Nelson Riis

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to my friend that I am not a courier service. I am not someone who exclusively takes the views of my constituents here, but that is part of it. I have not taken a survey, but I suspect that the situation in my riding is relatively balanced. Quite frankly, I am not a courier service. We have Fed-Ex and we have EPS and others to take care of that. Otherwise there would be no point in our being here.

I ask my hon. friend, whom I respect greatly, when he stands to give his speech, condemning the process and the treaty, will he please offer what he is proposing as an alternative? If what he is proposing as a clear alternative will not bring stability, an element of peace to the landscape and certainty to British Columbia, I say he is not doing this process a real service. Yes, he can criticize it. Yes, there are problems with this treaty. It is not a perfect document. However, what is it that he would propose in lieu of this?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to speak on why representatives of other political parties do what they do.

I will say something that has made me rather curious in times past. My Reform Party colleagues from British Columbia, who work hard in their constituencies, know the uncertainty surrounding the land issue in British Columbia when it comes treaty rights.

I kind of look ahead to the next provincial election which will be coming soon. If there is a provincial election and a change of government, which is possible, and that new government throws out any concept of negotiating treaty rights or land claims with first nations peoples, that province will see complete chaos because it will appeal to the militant extremes on both sides of this question.

What has confounded me, and I say this with all due respect to my Reform friends, is that as a party that espouses a businesslike approach to issues, to do anything that would not advance the cause of certainty, security and predictability economically I think is folly.

I suspect that I will have a question from my Reform friend next, so I will ask, for a political party that does not like these kinds of negotiations, that does not support this negotiation process, what is it that Reform members would suggest we do as a province and as a country to bring certainty and stability to these areas?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very real privilege to participate in today's debate on Bill C-9, an act implementing the Nisga'a agreement.

I have before me the Indian Act which this bill will do away with. The Indian Act has a subtitle which states that it is an act respecting Indian people. That is probably the most erroneous title one could have for this piece of legislation, because it does exactly the opposite. It does not respect Indian people. It is an act filled with disrespect for Indian people.

The fact that the Indian Act will now become redundant at least in the Nisga'a territory of British Columbia is probably one of the brighter things that has happened in a long time. We say enough of this act that disrespects Indian people. As we approach the 21st century, we look forward to beginning a new era in aboriginal and non-aboriginal affairs. Let us face it. That has been long overdue.

Way back in 1887 the Nisga'a people paddled their canoes from the northern part of British Columbia to what is now known as Victoria. They asked the government for the opportunity to negotiate some kind of a settlement and they were rebuffed. They were told to leave, that the officials could not be bothered with that. After paddling more than 1,000 kilometres down to Victoria, they had to paddle more than 1,000 kilometres back home empty handed.

Here we are 112 years later in the Parliament of Canada wrapping up a debate that will eventually see the Nisga'a people become self-determining, self-governing and self-reliant. This has to be a major step forward for perseverance. We have to acknowledge that the Nisga'a people have been very patient. They have persevered. Others would have long since given up, but they knew they were doing the right thing. They knew they had right on their side, which is a great motivator.

As I said, 112 years later, and as we approach the new millennium, we are finally at the stage where we want to enact legislation that will see this treaty become law of the land. It is a treaty that was negotiated in good faith between the Nisga'a people, the province of British Columbia, because of the fact that it holds the resource rights, and the Government of Canada which has the fiduciary responsibility to support aboriginal people. The three groups got together and over a prolonged period of time negotiated a treaty which we are in the process of ratifying today.

To put this in some context, let us go back a few years to before the Europeans came to that part of British Columbia on the northwest coast. The Nisga'a people were there. That well established society had been there not for generations but for thousands of years. For thousands of years the Nisga'a people have lived in the Nass Valley and the surrounding area. They were a very highly sophisticated society, self-sustaining and self-reliant. They were self-sufficient and self-governing. They were prosperous and entrepreneurial. It was a dynamic society.

Europeans then appeared on the scene. I say with some hesitancy and with some reluctance, that a form of ethnic cleansing took place. At that time there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 Nisga'a people. After a very short period of time that number was down to 800 individuals, the result of illness and all sorts of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the European population. The Europeans set out to essentially exterminate the Nisga'a people. We call it ethnic cleansing today. They were almost successful.

