Dick Proctor

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague. My question is based on what he was saying about the shrimp fishery.

Essentially we are dealing with Liberal provincial administrations in the four Atlantic provinces. All this shrimp is being transferred to P.E.I. or to Labrador and Newfoundland for processing. What does the government have against the premier of Nova Scotia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act the purpose of which is to promote electronic commerce by providing Canadians with a right to privacy of personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in an increasingly information based economy and world.

Privacy provisions are based on the Canadian Standards Association model code for the protection of personal information. A strengthened federal privacy commissioner would play a role in ensuring compliance with the regulations.

Bill C-54 also aims to make the electronic transfer of information legal through safeguards such as secure electronic signature so that for example federal agencies, boards and commissions can decide how existing statutes and regulations can be satisfied by electronic means rather than through paper.

Our caucus opposes Bill C-54. I intend to articulate the reasons for that later.

First it is worth talking about what is electronic commerce. It can broadly be defined as any kind of transaction that is made using digital technology, including open networks, that is, the Internet, closed networks, such as electronic data interchange and debt and credit cards. Currently closed types of transactions account for transfers in the trillions of dollars worldwide. This is why some of us are interested in the so-called Tobin toll or Tobin tax.

A host of commentators of all sorts have heralded the immense possibilities of electronic commerce.

For example, recently the chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, Jean Monty, told delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference “What we are witnessing today is the birth of a new economy, a new economic order that is based on networks and chips”. This electronic transfer of information has changed the way humans interact with each other and for this reason it is an issue of great importance. Consequently, it would be wise to examine very carefully all the decisions that we take in this regard. This is why I say that this bill is the first that deals directly with the totally new issue of electronic commerce.

First, it may be useful to talk about the definition of electronic commerce. To get a general understanding of the concept of electronic commerce, it must be said that it encompasses two very different types of transactions. One of them, which has proven very successful in this country, includes the sharing of information through closed networks. This includes systems such as the ones that are used for debit cards and credit cards. I repeat, Canada is known as a world leader in the development of the infrastructure needed for these kinds of closed networks.

The other type of transfers pertains to those that are made through open networks such as the Internet.

Product offerings are limited and few Canadians are willing to entrust personal information in an environment they perceive to be completely insecure. Furthermore many are leery about using the Internet because of its reputation for harbouring offensive contents such as child pornography.

The personal information protection and electronic documents act is intended to be a major component of the electronic commerce strategy outlined by the Prime Minister one month ago today. The purpose of this document was to present challenges and opportunities for businesses and consumers with the hope that Canada would become a world leader in the development and use of electronic commerce by the year 2000.

It is true that the Internet is a very difficult medium to regulate. However, Canadian law enforcement agencies must fulfil their fundamental obligations in protecting the public. As Barbara Roche, British under-secretary of state responsible for small business, commerce and industry, said recently, governments must not lose sight of the fact that electronic commerce deals essentially with human beings.

Other countries, such as the United States, France, Russia, Australia and New Zealand, are firmly opposed to unrestricted encryption. There is obviously an international consensus about the dangers of allowing the use of all kinds of encryption products. I wonder why the government has decided not to consider this problem. By not doing so, it seems that it has missed an opportunity to co-operate with other countries to solve this security problem. I hope that, during the study of this bill in the House, the government will see fit to change this provision and will allow Canada to join other countries in the fight against the misuse of encryption products.

I will now turn to the reasons this caucus is in opposition to Bill C-54. We acknowledge that electronic commerce plays an increasingly important role in the lives of Canadians. A legislative effort that will increase confidence in the technology and make Canada a world leader is in principle a good idea. However, we in this corner of the House want to see a farther reaching framework for electronic commerce, one that acknowledges and recognizes that 70% of Canadians do not have Internet access. That creates the risk of having a society of information haves and have nots.

Bill C-54 acknowledges the economic revolution that electronic commerce has become but does absolutely nothing to address the enormous displacement of workers that numerous experts have warned about. The legislation ignores the limitations of the telecommunications infrastructure and access. Canadians in rural areas are already concerned about massive increases in local phone rates that may make Internet use impossible.

