Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if this is an appropriate point of order, but since the government House leader is here and he has just tabled the changes to the Elections Act, does it include lowering the voting age to 16?
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
Canada Elections Act June 7th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know if this is an appropriate point of order, but since the government House leader is here and he has just tabled the changes to the Elections Act, does it include lowering the voting age to 16?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to rise today to speak at report stage of Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.
We are truly today speaking about an economic revolution that is sweeping our country, our continent and indeed the world. The whole issue of electronic commerce will have profound implications on the way that business is conducted, where people work, how people work and how business will be transacted. It is part of the globalization forces at work in our country. It has already had a major impact on business transactions in our country.
If there is one thing that has become very clear in the last number of months in which electronic commerce has begun to move into the stratosphere in terms of importance, it is the concern that people have about information about themselves that is being shared between companies, organizations and individuals themselves. Therefore, the public of Canada has been calling upon us to do something about the privacy of information.
If hon. members were to do a little shopping on the Internet and they found themselves a nice book that they wanted to read and they were asked for their credit card number, they would probably wonder where that credit card number was going to end up.
When people apply for a credit card, on the application there are a number of pieces of information about their financial world and their lifestyle itself and at the moment that information can be shared with virtually anyone. As a matter of fact, it is probably sold to different groups in terms of being used for their marketing plans and so on.
As we move into the World Wide Web of commerce, and as we become participants as individuals, something has to be done to protect privacy and personal information. I am pleased to say that Bill C-54 is a major step in the right direction.
When I spoke at second reading I indicated a number of concerns that we in the New Democratic Party had about this bill. Most of those concerns have been addressed. I am pleased to say that when it comes to third reading we will be supporting this piece of legislation. I will say on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues that it is a good first step in providing protection for personal information held by private sector organizations. More importantly, it will give consumers the tools and the confidence they will need to fully participate in the thriving but highly complex 21st century economy, that knowledge based economy of the 21st century that will see the use of the World Wide Web, the use of computers particularly for inter-business transactions, but also transactions between individuals and business firms.
I think it is fair to say that a number of firms and organizations met with the industry committee. Perhaps at this stage I should say that I want to compliment members of the industry committee on the work which they have done in dealing with the provisions of this legislation. I am a new member of this committee and I must say that when I looked over the transcripts of the committee proceedings, when I looked over the minutes of the proceedings and when I looked at the various experts who were called upon to report, I thought that the examination was very thorough.
One of the issues raised, and I think many of us received personal correspondence to this effect, was about people who do research using personal information about individuals. I am thinking of historians, genealogists, geographers, authors, urban planners, social policy analysts, medical researchers, climatologists, media of all types, anthropologists and occasionally even politicians who research information about individuals and, as a result, require personal information.
This legislation, as I understand it, protects the information, in that people can access that information for their research purposes as long as it is not being researched to be used for commercial means. If a researcher wants to look into the personal life of Louis Riel, he or she can seek an exemption through the legislation from the privacy commissioner. That exemption will be given and the researcher will simply have to indicate that the information will not be used for commercial purposes.
Although we want to see the regulations, I believe that the concerns researchers have brought to the attention of the committee have been addressed adequately in this legislation. If this becomes a problem for ongoing research, it is something we will need to re-address in the future in terms of making some modifications to the legislation. At this point let us assume those problems have been dealt with.
Another issue is that when we have privacy protection, when it comes to personal information, we do not want to have a number of different systems across the country. We do not want to have ten provincial and three territorial systems. We want to have one Canadian system.
We are under a lot of pressure from the European Union to get this legislation into place, to meld in with the work it has done. It expects us to act by this summer. This legislation presumably will be passed by the Parliament of Canada before the summer.
We will oppose the amendments in Group No. 1. They are thoughtful amendments from the Bloc Quebecois, but it is important that we acknowledge that if we represent one province or different provincial jurisdictions regarding this issue across the country it would not be appropriate. We have to oppose these amendments in order to maintain the consistency of these rules and regulations from coast to coast to coast and not have them on an interprovincial basis.
It is important to note at this early stage in the debate that this bill has an international context. We are aware that certain European Union deadlines have been imposed. We are not interested in being an obstacle to the passage of this bill. Indeed it is incumbent upon Canada to take the necessary measures to address these EU directives on the protection of personal data.
As a political party we support this legislation. Sufficient safeguards have been built in to address the concerns that have been raised at the second reading stage. We look forward to the debate on the second group of amendments.
Internet Child Pornography Prevention Act June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been discussions among all the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent of the House to replace the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar with the name of the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore as a sponsor of private member's Bill C-424 on the order paper.
Petitions June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a large number of constituents from the Kamloops region who are concerned about the pressures building to export freshwater from Canada.
The petitioners point out a number of reasons, which I have presented in previous petitions. They are calling on Canada not to proceed with any possible transporting or exporting of freshwater resources from Canada to the United States and Mexico.
Petitions June 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I must say I am particularly upset with the point raised in the last petition myself, on a personal basis. However, I do not want to associate myself with the member's previous petition.
It is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from a number of constituents who are aware of discussions presently ongoing with the Government of Canada and a number of provincial governments about the possible transferring of federal responsibility for urban native housing.
Consequently, the petitioners have a number of reasons for opposing this, which are pretty self-evident to most people. They are asking the Government of Canada not to proceed with the proposal to download the urban native housing program to the provinces.
Petitions May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition concerning trade. The concern of the petitioners is that there seems to be growing pressure to export fresh water from Canada. They are very concerned and call upon parliament to do whatever is necessary to safeguard the future of fresh water in Canada.
Petitions May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition from petitioners from British Columbia.
The petitioners state that at some point during the production of child pornography either a child or children have been victimized, that child pornography hurts children, that it can never be justified and that the possession of child pornography perpetuates the production of children pornography.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize that Canadians reject the legalization of the possession of child pornography and ask the government to intervene on this matter to establish and strengthen laws relating to the possession of child pornography to ensure that it will never be legalized.
Petitions May 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand once again on behalf of petitioners from Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland, the prairie provinces, British Columbia and the territories.
The petitioners point out that while the Criminal Code imposes serious sentences on people who abuse animals in a variety of ways, judges, by and large, do not take cruelty to animals too seriously in terms of the record. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to impose harsher penalties for serious offences against animals and to establish an education program for judges to help them understand society's abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.
Petitions May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of quite a number of constituents from the greater Kamloops area.
The petitioners point out the concern Canadians have regarding violent crime and violence on our streets. Polls indicate that 90% of Canadians do not believe stricter gun control laws will actually prevent more violent crimes. The petitioners point out a number of studies which show that while violence has been a problem, stricter gun control laws have been ineffective in changing anything. The petitioners also point out that in 1997 the RCMP investigated over 88,000 cases regarding violent crimes and only .08% involved the use of firearms.
The petitioners are suggesting that Bill C-68 which is obviously costing hundreds of millions of dollars is a wasted piece of legislation and the government should be doing a number of other things which they articulate in terms of more effective ways to fight crime.
Petitions May 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is an honour and a privilege to present this petition on behalf of citizens of British Columbia. I will not read it, but there is a long list of reasons why the petitioners do not think the Senate is an appropriate institution and are calling upon the House to take steps to abolish the Senate of Canada.