Thankfully we can now say that there are 6,000 Nisga'a people in the area and they are making a major comeback. This legislation and this treaty is a major step forward in reversing this very negative process which took place over the last number of years.

A large number of people should be acknowledged today. I note that some of the speakers before me have done that. We should acknowledge some of the leaders in British Columbia and others from the Nisga'a people themselves.

I personally want to acknowledge Joe Gosnell, the Nisga'a Tribal Council chief, who said the other day that this was an example of the Nisga'a now making their way into Canada. Let us think of this, making their way into Canada. A lot of people have said that obviously the Nisga'a have been part of Canada. In fact, they have not been part of Canada like others have been part of Canada.

People say that they just want everybody to be treated equally, in other words, treated the same. It is clear when we look at our history first nations people were not treated the same as others. They were not treated equally.

When my ancestors first came from Norway many years ago, they were eligible to homestead on 160 acres of land virtually for free. They did and they built the family farm and it is still in our family today. They had that right.

Did Indian people have the right to do that? Could they go out and buy 160 acres of land? The answer is no. They were not even able to hire a lawyer to advance their cause for what they called their treaty rights. They were unable to hire a lawyer. It was actually against the law for them to do so.

Could they, living on a reservation, go to the bank and get some money to start up a business and so on? No. Could they vote? The right to vote in a general election is a fundamental right in our society. It is embarrassing to say this but it was 1960 before aboriginal people had the right to vote in our country.

To say that everyone has been treated equally over the years could not be further from the truth. First nations people have been treated very shoddily.

I mentioned a form of ethnic cleansing that took place in the western part of our country. I suppose the best example of ethnic cleansing is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where first nations were completely eliminated. Not a single person was left from those early cultures.

There is a lot of catching up to do. One thing this bill and this treaty moves us toward in my judgment is that it will bring some stability and certainty to the decision making in that part of British Columbia. It is not going to be the answer. There is still a long way to go and much negotiation to complete. However, it is the beginning of bringing certainty to the landscape.

If there is one thing that capital does not like, it is uncertainty. Capital will flee uncertainty. If there is anything insecure about a particular place, we can rest assured that capital will not stay there very long. That is one of the things happening in our country today. A lot of good economic investment is not being made because of the uncertainty that surrounds the whole issue of land and the jurisdiction over land.

I say with some pride that I come from an area of British Columbia that is often referred to as the Shuswap nation, represented by the Shuswap people. A number of reservations and a large number of people living in the towns and urban areas in this area have their tradition from the Shuswap central part of British Columbia. They are very progressive bands on very progressive reservations and are doing relatively well. Even in this area a number of issues remain outstanding because there is no effort at the moment to negotiate some kind of settlement.

Yes, there is a treaty process in British Columbia. As an aside, some people have asked why we are concentrating so much on British Columbia. As the European population came in contact with aboriginal peoples from the east coast, through the central part of Canada and out toward the west, they negotiated treaties with the native people. The understanding was that with these treaties certain rights would go to the aboriginal people and certain rights to the newcomers.

However, that did not take place in British Columbia. There were no treaties signed for all intents and purposes. The European population basically came in and told the native people they were going to live on a little crummy piece of land while they would take all the rest. Obviously the aboriginal people did not like that but the Europeans said that it was too bad because that was the way it was.

We had all sorts of forced relocation. People were taken from their traditional territory and their traditional lands and told where to live. Rest assured that although today those lands might be well located, in those days they were always the crummiest pieces of property, the most remote, swampiest and rockiest places that the others did not want. That is where the first nations people ended up. We forced them onto those lands.

I heard an awful lot about the great treatment the first nations people have experienced, of all the things they have received and about how we should all be treated equally. If there is one aspect of growing up in recent times as a first nations people it was that period of time when, in the best interest of our churches primarily, they decided that children should not be part of first nations families, that the children should be taken out of the families, by force in many cases, and put into residential schools to get rid of their aboriginal, traditional and cultural ways and to drop their language.

Can anyone listening and watching television today imagine what it must have been like in those thousands and thousands of aboriginal families to have someone with a European background, who looked maybe like me, come in and say “I am taking your children away from you for the next 10 months and putting them in a residential school where they will not be able to ever speak their language?”

Year after year those children grew up with no parents. Not only did they grow up with no parents, they developed no parenting skills. The parents were devastated and the children were devastated. This went on time and time again.

