Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
The Environment October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, in answer to a question about the position of the federal government concerning the negotiations to be held in Buenos Aires next week, the minister was unable to set out the position of the government in this area.
Can the minister tell us if she intends to pull another Tokyo on us and make a last minute decision on the plane as she did last time?
Marine Conservation Areas Act October 29th, 1998
Madam Speaker, in light of the comments he just made, I want to ask the hon. member if, as a member from British Columbia, he has consulted his province, and whether his province agrees with this federal intrusion in an area that comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.
Does he also agree with the maze that Parks Canada and the Department of the Environment—another federal department—want to create? I would appreciate an answer from the member who spoke just before me.
Health Care October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the next budget; we are talking about taking action today, with today's surpluses, to care for the sick today.
Can the Minister of Health give us the assurance that any federal reinvestment in health will be done through transfer payments and not through new high visibility programs such as the millennium scholarship fund?
Health Care October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that if the money is available, health care will definitely be a priority. Now, five months into the current fiscal year, the surplus has already reached $8 billion.
Since money is available, and considering there are pressing needs in the health sector right across the country, what excuse will the Minister of Health make up to avoid asking the Minister of Finance to immediately allocate the available money to health?
Royal Canadian Mint Act October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my intervention on Bill C-41, the purpose of which is to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, by stating that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself do not disapprove of its ultimate objective, which is to update and enhance the flexibility of the Royal Canadian Mint Act. This is a legitimate objective, and one that is hard to oppose.
We must, however, ensure that amending the act to that end does not create conditions which might bring with them other problems that are far more serious than those we wish to solve. On reading the bill as introduced, one is justified in having concerns about certain proposed amendments to the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.
When we speak of money, whether its issue or its circulation, confidence between the partners is essential. That confidence is born out of the assurance that each partner has of the total honesty of the other.
The very mission of the Royal Canadian Mint requires this institution to have a spotless image and reputation, both in fact and in appearance. That is why the present legislation contains some very clear provisions requiring the administrators of the Royal Canadian Mint not to place themselves in a position of real or apparent conflict of interest.
These strict prohibitions are normal and necessary, because the very image and interests of the Royal Canadian Mint, and of Canada as well, depend on it. They have certainly proven useful, because the Royal Canadian Mint has, until now, always enjoyed a solid reputation for integrity. Unfortunately, I believe most sincerely that, if we do not amend some of the clauses of Bill C-41, we are putting that reputation at risk.
As it now stands, Bill C-41 weakens the legal framework that is in place to prevent any conflict of interest at the Mint. By authorizing the Mint to create subsidiaries, the administrators of which would not be held to the same arm's length requirements, we are allowing it to circumvent the law and we are creating a dangerous opening.
Unless it is amended, the bill is nothing short of an open invitation to patronage and dubious operations. Indeed, clause 2 amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act in a significant way, by allowing the Mint, in carrying out its objects, to procure the incorporation, dissolution or amalgamation of subsidiaries and acquire or dispose of any shares in them; to acquire and dispose of any interest in any entity by any means; and generally do all things that are incidental or conducive to the exercise of its powers with respect to coins of the currency of Canada, coins of the currency of countries other than Canada, gold, silver and other metals, and medals, plaques, tokens and other objects made or partially made of metal.
My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and myself support the government's will to modernize the Royal Canadian Mint Act to make this institution more functional. However, it is obvious that some changes must be made to Bill C-41, otherwise its current wording could lead to illicit operations, which is definitely not the objective pursued.
Clause 2 is a fundamental provision of the bill, since it allows the Royal Canadian Mint, in carrying out its objects, to create subsidiaries, to sell any shares in them to anyone, and to buy back such shares from anyone.
Another power the Mint will acquire, still under the heading of carrying out its objectives, is that of buying or selling shares or interests in listed and unlisted companies, anywhere in the world. Finally, this bill will give the Royal Canadian Mint the power to amalgamate its own subsidiaries with each other or with other companies.
Clearly, clause 2 as written is an invitation to patronage and dubious dealings and its scope must be reined in.
The real danger lies in the expression “in carrying out its objects” in clause 4 of the bill, referring to the Mint's power to buy, sell, borrow, lease, store and refine gold, silver and other precious and non-precious metals.
If Bill C-41 is passed, it would mean that each of these operations could be performed by one company, a subsidiary, some, a majority or all of whose shares would not be owned by the Royal Canadian Mint.
Clearly, this government institution would have the power to offload an important part of its responsibilities, to the benefit of a private company over which Canada's elected representatives, and therefore the public, would have no control. The creation of such private subsidiaries, with power to buy, sell and transform assets, presenting a highly speculative dimension that would be very profitable in the wrong hands, makes no sense whatsoever.