Small and medium size businesses have complained of the prohibitive cost concerned with electronic commerce and Bill C-54 does very little to help them become more competitive.

We believe that for a bill which pretends to be the first step in making Canada a world leader in electronic commerce, Bill C-54 is simply far too short-sighted. Our caucus is calling upon the government to consider all the ramifications of the technology for all Canadians.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I listened with interest to the member for Portage—Lisgar as he spoke on the differentiation in prices between American and Canadian grains over the last number of years.

I do not challenge the numbers at all but I wonder if another interpretation can be made rather than one that condemns the Canadian Wheat Board for the apparently lower prices. I wonder if it is not higher subsidies in the United States. Higher subsidies, whether in the U.S. or anywhere else, tend to depress the international market. I say with some regret and a lot of concern that we are seeing more of it in this country. We are seeing more disparity with the Americans having recently passed a huge farm aid package. Yet we seem to be saying that we have NISA and crop insurance and that we are well served. Everybody who lives in western Canada these days knows that is just not correct.

In Bill C-283 the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar is asking that the accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board be audited each year by the Auditor General of Canada. He is further requesting that the auditor general make this audit available to the wheat board minister and that the minister table the report in the House of Commons within 15 sitting days of receiving it. These are the main provisions in Bill C-283 although the hon. member makes several other requests as well.

I will not be supporting this bill. I will outline some of the reasons why. I believe the hon. member's requests in Bill C-283 have largely been overtaken by events over the past year. It seems that what he is requesting is already in the process of occurring under the terms of Bill C-4. This bill was first introduced in November 1997, almost a year ago, when the debate on Bill C-4 was perhaps at its highest flashpoint in and around this Chamber. That legislation was subsequently passed last June which means, as has been pointed out, that there will be significant changes in the way the wheat board will operate in the future.

Bill C-4 as amended and proclaimed allows the auditor general to scrutinize the books of the CWB. The wheat board legislation received intense scrutiny. It was referred to the agriculture committee in the first week of the 36th parliament. It was debated fully in this House and the Senate agriculture committee held public hearings across western Canada last spring. Following those public hearings the Senate agriculture committee recommended that the board's books be opened to the auditor general on request. The wheat board minister accepted this recommendation word for word and it has become section 8.1 of the amended bill.

The Senate committee's report took note of the fact that the wheat board would be holding elections for a board of directors. Those elections are occurring through a mail preferential ballot as we speak and will be finishing next month. It is worth noting what the committee actually said about its recommendations regarding the auditor general's reviewing the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. I quote briefly from that report of last May:

“All directors of the proposed board would have access to all Canadian Wheat Board facts and figures, including the fully audited financial statements. The minister has suggested that, with this full knowledge of the CWB and its competition, the directors would be in the best position to assess which information should be made public and which should remain confidential for commercial reasons”.

As has been pointed out by the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, international grain trade is a very competitive business. The wheat board is a $6 billion a year operation with customers around the globe. Not surprisingly, the board's clients are sensitive about the release of information that might apply to them.

I believe fully that the board has to strike a balance between openness and confidentiality in the commercial information that it releases and I believe that, by and large, it has been successful in striking that balance.

In any event, my first point is that much of what the member is requesting will become reality when the new board of directors is in place in 1999.

I am sure the amended Bill C-4 which contains the recommendations referred to regarding the auditor general will not be enough to appease the hon. member or his party. We know that the Reform Party and the National Citizens' Coalition have been unremittingly hostile to the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. Their allegation, which is repeated regularly and constantly, is that the board is a dark, dank and secretive organization.

We talked a lot about that in committee. We spoke about it during the debate on Bill C-4. I think it is important that we separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. I believe that the board is, by and large, a remarkably transparent organization compared with its competitors in the international grain trade.

As has been acknowledged even by the member for Portage—Lisgar, the board's books have been audited for years by the well known Canadian firm of Deloitte & Touche. The most salient points of the audit are included in the wheat board's annual report which is public information and available to anyone who wants to read it.

In addition, there is a synopsis for those who prefer to read the short version as opposed to the full report. As well, the board regularly holds public meetings throughout the countryside to discuss its operations with Canadian grain farmers. This kind of openness and information sharing is hardly the trademark of a secretive, dark organization.

