Charlie Penson

[Research And Development, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government spends on research and development, Canadian companies are still at the bottom of the heap when it comes to R and D spending.

Yesterday, the finance minister's response was to throw more money at the problem. That is not the answer. The answer is to bring down the government's sky-high taxes.

When is the industry minister going to convince his colleagues to do just that?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am happy today to debate Bill C-5, a bill that was first introduced in the last session. It is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. If the bill passes it will take the existing Canadian Tourism Commission, which is part of Industry Canada at the moment, and give it crown corporation status.

The question that arises immediately, and I think the parliamentary secretary raised it as well, is whether a crown corporation is necessary for the Canadian Tourism Commission. I will attempt to make the case in my speech that it is not necessary and is more probably a case of empire building than real need.

The first question we have to ask is where is this real need coming from. Who is expressing it? The Canadian Tourism Commission was created in 1995 to promote Canadian tourism. It establishes partnerships with the private sector, the provinces and the federal tourism partners. It uses the money it receives from the various sectors to do research and to market Canada as a travel destination.

The CTC receives an appropriation of approximately $65 million annually. Of that amount, $12 million goes to salaries and overhead and approximately $52 million goes to provide promotion and product development. The industry matches the amount, so that a total of $140 million is spent annually. The CTC has 62 employees in Ottawa.

The CTC has a 26 member decision making board of directors which functions as a special operating agency in delivering the tourism mandate of the federal government. The board of directors is comprised mainly of private sector companies with direct interest in establishing Canada as a preferred tourism destination. My understanding is that the two big proponents of this are the airline industry and the Hotel Association of Canada.

When I received a briefing on the bill from the CTC, I was told the commission wants to become a crown corporation because it feels constrained and cannot operate effectively within the government. It says that it cannot move quickly enough. The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that because it is operating in a private sector environment maybe it needs to become a crown corporation. I would suggest, if that is the case, that maybe it should just be in the private sector.

My experience with crown corporations since coming here in 1993 is that they can get away with a lot, but I did not realize, and still do not realize, that they can actually move more quickly. I do not think that is the case. I think they are more bureaucratic.

The Reform Party has a problem with crown corporations in general. We believe that the ownership and control of corporations should be placed in the sector that can perform the task most cost effectively, with the greatest accountability to the owners and the least likelihood of incurring public debt. We believe there is overwhelming evidence that this would be the private sector in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, we believe that many of them should be either privatized or go back to the departments which spawned them originally. This particular one wants to spawn out of the Department of Industry and become a crown corporation.

We have seen the privatization of a number of crown corporations in the past, including CN Rail, Air Canada, Petro-Canada and many others. Quite frankly, I do not think that the public has noticed that there is any huge problem with those privatizations. CN Rail used to lose about $2 billion or $3 billion a year on average and was a drain on the public treasury. A crown corporation that contributed to the national debt of some $575 billion that we still have is now doing very well in the private sector. We hear about the merging of two airlines, and they are also making money. PetroCan, no longer constrained by being an agency of government, is also doing a lot of work and doing well at the oil field in Hibernia.

There is no good reason to have crown corporations. They should be converted to private sector institutions or left with the department they are currently in so we would have better accountability to parliament.

We will be opposing this bill. We feel there is no good reason to give the Canadian Tourism Commission crown corporation status.

Recently the Department of Industry issued a paper which supports the rapid divestiture of crown assets. This makes me wonder why the department is sponsoring this bill in the first place. It seems to be in direct contradiction to the way the Department of Industry is going.

I refer listeners to a paper entitled “Canada in the 21st Century—Institutions and Growth—Framework Policy as a Tool of Competitive Advantage for Canada” by Ronald Daniels of the University of Toronto. The author argues that a key component of competitive policy and institutional environment is the minimization of state ownership in a productive sector of the economy. Is that not a direct contradiction to what the government wants to do with this tourism agency by turning it into a crown corporation?

In comparison to other OECD countries, Canada has had historically high levels of state ownership. I know this goes back a few years, but I think it is still very relevant. In 1986 the Economic Council of Canada reported that government-owned and controlled companies accounted for 26% of the net fixed assets of all Canadian corporations in 1983. Yet, these firms accounted for less than 5% of the total employment of the country. That does not say very much for the employment creation capabilities of government-owned companies.