The opening provided by Bill C-41 provides too many opportunities for criminals specialized in bribery and patronage, so many that there is no doubt whatsoever, unless clause 2 is modified to limit its scope, that there will be a scandal, sooner or later, which will cast a shadow on the credibility of the Royal Canadian Mint.
If we pass clause 2 of Bill C-41 without adding the necessary limitations, the Parliament of Canada is merely paving the way for certain criminals who specialize in dodgy economic dealings. Let me tell you today that, sooner or later, this government will live to regret it.
There is absolutely no way we can empower the Royal Canadian Mint to hand over to whomever it wishes such important responsibilities as the purchase, sale, borrowing, leasing, storage and refining of gold or other precious metals, because the possibilities of conflict of interest and corruption are so obvious.
Let us take the example of the Mint's frequent mandate of striking gold coinage for other countries.
In carrying out its objects and under clause 2 of Bill C-41, the Royal Mint, required to buy the gold necessary to strike coins ordered by other countries, may incorporate a private subsidiary anywhere in the world to do so.
In all likelihood, this subsidiary would want to find gold at the lowest possible price before making its purchase. It would then strike the coins requested and sell them while the value of the gold market is on the rise and therefore very profitable for the private company and all the more so for the shareholders.
We can continue with this example by imagining that the private subsidiary buys the gold at $200 an ounce in 2001, reselling it transformed into collectors' coins in 2003 when the value of gold has risen to $300 an ounce. The company would therefore record significant profits, thereby increasing the value of the stock of the subsidiary created with the blessing of the Royal Canadian Mint and so much profit for the subsidiary shareholders.
Who would the shareholders be? What private or corporate individuals would benefit from this measure and this manna? The answers to this question are particularly important, since Bill C-41, we must not forget, empowers the mint to sell shares in its subsidiary to those it wishes and at a price of its choosing.
Ultimately, there is nothing to prevent the mint from selling shares in its subsidiary to friends or friends of friends through numbered companies or not. If this is not a path to patronage or other dubious activities, I would like to know what it is.
Far be it from me to suggest that such a door be opened voluntarily. However, consciously or unconsciously, the end is the same. My colleagues will not doubt agree with me that, in this areas as in many others, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Prevention will necessitate limiting the scope of clause 2 of Bill C-41 to prevent conflicts of interest and the unjustified and undue enrichment of individuals in latent or apparent conflict of interest because of the mint's power to create private subsidiaries.
To do so, we must abandon the idea of giving the Royal Mint the power to create private subsidiaries afforded it in Bill C-41. If indeed it were worthwhile for the Royal Canadian Mint to assign some of its responsibilities to its subsidiaries, we should make sure these subsidiaries are above suspicion.
The best way to do this is by amending Bill C-41 to exclude any possibility that a subsidiary be established by private interests. The legislation must provide that any new subsidiary of the Royal Canadian Mint should be a legally incorporated, recognized national or international body such as a chartered bank.
If we want the Royal Canadian Mint to remain highly credible and reputable and prevent its reputation from being tarnished by second-rate subsidiaries, it goes without saying that potential contenders should be subject to certain restrictions.
The probity of the Royal Canadian Mint is beyond price and, in order to preserve it, Bill C-41 must be amended to ensure that the executives of any potential subsidiary care as much about the probity of their own organization.
Following the same logic, it appears essential to me that Bill C-41 be amended to have the provisions dealing with real or apparent conflict of interest for mint directors also apply to the directors of its subsidiaries, which is unfortunately not the case at present.
I will conclude by reminding the House that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I do not disagree with the objective of modernizing the Royal Canadian Mint Act and making it more functional. But unless the necessary amendments are made to Bill C-41 to remedy a number of obvious flaws mentioned earlier, we will not be able to support it because the loopholes we have identified in the legislation would have far too serious consequences.
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, let a lot of people find the bill before us today, Bill C-54, which was put forward by the Minister of Industry, to be quite disappointing.
Bill C-54 is a major disappointment but should also be a matter of concern, because it completely misses its main objective, which is to protect personal information in the private sector in a technological environment that puts this fundamental right in jeopardy.
Not only does the bill as it now stands completely miss the mark, but it is fundamentally at cross purposes with its original purpose, since it puts the protection of personal information on the back burner.
In fact, when one reads Bill C-54, one realizes that its purpose is to promote electronic commerce while putting the right to personal information protection on the back burner.