Let us face it, people who have had that kind of violence perpetuated on their families will not just drop it and forget it quickly. It will probably be many generations before that kind of evil behaviour will be overcome.

When we talk about aboriginal peoples being treated equally and fairly, let us remember what we perpetuated on those people. We took their children away from their homes, their parents, their grandparents and their loved ones and put them into a military style residential school. We cannot understand the incredible human, emotional, psychological and spiritual impact that must have had on all those people. However, that is what happened.

Today we are trying to do what is right. We are sitting down with aboriginal people and offering to negotiate a fair deal for everybody. That is what Bill C-9 is all about. Is it a perfect piece of legislation? I have never seen a perfect piece of legislation, and since human beings negotiate legislation, I do not suppose we ever will.

However, the Nisga'a people on balance have said they like the deal with 72% of them voting in favour of it. The duly elected Government of British Columbia said it supported it. Today we are being asked whether we support it.

What I can gather from the speeches being presented in the House, four out of the five political parties, representing the vast majority of the citizens of Canada, say we support implementation of the treaty.

Let us acknowledge right up front that the treaty is not a perfect document. However, I ask those who are naysayers to the process, I ask those who will one day vote against the legislation, what is it that they propose? If we tell the native peoples of the country that we will not negotiate any treaties and will not acknowledge the uncertainty and instability that exists from coast to coast in all sorts of matters, then what do they propose?

This may not be the perfect process, but if the bill and the treaty do not proceed what kind of signal will that send out to aboriginal leaders, particularly militant aboriginal leaders, who are really frustrated at how slow the process has worked and is working across the country today? This slowness has resulted in all sorts of things that we have seen in the last few weeks, in particular with the east coast fishery.

What choice do we have? We have to do something. This is what is before us. For those who say that they do not want to support this, I challenge them to say what they are proposing we do as a country to resolve these outstanding issues and, most importantly, to bring certainty to aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people alike. I think that is a fair challenge to put, particularly to my colleagues who are going to be voting against this and who do not like what the process is all about.

In spite of what others have said, this is not a template. This is not a border plate piece of negotiation that is going to apply elsewhere because first nations groups will not support it. I represent the Shuswap area of my province. Most of the bands in the Shuswap Nation do not support the Nisga'a agreement. They agree that it is what the Nisga'a want and respect their right to decide on their own future, but the Shuswap Nation wants a lot better deal. They want things that will be much different for them because they have a different culture with different expectations, requirements and so on. This is not a template nor a border plate piece of legislation that we can apply willy-nilly to any piece of negotiation across the country. I felt this was one point that ought to be made.

Second, have we had adequate input into the process? I know the debate today is on second reading, which is the way legislation proceeds. From there it will go to a committee where experts, from a variety of backgrounds, will comment on the pros and cons of the treaty. They will point out some of its strong points, presumably some of its weak points and some of the concerns people have. The bill will then come back to the House for debate at report stage and then a final debate at the third reading stage before it goes on to the Senate where it will go through the same process.

It is a fairly thorough process. It has already gone through a pretty thorough process. In my own area, we had a lot of meetings on the Nisga'a agreement. There were over 500 consultations on the Nisga'a agreement throughout British Columbia. Yes, people have strong feelings. Yes, many people have deep concerns based on, in my judgment, a lot of misconception because they have not studied the document carefully. They have also been sort of conjuring up a mythology attached to the treaty.

The Nisga'a treaty was achieved within Canada's existing constitutional framework. The Nisga'a government will be a democratic government for the Nisga'a community. It will protect Nisga'a language, culture and property, promote the future prosperity and well-being of the Nisga'a people, and give the Nisga'a the control over their lands and destinies that most of us have had for a long time and have always taken for granted.

It will not create an order of government apart from Canadian law and society. As many people have indicated, the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the Nisga'a people. Federal and provincial laws, such as the criminal code or B.C.'s family relations act, will apply.

The treaty lays out those areas where the Nisga'a government will have the right to enact laws. These laws will only prevail in matters internal to the Nisga'a people, important to their culture and essential to the operation of their government. In general, federal and provincial laws will continue to prevail. If there is a conflict between Nisga'a law and the laws of Canada or the laws of British Columbia, there is a dispute settlement mechanism that will be invoked.

One of the areas I want to emphasize in this agreement that non-aboriginal people in particular want to hear about is the issue of taxation and the extent to which certain aboriginal peoples do or do not pay taxes. There is a lot of mythology around this area, but the reality is that in most cases people who work and make their livelihood from enterprises on the reservation do not pay income tax.

