with the industry this is exactly what was said. This is broadly supported by industry because industry knows it needs it in order to get the competition and action it wants. The bigger the system, the more people who play and the better it will be.

Unfortunately, while I have read the Fraser report, it is too much driven by philosophy and not enough by research.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot respond in French.

I will not respond in French because it would cause more pain for the questioner than is necessary for the answer right now. But I am practising and I will soon.

The member raises two really important points. I will deal with the second point first because I think it is possible to respond to that fairly quickly. The member is absolute right. It is a sale. There is a great value in collecting that information, organizing it and selling it and there are huge industries that have grown up around that. It raises interesting questions about information that is collected by governments. There is a debate to come on that which I will be very interested in down the road.

We have been giving that information away individually for a very long time, for example every time we give our credit card to someone for our Christmas shopping. I have a blue card in my pocket that we use in my province. Every time we buy our groceries they swipe this card and we can get air miles for that. When it first came out I thought that is kind of nice, I can get some air miles. But what they are really doing is getting my consumption profile so they can do exactly that. They know that I buy a lot of goods for babies because I have a new baby. Those guys who sell to new parents will all of a sudden start sending me the stuff.

There are 10 principles in the bill. Accountability is the first one. An organization is responsible for personal information under its control. The organization now has a responsibility.

The second principle is the purposes for which personal information is collected shall be identified by the organization at or before the time the information is collected. The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for collection, use or disclosure. I invite members to go on to the Internet and look. Almost universally the larger companies that are more advanced in the use of this ask that. If we give them information there will be a box at the bottom saying in a cute way, because they want to encourage us, would we like to receive other information from other suppliers of this product. If we click that box we are going to get exactly what we are talking about.

This legislation gives the control over your information to you. It says you can determine every time your personal information is dealt with electronically. You will know what it is for and you can determine whether it can disclosed. The choice rests with you.

The other issue where the difficulty lies is the balancing act. We have experienced a number of dreadful examples. This is not a statement about any particular philosophy. When governments become too heavy handed and controlling they slow everything down. They limit the ability for organizations to be innovative. They limit the ability for pricing to move quickly. There are a lot of negative consequences that come from that.

On the other hand, we know that if we do not have some regulation, control or penalty then we could be subject to all sorts of abuses. This is one of the problems we face in the House all the time, trying to effect that balance, how much regulation versus how much protection. That will be very much part of the debate.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yes of course I mean this innocuous person the Minister of Industry.

In this House we often get into these partisan debates, that my guy is better than your guy, but I do not mean it that way. I genuinely want all Canadians to be proud of the government, and I am going to talk about the provincial governments in a minute too. They are very much partners and players in this. All Canadians benefit and all Canadians support anything that is done in this way. There has been enormous consultation. This has been worked on for years. Literally thousands of Canadians have been involved in the work leading up to this kind of policy decision.

Getting back to my example, what was coming out of the expert community was that we have to have leadership. People outside Canada are amazed at what Canada has been able to do. That has come about because the Minister of Industry has been so enormously engaged and proactive on these issues from the day he assumed that office.

The minister is a representative of the department. There are people in the department who predate this government and have made it possible for us to be as much in the forefront as we are. We should take time to recognize the hard work, intelligence and thoughtfulness of all the civil servants who support us. These people spend a lot of time and energy helping us be as prepared as we are for what is coming down the road.

I want to come back to the issue of the legislation in general. The detailed legislation has been talked about by the minister and others. It is available for everyone to see. What is important for us to think about is what needs to occur now. In thinking about electronic commerce, there is a very real example.

A group in one city in one province in Canada operates an electronic transaction server. That is the piece of equipment on which the transaction is completed. It is a secure environment where a consumer having decided to purchase something and a vendor having decided to sell something meet electronically so that sale is consummated. The money is transferred to the vendor and the good is transferred to the seller.

That transaction server is in a traditional sense the cash register in the store. It is where the bills have changed hands. It is located in one province. The vendor could be, and increasingly is, located anywhere in the world. The purchaser is also potentially anywhere in the world.

I go on the Internet in the morning and call up Economist magazine which I subscribe to. I am calling up a server that is located in London. I pick up the article I want. The article makes reference to a book. If I hit on that book it takes me to a server in the U.S. and asks if I want to buy the book. I can simply click on a button and buy the book because I am registered with the book seller.

That sale is cleared by a Visa clearance office in Vancouver. That is not in the future. That is today. It happens right now. The company that runs the transaction service in that case is in New York. The vendor is in the central United States. The magazine is in London and my Visa transaction clearance is in Vancouver.