Crown corporations are often unaccountable. My experience since 1993, being the critic for our party for international trade and having to deal with the Export Development Corporation, for example, has not been good. I would suggest they have been basically bad experiences. I feel that accountability is simply not there.

Whenever we try to get information about how taxpayers' money is being spent we get the runaround. It is a vicious circle. If we ask the minister, he says that the entity is at arm's length from him. He is not responsible. If we try to go to the crown corporation, it will plead that the confidentiality of its private or commercial stakeholders will be compromised if specific monetary information is released. Getting information from crown corporations ends up being an exercise in futility. I suggest this would be no different. There is no reason to believe it would be different.

As a division within Industry Canada, the CTC is accountable directly to the minister and the minister is accountable to parliament. That is the way it should be. Either that or the commission should be privatized. It should not become a crown corporation.

I also suspect that the cost of running the CTC as a crown corporation is going to be higher than it is now. The briefing I received suggested that moving the operation to Toronto is a possibility. I can just picture it. Instead of taking up a floor in the C.D. Howe Building at Industry Canada, which is across the street, the commission will need some prominent downtown real estate in Toronto at top dollar.

Salaries will have to go up. To buy a house in Toronto costs twice as much as anywhere else, and then there is the matter of moving and relocating costs for 62 people. It is empire building and it certainly will not be cheap. I am sure the emotional cost to all families involved will also be a problem.

I suggest that empire building is what tends to happen within crown corporations. In my view and in the view of our party we should be getting rid of the few crown corporations that are left rather than adding more.

Tourism is a very important industry. Canada is a spectacular tourist destination and the Reform Party believes that we should promote Canada as a travel destination. Tourism is a big industry for Canada.

A trip through Jasper or Banff national parks in my home province of Alberta in the summertime, or anytime for that matter, is an experience in itself.

They are very busy areas. It is hard to get hotel rooms. People from all over the country want to come to visit the majesty that is ours.

In fact Canada is the 12th largest tourist destination. Last year tourism generated jobs at twice the pace of most Canadian businesses. It also generated $44 billion in revenue for the Canadian economy.

A press release issued by the CTC states that international travel numbers for the first three months of 1999 indicate that this year may well be another record-breaking year for the Canadian tourism industry. Compared with the same period in 1998, international tourists have made 11% more trips to Canada of more than one night's stay.

I suggest that the low Canadian dollar is probably responsible for a big part of that, but we need all the help we can get to balance the service sector because a lot of Canadians also travel outside Canada, especially in the winter months when the snowbirds head to Florida and Arizona. However, I am happy to report that there are a lot of tourists coming to Canada, for whatever reason.

It is clear that Canada needs tourism and that we should market our wonderful country abroad, but it is not clear that we need a crown corporation to carry out that activity. Therefore, my colleagues and I in the Reform Party will be voting against this bill. We will be voting for Canada as a tourist destination. We see no compelling need for a crown corporation.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House that my colleague, who had prepared for a 20 minute speech, be allowed the 20 minutes for his speech, to reflect exactly what that member said.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer has considerable experience as a result of being on the foreign affairs standing committee for the last six years and as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party. He knows something about the way Canada handles international treaties and the signing of international treaties and agreements.

The space station agreement made with the United States, Japan, the European Union and Russia is one such agreement Canada signed two years ago. It is now before the House to be ratified. We have had considerable difficulty with the process of not having any input and essentially rubber stamping that issue.

I wonder how he would compare what is happening with the Nisga'a agreement, the signing of a treaty again and expecting the House to rubber stamp it with no amendments, and the approach the government is using on the international scheme of things which does not seem to adequately consult members of parliament.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not qualify for the category my hon. colleague mentioned, but seeing none of the green foreheads standing I thought I would ask a question of my colleague from Elk Island.

Being the critic for industry, I want to say that the Reform Party is very supportive of Bill C-4 and the Canadian Space Agency. I know that my colleague had many good comments about the work that space station will do to help in the future.

My colleague is a keen follower of new technologies and the ability of the space station to monitor Earth. The good that it will do for crop monitoring for farmers and the monitoring of the ice pack to aid in the navigation of shipping in our Arctic are all things that I think my colleague from Elk Island would agree are important factors.

Some of the things that we take for granted in Canadian society, such as individual property rights, are not available under the constitution and yet we have fee simple use of our land. We have fee simple title to our land, whether it be a lot, a house or a farm.