The Nisga'a agreement will eventually end this. After a 12 year phase-out period, Nisga'a people will pay taxes the same way other Canadians do. If nothing else, this has to be an incredible breakthrough in terms of breaking the kind of mindset that exists between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people.

The reliance of the Nisga'a people on transfers will be reduced over a time. I suppose we can say that if there is a final goal it will be that the Nisga'a people will be as economically self-reliant as any other Canadian as a result of economic development and wealth growth in their territory.

I am particularly proud to be part of a group of people who, after the process is completed, will vote in favour of the enabling legislation. It is a good day for Canada, a good day for the Nisga'a people and a good day for the province of British Columbia. The treaty will move us toward an element of certainty, predictability and stability in areas which are, at the moment, woefully wanting.

[Petitions, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of petitioners who are quite depressed with the notion that we continue to have the Senate.

They list a whole number of reasons why they consider the Senate to be just sort of a completely inappropriate institution. I will not go into the details. We have heard them all many times before.

They are simply calling upon the Parliament of Canada to take whatever step is necessary to abolish the Senate once and for all.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting question.

This perhaps is one of the ongoing dilemmas we often face when we are trying to introduce a pan-Canadian approach to a problem. We recognize that one province abides by a civil code and therefore has different approaches from the rest of the country.

I would be open to further discussions on this. The need to integrate the systems is critical. We must recognize and take into consideration that a different legal system exists in the province of Quebec. It is something that is certainly open for consideration.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the interventions made by the groups during the hearings into this legislation that my hon. friend referred to. I acknowledge that he has a point. The situation in Quebec is significantly different than in most other parts of the country.

It reminds me of the debate yesterday when we were talking about the replacement of the Young Offenders Act. The same case was made that the Quebec experience in terms of dealing with young offenders is much more advanced than in some of the other parts of Canada, is much more effective and that we have much to learn.

While I acknowledge my friend's point, we now have an opportunity as a country to be on the leading edge of technological change in terms of electronic commerce. It will benefit business and consumers. I acknowledge that the government has taken some steps in this direction. We have much to learn from the Quebec experience particularly in terms of the appeals process my friend has referred to. I am not an expert in this field but perhaps there are other areas we could learn from.

The important thing is to acknowledge as a country that we are poised on the edge of revolutionary change in the way society operates as a result of these new technologies. We are in a position to take global leadership on this issue. If this legislation takes us one more step toward that, Canada can lead the way in the development of new technologies. Canada can show other countries ways of approaching these issues by implementing policies both in terms of privacy and in terms of acknowledging and not forgetting the people who will be replaced by technology. We have a great contribution to make not only to future generations of Canadians but indeed to the world itself.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague. I have known him for a long time and respect the work he has done in the House of Commons.

I will use this opportunity to add one further point which I did not have time to make in my original presentation and that is about the need for proper education and training.

I know the government has introduced the possibility of implementing Internet sites across the country that would be serviced by 10,000 young people with Internet skills and presumably other computer skills. That is obviously a major step in the right direction, but let us not lose sight of the ongoing need to properly educate and train people.

It is fair to say we all agree that one of the impediments to the process is the tremendously high tuition fees students face at our universities, colleges and technical schools. The economic burden is sometimes prohibitive and a lot of people who ought to be improving their educational training skills are unable to do so.

We should take the bold step and acknowledge that if we are moving into the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, we should ensure that everyone has equal access to our colleges and universities. We should consider joining the other 16 OECD countries that have tuition free colleges and universities. The cost would be $2.6 billion. We have a contingency fund in this year's budget of $3 billion. If we had the will to do that today, we have the finances that would ensure that every young person and not so young person in the country had access to university and college education without paying any tuition fees.

Can anyone imagine a better millennium project for the government and parliament than to implement such a program.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the last presentation and I agree with some of the points that the hon. member made.

I am delighted to participate in today's debate. This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in the House for some time dealing with the future of the country.

I know it must be difficult after lunch to have so many members in the Chamber trying to stay awake to listen to my presentation.

I remember giving a speech once and there was a young man in the back of the crowd. He kept saying, “Yea, yea”. I thought it was very nice and very encouraging. At the end of my speech I was commenting to one of my friends about this young man's enthusiasm. My friend said “Did you not notice that he had his headphone on and was actually listening to the hockey game”. In any event, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will be listening to my presentation today.