Actually, they could not have found a better title to describe the real purpose of this bill than what we have here: an act to support and promote electronic commerce. It is no longer federal legislation to protect personal information in the private sector, as Canadians and Quebeckers have been asking for a long time, but rather a bill that puts the promotion of electronic commerce well ahead of the protection of personal information.
Bill C-54 as presented by the Minister of Industry adulterates the initial objective and proves that the Liberal government has decided to turn its back on its numerous promises of a federal law to protect personal information in the private sector.
This attitude on the part of the federal government is all the more disappointing because the need to pass such legislation in Canada is more urgent than ever. The right to privacy is a fundamental right and one which is undergoing unprecedented attacks as we are entering the technological era where the old adage about secrets always getting out still applies, but now that happens even faster than before.
The severe threat to Canadians' right to privacy cannot be taken lightly. The protection of that right is fundamental, if a true democracy is to be retained. The issue at stake is very clear: lack of respect for privacy is a death blow to democracy as we know it.
A government which stops making every possible effort to protect its citizens' right to the protection of their privacy is opening up a dangerous Pandora's box, and it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen next.
While I do not want to be excessively alarmist, we all understand the value, for a terrorist group, that the list of dozens of million of Canadian households grouped together according to their ethnic origin would represent.
If such a list compiled by a direct marketing firm could be made available, would we really be able, for example, to continue to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens, whatever their ethnic origin? Could we guarantee them that they would never be the victims of senseless acts of terrorism? The answer is obvious.
Threats from terrorist groups are not the only ones in a society where the right to privacy is no longer guaranteed. There are other threats, more insidious but just as real.
Indeed, what should we think about the ethics of insurance companies, which are increasingly eyeing the results of DNA tests to eliminate or select clients likely to make serious claims? Also, what about employers, who even want to use the results of spot urine testing for drugs, illegal or not?
These examples are only the tip of the iceberg on what awaits Canadians if the private sector, like the public sector, has access to a lot of personal information that it can now connect together, thanks to the explosion of new technological networks. We will have a society where so-called personal information will no longer exist and, consequently, where there will be no privacy for anyone.
It is all the more obvious that Bill C-54 is inadequate to protect privacy as it does not even extend to the private sector the principles governing the protection of personal information under federal jurisdiction. Indeed, section 5 of the Privacy Act which governs the private sector states:
On the other hand, clause 4.2.3 of Bill C-54 schedule provides that:
4.2.3 The identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected.
And clause 4.2.5 of the same schedule says:
4.2.5 Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.
It should be noted that these important provisions, which should be at the heart of Bill C-54, can only be found in the schedule and written in the conditional, which means that they are mere recommendations and nothing more.
As my Bloc colleagues did before me, I must say in conclusion that Bill C-54 is not a bill protecting personal information and our fellow citizens' fundamental right to privacy, but a bill aimed at promoting electronic commerce by sacrificing Canadians' privacy.
Solicitor General Of Canada October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Frankly, Liberal members have a nerve trying to persuade us that the person in the wrong is not the Solicitor General, who discusses government business on an airplane, but our NDP colleague, whose misfortune it was to be there and hear the minister's remarks.
Will the Prime Minister come back to reality, show some judgment and sack the Solicitor General immediately?
Royal Canadian Mint October 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Elk Island.
The government should comply with such a request. It is a request for clarity. Parliamentarians should be clearer in the requests they routinely make of the government. When constituents tell an MP there is something odd, it is important that people can finally say that parliamentarians and MPs are really there to stand up for their interests.
Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works gave us the history of the Royal Mint, and of this new project. This is why I am supporting the motion. She did well to give the background, but I support a motion for greater clarity. That is something I find very important.
We live in a very fast-paced world, and a project of this sort involves more than $5 million. As the Reform Party member says, perhaps it is bigger than they think. We are talking about a project involving over $30 million.
I strongly urge the House to support the Reform Party member's proposal and motion, and tell him that he has the support of Bloc Quebecois members.
The Environment October 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday, we learned that, following Bill C-14, the government now intends to use a national strategy to meddle in the area of drinking water, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
When will the minister honour the Constitution and acknowledge that drinking water is a natural resource and therefore a provincial matter?
Francophones Outside Quebec September 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
William Johnson's boycott of Montreal stores is being funded by money from Heritage Canada. But Heritage Canada is not funding the tenacious battle being fought by Gisèle Lalonde and the francophones of SOS Montfort to keep the only francophone hospital in Ontario open.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not think it is time to re-examine her policies and make sure that the small amounts at her disposal for defending minorities go towards those who really need them, that is francophones outside Quebec?