Who pays the tax? How are we taxed on that? There are a variety of legislative regimes that govern all of those areas that are different. If we are to begin to feel the benefits from this, that we believe we can feel, I and I think most who are close to this file believe that we need to look for universal legislation. We need to look for policy that transcends not just a city, province or country but that eventually becomes global.

It becomes global because information is no longer static. Information on me and I suspect on everybody here resides in the U.S. on a variety of machines if we have any interactions, travelled down there or bought something. It will reside in Europe or in China.

When I first came into this House I had the privilege of representing the former house leader and now Deputy Prime Minister in London. Walking through the basement of Westminster I saw a bank machine. Just for fun I pulled out my local bank card, stuck it in and withdrew pounds. It shocked me that they could clear that thing so quickly.

I want the protection of my privacy to exist whether I use that bank machine in London, Paris or Beijing. It is to all our benefit.

Canada is fortunate given our federal structure and the very activist nature of our governments. Quebec has had privacy legislation for a very long time and privacy legislation that covers both the public and private sector. Other provinces are moving now to engage on this issue by bringing in legislation, looking at ways of dealing with the regulations.

We need to be careful. We do not want to impose a heavy handed regulatory environment on commerce. We have had enough experience over the last few decades with the positive and negative sides of that. But I as a consumer want my information protected.

E-commerce in a sense is a funny word because it invokes the issue of commerce, of a sale, of a transaction, but the same technology works in an information transaction. If I want to send secure information, my medical records, and I want a doctor here to be able to call up on his computer my medical record from my doctor's office in Winnipeg, which would be an enormous benefit to me and to the system, I want to make sure that transaction is done securely and in a way that protects my privacy.

What I would argue and what this bill provides for is a regime that supports the very thing that we talk about in this House, a partnership between all the provinces of Canada, all working together to develop a system of law and policy that provides equal protection for all Canadians no matter where they are at any time in any part of this country. I believe the rest of the world is watching what we are doing here in Canada. I believe that we will find that our law, our approach will form the basis for law and policy right around the globe.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in this topic. I have had the honour since 1987 to be associated with the program on strategic computing in the public sector at Harvard University. I have worked with a research group there headed by Dr. Jerry Mechling who is acknowledged to be one of the two most knowledgeable people in public sector information management in the world. It is a personal honour to know Jerry and to be able to work with him and with the team of faculty and researchers he regularly assembles from all over world to consider these issues of how our policy and use of information technologies needs to evolve in order for the citizens of the world to derive the most benefit.

The process we utilized was that three times a year we would call together senior practitioners from the state, federal and local governments in the U.S., from Canada and other countries around the world. We would then draw together experts from the vendor communities like IBM, Dell, Microsoft, et cetera, and from the user communities.

At a conference last year a cross-section of about 120 chief information officers and faculty from schools all over the U.S., with a substantial representation from Harvard, considered the question that is addressed in this legislation. We wrestled with the question and asked people how we should move this forward. We asked how we could build a sense of comfort to encourage the average person who may not be technically adept or who may not have a lot of familiarity or facility with computers to become involved in and adopt electronic commerce.

Since 1987 we have had a great deal of these research meetings. In the initial stages we always talked about technological issues. We needed better case tools. We needed to refine object embedding. We had to sort out the whole process for prototyping. We needed to constantly improve the way in which we built our various services. We needed more band width. We needed better routing.

The consensus from some of the most senior people in the field last year was that the problems in e-com at that point were 2% technical and 98% policy. The technical side of the networks had advanced to a point where there were still some technical problems. There are some issues that still need to be resolved and there always will be because this field is evolving incredibly fast. For the most part those issues were addressable.

What was lacking was a policy and legal structure that would allow us to take the next step. We asked what that question meant, what would a government or a business have to do tomorrow in order to take the next step. A whole list of issues arose which we worked down to a dozen.

The number one and number two issues were that we had no choice but to deal with the privacy regime and we had to do it proactively. We could not sit back and wait, let a bunch of disasters happen and then have the public rise up and push us to do it. Governments around the world needed to be proactive in putting in place privacy legislation which stated very strongly to everybody that this is important and they are going to protect it. There are a lot of ways to do that but that was considered to be a critical factor in allowing e-commerce to advance.

One of the participants gave an interesting example. This was IBM but it is typical of a lot of high priced consultants. He was part of an IBM group doing a workshop with technicians, people who are very comfortable, very familiar with the use of technology. IBM was there to sell its new commerce server. At the start of the workshop he asked the some 200 experienced practitioners, users of the technology, how many of them had bought something on the Internet. About three hands of the 200 people went up in the air. That is what he wanted.