Intellectual property rights and patent rights are being protected for Canadian companies and the Canadian government when doing research on the international space station. The fact that there are going to be eight different countries involved makes it important to protect intellectual property and patent rights. Yet we see in the Nisga'a agreement things that we take for granted in our Canadian law through intellectual property rights.

In the Nisga'a agreement property rights are not protected for Canadian Nisga'a women in terms of a marriage breakup. They are not protected in terms of fee simple land for the Nisga'a. Individuals will not be able to own a piece of property. They are going down that road of communal property which is a failed policy. Even the east bloc countries in eastern Europe finally had to admit that it does not work.

I would like my colleague's comments. What does he think of the comparison between the need for intellectual property rights on the space station and doing it here at home?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to debate Bill C-9, the Nisga'a implementation treaty.

What I am really disappointed about is the way the whole thing has developed. We have seen again the government's misuse of government power. Time allocation was imposed on the Nisga'a bill at second reading, which was something like the 58th time the Liberal government has used time allocation or cut off debate since 1993. It took Brian Mulroney's administration nine years to get to that figure, but the Liberal government only took six. This is a terrible affront to Canadian citizens. This is a very historic moment in our time. I believe historians will look back at this time and ask “What were they thinking about? Why was debate cut off? Why did they not discuss the very wide implications of what they were doing?”

In regard to the Nisga'a itself, there has been a considerable change in the attitude of the courts since the NDP government of B.C. was elected in 1991. There are no treaties in effect in B.C. and there never were. Therefore, there is some need to do that. There has been a tremendous change in the B.C. NDP government. It has essentially acquiesced. It did not put up a fight in regard to these land claims. It let the supreme court make decisions without any argument on the con side.

The reason I say that it will be an historic debate and an historic time for Canada is partly because of what the Indian affairs minister said a few days ago, which is on the minds of most Canadians. It will be on the minds of more Canadians as they learn more about this treaty and where we are going. What the Indian affairs minister said was that what we are doing with the Delgamuukw, the Nisga'a and the east coast lobster fishery is leading to a claim on all the resources of Canada.

I see it in my riding of Peace River where the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development came up with a memorandum of understanding about opening up all of Treaty 8. One hundred years after Treaty 8 was signed, the minister has now reached an agreement, which says in essence that we are going to open it up, we are going to give them more money and more land. It would be a done deal were it not for the Alberta government saying “Just a minute. There are a lot of claims on that land through resource companies, forestry, oil and gas interests. This is public land”.

What effect has it had in my riding? It has had the serious effect of really depressing investment. Who would invest when they do not know who the owner will be and what the terms will be as a result of that ownership?

The minister let the cat out of the bag, but essentially most people need to be very clearly aware that this is just a first step in a very long journey.

Let us deal with that for a moment. When our ancestors came to this country I do not think there was anyone who did not recognize that the aboriginal people were the first people here. That is an absolute given. Did they have the use of the land? Of course they did. They had the use of the land before we got here.

There are now about 300,000 aboriginal people living on reserve. There are about 400,000 living off reserve. Because things have gone off the rails so badly on the reserves they do not even participate. They are living in other areas off reserve, mostly in cities such as Winnipeg. That leaves over 29 million other Canadians who have to be dealt with. We have to come to some kind of accommodation here. It does not mean that we will give away the entire country to 300,000 on reserve and 400,000 off reserve. Is that the answer? Of course not.

A lot of us came from other areas. My ancestors came from Scotland, a land that was taken away by the English. Does that mean I should put in a land claim there? Some of my ancestors came from France, from the religious wars, from the Protestant side that were driven out of France. I am going to France for a vacation this year. Do I look up to see where my ancestors came from and put in a land claim there? Of course not. We simply have to treat people on the basis of equality in the country; equal opportunity for everybody involved.

I want to say from the outset what the Reform Party is saying about how we should be treating aboriginal people in Canada. It is all on the basis of equality. We want a fresh start for all aboriginal people. I have several reserves in my riding. I see the poverty there. I also see rich people who hire expert advisers from the United States paying them $150,000 a year for advice on medical facilities and on all kinds of things to try to start businesses on reserves. They are leeches living off the system. Other people are living in abject poverty on those reserves. Is that what we want to perpetuate? I do not think so.

We want aboriginal people to be full and equal partners in Canadian society. We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners both on and off reserve. We want aboriginal families to be protected by the same laws that govern non-aboriginal families. We want aboriginal people to have the same rights and protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want to eliminate the discriminatory barriers that widen the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. I see this every day in my riding. We want to ensure a bright future for all Canadians regardless of the colour of their skins. What we are looking for is equality for all.

