Philip Mayfield

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that there would be another speaker from my party. If the debate has come to a conclusion, I would like an opportunity for a brief summary.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak today on Motion No. 312 tabled by the member for Yellowhead which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to privatize all operations and services of the Canada Post Corporation.

The finance minister stated in the last budget speech: "Our view is straightforward. If the government doesn't need to run something it shouldn't and in the future it won't".

Motion No. 312 allows the government the opportunity to make good on this straightforward point of view. When it comes right down to analysing where the government should be involved, Canada Post does not rank as a priority.

This is an organization that in the view of Professor Robert Campbell of Trent University has been "given a considerable amount of space in which to function like a private commercial operation and has acted very much like a private sector corporation". Canada Post has therefore illustrated that it is capable of providing its existing services as a private sector corporation.

Traditionally the main argument against the privatization of Canada Post is that people see it as the communications link for rural areas. This claim is now false. If Canada Post is so committed to rural service, why has it either closed or amalgamated 1,700 of its rural post offices? The simple answer to the question is that Canada Post is behaving like a private corporation. If it were privatized and industry as a whole were permitted more market freedom, people in rural areas would have greater access to more and more delivery companies. Many companies would jump at the opportunity to provide full postal services in rural areas.

Another weak argument offered against privatization is that Canada Post does not receive any federal money for its operations. This claim has an element of truth in it. Every year Canada Post aims to balance its books and it has been successful in three of the last five years in doing so. However the two years that losses were recorded added up to just under $400 million in losses and these losses were absorbed by the taxpayers.

I find the idea of privatizing Canada Post a compelling one. Canadians should no longer be asked to bear the burden of subsidizing an organization that could operate just as effectively or more efficiently if it were in the private sector. Best of all, if this were the case, taxpayers would not be shouldering the costs when Canada Post records financial losses. These financial losses continue despite the fact that Canada Post has invested enormously in becoming more efficient and more diverse.

I was surprised when I learned that Canada Post owns 75 per cent of the courier company Purolator. I was even more surprised when I read repeated claims by competitors in the courier industry about Canada Post. The competitors claim that Canada Post is using revenue generated from ordinary mail to subsidize its courier company. It is claimed that this allows Purolator Courier to offer rates that are lower than private sector rates and gives the Canada Post-Purolator team an unfair advantage.

The president of the Canadian Courier Association recently claimed: "There is not a courier in the world who would offer that kind of service at that price. Who is paying for that cost? You are if you bought a stamp".

Canada Post's competitors claim that if Canada Post is to have an unfair advantage then its entire financial record should be made public. This would mean that Canada Post should present not only its budgetary figures but also how much money is being transferred to Purolator? I find the request to be entirely reasonable. If taxpayers are subsidizing Purolator they have a right to know the exact nature of the financial arrangement these two companies share.

Canada Post is an enigma, especially to the corporate world. On one hand it operates as a crown corporation with a mandate to provide universal postal service to all Canadians. On the other hand it operates as a ruthless competitor expanding into the courier industry while possessing a legislative monopoly on first class mail. In other words Canada Post enjoys all the benefits and security of a crown corporation with government protection and government backing while it conducts itself as though it were a private sector organization.

Canada Post should no longer enjoy this advantage. It should have it one way or the other. A spokesman for the United Parcel Service, UPS, recently said: "We are not seeking the abolishment of the post office. Our goal is that the playing field should be levelled".

Another area that competitors claim is not on a level playing field is the business of delivering unaddressed mail, advertising flyers or junk mail. When Canada Post created its so-called ad mail program to distribute third class mail, it knocked many small distributors right out of the industry. The ones that are left face an unfair advantage.

By Canada Post's own estimates, the number of delivered flyers jumped from 1.8 billion pieces in 1987 to 4.4 billion in 1994. This represents an increase of 144 per cent. This would not be all bad except Canada Post only reported a 63 per cent increase in revenue from this service.

Ottawa Citizen columnist Peter Hadekel recently commented: ``Canada's Post's own numbers show that its cost per thousand flyers delivered fell 33 per cent, a clear indication it has been cutting prices to build volume''. Once again Canada Post is using this diversity within the protection of a crown corporation to create a monopoly in another area. Taxpayers have the right to know how the financial structure of Canada Post works and how it is using this advantage unfairly.

