Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police October 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that this a great day for swindlers, crooks, thieves and con artists. It is open season.
When the police admit that they lack the financial resources to enforce our laws, what signal does this send to criminals? Swindle the public and if they are caught, nothing will happen.
If that is the best answer the solicitor general can give to resolve this problem, perhaps he should step aside and let someone else come in and do the job decently.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police October 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
Two constituents of mine who were recently bilked out of $700,000 in a stock market swindle recently received a letter from the RCMP saying, “You have a valid complaint but sorry, we don't have enough money to continue with our investigation”.
As the minister responsible for the RCMP, if the police are saying that they are unable to enforce our laws, what action is the minister taking and what advice does he have for my two constituents?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I cannot say how delighted I am to speak on Bill C-6 on personal information protection and the electronic documents act.
The reason I am delighted is that today we were talking about perhaps the birth of a whole new economy for the country. Others have described it in the last 24 hours as electronic commerce becoming the central nervous system of business, society and even of government.
We truly are into a form of commercial revolution, the consequences of which are almost unpredictable. The fantastic growth in the use of the Internet in terms of business to business relationships as well as consumer to business relationships is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate this, Internet traffic doubles every 100 days and every second of the day seven new clients sign up on the Internet. It truly is a revolution that is happening before us.
Like all revolutions we actually do not realize there is a revolution going if we are part of it. One day we wake up and realize that the entire world has changed. I suspect during the industrial revolution people were not standing around talking about the revolution that was going on, except when they looked back and realized the tremendous change that had occurred.
I believe, as we have heard from the Minister of Industry, the Prime Minister and government spokespersons in a variety of capacities in the last number of weeks, that Canada is to become the most electronically connected country in the world by the year 2000. There was the commitment the other day to set up 600 Internet sites across the country and to mobilize 10,000 young people to serve those sites to ensure that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast, no matter where they live, no matter the size of their community, no matter the resources at their disposal will have access to the Internet of one kind or another.
Obviously there is a crucial issue that has to be dealt with and Bill C-6 attempts to do that. I refer to what happened last month at Microsoft when hackers broke into the hot mail service, exposing 40 million accounts and the integrity of the e-mail system. This kind of high profile breach of security obviously is something that consumers are concerned about.
Madam Speaker, I know that you are an e-commerce fan and I suspect that when you talk to your constituents about electronic commerce the kind of thing you hear is what the rest of us hear and that is that people are concerned about the security of the information they provide.
When we send off our credit card number or when we carry out a business transaction, is it secure? Do we have confidence that the person receiving that information is the person that we expect to be receiving that information?
In Canada the electronic commerce section will grow from $1 billion in 1997 to about $13 billion by 2002. There is an incredible rate of economic change that is occurring before us. In 1998 there were 414,000 active commercial websites and by 2002 it is predicted that number will jump to 1.6 million. It is astonishing economic activity that is occurring before us. Bill C-6 attempts to build in some security in terms of personal information.
Today we are dealing with the motions in Group No. 1. I want to say on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party that we will be opposing the motions in Group No. 1 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. The reason is obvious. Bloc members believe, and they make a compelling argument, that we should have one system for the province of Quebec and one system for the rest of the country. Obviously that is going to be a messy, patchwork system of protection. We represent all Canadians in the House and we want to have a policy that will protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
My friends in the Bloc Quebecois argue that there is already protective legislation in the province of Quebec. They are right in that respect. It is lacking in most other jurisdictions of the country. However, to pass federal legislation that does not include all provinces and territories I think would be folly. We do not want a patchwork of different standards across the country. National standards are crucial. For that reason we feel that we must oppose this group of amendments.
It is not right or fair that some Canadians should be deprived of privacy protection because their provincial government has been slow to act. The reality is that there are some provinces that are dragging their feet on this issue. I suspect one of the reasons is that they really do not know what to do. The provincial governments are looking to the federal government to say that rather than all of the provincial jurisdictions introducing their own protective legislation, why not have a decent standard from coast to coast to coast introduced by the federal government, which is what Bill C-6 is all about.
In other policy areas where there is federal and provincial overlap both levels of government will be required to co-operate to ensure the strongest protection is given to Canadians and to reduce any confusion.
I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. friend from the Bloc Quebecois, who argued that in his judgment the legislation presently in place in Quebec would be adequate. Let us ensure that whatever is the best piece of legislation to protect the consumer will be the piece of legislation that will dominate.
In conclusion, we support the federal government in its efforts to exercise its commerce power in respect to privacy protection. We support the intent of the legislation generally, and for that reason I am afraid we will have to oppose the motions in Group No. 1.
