Stan Keyes

[Committees Of The House, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-101, the Canada Transportation Act.

The primary aim of the bill is to encourage the revitalization of the rail industry by reducing the regulatory burden facing that sector.

The bill was referred to the committee after first reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1). This new procedure allowed members to participate more fully in the legislative process and make important and constructive amendments to the bill.

The committee acknowledges with gratitude the co-operation and support of all those who contributed to our study of Bill C-101. We extend our thanks to all the witnesses who appeared, as well as those who made written submissions and shared their knowledge and insight with us.

In the process of reviewing this bill, the committee heard 55 hours of testimony from 154 witnesses, representing 85 stakeholder groups and organizations.

I would like to give special thanks to the clerk of the committee, the researchers, interpreters and the support staff of the committees and parliamentary association's directorate. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members for patiently proceeding through hours of testimony in order to ensure the effective evaluation of Bill C-101.

[Canada Health Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while I wholeheartedly endorse the spirit of Bill C-284, a private member's initiative moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, which I had the privilege of seconding, I cannot see where we can support his idea to put it through the Canada Health Act.

Perhaps what we have to do today is not talk about what we cannot do. I have to agree with the position taken by the parliamentary secretary. She very eloquently put forward the reasons we cannot put it through the Canada Health Act, as was proposed by the member for Winnipeg Transcona; rather, we should find a mechanism, a way to accomplish our goal.

Since I was elected in 1988, firefighters from Hamilton and across this great country have been lobbying legislators to set up a contagious disease protocol. They stress, and all of us who have heard their lobby agree, that it should be of national importance, which it is; that it must be co-ordinated nationally, and we agree; that we should establish national standards and conditions, which can happen. We need a way to administer the protocol that is being proposed.

The international association of firefighters has been meeting with provincial and federal representatives since June. They have had quite a bit to say about this. There have been some resolutions. Progress is being made. Maybe the amendments being put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona are a worthwhile public health objective and need to be examined.

The purpose of Bill C-284 is to incite the provinces to ensure that the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a patient the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease the patient might have transmitted to them.

As I said at the outset, maybe we have to look at what we can do. What we can do is search out a central organization that would work with the hospitals to create that information-sharing proposal. I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has considered approaching the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. That particular centre, which is located in my riding of Hamilton West, receives a government subsidy, although it has been cut back. To its credit, it has been sharing information with the private sector and actually selling a product to employees and companies, both here in Canada and in the United States, to obtain the money it needs.

I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has approached the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which has created a database of infectious diseases, of products different companies across the nation use in their workplaces, et cetera. For example, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is there for the major corporations in product identification. It is also there for an individual employee, someone who may be working on the shop floor in Winnipeg when a drum spills over and some glop pours out. The employee can see that the barrel is marked XT-2000. He is not sure what XT-2000 is, so he calls the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety to find out what the product is and whether it will be harmful to his health.

I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, in looking for a way to accomplish a very credible goal, has looked at the options. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health made it quite clear today that it is not really in the domain of the federal government, but rather a central organization. This could address the opportunities the member spoke of, could satisfy the needs of the medical emergency personnel and rescue services people who are responding to the patient who might have an infectious or contagious disease.

Maybe we could use this opportunity to dovetail with organizations that by consequence are also today forming partnerships with the private sector. It is the private sector that understands that this database is beneficial. If the private sector finds that it is worth while, then it can share its information with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which can also share its information with hospitals provincially.

Let us germinate the seed today. This is an option the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona can look at. Having seconded the bill, I would be more than happy to sit down with him and get together with officials in Hamilton at the CCOHS to try to accomplish the very worthwhile goal this member and other

members of the House have been trying to achieve since I was elected in 1988 and even before that time.

I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the efforts of the hon. member to address a practice that is of concern to many consumers. He and I are two of them.

It is certainly true that when we speak about the problems of protecting personal information, probably at the top of the list are complaints and calls by telemarketing firms that usually call at the dinner hour and follow those calls up with unwanted flyers and advertisements.

While I agree with the spirit of the bill, I have discovered that it has its gaps. It is also cumbersome and overly restrictive, particularly in light of the more broadly based and flexible options that are currently on the table. I will get back to that in just a moment.

As part of a global economy, we can expect that cross-border consumer transactions will of course only increase, and with them a related growth in direct-to-home sales of the type that make regular use of mail lists in order to gain access into Canadian homes.