Despite the closure of over 1,000 rural area post offices Canada Post is the largest franchise chain in Canada. It is the 28th largest corporation in the nation. It has the potential to grow even stronger. Canada Post would have no problem finding investors and would, if privatized, be able to provide the same service it does now, and perhaps more efficiently in the competition of the open market.

In many ways Canada Post already operates as a private organization. It rented a $200,000 private sky box in Toronto's SkyDome. It may be an acceptable practice in the corporate world, but during a time when the government is trying to reduce expenditures and debt it is absolutely unreasonable for a crown corporation. I do not feel comfortable telling the people of my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin that we must make sacrifices to reduce the debt while Canada Post executives have this kind of government guaranteed luxury at all Blue Jay games.

If privatized Canada Post would do fine on its own and Canadians would still enjoy good postal service by whoever provides it.

Next August Parliament will see the results of a major review that has recently been ordered. It is my hope that it will not be just a cosmetic review to appease the concerns of Canada Post competitors. The editor of the St. Albert Gazette near Edmonton recently stated: ``Are they going to be able to dig into Canada Post's affairs or will they be stonewalled like everyone else before them? Canada Post likes to keep business to itself''.

The time has come for Parliament to recognize that Canada Post can do well as a private corporation and that it needs a more level playing field in the postal industry for the benefit of all Canadians. As I have said, Canada Post likes to keep business to itself. As a private corporation Canada Post can still freely keep to itself but only if it can beat the competition.

I ask members to support the motion and to realize this is a start in the most logical direction.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport began his speech by talking about red herrings. I think it is appropriate, because he seems to be a master at this.

The first red herring is the bill itself. At a time when our nation is facing a debt increasing by $100 million a day, at a time when we have a stalker who has killed and is taunting the police and our justice system needs repair, at a time when we have a gaggle of cabinet ministers huddling about what the meaning of national unity is, we are here debating Bill C-94 about manganese additives.

The member has some of his own red herrings, like the red herring of comparing manganese additives to lead based additives. The health officials say that this additive has no bearing on health and that it is not a harmful emission.

I would like to ask the member for Davenport why he would compare in such a way the manganese additives with lead based additives when the government itself has said there is no comparison.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the House today on the issue of personal privacy and specifically on Bill C-315.

Canadians are living in a world that seems to get smaller with each passing day. The distances that separate us from our families and friends are becoming easier to traverse. It has become easier to communicate with our families and with others around the globe. Sometimes, though, it feels like these same distances are becoming a little too short and the rest of the world is getting a little too close.

What has led to this dramatic change in our society? The answer is simple: the industrial and technological revolution that has so dramatically changed the face of Canada over the past 100 years. The telephone has brought friends and family from hundreds of miles away to within earshot of our voice. The car and the aeroplane have reduced long distance trips from months to a matter of hours. The computer has put volumes of information at our fingertips. The Internet has provided a gateway for the free flow of information to a knowledge hungry world.

Each of these changes has brought convenience to our daily lives. With each change came a loss of some small piece of our personal privacy. Historically our laws and traditions have responded to some aspects of the loss of our personal privacy. Trespassing laws and exclusion orders, for example, keep those we do not want to associate with at a distance.

Recent telephone innovations like call display and call blocking help us see who is trying to contact us and help us prevent unwanted calls.

Where we as a country fall short, though, is in our response to the growth of computer technology. This technology has the ability to retrieve, store and send vast amounts of information. The information age has brought a booming industry, creating a $300

million per year industry in the buying and selling of personal information.

Ontario's assistant commissioner for privacy recently exclaimed that privacy as we know it may not exist in the year 2000. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Bruce Phillips, agreed when he stated earlier this year that Ottawa should consider protecting the right to lead a private life and that in the next year or two is really going to tell the tale. Mr. Phillips clearly believes it is time for action in protecting personal information.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is not the only one who believes the time is now to protect privacy. The information highway advisory council, created by the Ministry of Industry, reported last month: "Manipulation of data may occur without the consent of the individual from whom it was collected. Moreover, the information is often used for purposes unrelated to those purposes for which it was originally collected. Because of the enormous potential for abuse there is a need for effective privacy protection. Only Quebec has enacted specific legislation governing its private sector. The council believes strongly that there should be national legislation to establish fair information practices on the information highway".