Canada Elections Act October 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is a delight to have an opportunity to speak today to Bill C-2 to amend the elections act. My presentation will be somewhat different from some of the others we have heard so far, which I must say have all been quite interesting.
I will be very specific in my comments. I want to make clear that I am not necessarily speaking in terms of advancing New Democratic Party policy. It is a policy in a number of our sections. I know it is a policy also in a number of other party sections, particularly the youth sections. I am referring in particular to section 3 of the elections act which states that every person who is a Canadian citizen and is 18 years of age or older on polling day is qualified as an elector.
As we begin the 21st century, we hear more and more from all political parties about the concern of young people. The way society and the economy are going there will be a future for them. The younger generation will be taking on major leadership roles very quickly and at very young ages.
We should listen to the words of the government House leader today when he said that we should work to make the act better for all Canadians. This is the first time we have had a chance for some major overhaul for the past almost 30 years and we should consider lowering the voting age from age 18 as it currently is to age 16.
Probably most MPs like myself spend a lot of time in high schools talking to young people. If there is one point that stands out clearly it is that young people today are very informed, very serious, and very hard working. We do not often hear about them. We often hear about the ones that are the small minority, but overwhelmingly young people today are incredibly bright, hard working and dedicated to their studies.
It becomes very clear that they are very well informed about political, economic and societal issues. When it comes to elections in some cases I am prepared to say that many of Canada's young people aged 16 or 17 are probably more informed than their parents on some issues.
I wonder if it is not time for us now to be as bold in our thinking as members of parliament as others in the past were bold and said against incredible opposition that it was time for women to have the vote. To think anything other than that now is absolute folly. Also it was suggested a few years ago that first nations people should have a chance to vote. To think back that we as a country only allowed first nations people to vote in the 1960 general elections is almost incredible.
Today I am suggesting that young people aged 16 and 17 should be given the opportunity to participate in Canada's electoral process.
Section 215 of the criminal code says that everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian, or head of a family to provide the necessities of life for a child under the age of 16 years.
At age 16 a whole number of things change for young people. At age 16, for example, they can drive any kind of vehicle on our highways. They can join and serve in the armed forces of Canada. They are eligible for adult court consideration in our justice system. They can use a firearm and go hunting. They can leave school if that is their wish. They are no longer under their parents' legal obligation to care for children. They have the legal right to get married and to raise children. They can be eligible to receive social assistance but they cannot participate in Canada's electoral process.
They are not permitted to vote. They can go hunting, drive cars, get married and join the armed forces, but we do not permit young people who wish to vote the opportunity to cast their ballots in terms of the party of their choice and of the policies of their choice. After all, people who are aged 16 and 17 probably have the most to lose or gain by policies that parties and governments put forward compared to others in society.
Let us look at what happens in other jurisdictions that have given the vote to young people aged 16 and 17. There are countries which for a number of years have said that they want our young people to participate in the electoral process, to get involved. We do it for a particular set. Young people of 16 and 17 years of age are welcome to join a political party and choose the leader of that party. They are welcome to participate in enumeration during election time. They are welcome to participate and develop party policy for the New Democrats, the Reform Party, the Conservatives or the Liberals. They can choose leaders, develop policy and participate in the electoral process, but they cannot vote. There seems to be some inconsistency here, some slight hypocrisy in our positioning when we say we want to involve young people in their country's electoral process, we want them to participate but we will not let them vote on voting day.
Now there is a window of opportunity which we have not had for a long time as members of parliament. We can say to young people that not only do we want them to participate in the electoral process to determine the future of their country but we certainly want them to be able to cast a vote on election day by lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. It would potentially add almost 700,000 young people to the voters list. They would not all want to vote, just as their parents do not all want to vote. A lot of adults do not vote today but the majority do.
There are jurisdictions that have permitted young people to vote. A number of years ago Brazil said it wanted 16 and 17 year olds to participate in the electoral process. There were a lot of naysayers who said that they do not care about politics and they will not participate, blah, blah, blah, but the reality is quite the contrary. The participation rate of 16 and 17 year old voters in Brazil is higher than the average. In other words, given the opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful way in their country's future, these young people rallied to the cause, as do young people in Nicaragua. They also have the opportunity to participate and vote at ages 16 and 17. They are participating and showing interest in numbers beyond those of their parents.
Knowing the young people I know and I suspect it is the same for my colleagues in the House of Commons, when we go to high schools and technical schools and we talk to these young people about the future, they have ideas. They know the situation. They have concerns. They would love to participate in the electoral process if we gave them that opportunity. From the limited information we have of those countries that permit this, not only do young people participate but they participate enthusiastically.