Mailing lists, when combined with other transaction related databases such as credit ratings and financial accounts, can be assembled into profiles of individuals. These records can cross national borders, be exchanged, resold, re-used, or integrated with other databases often without consent or remuneration for purposes unrelated to those for which the data was originally collected.

In some ways this type of information sharing can be beneficial to Canadians in the sense of targeting marketing of services and products to consumers with particular interests in particular items. However, consumers are frustrated and angry when subjected to perceived intrusions by commercial interests into their personal domain.

Personal information privacy is an issue of considerable importance to Canadians. I have a copy of a survey released earlier this month, October 5 to be exact, conducted on behalf of two Canadian consumer groups, indicating that 90 per cent of consumers are concerned about personal information being shared between private firms. However, that same survey also suggests that consumers do not want any additional burdens imposed on them in order to protect their privacy.

While I think my friend across the way has presented some good ideas, and my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood has suggested that a little bit of tweaking in the bill might find some favourable response, the approach adopted in this particular bill is truly highly restrictive and even burdensome.

The bill would require that an organization notify each individual on a mailing list each time the list is sold to another organization and then ensure that an individual's consent has been received. In addition, it requires that the organization buying the list also notify the same individual that their name has been obtained. Organizations would have up to 10 days to comply with the requests from individuals to have their names or certain elements of information removed from the lists. Fines for repeat offenders-I think I heard it correctly-can reach $10,000 or more.

Not only is this burdensome for the consumers, preventing them from consenting to occasional mailing list exchanges between firms in prearranged circumstances, it is also burdensome to individual firms. More often than not, increased burden to firms translates of course into increased costs for products and services ultimately paid for by, guess who, the consumer.

Bill C-315 also has a number of gaps in the following areas. First, it applies only to the sale of lists containing personal information, when in reality the normal business practice is the rental of such lists.

Second, the bill focuses narrowly on the lists, when in fact a vast amount of personal data can be blended and put together from the type of consumer transactional data currently exchanged between firms or within a large organization.

Third, the definition of personal information provided in this bill is narrow and more restricted than the definition of personal information found in the federal Privacy Act.

Fourth, the bill only applies to corporations, when in fact mailing list information is often transferred between individual proprietorships and partnerships that are not organized into corporate forms.

Fifth, Bill C-315 applies only to that narrow range of corporations engaging in a federally regulated activity. As used in the bill, federally regulated corporations would include those firms operating in the interprovincial and international transportation sectors, broadcasting, telecommunications, and banking. Needless to say, there are many corporations and sectors exchanging personal data that fall outside of those categories.

The effect of the bill then is to protect consumers in a narrow range of circumstances from a narrow range of commercial entities in a restrictive and even burdensome fashion without any co-ordination or harmonization with other current or proposed privacy initiatives. If passed, the result would be a patchwork quilt of uneven privacy obligations.

The hon. member might not be aware of other positive initiatives that are currently under way. I think some of them have already been referred to by my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood. I do not know if the hon. member is familiar with the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code. It was ratified last month by a committee consisting of a broad cross-section of consumer, private sector, and government representatives, including Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs and spectrum information technologies and telecommunications units.

Three years in the making, the model code sets out 10 principles governing how personal information should be collected, retained, kept up to date, used, disclosed by the private sector. Adoption of the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to ensure that consumers are informed of the existence of such lists and given the opportunity to consent to their use and verify their accuracy.

The CSA code provides a clear example of the commitment and ability of consumer groups, the private sector, and governments to work together to develop privacy protection solutions. The Minister of Industry is currently considering the recommendations of the Information Highway Advisory Council, which reported to him September 27. Among other issues, the Information Highway

Advisory Council addressed the privacy implications of interactive converging telecommunications and information technologies.

The Information Highway Advisory Council stated, and I quote: "In order for consumers and users to benefit from electronic information networks, there is a need for a coherent national standard as to what constitutes effective privacy protection in an electronic environment among business, consumer organizations, and governments. The council believes that such a standard can be best achieved through legislation."

As well, the council stated that the federal government must take leadership through the creation of a level playing field for the protection of personal information on the information highway by developing and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both the public and private sectors. The legislation would require sectors or organizations to meet the standards of the CSA model code while allowing the flexibility to determine how they will refine their own codes.