A recent Gallup poll conducted for Anderson Consulting, a private financial consulting firm based in Toronto, found similar concerns about privacy and the information highway: "Notwithstanding strong interest in the information highway, Canadians have a high level of concern as to how it may affect their privacy. Asked to indicate their level of concern for their privacy because information about them might be collected by companies involved in the information highway, 83.7 per cent described themselves as very concerned or somewhat concerned".

Bill C-315 responds to these calls for privacy protection. I should put forward a definition of the term personal information. The definition of personal information used in crafting Bill C-315 refers to data on an individual that are recorded. This could include name and phone number, business address and phone number, any identifiable physical characteristic, religion, national or ethnic origin, age or any information about education or financial history.

This information is recorded in many ways, including electronically such as on a floppy or hard disk, manually on paper or microfilm, or virtually as in computer memory or an electronic network.

Historically there are several sources that reaffirm the right to personal privacy. There is the right to privacy as guaranteed in both Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, and in the 1989 case of the Queen v. Dyment, when it was established that the right to privacy does exist in Canada, that it existed before the charter of rights and freedoms and that the charter has not diminished that right. The CRTC has been vigilant in protecting this right especially with regard to junk faxes and messages.

There is the right to anonymity as determined by Telecom decision CRTC 92-7. In other words, all Canadians have the right to be left alone and the right to remain anonymous as they go about their daily activities.

In addition, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, has established a set of basic principles to help define and support the protection of personal privacy. These principles share a common theme that the collection of personal information should be open, accountable and limited to the purposes intended.

Canadians are often surprised when they learn how information is being collected and where it ends up. Personal information on Canadians is being collected in a wide variety of ways. Credit card applications, contest forms, polls and surveys, warranty cards, magazine subscriptions and other means are all used in one form or another to collect personal information.

By combining these individual client lists a detailed profile of an individual can be made without the knowledge of that individual. Firms in Canada and around the world are able to have multiple lists, cross referenced, and create a remarkably accurate portrait of an individual.

Allow me to quote from a recent consumer report study: "By overlapping the data available through thousands of information systems it is now possible to create a remarkable picture of anyone. That picture could include your age, income, political party, marital status, the number of children you have, the magazines you read, your employment history and your military and school records. A database might also know what kind of breakfast cereal you eat, the make of the car you drive and even the brand of diapers your children wear".

A recent article in "Telecommunications Policy" entitled "Will My House Still be My Castle?" added to this concern: "In the future things will be very different. It will essentially be one stop shopping for the data gatherer in the digital super highway. Information gathering, analysis, correlation and dissemination can all be automated, depersonalized and made inexpensive. The time to establish coherent public policies and safeguards is before such systems are in place and adverse precedents and vested interests become established".

Currently Canadians enjoy very little personal privacy protection. The current Privacy Act, Bill P-21, is limited to information

held by the federal government and certain federal institutions. Similar laws exist in eight of our twelve provinces and territories.

In the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, Prince Edward Island and Alberta action has not yet been taken to protect personal information held by these provincial and territorial governments.

When it comes to controlling information held by the private sector the picture is far less promising. Only Quebec has taken the bold step of limiting the sale and access of this personal information.

Through bill 68, the province of Quebec has given its citizens the power to say no to the sale or exchange of their personal information. No other provincial government has acted as decisively as Quebec in this important area. I applaud Quebec for its initiative here.

Even Quebec's law, though, is far from complete. Many areas of business such as banking, cable television and numerous transportation companies are beyond the reach of Quebec's bill 68. This leaves Quebecers as vulnerable to privacy breaches in the federal jurisdiction as their counterparts in the rest of Canada.

Private industry, in a bid to avoid further federal and provincial control, has tried to address these privacy concerns. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association has created a bureau to deal with client list complaints and circulates the names of individuals who do not want their names on any member lists. However, individuals must repeat the request several times a year to ensure their names stay off the computer lists. As well, not all direct marketers are members of the CDMA, making privacy protection a hit or miss exercise.