How will the treaty accommodate that? I would suggest that it fails miserably. People will become aware, just as they did with the Charlottetown accord, the great debate on the constitution, and with the Meech Lake accord before that, of the contents of the Nisga'a treaty and the wider implications for all Canadians.

A Liberal member from southwestern Ontario found out firsthand what happens when there is a land claim in an area. The Indian affairs department buys up farmland and pays exorbitant prices in order to accumulate enough land for a reserve. The local farmers cannot compete for the land. That is the kind of awareness I am talking about.

I suggest at some point there will be a land claim made for the Bay Street area of Toronto. Members should try to put some numbers together on what that will cost because the aboriginal people were there first and had the use of that land. Is that going to be the criteria by which we judge this? The finance department should come up with an estimate of what the cost might be.

I just want to read a Globe and Mail article that was in the paper this weekend. It states:

This week, the Finance Department produced a $200 billion figure—the worst-case scenario if Canada's native communities getting everything they are currently claiming in litigation and land claims. It is a staggering amount, more than what Ottawa collects each year on taxes and revenues.

Even so, the figure is incomplete:

It is incomplete because it does not include what the government has already spent on settlements. It does not account for the several thousand lawsuits that have yet to be filed. It does not account for the additional 57 major land claims, including the bulk of the province of British Columbia.

Even while we are debating the Nisga'a treaty, other groups living in the area are saying “No, that is partly our land. You have taken some of our land in this Nisga'a agreement and we have a claim in on that land as well”. We see there are overlapping claims. If we read our history books we know that the earlier explorers who came out here knew that the land changed hands. There were wars from time time. It was in one group's possession at a certain time and in another group's possession at another time.

What is the cost? It is $200 billion and counting. We have a government that is completely out of control. I want to talk about the local implications for my riding and for the national scene.

I will now talk about a good friend of mine, Archie Calliou, who is now deceased. He was an Indian who never took a treaty. I met with him many times and he would say to me “Charlie, the sooner this system is beaten down and every aboriginal person on earth has equality of status the same as the rest us the better”. He would tell me that his father told him to never take a treaty because he would be on welfare the rest of his life.

He married a woman from the Sucker Creek Band at High Prairie who had been on treaty. She got away from the treaty and began working in a hospital in the Beaverlodge area. They owned a home, had a holiday trailer and took vacations. He worked for years and years on substance abuse on reserves. He said that if the system was allowed to continue, 100 years from now it would be exactly the same. There would be a tremendous waste of the potential of aboriginal people. He said that the reserve system had to be broken down. There are no property rights on reserve and no incentive for somebody who really wants to get ahead because it is communal property. He said that the sooner we did away with the system the better.

I am voting against the bill. I think every Canadian should be aware of the serious implications it poses.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. colleague. I know that he has many important points to make. However, I would note that there is not one Liberal member in the House and on an important debate like this I think that is very improper.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the flow of the debate back and forth and the very long question that was asked, I know there were a number of points my colleague did not have a chance to deal with.

I wonder if we could seek consent of the House to have the time extended another four minutes so my colleague could answer those questions.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to speak on Bill C-4 which implements an agreement that Canada signed last year with the United States, Japan, Russia and 11 countries of the European Union.

The agreement formulates Canada's participation in the international space station. The space station is a bold and exciting project which has nations around the world working together in a spirit of co-operation rather than rivalry.

It is the largest science and technology project in the history of humanity and Canadians should be proud of the role we are playing and that we will continue to play a key role in its development.

In its final form, the space station will cover an area as large as a football field. My colleague was just asking whether it was an American or Canadian football field size. I do not know the answer to that question, but I know that it will weigh over 450 tonnes and orbit the Earth at an average altitude of 400 kilometres. It will be clearly visible in the night sky as it orbits the Earth. I am not sure whether Canadians will be able to see the new generation space arm and hand that is going to be there, but they will certainly see it assemble the space station as it is being constructed.

The habitation models and laboratories will accommodate a permanent international crew of seven astronauts dedicated to advancements in areas of biotechnology, engineering, Earth observation and telecommunications.

I am pleased to say today that the Reform Party will be supporting the speedy passage of the bill. I recognize there is some urgency in getting the bill passed quickly to meet the commitments that we have already made to our partners on the project.