The minister has also received a recommendation from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association urging the creation of flexible national privacy framework legislation using the CSA model privacy code as a basis. I am reiterating the CSA's model privacy code as the basis for these different approaches, but that seems to be the foundation for those approaches. The essence of both these recommendations is recognition of the need for coherent national privacy standards, protecting the consumer while providing the private sector with flexibility and that level playing field we have been speaking of. The CSA model privacy code represents a potential basis for development of flexible national standards.

Let me just say that I am in agreement with the spirit of Bill C-315 as put forward by our colleague opposite and I can applaud the efforts of the hon. member in this regard. However, because of the gaps and some inconsistency for the national perspective and some of the burdensome regulations that are addressed in the bill, I cannot support its contents.

I appreciate the opportunity of addressing Bill C-315.

[Stand Up For Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tonight at the National Press Club, Canadian recording artists the True Grit Band will be making their debut performance of "Stand Up For Canada", a song celebrating Canadian unity written by Mr. Jim Chapman, a talk show host at CKSL News Radio in London, Ontario. This world premier performance will be recorded for posterity by the nation's music station MuchMusic.

It should be noted that this song was brought to the True Grit Band's attention by my patriotic colleague and percussionist, the hon. member for London East.

"Stand Up For Canada" is a creative expression of the pride possessed by Canadians from sea to sea to sea. The song is sung by the members for Madawaska-Victoria, Halton Peel and Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Instrumentals are provided by the members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Sault Ste. Marie, Lincoln, Sarnia-Lambton and yours truly from Hamilton West.

I ask all my hon. colleagues in the House to show support for our great nation and "Stand Up For Canada".

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to report stage of Bill C-64, in particular the motions being given today by the third party, the Reform Party.

Some of what I have heard here in the House troubles me a great deal, which is why I thought it only appropriate that I rise and try to put down some of the myths that are being put forward by the third party through these motions. I was likewise distressed with a colleague of mine, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

We heard, and I will quote as closely as I can, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth say that the bureaucracy should not be intervening in the matters of private enterprise. We heard that the government is being intrusive, according to the member for Calgary Centre, and I will try to quote him as closely as I can: "I have chosen as a member myself to be meanspirited, but the government is trying to get into the face and get into the lives of private enterprise". Those are pretty meanspirited remarks coming from the member for Calgary Centre.

It is the job of government to ensure that things are done as properly as they can be, as we work as a team for Canada and what is in the best interests of the people of this great land. For example, when we talk about getting in the face of private enterprise, as the member for Calgary Centre has mentioned, yes, the government in matters of transportation got into the face of the transportation sector when it came to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Would we have a national airline if the government did not intervene? Would we have a national system of airports if the government did not intervene? Would we have a Trans-Canada Highway if the government did not intervene? Would there be a stretch of road of Trans-Canada Highway between Sault Ste. Marie and Winnipeg? Of course not. Why would we build that chunk of road? Who would use that chunk of road? Very few people would use that chunk of road. Naturally private enterprises would say they are not going to build that chunk of road, it does not make any sense.

The government is here to provide the vision in order to make things happen that we know are going to be in the best interests of Canadians, not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but in the long term in the best interests of Canadians.

I will try to explain why I believe the third party amendments, the motions, and the remarks of my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth are quite frankly outrageous and misdirected and are totally lacking in fact.

The first myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is about hiring the unqualified. We heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre take us down that road. The simple fact is that Bill C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an unqualified person. It does not do that. Why carry the myth? It is quite explicit in fact on that point.

Let me quote Mona Katawne of the Manitoba Telephone System who testified before the standing committee on the issue. She stated: "There is no evidence that hiring from among the designated group members is a lowering of qualifications. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. There are people from the designated groups who are both available to work and qualified to work."

The fact is that our economy has surpluses of qualified people from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out there. However, this myth persists because of misinformation, because there is a lack of looking at the facts.

A perfect example is the Gallup poll which appeared in the December 23, 1993, Toronto Star , just after we were elected to this place. The headline blared that 74 per cent opposed job equity programs. Let us take a look at the actual question that was asked: Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more women and minority group members for management positions, or should government take no action whatsoever and hire new employees based solely on their qualifications? The question unfairly focused on people to choose between actively attempting to hire more women and minority group members and hiring based on

qualifications. It is amazing, quite frankly, that only 74 per cent chose qualifications.

Employment equity means broadening access to all qualified people. It means giving people the chance to become better qualified.