Recently the Information Highway Advisory Council called on the Canadian government to regulate the flow of personal information. The Canadian Banker's Association has also created a set of voluntary privacy guidelines. According to a director with the office of the privacy commissioner, though, these guidelines are wide enough to drive a logging truck through. The bank guidelines are so ineffective that the Royal Bank of Canada admitted in 1993 that it sometimes included client card numbers, names, ages and addresses to market research firms without the client's knowledge.

We have to face the facts. Self-policing is not working. I have seen case after case in which guidelines and bureaus have turned their heads when the corporations break the rules or, at the very best, have given them a very light slap on the wrist. Industry has clearly failed Canadians in this area and it is time for Parliament to take action.

With this in mind let us turn our attention to Bill C-315. The bill stems from the concerns of a constituent of mine, expressed to me when he learned he had ended up on some questionable mailing list through which he had received advertisements for explicit pornographic material. After doing some extensive research I learned the federal government has yet to seriously address the issue of personal privacy.

Bill C-315 is the first step in addressing this serious oversight. The bill was designed to work in harmony with provincial privacy laws such as Quebec's bill 68 and to respect provincial jurisdictions as outlined in the Constitution. At the same time, it sends a tough message to companies around the country that the misuse of personal information is a concern and that the privacy of people has to be respected.

Bill C-315 would require all companies covered by the Canada Labour Code to abide by some very strict privacy protection guidelines.

Before selling any list containing an individual's personal information, the person shall be sent a notice stating, first, that personal information about the individual as listed in the notice is held by the company; second, that permission is needed to keep the person's name on the list; and, third, that the person shall be told his or her name can be removed at any time at no cost to the individual.

At the same time any corporation using purchased lists shall send each individual on the list a notice containing, first, the source of this information; second, a description of the information held; and, third, a statement outlining how the individual can have that personal information removed from the list at any time and at no cost to themselves.

Companies receiving a removal request must comply within 10 days and confirm with the individual that his or her request has been acted on. Breaking this law would be classified as a summary conviction. For a first offence a company or individual breaking this law would face a fine of up to $5,000. A repeat offence could double the maximum to $10,000. Charges would have to be laid within one year of the offence.

I will be the first to admit that these are tough measures. In my view they only reflect the importance people place on their own privacy. Polls have shown time and time again that Canadians feel their privacy is at risk and action must be taken to reverse this trend.

Interesting enough, the criticism I have received concerning the fine limits is that the proposed fines are not high enough, that for large institutions affected by the bill the suggested fines would merely be a nuisance or a slap on the wrist.

The Canadian public wants to have more control over personal information. A national privacy survey published in 1993 discovered that 71 per cent totally agreed that privacy rules should apply to both government and business. Sixty-six per cent believe that the

government should be working with business to come up with some guidelines on privacy protection in the private sector.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada estimates that the average Canadian has his or her name crunched through various computers across the continent perhaps five to ten times daily. He further estimates that in the private sector alone $300 million a year annually changes hands in the buying and selling of client lists.

This industry is growing at an incredible rate as technological information becomes more widespread. The privacy commissioner thinks that now is the time to take action in the protection of personal information and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The rights to anonymity and privacy are constantly being threatened in the pursuit of information. It is time to restore a balance and return to Canadians their right to have some control over their personal information, privacy and anonymity.

Let us respect this right by supporting Bill C-315 when it is brought to a vote.

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

moved that Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individual with respect to personal information about themselves obtained by certain corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to participate in the work of the Standing Committee on Industry. With a businesslike attitude committee members have gone about their work for the benefit of all Canadian small businesses and of assisting them in competing in the world economy of today.

I was particularly appreciative of the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry regarding his concern for the amount of red tape, the paperwork and the difficulties with taxes faced by small businesses. It is with this kind of attitude we approach many of the difficulties our business people are facing with a view to assisting them to make our Canadian economy as competitive, as viable and as profitable as any in the world.

Small business is the cornerstone of the Canadian economy today. Using a definition of small business being a concern with less than 100 employees, there are about a million small businesses registered in the country. This means that small business makes up nearly 99 per cent of all business enterprises in Canada. Small business accounts for about 60 per cent of the economy's private sector output. These are substantial figures.