The leader of the Reform Party is a keen follower of space technology. He expresses keen interest in the project and I know he wants it to go ahead. Many of my colleagues have the same kind of keen interest in this area. I have had the opportunity of touring the Houston Space Science Centre two years ago. I really enjoyed that experience and marvelled at the technology that we have achieved in the world in just some 30 years.

I will go back to a comment made by the parliamentary secretary when he talked about national railways. A distant relative of mine, George Stephenson in England in the early 1800s, was the man who invented the first steam locomotive and the railway that opened up the world. The innovation that happened as a result of the railway is what we are seeing today in a new forum, the new forum being space technology and a very exciting one at that.

Before I get into a bit of the background, I just want to say that if the bill were to come to all stages today we would be very much in favour of it passing quickly. Reform will be supporting the bill.

I will provide listeners with a bit of background as to when and how the space station got its start. Back in January of 1984, the President of the United States directed NASA to develop and place in orbit a permanently manned space station. At the time, President Ronald Reagan invited friends and allies to participate in its development and share the benefits.

At the Quebec Summit in March 1985, Canada accepted this invitation and confirmed Canada's interest in co-operating at the summit meeting in Washington the following year. At the same time, various other countries expressed interest in the project and over the years signed memorandums of understanding.

It was recognized that Russia could greatly enhance the capabilities of the space station because it had a long list of accomplishments in the area of human space flight and long duration missions. On December 6, 1993, Russia was invited to take part in the project. Arrangements were then made for co-operation on human space flight activities, including the Russian-U.S. Mir shuttle program, to prepare for the the building of the space station.

On January 29, 1998, these countries got together and signed the Civil International Space Station Agreement which established a framework for the design, development, operation and utilization of the space station.

Today we have Bill C-4 at second reading which seeks to implement the agreement that we signed last year to make this possible.

I will speak for a moment about the agreement itself and the bill that implements it. The international agreement was signed by Canada, the United States, Japan, Russia and 11 European countries. It contains 28 articles and an annex which summarizes the tasks of the various countries that they have committed themselves to. In Canada's case, the Canadian Space Agency will provide three elements: a mobile servicing centre, a special purposes dexterous manipulator, the hand, the new generation Canadarm and space station-unique ground elements.

The articles lay out the objectives and scope of the agreement, international rights and obligations, ownership of the elements of the equipment and the management of the space station itself. As well, aspects of the design and development are covered: the right to provide qualified crew, transportation, the right of access to the space station and the provision of a communications network.

Each partner will bear the cost of fulfilling its respective responsibilities under the agreement, including sharing, on an equitable basis, the common systems operation costs, the activities attributed to the operation of the space station as a whole.

An important article in my view is article 19 which deals with the exchange of data and goods. Each partner to the agreement agrees to transfer all technical data and goods considered necessary for the fulfilment of the partners' responsibilities.

Bill C-4 contains provisions in clause 7 that give the government the power to force companies, individuals and third parties who are not in direct contractual relationship to the crown to release information related to the space agency. This power is necessary in the event that a company working under contract to the government on the project gets bought out by another company and is unwilling to honour the company's contractual obligations. This would severely affect its ability to operate. Therefore there is a need for clause 7.

Clause 8 provides safeguards to ensure the documents that are so produced are not unduly communicated to other parties. While the exchange of information and scientific data is crucial to the success and successful development of the entire project, the protection of intellectual property rights is also important. To ensure that intellectual property rights are protected, the agreement contains article 21 which states:

For the purposes of intellectual property law, an activity occurring in or on a space station flight element shall be deemed to have occurred only in the territory of the partner state of that element's registry.

This gives some protection to those countries that are conducting research and development there with new products. They will have some legal parameters around the product they produce in space. It will belong to them.

Normal patent procedures will apply. That means that a person or entity first filing a patent is the owner of that intellectual property. That is a very important point. With so many partners working on this space station, it is important that there is protection for those partners in regard to their research and development.

The bill also contains amendments to the criminal code. These amendments ensure that any criminal act which is committed in space by a Canadian crew member falls under Canadian law. That Canadian would not be tried under the law of the United States or Russia for example.