I feel very enthusiastic about speaking to Bill C-6 today. The bill aims to support and promote electronic commerce by increasing Canadians' confidence in online transactions, providing protection for personal information that is collected, adjusting the legal framework for the electronic environment and providing an alternative means for the federal government to provide services to Canadians.

I direct my comments in particular to the people in the gallery who I think sometimes get the wrong impression that we are here in the Chamber fist-fighting, arguing and yelling at each other all the time when in fact most of the time it is fairly boring here. I mean boring in a sense that it is very straightforward. I am probably not going to change that mode this afternoon as I make my presentation on Bill C-6.

I normally like to be a bit more flamboyant in my presentations but this is a very detailed piece of legislation. It is very specific and very integrate in terms of dealing with protecting Canadians' privacy. I will quote from the privacy commissioner's annual report of 1998-99 when he refers to this specific legislation and states:

—the bill will take the most important step in defence of individual privacy since passage of the Privacy Act bound the federal government in 1982.

In terms of our concern here in this place for people's security and the security of their personal information, whether it is medical records, financial records or whatever, this piece of legislation takes us further than any other piece of legislation, bar none, with the exception perhaps of the Privacy Act itself.

The privacy commissioner goes on to say that the bill is a major leap forward by providing a mechanism for independent oversight, mandating the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate complaints, issue reports and conduct audits. As a last resort, it provides recourse to the federal court and empowers the court to award damages when it feels the penalty is justified.

I could go on and on, but the privacy commissioner basically states that this is really important and significant legislation. It recognizes that the world of commerce, in which all of us participate either in our roles as businesses or as consumers, is more different today than it ever has been. It has taken on a speed and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is not a nine to five operation any more as it used to be just a handful of years ago. There is indeed a business-industry revolution taking place before our eyes. The transactions are so horrendous in both scope and speed that something has to be done in order to protect Canadians' private information.

When we make a call to purchase some goods over the telephone and are asked for our VISA number, I suspect we are hesitant to give it. However, that is the way it is. We have to give it. Goodness knows where the heck it is going and who is going to be using it. Hopefully, the person at the other end of the line is not an unscrupulous type. In terms of the need for privacy, this is a simplistic version of what I am talking about, but I think we have all been there and are concerned about it.

Since we will be talking a lot today about the Internet and electronic commerce, I want to share with my colleagues a funny little quote that I read somewhere which describes the Internet as “A worldwide network of university, government, business and private computer systems all run by a 13 year old kid named Jason”. We all smile because we know that children are very comfortable with these new technologies. In fact, I suspect that most adult learn their skills from their children when it comes to learning how to work our computers.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to emphasize the importance that I feel the entire House of Commons, without regard to political affiliation, should attach to this matter. We are really debating something that is very important to our children and their children's future. When we talk about implementing legislation in the public interest, we have to acknowledge the entire public, and clearly that includes the young people of the country who are probably a whole lot more tuned in to what I am talking about today than most people.

The federal government has been at this experiment for many years. We started with the constitution and the charter of rights rooted in certain basic values. The people who drafted our constitution and the charter of rights understood that times would change. Indeed, they understood that definitions of fundamental things like privacy would also change. They also understood that circumstances would require people to rise to the challenges of each new era by applying the old values but in very practical ways.

In the past, this change occurred when we went from an agriculture economy to an industrial economy. This change is now occurring with the move toward a new modern digital economy. It is our responsibility to fight to adapt our institutions to new economies and markets and to update and modernize our citizens' rights to uphold their right to privacy in the midst of these vast economic transformations occurring before us. In the past, leaders recognized and lived up to this responsibility. Now it is our opportunity and our responsibility to do the same once again.

The pace of change, not just the nature of change, is very different. Once again it is our responsibility to respond to this change applying the oldest basic values and principles in practical ways that will allow them to not only be preserved but enhanced by our modern technologies during these modern times.

We all recognize that technology has revolutionized the way we live and the way we do business. I suspect that we have only seen the beginning of this. I am sure that many of us, in different ways, have experienced how new technology, such as the Internet, can be a valuable tool and a valuable resource. However, it is only valuable when placed at the service of humanity.