As well, small business entrepreneurs presently create eight out of ten new jobs. In a day when we depend on new ideas being translated into new jobs, and new products and new services being translated into a larger market share of our highly competitive business world, we do not need to argue the value of small business to the Canadian economy. Rather we need to learn how to encourage entrepreneurs to develop new ideas and new products.

As a nation Canada has historically been highly creative. We have learned how necessary it is to adapt to both the economic and physical environments. However, we have been less successful in taking our ideas and inventions from the laboratories and basements of entrepreneurs and getting them into the national and international marketplace.

It was extremely educational for me before I was even on the committee to attend some of the hearings and listen to the difficulties small business people were having in securing loans, securing the capital they needed to get their ideas and concerns off the ground. In some instances there were business people with many orders in their order books, ready to sell but with no money to work to produce the product. One very significant reason for this lack of success has been the shortage of loan capital, of equity capital, available to someone to take a well developed idea or an advanced product prototype and make it a commercially viable asset of the Canadian economy.

So often we have heard stories of how someone had this great invention but after years of struggle to get it marketed they finally

gave up and went to the United States where there was capital, resources and an invitation waiting, all that was necessary to make it a marketable product. These are sad stories, sad because they tell of a loss to our country not only of the product, but more important, the loss of the people who took what they had and left.

The Small Business Loans Act was an initiative by the federal government in 1961 to help remedy this situation. By and large this has been a successful intervention by the government. The Small Business Loans Act has provided a 90 per cent government guarantee to banks, credit unions and other lenders who make loans to small business people. Loans that are properly made and placed under the umbrella of this act will not be a write off to the lender if they are not repaid.

The Small Business Loans Act guarantees loans made to small business interests that qualify. There is an interest by government for which I want to offer some congratulations in supporting this sector of our economy. Today about $6 billion in loans to small businesses is guaranteed in this manner. Under these proposed amendments to the act, the amount of money available with this government guarantee would substantially increase.

However, in the real world where not everything works out or goes quite as, planned there are some aspects of the Small Business Loans Act that do need updating from past experience. There need to be corrections; there need to be some changes.

The amendments brought forward in Bill C-99 are being proposed by the government. One of the problems the government faces is there is about a 5 per cent failure rate in these guaranteed loans. Estimates are that without some means of recovering these losses, this loan guarantee program could cost the government in the order of $100 million each year which would be an unacceptably high cost. To its credit, the government is proposing amendments to the act to rectify this problem.

One amendment would reduce the size of the loan guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. In this move the government quite properly is telling the money lenders that they have to bear some of the risk in lending to small business enterprises. This should not make a significant difference in the willingness of lenders to make loans under the Small Business Loans Act for in many instances, lenders have already said that they are including fully secured loans under this act when it is hard to explain why this need is there.

A second amendment which I support is the establishment of a 1.25 per cent annual administration fee that can be passed on to the borrower in the interest rates that are applied. It has already been said that this would increase the premium on the interest rate to about 3 per cent, which is significant. After listening to people looking for capital, it seemed to me that more often it was not the interest rate which was so important to them but the fundamental access to capital which they needed.

It is my opinion that it is completely in order for the borrower to bear some of the cost of this guaranteed loan program. The borrower is perhaps the one who will benefit most from it. When the lenders are competing with one another for loans, the interest rate is always a negotiable matter. Therefore, when competition is keen and the lender really wants to get the money out into the marketplace, the borrower may get the benefit of a loan interest rate which is significantly lower. I do not have the same difficulty with this amendment as do some other members of the House.

A third amendment which Bill C-99 would make to the Small Business Loans Act would allow a borrower who has repaid one-half or more of the loan to be released from the personal guarantee held by the lender. This would not leave the loan unsecured by any means. The collateral and physical assets held by the lender would remain in place until the loan was repaid.

Often a loan is made to a partnership and over time the partnership may dissolve. In an instance such as this, where a former partner is no longer part of the business, there may not be a strong desire to stay and there also may be a serious financial need to free the guarantor of the burden which he has taken on. These amendments would conditionally allow that to happen. They would also allow a borrower in some way to separate his or her corporate and personal interests.

My interest here is not to add more burden or more risk to the government. Far be it from that. However, with the withdrawal of the personal guarantee, the borrower is free, which allows more opportunity for the expansion of business and of commercial activity.