That brings me to Canada's involvement in this station. Recently Julie Payette became the first Canadian to board the space station but that will not be the end by any means. In 2000 Marc Garneau will participate in his third space mission as a crew member of a shuttle mission. He will be followed by Chris Hadfield who will install Canada's space station robotic manipulator system, the next generation Canadarm and the main element of the mobile servicing system called MSS for short. This goes to the building of the space station itself and enables the space station and its partners to construct the space station once the new robotics is in place with the new Canadarm and hand. That will provide the necessary infrastructure to do the work to put the space station together. Once installed, the MSS will move around the space station doing assembly and repair work.

Canada is also contributing to a vision system for the operators of the remote manipulator who must operate the robotic arm from inside the windowless space station, no small task I would suggest. On the ground, the MSS operations complex at the Canadian Space Agency in Saint Hubert, Quebec will plan missions, monitor the condition of the remote manipulator and train space station crew in its use.

The cost of designing, developing, operating and launching the MSS into orbit is approximately $1.4 billion over 20 years. That covers the period of 1984 to 2004. It costs approximately $3 per Canadian taxpayer per year. Canada's contribution is relatively small at just 2.5% but it is important nonetheless.

The 1999 federal budget provided the Canadian Space Agency with $430 million in new funds over three years which stabilized the agency's budget at $300 million per year starting in the year 2002-03.

That brings me to the present and future benefits the Canadian Space Station and our involvement might bring Canadians. The scientific benefit for Canadians from the space station will be our ability to monitor Earth, to study our environment including agricultural crop monitoring, that is, if there are any Canadian farmers and farm crops left to monitor in the future. However, it is an important aspect and I think it will deliver important benefits. It will have the ability to monitor the Canadian Arctic ice pack so that there will be aid to Canadian ships navigating in Arctic waters.

Close to 90% of Canada's investment is going out in contracts to Canadian firms. The rest is going to universities. Since 1987 over 150 contracts have been let for automation and robotics technology development.

During the space station's estimated 10 year lifespan, Canada will be able to expand its research in microgravity with applications to human disorders such as osteoporosis and cancer. Canada will also continue its research into protein crystallization in space which will be a big aid to medical research in Canada.

The technologies that already resulted from our space involvement include the first robotic refuelling station. This was developed by a firm in British Columbia in partnership with Shell. As well, a Quebec firm has applied space expertise to develop a digital imaging system for X-rays which eliminates the need for photographic films. In addition, a company in Newfoundland has developed a sensitive skin which was originally developed for space robotic manipulators and is now being applied to artificial limbs.

Many Canadian firms have successfully entered international markets by landing contracts based on the expertise they gained on the various aspects of the space project. Other firms are helping partners in other countries with their own contribution to the space project. For example, EMS Technologies of Ottawa recently won a $9.5 million contract from Mitsubishi to supply electronics to Japan's contribution to the space station. There is an ongoing benefit.

It is clear that Canada's involvement in space is producing tremendous returns. On our own we would not be able to develop or fund a project of this magnitude, but in co-operation with our peace-loving partners the potential for a meaningful contribution and rewarding spinoffs is great. I suggest it will be no less important than technologies in the industrial revolution such as the innovations which led to the discovery of the steam locomotive and the railway itself.

Perhaps most important of all is that Canada's young people will follow Canada's achievements in space, thereby sparking their interest in the fields of science and technology. We do not need to be reminded that our future prosperity lies in our ability to encourage pursuit of knowledge for those that follow behind us.

On that note, I will end my speech. I want to inform the House that the Reform Party is supporting this bill in all stages. We do not want to delay its speedy passage in any way.

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today on part 2 amendments to Bill C-6 which was formerly Bill C-54.

This is a fairly new area for me. I just became the industry critic for the official opposition about a week ago. The former critic, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, has done some excellent work in this area. I know he has the support of a lot of advocacy groups that would like to see some changes made to the bill. I will talk about them in a few moments.

When I was following the bill in my capacity as a trade critic for our party, I thought it would deal essentially with the e-commerce aspect. If there was to be a privacy bill, I thought that it would be a stand alone bill. I would have preferred if that had been the case. We know there is a need to update Canada's law with regard to electronic commerce. Technology has passed a lot of things by. There is product moving around the world on aircraft these days, such as UPS which wants to have electronic signatures which will speed up the whole area of getting paid faster and so on.

The bill is essentially divided into two areas, privacy and electronic commerce. I will deal specifically with the part 2 amendments. We will be supporting the government amendments because they will clarify the bill, make it easier to understand and make sure the privacy aspect is respected.