Technology, by its very nature, requires unconditional respect for the fundamental interests of society. On this theme there are only two direct topics that I would like to focus my remarks on today. First, Internet technology must be at the service of humanity and of unalienable rights. It must respect the prerogatives of a civil society, among which is the protection of our privacy.

Second, guiding principles and values cannot be inferred from mere technological efficiencies of from the usefulness occurring to some at the expense of others. New technologies must promote our integral development for the benefit of all citizens of our country.

Today I am going to concentrate my remarks about Bill C-6 on these two topics. We have all made presentations in the House over the last little while about some of the very specifics of the legislation as well as its overall thrust. I want to focus simply on two topics, the first one being the protection of our basic rights.

It is obvious that new technology and the amazing advances that have been made in telecommunications have changed the way we all communicate with each other. There is no question that we are living through a revolution in the telecommunications industry with cheaper, easier to use and faster ways to communicate and do business with people within our homes, communities and around the globe.

I believe that on the whole the Internet and electronic commerce do present outstanding possibilities for the advancement of our basic rights and values and, on the whole, are very beneficial tools to the citizens of Canada. No doubt things such as education and commerce will be improved in the next few years because of the Internet. Generally speaking, our daily lives will likely be improved.

The other day I was visiting an elementary school. I asked some rhetorical questions to I think a grade 4 or 5 class. The students looked awfully little. One young boy said “I will run out and find out. I will get on the Internet and I will come back”. I did not quite know what he was talking about, but he came back with a long printout of all the answers to the questions that I had been asking. In other words, this little boy knew he could run out, get on the Internet and find out information that would probably take me a good day of searching in some library to find out. I realize I have a long way to go to catch up to this young person who, in this case, was probably in grade five.

A byproduct of this technological revolution is that supervising our rights takes on a new dimension of responsibility. New Democrats realize that when the world changes so do our responsibilities. Just because new technologies are developed does not mean that our basic rights and responsibilities no longer apply. At the present time there is very little protection or, More precisely, there is no legislative protection or legal deterrent of our privacy rights in cyberspace. There are mostly voluntary codes for businesses to follow.

Whatever exists, it does not loom large in cyberspace. For example, a website posts a privacy policy. Does that mean our privacy is protected? Not really. I do not think so, nor do most Canadians.

The task before us is to make our laws and principles apply to changing technology. The old laws may require some redefinition but the same old general principles around protecting our privacy rights must stand very firm. We must find the means to protect our personal information in modern times. We cannot be neutral in the development of or application of these new technologies.

It is not acceptable that these new technologies be endorsed simply because of their efficiency. In the interest of advancing human rights, we all have a responsibility to make sure that new technologies respect the values of a civil society, among which is the protection of our privacy rights. That is where legislation like Bill C-6 comes into play.

We know that Bill C-6 partly grew out of a public concern about personal privacy in the face of this rapidly changing technology. We have all become data subjects. All sorts of organizations and companies have personal details about us in their computer databases. While growing up our mothers may have told us that a person's mail is private, but in today's digital world I am not so sure that is the case any more, at least our name and address certainly are not.

The chances are very good that most of us have had, at some point or another, our mailboxes stuffed and overflowing with catalogues, sales ads, prize offers which we never requested and probably do not want. How many times have one of us been notified that we have won a huge benefit or something and all we have to do is phone up, pay a couple of thousand dollars and they will send it to us? There are all kinds of legitimate initiatives but there are also a lot of scams out there. The point is that somebody somewhere gets hold of our personal addresses and of information about us personally.

We now know that companies have sold or traded mailing lists containing our personal information time and time again. The public concern is that if the information is entirely wrong, is out of date, is confused with someone else's, or, in the worst scenario, the information is abused, it can actually cause serious problems. People could be unfairly treated, denied jobs, housing, benefits, insurance, credit or even a spot in a university.

Today information is becoming increasingly valuable. Information is a valuable commodity and New Democrats believe we have to be leaders in developing these new ways of doing business through protecting individual's privacy.

We obviously have to protect our privacy rights. We also have to ensure that we solve the problem that we set out to fix and that the solution is in the best interest of our society. The essential questions are: Is Bill C-6 a strong law; and, if enacted, does it demonstrate that we have lived up to our responsibility of protecting privacy rights in the face of these new technologies? On the whole, I think the answer to that question is yes. That is why New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-6 at this particular reading.

I want to address one other theme before I close and that is ensuring that new technologies benefit all of us.