There is an amendment regarding a claims processing fee which is troublesome for me in that it is poorly defined. How would it be implemented? When would it come into place? These amendments need careful attention and further revision before they can be supported.

Bill C-99 has one essential flaw. The bill gives the Minister of Industry the power to make future regulation changes without the consent of Parliament. The Minister of Industry will argue that this transfer of power allows the department to act more expediently in response to the rapid rate changes of the financial markets.

Parliament could transfer every policy change away from the elected members to senior bureaucrats and ultimately to cabinet ministers. Then we would not be called a democracy, would we? This trend by the Liberal government is a very serious challenge to the authority of Parliament.

This portion of Bill C-99 must be amended to respect the rights of Canadians to have future regulatory changes soberly examined by their elected officials and not left in the hands of the executive or the bureaucrats. Without the amendment of this portion of the bill the Reform Party cannot give its support to this otherwise sound piece of legislation.

There are over 4.2 million Canadians employed by small and medium size businesses in Canada. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently surveyed their membership on job creation. Catherine Swift, vice-president of the organization, recently claimed that small firms and new businesses are the ones which have created all the new jobs over the past couple of years. This is an accurate claim. In the 1980s, 85 per cent of new jobs were created by small and medium sized businesses. This trend is continuing to grow as more and more Canadians explore the possibility of starting their own businesses.

The Liberals must make good on an election promise they made in their red book. They promised "to focus on small and medium sized businesses because they can and must be the determining factor in turning around what has so far been a jobless recovery". By creating a more efficient financing model for small businesses, the government is becoming more responsible for the development of small and medium sized businesses in Canada. The long term financing of these businesses becomes even more assured with these cost recovery amendments.

The minister needs to amend Bill C-99 to give Parliament the right to make future regulation changes. Parliament must not give this power away. This is necessary because losing the right to make future changes could in the long run harm not only the democratic process but even the small business loans program itself.

Members of Parliament are elected to examine programs such as this one in the interests of their constituents. To lose that ability would be inexcusable. I encourage the Minister of Industry to cease seeking such executive control. With this aspect of the bill eliminated, the small businesses of Canada can get to work and access a plan that is working well and could be improved on to make its viability assured even during these highly competitive times.

[Privacy Of Information, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada estimates that Canadians have their names crunched through various computers, back and forth across the continent, about five to ten times a day. He further estimates that the buying and selling of personal information is a $300 million a year industry. This is a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians.

The Information Highway Advisory Council released a report last month pointing to the need for legislation ensuring personal privacy in the growing area of information technology. The Government of Quebec has led the fight to protect personal

information by regulating the selling of name lists. Quebec's bold Bill 68 is designed after similar legislation in western European countries.

This Thursday Bill C-315 will be introduced in the House for second reading debate. Bill C-315 accurately reflects the growing need to protect Canadians' control of their personal information. Members of the House will have the opportunity to debate the issue then. I look forward to participating in the debate on Thursday.

[Access To Information Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-309, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls).

As I look through the bill it makes complete sense to me. I am sure that anyone who believes in the democratic process would agree that the bill is simply common sense. Every day public polls are conducted by media outlets, associations, academics, and especially by government departments.

There are two principal differences between the groups I have listed. First, the government is the only one funded solely by the taxpayers of Canada. Second, the government is the principal one that does not make the results of its polls easily and readily available to the Canadian public. Is there a paradox in this situation? Last year the Winnipeg Free Press in an editorial wrote:

During the election last fall, the Liberals made transparency and openness in government a central theme. What a difference a victory makes.

Yes, what a difference a victory makes. We all know that the former Conservative government was obsessed with public polling. In 1992 the Conservative government spent an unprecedented $140 million on public polling. Most of that money was awarded to chums of the Conservative Party, a firm called Decima polling.

How nice it would have been to be working at Decima in 1992. I see why the Liberal government criticized the Conservatives during the 1993 election campaign. Expenditures on polling prior to 1992 were about $10 million a year. With an increase to $140 million, who would not want to make it an election issue?

I will briefly outline the history. It is important the House knows why the Liberals are arguing against Bill C-309. Liberals will tell us that there is no problem when comparing their policy to that of the Progressive Conservatives. This may be true. Hopefully no government will ever again reach the total polling expenditures as the Conservatives did in 1992.