I would suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board probably provides at least as much, and likely more, information as other Canadian grain companies involved in the grain trade, including the United Grain Growers and the various prairie pools.

The wheat board's international competitors, companies like Cargill, which are privately held, do not provide nearly as much information as the wheat board.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, this mantra because there is no foundation to say that the Canadian Wheat Board is not an open organization.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined, I will be voting against Bill C-283.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon and to remind viewers that we are dealing with Bill C-43, which is an attempt by the government to repeal the Department of National Revenue Act to convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented agency with broad management authority over national revenue.

We in this caucus will oppose the bill on principle. We are aware that some 40,000 employees in Revenue Canada now make up about 20% of the federal public service. The move would involve the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary estimates.

The government is glorifying the role of private sector appointees and seems to think that the public sector can only run on private sector principles. What is at stake here is a move toward an independent agency without the support of major provinces. Nor does it seem to have the support of the majority of workers.

There are at least three provinces firmly opposed. Two other provinces have not endorsed the concept. I think it is fair to say that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Not only the provinces and the workers but Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed agency.

The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada found that among the businesses surveyed some 68% believed a single tax collection agency would either increase their compliance cost or have absolutely no impact whatsoever.

The commissioner of customs and revenue instead of a deputy minister would become the chief executive officer of the agency responsible for its day to day operations. According to the proposed bill, the governor in council would appoint the chair of the board, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner for a term of five years. The agency will still be subject to the access to information and privacy acts.

The government is claiming that the agency will provide better, more cost effective service to the public, to business, to the provinces and territories by bringing about tax harmonization with the provinces and therefore huge tax savings resulting from the elimination of such things as duplication and overlaps in tax administration among various levels of government.

A second point it advocates is that it promotes a stronger partnership with the provinces and territories which, the government believes, may then hire directly this new agency for the delivery of programs according to service levels and performance targets specified in the contract.

As an aside, I suggest that the government should consider how the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have fared under the ill fated and loathed HST to see whether they think it is something that should be transposed on the rest of Canada.

Another point the government argues is that it creates a leaner and more efficient delivery of tax services to be achieved through the agency's enhanced operational flexibility and autonomy inspired by the business culture.

The government believes the agency will combine the best of both worlds. It will make the organization more accountable to its clients and partners and set high private sector standards while ensuring that the current powers of the Minister of National Revenue and accountability to parliament will be protected.

We oppose the bill, as I indicated, on a number of different grounds. First we oppose it for some philosophical reasons. I have talked about the 40,000 employees, the $2 billion transfer and annual parliamentary estimates that would be at stake. The government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector principles. The government would certainly take credit for slashing expenditures by $2.2 billion.

It is frankly appalling that the control of tax collection, which is a historical prerogative of the state, is about to be abandoned, if the government has its way, almost by stealth to the private sector.

There is a whole history of economists over the last 200 or 300 years who may have been absolutely firm in terms of free enterprise and the like. They firmly believed, nevertheless, that the collection and control of taxes was a prerogative solely of the state, so important that it should remain completely in the hands of the state.

We can think in our own time that even such advocates of free enterprise and the market as the former prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher, and the recently deposed chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, never went so far in their drive to privatize as to contract out, in effect, the collection of taxes.

Second, we oppose it for political reasons. We believe the government in its move toward an independent agency is doing so without the support of the provinces. The major stakeholders simply are not buying. They have run this one up the flag pole but few, if any, are saluting.

I have mentioned that the provinces are opposed, specifically Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. B.C. and Saskatchewan refuse to endorse the concept. Alberta supported the concept probably for ideological reasons but pointed out that members needed to be reminded that Alberta does not have a sales tax and administers its own program. There is fading possibility that it might sign over any day soon the administration of its provincial income tax to this federal agency. I have also mentioned the reservation of Canadian businesses and the study that public policy forum conducted with those businesses.

We think for ethical reasons we should look at what happened in the United States, specifically with the Internal Revenue Service. In the evolvement and development of the IRS there are dangers for us in an non-controlled agency.

The IRS is a government department and not a fully independent agency. It has extensive powers and operates under stringent private sector performance standards similar to those that would be entrusted to the agency by Bill C-43.