I want to begin discussing this second theme, which is the need to ensure that we all have opportunity to benefit from the new technologies, by saying a variety of all commentators from all sorts of disciplines have commented on the increasingly important role that electronic commerce is playing in the lives of everyday people.

I do not often quote the chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, but I guess we try everything once in our lives. Mr. Jean Monty told delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference last fall that “What we are witnessing today is the birth of a new economy, a new economic order that is based on networks and chips.”

A quick glance at the current electronic commerce situation in this country reveals that not all Canadians are being given the same opportunity to participate in this new economic order. If we assume, and I believe this is a safe assumption, that 30% of Canadians have some sort of access to the Internet, and this may just be the fact that they have a connected computer at their school, we must acknowledge that about three-quarters of Canadians remain in the dark.

Even worse, many Canadians in rural areas have begun to voice concerns that they may see exorbitant increases in the cost of local phone services in the near future. Traditionally, phone companies were able to subsidize local phone rates in rural areas with money taken from long distance funds and urban areas. However, with the increased competition in the long distance market through deregulation, these subsidies are drying up. If future governments cannot ensure reasonable local phone rates for rural Canadians, I wonder then how they can expect the farmer in rural Saskatchewan for example to invest in a second phone line for Internet purposes.

It is the government's responsibility and indeed our responsibility to make sure that all Canadians have the necessary opportunities to participate in the new economy. All Canadians must be given an opportunity to get on board this new economy. Otherwise, we risk creating a future society of electronic haves and electronic have nots.

In the case of businesses, we have heard small and medium size businesses complain that the costs of participating in electronic commerce are often simply prohibitive from their point of view. Ideally e-commerce would provide an excellent means for small businesses to expand their market reach. Unfortunately, many cannot afford the fees charged by banks for setting up the necessary security and privacy protection services. The costs are keeping electronic commerce in the big leagues and small businesses could be put at a competitive disadvantage as a result.

I know that Industry Canada has implemented a community storefronts program which helps small businesses become online merchants, but we need an expansion of this program if Canada is to have a thriving small business presence on the Internet.

On another issue, it is impossible to deny that when electronic commerce becomes the way of doing business, thousands of Canadians will risk losing their jobs. Many commentators, including American expert Jeremy Rifkin, have warned of the adverse effects electronic technology will have on society.

There is a potential danger that as e-commerce takes off, whole types of workers could easily be displaced. Those at risk are a diverse group, everyone from stockbrokers to call centre operators, to shipping clerks in warehouses. A society in which there is a large pool of labourers with displaced skills and no work and a group of information elites is not what New Democrats want.

At the Ottawa OECD conference, Mr. Bill Conner, the general secretary of Britain's largest union for retail employees, expressed disappointment that “the meeting did not consider in any detail e-commerce's potentially devastating effects on traditional low and middle income workers”. He added that the euphoria over the potential for exponential growth of e-commerce overshadowed concerns about what may be left in its wake.

This is certainly not a good thing to see. It demonstrates a lack of vision and a lack of ability to see the big picture. It is not working toward our goal of ensuring the majority of Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the new economy.

We New Democrats agree that Canada must be a world leader in e-commerce technology. However, we also believe that true leadership requires attention to all of the implications of this issue. That is essentially the difference between our party and some of the others that have spoken to this legislation.

I know my time is limited and I have much more I would like to say, but I am not going to have a chance. I will simply say that in terms of protecting privacy, as the privacy commissioner has indicated, this is a major step forward. However, in terms of those people who will clearly be displaced by the introduction and the expansion of e-commerce, this is something that all of us must take much more seriously unless we are going to have an increasing society of those who have and those who have not.

[Presence In Gallery, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been some misunderstanding earlier today.

I wonder if I could seek the consent of the House to table, as part of the proceedings, the notice of claim and demand for arbitration filed by Sun Belt Water against the Government of Canada.

[Water Exports, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment can stand and yell in the House all he wants that this is not a trade deal. The issue of Canada's future water exports is going to a NAFTA trade panel. The suit for $15 billion is being launched now as we sit here in the House of Commons.

One reason this is happening is that the government and the minister have been dithering on water policy. Back in 1993 the Prime Minister said that there would be no water exports. We have been calling for legislation. Will he now introduce legislation and initiate talks to remove ourselves from chapter 11 under NAFTA?