My understanding is that the youth wings of all the political parties in the House have endorsed this concept, at least in principle or in detail. Many of the provincial sections of our parties have adopted the idea of considering lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.
As we look through the various clauses of the elections act before us, clause 3 says a person has to be 18. Let us go back 30, 40 or 50 years, or to where we changed the age from 21 to 18. It was stated at that time that 18 year olds were much more informed than they were previously.
We all know about the technological revolution that has taken place in the last few years. Now young people are plugged into the electronic world probably a whole lot more than we are. They understand the issues. They know how to get the information. Those who wish to be are tuned in to the web pages of political parties. They are on the Internet. As a matter of fact some of them spend half their life on the Internet becoming informed about all kinds of issues.
For those young men and women who are 16 and 17 years old, let us be bold as members of parliament as we approach the 21st century and extend to them a welcoming hand. Let us say we want them to participate in their country's electoral process. For goodness sake let us give those who wish to vote the opportunity to do so.
Petitions October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of western Canadians who are concerned about the Snowbirds as a national symbol and a Canadian institution.
They make a number of points, one being that 85 million North American spectators have been enthralled by the Snowbirds over the past 28 years.
They ask parliament to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that continued and stable funding for the Snowbirds 431 air demonstration squadron remains a priority for our country.
Canada Water Export Prohibition Act October 19th, 1999
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very timely. There is a great interest in the country in terms of bulk water exports and the bill is very specific.
There are various requests on various order papers, in a sense, of firms wishing to divert rivers into other basins in order to export water to the United States and northern Mexico. This bill would prohibit such interbasin transfers of water for export purposes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax Act October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was intending to introduce my private member's bill tomorrow, but it is on the order paper today. Therefore I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce it today.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my friend almost threw me with that question because as he was asking it he had one of his hands in his pocket. I was wondering what that was supposed to symbolize, but I will leave that for debate on another day.
Let us be honest about what has happened in British Columbia. When the federal government in its wisdom decided to seriously cut back funding for health care and education, there were very few provinces that decided that they were not going to see actual cutbacks in those two fields in their jurisdictions so they backfilled. They kept their commitments to education and health care and they backfilled so that education and health care would not take the hits that they have in most other provinces across the country.
That was a priority. The Government of British Columbia decided it was crucial as we enter the 21st century in a knowledge based economy that education remain a priority and be accessible to British Columbians. That is another reason tuition fees have been frozen for four years in a row, in order to keep tuition fees low enough so that public education at the post-secondary level is available.
Two very important things are education and health care. I would suspect if my friend had a chance to get to his feet after this question he would admit that he too would value that priority by the Government of British Columbia to keep health care and education as number one and number two priorities in terms of funding.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, why did I get down on my knees in this subservient position during this debate on Bill C-55? Why did I clasp my hands behind my neck in a symbol of submission? It is because that is what we are doing.
Time and time and time again we cave in to the American interests. Just once we would rejoice in this House to stand up for Canadian interests, just one time. Whether it is on the softwood lumber deal, whether it is on the salmon deal on the west coast, let us just one time stand up for Canadian interests and Canadian sovereignty and stop caving in and dropping to our knees the minute an American walks into the room.
Listen to this. This is astonishing. When the government votes on this legislation, we are agreeing to the following definition of Canadian content in publications: “If it is created for the Canadian market and does not appear in any other edition or one or more periodicals published outside of Canada”.
It means if a resident of Waco, Texas writes a story about crime in the streets of Dallas and it is published in Maclean's magazine, that is Canadian content. If we look at the writings of Jesse Helms about the situation in Cuba and it is not printed anywhere else except in a Canadian publication, that becomes Canadian content.
To the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who in their right mind dreamt this up? Who in their right mind could stand in this place and say “I believe that a Texan writing about Texas is Canadian content”. That is what we are being asked to approve in the House this afternoon.
It is disgraceful. Anybody in our country who is interested in Canadian culture when they watch how people vote today will find out who really supports developing Canadian culture.
To conclude, I think I have demonstrated clearly what I think should be the appropriate posture for every Canadian, and particularly every parliamentarian, when we get into the discussion of Canada-American relations. We should assume the Liberal negotiating position, either on our knees or with our hands in the air as a symbol of complete submission. It is unfortunate, but unfortunately that is the case.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention, but consider what we are doing here today. Consider, as we are surrendering to the United States, as we are surrendering to the Americans, what we are actually debating in the House of Commons. In a letter we are agreeing—