Historically the powers conferred to the IRS resulted from pressures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Congress for the creation of an independent agency to fight corruption and organized crime back in the Al Capone days of the twenties and thirties. These powers were then used to arrest some of the most dangerous leaders at that time, including Mr. Capone.

On one hand the Liberal government affirms that the controls of the agency will be the same as the controls over any other government department. On the other hand, it would then turn around and stress the need for independence. If the controls of the agency will be the same as the controls over Revenue Canada or any other government department why bother? Why transform a government department into an agency which is not independent?

The agency will have more power because it will be more at arm's length from parliament. Using corporate performance standards will undoubtedly lead the agency to set up a system of tax assessment quotas, performance and pay bonuses. These standards have precisely led the aforementioned IRS to abuse its power over taxpayers and at times use harsh and excessive collection methods. The likely misuse of new powers and standards would therefore turn the agency into a taxpayer predator.

According to the auditor general, the Liberal government lost a potential $2.5 billion and $3 billion in revenues since 1995 simply because it refused to pay adequate salaries to attract highly trained professionals required to perform complex audits. These auditors are necessary to ensure compliance by foreign multinational corporations operating in this country.

I think the problem the auditor general has been flagging is that Revenue Canada acknowledges that it has been unable to hire staff up to the limits authorized by parliament simply because qualified auditors working in the private sector are not interested in taking a 50% pay cut for Revenue Canada.

I think those are the types of things this government should clean up and hire the number of auditors necessary to do the proper job rather than contracting out this agency.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend British police arrested Augusto Pinochet, the army general who led a bloody coup in Chile 25 years ago. At the request of Spain, the British detained him because Spaniards were among those murdered following that coup.

General Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government and had President Salvador Allende assassinated the day of the coup.

Thousands were executed. Many were thrown to their deaths from helicopters. Thousands more disappeared forever. Hundreds of thousands were exiled, many of them to this country where they have made a great contribution.

This caucus, and we hope all members, congratulate Britain and Spain for sending a clear message that dictators like Pinochet can run but they cannot hide indefinitely.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Broadview—Greenwood, the member for Palliser, the member for Winnipeg Centre or almost anyone else here had said that, it would have been a fair comment and it would not have been worthy of recording or reporting. However, when it is the solicitor general of the country who is, in effect, prejudging the outcome of the APEC inquiry four days before the inquiry even begins, then it certainly is outside the bounds of decency and good taste.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of two things should happen. Either the students themselves should receive adequate legal representation or, as has been suggested earlier, we should remove the lawyers from the other side, or sides as the case may be, so that it is a level playing field.

It has strange credulity when the Public Complaints Commission, the commission that the solicitor general has so much faith in and wants it to go ahead and do its work, has asked twice publicly for funding for the students appearing before the inquiry and the government then turns around and denies that request from the Public Complaints Commission. It just does not add up.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I am rising to speak in favour of our party's opposition day motion that the complainants, namely the students appearing before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, be provided with separately funded legal representation. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I will be sharing my time with the leader of our party, the member for Halifax.

As has been noted by previous speakers in the debate today, what was done last November was not done for reasons of security but because the Prime Minister wanted to spare President Suharto, a dictator from Indonesia, any embarrassment while he was visiting Vancouver at the APEC summit meeting. As a result dozens of people were arrested, mainly students, and police may have interfered with the human rights of hundreds of those individuals.

Professor Pue, a professor of legal history at UBC, has said that if these principles can be clearly violated then the political use of police forces to harass journalists, political opponents and other inconvenient individuals is no longer unthinkable. A very slippery slope lies between the APEC protesters and the rest of us.

As an aside, I go back to what happened two weeks ago today on the question of privilege concerning the solicitor general to say that in my brief tenure here it was the most shameful moment I have witnessed in the House of Commons. The solicitor general stood in his place to categorically deny and to be personally offended at what I had overheard him saying to the gentleman who turned out to be Mr. Toole from Saint John, New Brunswick.

I can understand why on the day that the questions were raised there might have been some doubt and some uncertainty in the mind of the solicitor general. Upon reflection, upon sleeping on the matter and then getting up to essentially deny, deny, deny is unconscionable, and people over there talk about ethics in this matter.