The second myth I want to touch on is that employment equity is about redressing the wrongs of the past. When this issue has come up with constituents, I have heard people ask why today's young white males have to pay for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers. I trust that I am not the only member of Parliament who has heard that remark. The short answer is they should not. Employment equity is about today's reality, today's problems, not yesterday's.

The simple fact is that in 1993 white men without disabilities made up nearly 55 per cent of all workers newly hired, even though they only make up 45 per cent of the labour market. On virtually any scale, people in the designated groups fare poorly in today's labour market. The issue is not what happened in 1955 or in 1925 but what is happening in 1995. There are still barriers to full participation by members of the designated groups. The goal is to end those barriers, not to create a new discrimination against someone else.

Let us look at one specific group that fares especially poorly in our labour market and that is people with disabilities. Only about 60 per cent of adults with disabilities are in the labour market at all. They have unemployment rates that are almost double the national average. That costs us all.

The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study that looked at people with mental handicaps. They calculated the loss to our economy from the large scale segregation of these people from our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to unemployment, social assistance costs, and lost consumption. They found that the cost to Canada's employment of keeping these people out of society is $4.6 billion a year. That is today's problem, not yesterday's problem.

The final myth I want to touch on is the issue of goals and quotas. We have said it before and I will say it again: the bill expressly prohibits the imposition of quotas. The goal setting that Bill C-64 calls for is driven by flexible targets based on real business assessments of what is doable. Those goals are tools that measure success in breaking down the barriers. In fact, business witnesses who appeared before the standing committee agreed. They have no problem with this approach.

If the hon. member for Calgary Centre had heard what went on at the standing committee he too would realize that. Do not get me wrong. The hon. member for Calgary Centre may be the jewel in the crown when it comes to employing people. He may have it right. But there are a lot of employers out there who have it wrong, and the hon. member has to come to terms with that.

Bill C-64 is not designated to create a numbers mentality. Employers who adopt that mentality and attempt to short circuit the process do no one any benefit. The intent is to create a climate that encourages employers to build a better, fairer workplace through rethinking how their current processes work in practice and developing better ones.

It would be easy for the government to do as the Reform Party suggests: to step back and do nothing to address the very real barriers in our labour market today. But it will not. The costs to our economy and our society are simply too high. Millions of Canadians are not prepared to accept a system that says do not do anything and let private enterprise take care of itself. They are not prepared to accept the notion that the response to the very real economic uncertainty faced by many workers is to set group against group.

Canadians are not asking for special privileges here. Most witnesses representing designated groups made that very clear. They are asking for strong efforts to push companies to end barriers to full participation. In doing so, it does not help to have the ill-informed comments made by members of the third party on this issue. They have chosen to see the world as a zero sum game where any gain by a person who is in a designated group must be at the expense of someone else. They have chosen to fan the flames of intolerance rather than trying to find the solutions that address the very real needs of more than half of Canada's workforce. It means we define merit in terms that are clear, relevant and legitimate, in terms we recognize, diversity and the different conditions under which people live and work.

Bill C-64 is about creating that kind of plan in workplaces right across the federally regulated sector based on overcoming myths through action. Who said there are none so blind as those who will not see?

I appeal to the third party to overcome these myths I have addressed. I appeal to the Reform Party to withdraw its motions. It would be the right thing to do.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Nonsense.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have the consent of the House for the minister to wrap up her remarks on this matter in a couple of minutes?

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

And the parliamentary secretary, the member for London East. We are doing our level best to produce effective legislation.

Because of my appeal to the stakeholders backed by the consensus of the committee in July, our committee clerk has received over 70 written submissions and close to 100 requests to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport. We have done our homework.

I assure the House and all my colleagues that, as I stated in my letter to the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, every stakeholder who has contacted the committee clerk to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport is being provided with the opportunity to do so with or without a written submission.

We look forward to working on Bill C-101 as put forward by the Minister of Transport to create the effective legislation the country needs to go into the next century with a transportation system that will be unmatched by any other country in the world.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

There was no secret agenda to hold back submissions as the hon. member for the third party has suggested. I explained all this to the member verbally last week. I went over there, sat down, explained it all to him, and then I followed it up with a formal letter addressing each and every one of the concerns he raised in the House today.

That did not satisfy the member opposite, not at all. Finally and quite frankly the chairperson, committee members, the government-

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Tell your colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke that.