The one key point that must be clear in the debate is that the Liberal government is doing very little to change the old style polling established by the Conservative government. The Winnipeg Free Press stated last year:

By tradition, advice from polling must stay locked up in a bomb-proof vault until the minister passes on to a better place or until the paper it is written on turns yellow and disintegrates.

This tradition is still alive and well with the Liberal government. In May 1994 the Liberal government introduced what it said was an alternative to this tradition. It introduced a series of polling measures that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said were based on "principles of transparency and openness". The only thing transparent is the Liberal commitment to tell the Canadian people what the Liberals want them to know. The only thing that is open is the Canadian taxpayer's wallet as he or she pays for the veil of secrecy created when government polls are conducted.

Bill C-309, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, prohibits the blatant manipulation of public information gathered by government departments. The bill would force any government department or unit that commissions a public opinion poll to give notice to the appropriate minister. The minister is then obliged to submit to the House of Commons the results of the poll. The minister would present four key components of the poll: first, a description of its nature; second, a copy of the questions asked and a summary of the responses given; third, the period of time when the poll was conducted; and fourth, the cost of the poll.

This seems to be a logical progression of events. Ministers of the crown should not even need legislation compelling them to submit poll results. By their very nature as chief representatives of departments in a democracy, all information gathered at the department should be open to public scrutiny. As it stands, the ministers are picking and choosing the poll results that are most beneficial to them in promoting their policies.

The government will argue that it has answered all the concerns of Canadians about access to public polls. The government will claim that in May 1994 it released guidelines to ensure that information was made public. However last December the Toronto Star called the guidelines ``a fraudulent new access scheme''. The Toronto Star was absolutely correct.

There are a few catches that the Liberal government failed to mention when it introduced the new guidelines. It failed to mention that the government still has the ability to keep some poll results secret. It is able to do so if the individual minister feels the results would be injurious to the public interest or to federal-provincial relations. That seems to give the ministers room to impose total personal discretion. What one cabinet minister may see as injurious to public interest may be necessary information to the average Canadian.

Mr. Kenneth Rubin, an expert on government documents, called this ethics package "so vague it is hard to criticize it precisely, but the specific rules for withholding polls are what the Tories practised". This vagueness is a blessing only for cabinet ministers as they are able to interpret it to their own benefit.

Another benefit to cabinet ministers and their friends in the polling companies is that they are given 90 days to release poll publications, which is an absolute absurdity. After 90 days the issue is likely dead and Canadians have little interest in old news or dead issues. Also quite often the government has already used the information to its advantage by this time.

The 90-day period of silence is stretched even further as often the polling companies give the government a verbal or a brief written synopsis of the results. There is no requirement to release poll results until 90 days after the government receives the final written report. This in reality can add months to the 90-day period. The information commissioner in his annual report in June called this "a loophole of monumental proportions".

Even then, if the 90-day period is not long enough, the minister can still apply to have it extended indefinitely. In effect a minister can sit on an issue as long as he or she chooses. The government can also use the extended period provision to avoid criticism and legal action. Once the government has decided to release the poll results the poll is no longer open to further scrutiny under provisions of the Access to Information Act. That means any right to complain to the federal court about information quality or delays is no longer an option.

If all this security is still not enough for cabinet ministers, they have even more ways of ensuring the Canadian public does not receive poll results accurately. They can instruct their friends at the polling companies to provide only summaries of the results and leave the real meat and bones of the research in the technical tables.

Another creative method of avoiding the public is that the government can purchase omnibus polling packages from companies that are providing them to other organizations as well. These poll results then remain the property of the polling company and do not have to be made public, even though government money paid for this information.

Bill C-309 responds to all these loopholes by offering a straightforward method of dealing with the publishing of poll results. It requires the ministers to submit polls to the House of Commons no later than 15 days after the poll is completed. If the House is not sitting the report must be submitted to the information commissioner, published in the Canada Gazette , and presented to Parliament upon its return. This is simple logic and is democratic. Bill C-309 eliminates all the vagueness that allows the government to abuse the system.