We will not be supporting the Bloc on its amendments because we see them as a delaying tactic. However, I do have some sympathy for the Bloc members' concerns about the federal government again muscling its way into provincial jurisdiction and not using a co-operative approach. It is deplorable that it would rather use the stick than the carrot to achieve its goals. I suggest the government should learn that we can get a lot further with the carrot approach.

I have concerns regarding what I would see as provincial jurisdictions in a few areas that the federal government is moving into. The federal government has moved, with its jurisdictional levers in using the hammer approach on the trade and commerce aspect, by saying that if it cannot get co-operation it will do it on its own and if they do not put in legislation within a three year timeframe, federal legislation will to apply. That is a pretty crude instrument to use.

I am concerned that the provinces will need to introduce privacy information and legislation in the area of health care and all the social areas that the public is so concerned about. We need privacy surrounding medical records and records in terms of who is on social welfare. Those kind of things need to be introduced quickly by the provinces to protect that area.

We know the federal government has moved in the area of health care that is within its jurisdiction. It is nibbling at the edges, but if the provinces do not put in their own legislation, it is not clear what will happen in the area of health care privacy as introduced in the bill.

Quite frankly, a lot of people have good reason to not trust the government as to what its intentions are. We saw it muscle into provincial jurisdiction over the years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 70 years this century. We have seen the amount of workload and the number of bureaucrats increase. It is partly because it has muscled into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

The old BNA of 1867 was pretty clear on what that jurisdiction was and that needs to be respected. I think we would have a lot stronger country for it. However, because it is not clear, it is important that the provinces act on their own to protect those interests.

I am concerned about the use of time allocation again. I know there is a bit of a filibuster going on by the Bloc members. I think they have some reason to do that because of this idea of getting into the area of provincial jurisdiction. However, we have to remind the Liberal government that it is soon going to be approaching the Brian Mulroney record of 65 time allocations. I think this is the 55th time in six years that this Liberal government has restricted parliament by the use of time allocation. Mulroney took nine years to get to 65. The Liberals are going to beat him to it. They sat on this side of the House when they were in opposition and deplored it, as well they should, but they are now using the same blunt tactics again.

I want to get to the point about the amendments that my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has introduced which will help clarify some of the social areas regarding health and health information. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. I will take a moment to outline the general thrust of those motions.

Those proposed amendments would require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and expressed consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose which the information which was originally collected. The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to make sure that it exists. We think these amendments move to strengthen that, in particular with respect to health information.

The proposed amendments will also require that any non-consensual of disclosure of personal health information for research and scholarly purposes be approved in advance by the privacy commissioner. This would provide the necessary balance between the need for available research data and the right to privacy. The Liberals may again argue that they do not want to give the privacy commissioner binding powers.

The proposed amendments would prohibit the outright disclosure of personal health information to financial institutions. This is a very strong proposal that would ensure that banks do not attempt to collect health information that could be used to refuse mortgages and other financial services. We think that those amendments will strengthen the legislation.

In principle, we support Bill C-6 and we are going to be supporting those portions of it that we think are helpful.

There is a fine balance as we move to the new technologies. Information technology is advancing very quickly, for example the Internet. I know that it is a fine balance to try to strike that there should be open and free discussion, free speech. We do believe that the government has an obligation to protect the privacy of our citizens and therefore support the broad thrust of Bill C-6.

I want to just point out in the time I have left that my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona has had pretty broad support for his amendments. I would urge the government to take that into account and vote for them this afternoon.

I want to read two endorsements I picked out of several. They are still referring to the previous title of the bill, Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6. Philipa Lawson, a consumer advocate with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who has been closely following the progress of Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6, writes to me saying that the Reform Party deserves to be congratulated for its important new amendments. He states that our personal health information is among the most sensitive and private information about us. It is highly vulnerable to abuse and therefore deserves special legal protection.

I have another endorsement from Thomas B. Riley, the chair of the Canada's Coalition for Public Information. He states, “I am writing to express our support for the amendments to Bill C-54 that Rahim Jaffer, the member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona, is proposing to table in the House of Commons. We believe in the importance of Bill C-54 and the importance of adding amendments related to health information”.

I would suggest that there is a number of groups that believe it is important to strengthen the legislation to make absolutely sure that health care, health information and the social area information is not being abused. I believe these amendments would strengthen it. I would therefore ask that the government put its support behind these important amendments to strengthen the legislation.