House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 65% of the vote.
Division No. 6 October 20th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-6, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:
“tion that the request is not being withdrawn; and (c) the cost does not exceed a cost that is directly attributable to copying the information and that is reasonable in the circumstances.”
Division No. 6 October 20th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“(6) For the purposes of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, the knowledge and consent of an individual that is required in respect of information regarding the health of the individual is fully informed consent, whereby the individual has been advised adequately of the information being collected and of the persons or group of persons from whom the information is sought, and is given the right to examine the information before it is used or disclosed and to withdraw consent previously given.”
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7.1, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 7 with the following:
“7.1 For the purposes of clause 4.5.3 of Schedule 1, the guidelines shall be developed and the procedures implemented in a confidential manner consistent with the sensitivity of the information.”
Division No. 6 October 20th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 6 with the following:
“(3.1) Despite clause 4.4 of Schedule 1,
(a) the organization shall inform the Commissioner of the purposes for which information regarding the health of an individual is collected before the time of collection and the manner in which and the time within which it is to be collected;
(b) the Commissioner may review the scope of the information being collected and the time and manner of the proposed collection, and may limit the collection or the time or manner of collection if, in the Commissioner's opinion and taking into account the identified purposes, the scope is not reasonable or the time or manner is not fair and lawful in the circumstances; and
(c) any information regarding the health of an individual must not be collected or used by or disclosed to a financial institution within the meaning of the Canada Evidence Act.”
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 7 with the following:
“(4.1) Despite clause 4.3.1 of Schedule 1, where consent with respect to the use or disclosure of information is sought after the information has been collected but before use, the consent obtained by the organizations must be fully informed and expressly given.”
Division No. 6 October 20th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-6, in Clause 7, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:
“(c) subject to subsection (6), it is used for statistical, or scholarly”
(b) by replacing line 23 on page 6 with the following:
“(f) subject to subsection (6), for statistical, or scholarly study or”
(c) by adding after line 10 on page 7 the following:
“(6) For the purposes of paragraph 2(c) or (3)(f), an organization may not use or disclose personal information regarding the health of an individual without the knowledge or consent of the individual unless the organization has obtained the prior approval of the Commissioner, after having demonstrated to the Commissioner that the organization has sufficient and appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the information is adequately protected against improper use or disclose”
Division No. 6 October 20th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-6, in Clause 6.1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 4 with the following:
“6.1 For the purposes of clause 4.2.4 of Schedule 1, the consent required before information regarding the health of an individual can be used for a new purpose, despite having been documented under clause 4.5.1 of that Schedule, must be expressly stated by the individual after having been given an opportunity by the organization to either expressly grant or deny the use for that new purpose.”
Canadian Farmers October 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in September I held several meetings in my riding of Peace River. The majority of those attending were farmers who are extremely concerned about what is happening to their industry.
They told me of how they were proud to have chosen the noble task of providing food for Canadians and for people from other countries in the world.
They told me of the devastation caused by 20 years of stagnation in farm income and the devastation caused by escalating input costs.
They asked if anyone in Canada cares if they survive or if they must accept the fate of bankruptcy and retraining for some other job at the age of 60.
They are afraid that governments are not concerned about their fate or the fate of the entire sector of agriculture.
Is that what this once great country of Canada has come to, capitulating to the European Union and the United States and abandoning our once proud farmers?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like the House leader to clarify if this is the 65th or 66th time that they have used closure since coming to power in 1993.
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-6 which was formally known as Bill C-44.
We agree that there needs to be some certainty in the area of privacy. We agree there needs to be some certainty in the rules surrounding the whole electronic commerce section of business, a fairly new area. We are a little concerned that the government was probably a bit remiss in not trying to get a more co-operative approach from the provinces before embarking on its experiment in terms of privacy in the area of business, but we recognize that it is required.
My understanding is that there is a three year timeframe for the provinces to introduce their own privacy legislation. I think it is regrettable, though, that a consensus could not have been reached to allow for the provinces to be part of a program that would introduce legislation on their own. The federal government has decided to go out on its own, and my hon. colleague reminds me that it is a three year phase-in.
The answer is that the provinces will have three years to introduce legislation in this area of privacy. However, if they are not able to do that or choose not to, the federal legislation will take precedent and become the legislation in the land in the areas of privacy in commerce and business.
That still leaves the other amendments that we will be dealing with in section 2 to which I want to speak later on. We agree that there needs to be rules and legislation surrounding the area of privacy. Although we would have preferred to have a co-operative approach, most of the provinces will be introducing their own legislation to cover this area in the next three years. Therefore the federal legislation will probably not even come into effect. The provinces may have better legislation in those areas of their own which they want to put in place, and I would encourage them to do that in this timeframe.
The Reform Party supports the part 1 amendments.
Speech From The Throne October 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you can see the amount of interest in the House today as we have the Minister for International Trade here. There was a motion asking for a 10-minute extension of questions which was denied. I think those people have ducked out. I wonder if we might try that again. There are different people in the House at the moment and there is an interest. I would ask that the minister be allowed to be questioned for another 10 minutes.
Petitions October 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 39 people in my riding. It calls on the government to pass legislation that would provide for a deduction of up to $7,000 in expenses related to the adoption of children.