He launched into a discussion about how the new server was going to protect them and how they were going to deal with cryptography and how they were going to deal with the protection of the persons. He went through a whole exercise and at the end of it asked with all of that, how many people would purchase on-line. One more hand went up. Even in that community, which was adept and comfortable and knowledgeable with the technology, there was still an emotional and personal resistance to engaging too much on-line.

The second point raised in that discussion was the issue of leadership. There is an interesting conundrum throughout the world and certainly we see it here. The technologies that are driving business, driving commerce, driving daily life are all technologies that were not in existence when most of the members of this House were in their training years.

When I went through university, the computer was something which sat in a building somewhere and I interacted with it with a series of punch cards. I am not the oldest member in this House. The first IBM PC appeared on a desk in 1980 when a lot of us were well into our working careers.

The people who have evolved into the legislative leadership positions, people in cabinet and senior administration, are people who have grown up and gone through life without the individual comfort with these technologies that someone growing up and going through school and university today will have. I suspect there are lots of examples. My son is four years old. He has been using his computer for a year and a half. My daughter at age six thinks nothing of accessing her Disney programs or other things on the Internet.

Our children are growing up with a completely different relationship to these technologies from what we have, yet we are the people who are in control of the decisions about what they can and cannot do. It creates a problem because some of the fears about the technology are the traditional fears about black boxes and mystical powers that may arise from them. I say that without wanting to be too facetious.

One of my jobs a few years ago was to train senior managers in data analysis on computers. I noticed something early on particularly with people in this age range. There is almost an equation. If someone does not know how to use a computer, then they are somehow stupid. I do not know how to use woodworking tools very well but I do not consider myself stupid. Yet somehow if a person cannot use a computer, a fear arises.

I remember once a gentleman was highly frustrated. He was having trouble getting the model to work and was having trouble with a simple keyboarding thing. I pulled him back from the computer and told him to relax. He said he could not deal with computers. I asked him what he did. He was a jet pilot, a brigadier general in the Israeli air force. He flew a machine every day that had nine computers in it and thought nothing of it. However, his interaction with that box angered him.

The reason I even bothered mentioning this is that there is an element of that kind of fear when we approach these technologies.

We are charged in this House, and I say exactly the same thing to our Prime Minister and others, with doing what we can to put in place all the protections that are necessary for every person in Canada. I frankly believe that our legislation is going to serve as a model for other parts of the world.

We must say to every person in Canada that we take their privacy seriously and that we are going to protect it. We are going to ensure that their information is handled as safely and securely as it is possible to make these systems function. At the same time we are going to say it is going to improve their quality of life.

I read the submissions by the four opposition critics who spoke on the bill when the minister introduced it. I was rather pleased. I think in all four of them we see a recognition of the necessity for doing this and an acceptance of the issue.

We see in it some traditional fears about change. Will there by disillusions? Anytime we produce a change in the market there will be some disillusions. People can create enormous scenarios about how serious those may be but that is an area that needs to be considered. I would argue it is also the reason we need to be proactive and move quickly rather than wait and have the rest of the world make these changes while we have to play catch-up.

On the issue of leadership I would point out, without wanting to be too self-congratulatory of the government, the Minister of Industry and his deputy Michelle d'Auray, the leader of the e-commerce unit.

We Canadians are modest and we tend to be almost a little shy about talking about how good we are. People in Canada are not aware of exactly how far ahead of the rest of the world Canada is.

John Manley since the day he assumed his office has been providing exactly the kind of leadership the professionals I was talking about want to see happen. Manley is the—

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this particular issue.

I was absent from the House for the first three weeks of this session as I was at home in Winnipeg assisting my wife with our new baby. I cannot take as much credit for it as she can, but I think it was a wonderful experience anyway.

However, I had an opportunity to be a spectator or an observer of what has gone on here in the last little while, so when the opportunity arose to speak on it I was only too eager to do so.

I am in my 11th year of elected office. I served two terms in the provincial legislature in Manitoba, in opposition, and I am now in my second term as a federal member. One of the things I learned very quickly when I was first elected was that it is very easy to inflame passions on all sorts of issues. In a sense, when people are in opposition, as I was, they are rewarded for it. When I used to not want to be quoted on something I would step out into the scrum and say something quiet, reasonable and considerate and I would be guaranteed never to appear in print.

However, if I went out and pounded my fists, screamed, yelled and talked about how outrageous and terrible it was, I would be guaranteed a clip. I would even get a camera. Unfortunately this is the environment that we live in. I say unfortunately because when I meet in committee outside of this place with members from all sides of this House that is not the discussion or debate that I take part in. I take part in a discussion about how we do things to improve things for Canadians.

