Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
Petitions November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of about 7,000 constituents who are calling for a major overhaul of the tax system.
They have all probably filled out their income tax forms recently and are reminded about the goofy nature of our tax system. They are suggesting that it should be revised from top to bottom.
It is a pleasure to present the petition on their behalf.
Personal Information And Electronic Documents Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much having the opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-54, which I suppose is a serious attempt by the government to modernize legislation in recognition of the fact that Canada is entering the digital age. It is an effort by the government of the day to provide a regulatory environment that will enhance electronic commerce and ensure that electronic commerce flourishes in our country.
I want to acknowledge that when we look at the advances countries have made in electronic commerce, Canada has in fact played a leadership role in this respect, certainly as far as public policy is concerned. I noticed with interest just in the last six months the number of new publications that have come into being regarding various areas of this phenomenon called e-commerce.
If one was to identify the specific purpose of Bill C-54 it would be to create a legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce by introducing measures to protect personal information in the private sector, by creating an electronic alternative for doing business with the federal government and by clarifying how the courts assess the reliability of electronic records used as evidence.
There are a number of important issues that are attached to this legislation. Let us first look at the implications of electronic commerce itself. I suspect that most Canadians are unaware at this point of the effect that e-commerce will have on their lives in the very near future. The growth of electronic commerce is expanding arithmetically in such a fashion that it will be doubling, tripling and quadrupling in the weeks and months ahead.
Let us look at some of the larger Canadian firms. I will not mention any specifically because I suspect that at this point this is relatively privileged information. However, we have been told by a number of the larger firms in Canada that now a significant amount of their purchasing is done using e-commerce. That has done away with a whole number of what we would normally refer to as middlemen: the wholesalers, the retailers, the shippers and all sorts of others who would normally be part of a commercial arrangement between, let us say, a manufacturer and the eventual purchaser of goods.
Some of the larger firms have indicated that they now purchase over 85% of their annual goods using this type of method which, I guess if we were to extrapolate this in the long term, means that we will see, as the result of e-commerce, hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear.
They will not disappear over the next 10 to 20 years, they will disappear over the next 10 to 20 months as firms introduce electronic commerce as a way of purchasing their supplies and realize the financial benefits attached to using e-commerce. I suspect a lot of people are going to make a lot of money by simply introducing this to individuals firms. A lot of firms will save a lot of money directly, but the fallout will be that hundreds of thousands of existing jobs will no longer exist because they will be made redundant as a result of electronic commerce.
In my previous comments to the House regarding Bill C-54 I detailed how this process would work. I will not repeat that, but I will say that since I made those comments I have spoken with a number of individuals who are presently involved in setting up electronic commerce facilities in various businesses. They tell me that this is going to—and I use the term advisedly—revolutionize the retail sector. That is actually a euphemism for wiping it out. Modernize, revolutionize and major change are other ways of saying that whole sectors of the retail sector of our economy will be eliminated. This will take place very quickly.
We could consider, for example, a business such as a travel agency. Travel agents should probably start looking at college and university courses for a new career because electronic commerce is pretty well going to make them redundant. People who are in the brokerage business advising clients, particularly low and middle income clients, with respect to their stock portfolio should probably look at another career option because this type of electronic networking will simply do away with the need for these folks in our society.
One can lament that, but I think it is fair to say that we are not Luddites by definition. We acknowledge that e-commerce is with us. What is crucial is that we understand the incredible impact it will have on our society economically, particularly when it comes to jobs, in the next little while.
Normally many of us think that in another decade or two we will see major changes. I wish we were talking about a decade or two, but we are probably talking about a year or two. This will result in huge and major changes to the way business is conducted in our country. I do not think that we appreciate the impact which electronic commerce will have.
I know this is a modest effort by the government to move in the direction of ensuring privacy.
Just the other day I walked into a store in the city of Ottawa. I made a purchase and they asked me to sign a little screen. I asked why I was signing the screen. They said that once they had my signature I would not have to sign anything any more when I made purchases. I did not think that sounded like a good idea. I would just as soon be on record as having made a conscious decision every time I made a purchase. I refused to sign the screen, but the reality is that presumably people are signing these screens and their signatures are on record. Once a signature is on record in one place, I suppose it could be moved very quickly to other locales. I use this as a practical example of how privacy will be affected as a result of these moves toward a digitalized economy.
It is fair to say that in our society there are a number of organizations which have attempted to protect human rights in our country. The right to privacy, for example, is a human right just like the right to equality and justice. The United Nations universal declaration of human rights, which is celebrating its 50th year this year and to which Canada is a signatory, specifies that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person and that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy—family, home or correspondence—nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Obviously our concern about privacy is very serious.
I could go on and on to make the point. However, what I am going to say in closing is that I do not believe our privacy is adequately protected by this legislation. When this bill moves to committee this will be a crucial part of the inquiry that needs to take place. We will need to have a sufficient number of witnesses come forward to convince the parliamentary committee that privacy has, in fact, been dealt with adequately in the legislation.
I want to indicate that a number of individuals representing groups have come forward in support of the general thrust of the legislation in principle, but, on the other hand, they have gone out of their way to point out a potential flaw, and that is the right to protect privacy, not only in the legislation, but in the attached regulations as well.
Petitions October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, petitioners from central British Columbia are concerned that the government has not given up on the MAI and its implications and that it will pursue it at the WTO. They are asking that parliament impose a moratorium on any ratification of the MAI or of the clauses contained therein at whatever forum, whether it be at the WTO or another forum.
Petitions October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, petitioners from central British Columbia are concerned about the penalties handed out to those people who are cruel toward animals. They feel that judges are not handing out appropriate sentences and that there ought to be some kind of education program for judges so that people who are cruel to animals are treated in a more appropriate fashion.
Petitions October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a large number of constituents from the Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys constituency who are concerned about the increased premiums we are going to see in the Canada Pension Plan and the impact that is going to have, in particular on those who are operating small businesses and those who are self-employed.
These are crucial times economically and the petitioners feel that these extra costs could be extremely problematic.
Petitions October 26th, 1998
I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, on a totally different topic. These petitioners from Kamloops are concerned about the lack of serious consideration for people who hurt animals. They want judges to give more serious sentences to people who harm animals.
Petitions October 26th, 1998
I present a second petition, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of small business operators in central British Columbia who are concerned about the massive increases in CPP premiums. They support the principle of CPP but they want the government to acknowledge that this will create serious hardship in terms of one more type of payroll tax.
Petitions October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 signed by thousands of my constituents. They are concerned about the MAI and are not convinced that the government is going to back off on this. It may have been sort of curtailed for the moment but they want to make it perfectly clear that they have 101 reasons for opposing the MAI, which I will not read.
Taxation October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will soon be known as the Grinch who stole Christmas.
Canadians last week were shocked to find that the government has now decided to tax fun by taxing things like Christmas parties. The cost of a Christmas party is now to be a taxable benefit.
Will the Minister of Finance simply stand and say, no, the government is not that badly off that it is going to start taxing fun, Christmas parties, Hallowe'en parties and the like?
Petitions October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition individuals from Quebec are concerned that although there are a lot of grave offences caused against animals, there has been no record of any court ever taking them seriously.
The petitioners are calling for serious penalties for people who cause pain and harm to animals and they suggest an educational program to help judges understand the seriousness of this offence.