The information commissioner wrote in his 1995 annual report: "The Liberals promised to do better than the Conservatives, much better. Many Canadians thus anticipated a new government with the self-confidence to be candid". In my opinion, it is quite clear that this government is no more candid than the former government. This is not merely my opinion. The information commissioner, who is an expert in the field, agreed when he added in his report that "expectations for a bright new day with sunshine in all the old dark places were unrealistically high". The information commissioner is clearly not satisfied with this government's commitment to openness. Canadians are not satisfied either.

The information commissioner and the Reform Party are not the only ones that are not content with the government's lack of commitment to open government. The Ottawa Sun criticized the government accurately last fall when it stated: ``Who knows, one of these days the government might even poll you for your opinion on whether it should be forced to release the results of all its opinion polls. Tell them what you think, just don't ask them for the results. You might be told it's none of your damn business''.

It is the business of Canadians to know what questions and issues are being polled. Canadians deserve the right to know what is the popular opinion of the nation. They deserve to know what the government is doing with the results it receives. They deserve to know if the government departments are polling for legitimate reasons or for the government party's own political gain. Finally, Canadians deserve the right to see how much money is being spent by the government and for what reasons.

[Communities In Bloom, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Quesnel, British Columbia, in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin was a finalist last weekend in the Canada-wide competition called "Communities in Bloom".

Each year proud community minded citizens across the country are pleased to show off their towns and cities to the judges. The finalists were judged on the quality of their green space, the diversity and originality of landscape, general tidiness, environmental awareness, and the level of community involvement.

The people of Quesnel are very proud of the natural beauty of their city at the confluence of the Quesnel and Fraser Rivers. They have worked hard to make it beautiful for themselves and very attractive to all visitors.

I am proud that Quesnel was awarded the prize for originality in floral plantings.

I ask my colleagues to join me in warmly congratulating the citizens of Quesnel for this outstanding achievement.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take an undue amount of time in the Chamber this afternoon. However, there are two or three thoughts in my mind I would like to express to the members present.

There is an amazing paradox I would like to address for a moment. In an age when so many people benefit by proclaiming themselves to be victims of the system, victims of misfortune within their families and victims of circumstances, people who are victims caused by circumstances completely beyond their control, caused by the criminal activity of others, are almost if not totally ignored by the state and by their community.

People who have suffered enormous loss of property, health, vitality and life within themselves or of family members, which leaves them grieving for the rest of their lives, are given no credible attention. They are given no opportunity to express their loss. They are given no opportunity to recover from that loss. No one seems to be responsible for them. They are left to their own resources.

The attitude of some members of the House really startles me; an attitude of impatience as we talk about the victims who suffer the losses we all know about. The attitude in the House reminds me of a ruling class that does not care about what is happening to the

hurting of the people in our communities. I find that attitude deplorable.

When hear the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general say it would be too cumbersome, too problematic for some department of the government such as the parole board to figure out what compensation might be, I consider this to be nothing more than a lame excuse, not taking seriously the suffering of people who had this brought on them through no fault of their own.

There seems to be an attitude that those who commit crimes have no responsibility to the victims. They may be called to account by the courts but for the damage, the suffering, the hurt and the loss they have caused they have no responsibility.

We live in an era when we talk about people not being able to protect themselves; this is the job of the police. The consequence of that in rural areas like mine is that people are left defenceless if they keep the law. Yet when they become victims of this foolish notion there is no recourse for them. They are left to their own resources.

Until we as a nation of individuals are called to be accountable and responsible for what we do, what we do to other people particularly, we can see there is no motivation to care about what happens as a result of our misdeeds, of the crimes committed.

I call on the House to think about what responsibility means, to encourage our citizens as well as ourselves to be responsible in the small things certainly but in the large things as well.

I support this amendment because I believe those who commit horrible things and do irreparable damage and who cause victims should be responsible to those victims for the rest of their lives until those victims are on their feet or have regained what they have lost.

Let us in the Chamber be responsible. Let us be concerned about the victims in our communities. This is not an idle thought that has simply come to my mind. I as the member representing Cariboo-Chilcotin and Reform members are trying to represent the thoughts of our constituents who are saying give the victim a break. Give the real victim a break for a change. Take them into consideration when they have suffered loss and hurt. Simply wash the idea away that the criminal is the victim because the criminal is the one who has known what is right from wrong from the beginning and who chose to do the wrong thing. Make that person responsible. Give the victim the break.