Something every now and again goes wrong around here, but I am not sure what it is. I have only seen once before in my rather short experience that an issue kind of captures the attention of the media and we get sort of a self-reinforcing dance that goes back and forth between members of the opposition who glean all this wonderful attention and the media who have something to write about.

It surprises me when an issue accelerates the way this one has. It is a very serious issue. We have a charge from a group of Canadians that the RCMP have infringed their rights by acting in a way that is above and beyond the way in which they have to act. We have those complaints regularly. We have them in my own province and city. We have something called LERA, the Law Enforcement Review Agency. If somebody feels that a police officer has been abusive to them they have the ability to go before a citizen panel, lay a complaint and have that complaint acted upon. The system acts on their behalf. They do not have to incur any charges. They do not have to incur any costs. They go forward and say “A policeman assaulted me. A policeman abused me”. The system will then act to protect the rights of that citizen. That is the kind of country that we have.

We have a serious charge. I am not going to prejudge it. I do not know, as I was not there. I did not witness it. I have been on both sides of demonstrations. I grew up in an RCMP household. I have also worked on the streets with kids that were badly abused by the police. I am not going to prejudge this situation.

We have a process that has been in place for nearly 12 years that receives a thousand complaints a year and that adjudicates 300 a year. It has had 3,000 cases in its history. We have never felt it acted irresponsibly, under political direction or unethically. In this country we have always felt that the commission defended our rights.

I sit at home and watch the House talk daily about the dishonesty of people, members hearing things in the corners and running out to tell the media, or somebody hearing something in a gym. A member in the House stood up to apologize to somebody privately, saying “If I caused you any hurt, I am sorry”. The member ran into the hallway to tell the press. What are we creating? How are we going to do the work that we all really want to do if that is the kind of atmosphere that we create?

The solicitor general is not just my colleague, he is a friend. I have worked with him for a long time. Members opposite who have an interest in the issues have worked with us together. I know that those members know that the solicitor general would never interfere with the operation of that commission. It is not in his manner, demeanour or ethics. It is not the way he has conducted himself his entire life. That is the reality. This is the man I know and work with and this is the man members on the other side have known and worked with. Yet daily people stand in the House and impugn his motives and call him all sorts of outrageous things. I am shocked by it.

Ed Greenspon wrote an article in the Globe yesterday. I know Greenspon and I know his work. I like him. I think he is a good reporter. He said that the solicitor general's problem was that he spoke too long, he was too open and too honest. Is that a problem? Should we decide it is better to be duplicitous, to duck, weave and hide, not tell the truth and criticize a person in our national paper for being too open? There is something wrong in this debate.

The commission has to investigate. The students are not being charged with anything. The commission is there to act on their behalf. The commission has an additional $650,000. If it feels it needs to access more expertise and resources, it has the budget. It has the power to make those decisions and it always has acted independently. There is a point when we have to get off the merry-go-round and start to deal with the business of Canada in the House.

I heard today a question about fire safety on an airplane. People have died. There is a possibility that planes are unsafe. This is the first time in five weeks that somebody even spoke about it in the House. They are too busy trying to figure out new and cute ways to slander somebody. At some point we have to stop and consider what we are doing and let the process work. If the RCMP have acted improperly, they should be dealt with. If they have not, they deserve our support.

[Louis Riel Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I served notice to all the House leaders and I appreciate their agreement.

Because of the unique nature of private members' bills in that they stand in one person's name, I would like to add the names of Mr. Denis Coderre, the member for Bourassa; Val Meredith, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley; Suzanne Tremblay, the member for Rimouski—Mitis; Lorne Nystrom, the member for Qu'Appelle; and Rick Borotsik, the member for Brandon—Souris.

[Louis Riel Act, June 3rd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-417, an act respecting Louis Riel.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is the result of many years of hard work by dozens and dozens of people: representatives of the Riel family, Metis leaders from across Canada, members of the House, lawyers, historians, and even a former chief justice of Manitoba.

The bill will not bring Louis Riel back to life. Nor does it change our history. What it will do is change our heritage, change what we learn from our history. It will do this by removing the stain of treason from Louis Riel's name.

At this time I ask for unanimous consent of the House, because of the unique nature of the bill, to broaden the names of the list of members supporting the bill.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to the separatists there are no minority francophone communities.

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us about the state of the French language in the rest of the country and especially in the west?

[Committees Of The House, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee of Human Resources and Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Science, Research And Development, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, research and development is vital to a healthy and prosperous economy.

Would the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development please tell the House what the government is doing to foster world class scientific research in western Canada?