With respect, what kind of message does that send to our young people? Does it not say they should just keep refuting the story and have all their friends stand up and applaud what they are saying? If they say it long enough and loud enough, the world will move on and talk about other issues. It is a great message for my children's generation or for any generation, for that matter.

Let me read into the record one of the many letters I have received. This one is actually an e-mail from a business person in Toronto who said “In the real world if I talked about a client, their business, my firm's relationship with that client, or if any other aspect of my firm's business and was overheard in public, the following would happen. I would be barely back in my office when I would be summoned to report to the CEO and be promptly fired on the spot. This would occur without opportunity to appeal, rebut or waste my partner's time with an explanation. It is in the voters (shareholders) best interest to have no tolerance policies when it comes to breaches such as the one you uncovered. With all due respect, only in politics or public life do serious indiscretions in conduct and judgment go undisciplined. Unfortunately this reflects poorly on the political process in democracies such as Canada and the United States. Members' credibility as effective and trusted managers of the public purse is once again challenged ultimately to the detriment of the constituencies they represent”.

I would add that the solicitor general's actions or lack thereof not only reflect poorly on him but on all of us. Had he done the right thing and offered his resignation, it could have elevated our collective miserable reputations.

The solicitor general has been saying that he is not prejudging, that he has not prejudged the public complaints commission. Hypothetically let us suppose that we have a real, genuine hearing in Vancouver, that the students are funded legally, and at the end of the day the commission reports that in its opinion four or five RCMP officers acted with excessive force during a five minute period and recommends that Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart take the fall, be disciplined or be dismissed from the force.

How can the solicitor general stand in his place and say that he has not prejudged the inquiry? That is exactly what he told Mr. Toole on the infamous flight on October 1. I believe I was doing my duty to bring that public discussion and debate forward in the Chamber.

If the solicitor general is careless in what he says in public—not only did he not say it in the House but admonished others not to say it, not to prejudge—I would have been derelict in my duty not to have brought it forward. His utterings were highly irresponsible on that flight but I ask the House not to take my word for it.

Let us listen to Patrick Monahan who teaches law at Osgoode Hall. I am sorry the member for Willowdale is not here. He was a former policy adviser to that member's brother, Ontario Premier David Peterson. Patrick Monahan said “I don't see how the solicitor general can maintain that this was a private conversation. Certainly he seemed to be discussing private matters, but the issue is that it was taking place in a public place. An airline certainly is public in the sense that there are people sitting visibly in the area where you are speaking so your conversation can be overheard”.

He goes on to talk about the member for Palliser not acting in a deceptive way whatsoever. He said “He was simply sitting on the airplane immediately adjacent to where the solicitor general was sitting so he was sitting in full view and listening. He was not using any kind of special hearing device to pick up the conversation. To allege that there is anything improper about taking notes about a conversation, there is no basis to that”.

John Grace, the government's own former privacy commissioner, said that “an airplane is a public place and when a public figure in a public place begins to talk about public issues within earshot of others he or she should expect that others will listen”.

Today's motion simply asks that the government provide separate funded legal representation for the complainants at the APEC inquiry. I think that most Canadians listening to this debate or following this story basically cannot believe that this has not been automatic on the part of the government. It very much appears to any fair-minded observer that the government has deprived these young people of their basic human right to protest peacefully in order to cosy up to the Suhartos of the world. Then it turns around and denies those individuals legal assistance to help them get adequate representation. It is truly a David and Goliath story that we are witnessing.

It is a shameful incident in this country. The Liberal cabinet knows it, the Liberal back bench knows it, the solicitor general knows it perhaps better than most of us, and I think the Canadian public instinctively and intuitively knows it.

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, far more in sadness than in anger I say that the solicitor general continues to question my honesty.

I give the minister one more chance to withdraw these allegations, or is he calling me a liar?

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House both the Prime Minister and the solicitor general accused me of fabricating my story.

I stand in my place today to tell this House and the Canadian people I swear now that I am telling the truth. I would swear under oath that I am telling the truth. The solicitor general, better than anyone else, knows what happened.

Will he now withdraw his allegation?