Val Meredith

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 3 with the following:

“Senate or of the House of Commons who has been elected by secret ballot (other”

[Trade, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past week the government has shown its true colours when it comes to international trade: full support for Bombardier, writing off the grain farmers and clueless about softwood lumber.

While the government is negotiating a continental energy plan with the U.S., it has shown no willingness to link energy discussions with other trade issues. When will the government tell Americans that if they want to keep the lights on in California they had better be prepared to accept our lumber products?

[Computer Hackers, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the private member's motion that has been put on the agenda by my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in Canada.

There is not one of us in this place who is not aware of the importance of the Internet and of the new technologies available to us to allow us to do our job. There is no one in the House who does not understand the potential of the invasion of a person's privacy through the new technology that we use.

The industry committee took many hours in looking at the new e-commerce, the privacy issues and how we protect information when using this new technology. Companies in society have created an international environment through the use of the Internet and the use of new technologies.

My colleague who spoke earlier gave a couple of examples of new technologies as his phone rang and his BlackBerry warning went off. These new technologies have become part of how we conduct ourselves, how we do business, how we communicate with each other and how we share information immediately. I could write an e-mail message and send it to someone in Vienna, Austria, who would receive it immediately. It is a technology that has advanced our business community. It has allowed that community to be competitive in the international scheme of things.

When we talk about offences, about people who break into someone's system or about someone who deliberately plants a virus that will disrupt a communication tool, we need to have some vehicle or means of dealing with it.

I do not think we are talking about high school kids who play around and mischievously plant things in computer systems, but we are talking about people who, for either their own personal gain or for a reason more serious than that, deliberately interfere with the ability of a company to communicate either within its own company or with others around the world.

I know and have known for a number of years that there has been a concern within companies about people trying to hack into their computer systems for malicious reasons, either because they are disgruntled employees or because they want to remove or destroy information within the system that might affect them or might benefit them economically.

We have a whole new range of criminal activity. I call it criminal activity because people are deliberately, maliciously and intentionally destroying the abilities of companies, corporations and banks to use the new technology in the manner it was designed to be used.

We have to deal with these individuals who are committing crimes. People have used the analogy of someone who breaks into a home and rifles through papers, goes through closets and dressers and gets access to things that he or she has no business having access to.

When we talk about hacking into a bank, we are talking about the ability to transfer money, to actually steal assets or to remove information that clearly defines who those assets belong to.

There are other circumstances as well. Someone who hacks into a defence equipment file or a police file has access to very sensitive information. In the police scenario, someone could destroy the credibility of evidence to be presented in court. In the defence scenario, someone might get information that is a risk to the security of the country.

How do we deal with this? Today there is no specific way of dealing with an individual who is hacking into computer equipment and programs. To those doing business, the cost of trying to protect computer networks from outside hackers is incredible. They are constantly trying to be ahead of technology. Businesses are constantly trying to figure out how to prevent people from hacking into their systems. It must be very frustrating for businesses to have to put these costs into their system and their budgetary programming knowing that if an individual is caught hacking into their computer systems, it is questionable whether or not that individual would face a criminal charge or have any kind of meaningful sanction.

Then we get into the issue of viruses and their potential to create the same kind of damage. There it is not stealing information, accessing or transferring assets or anything of that nature, but if this is done deliberately to create confusion or to cause disruption to a company doing business, it should be considered a very serious criminal action. That also is not happening because there is nothing in legislation that specifically sets up the issue for people who create viruses. I do not think there is a member in the Chamber who does not know about the effect a virus can have and about the insecurity one has in dealing with computers knowing all these viruses exist.

I recently bought a new software program that is able to hunt out viruses when I turn on the computer. It deals with viruses and removes them from the system. Supposedly the software program can kill a virus brought in from the outside before it attacks any information in the system. However, I found out that I am not protected from any new virus that comes in after the software program came on the market. How many software virus programs does a person have to buy? Does a person have to buy one every day because every day someone is creating a new virus?

We have to consider this concern, as I am sure people are, with our reliance on new technology such as e-mail, the Internet and even storing information on computer networks. Certainly here in the House of Commons we have that concern.

If someone were so creative as to come up with a virus that would shut down all the systems at the same time, I am not sure how society or commerce or banking would survive, because we have become very reliant on computer technology. What about buying licence plates for my car or buying groceries or doing my banking? Most people use debit cards in grocery stores, restaurants or Canadian Tire. Debit cards are tied into a computer network. I really wonder whether as a society we could manage to keep operating. Because of our reliance on the new technology and on the security of the new technology, it is extremely important that we recognize computer hacking as a criminal offence and put sanctions on it.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt deserves a lot of credit for taking seriously what he heard as concerns of the industry committee, the business community and also the medical community. He is to be commended for hearing their concerns and for identifying a situation that our criminal code does not deal with sufficiently.

We should view the motion my hon. colleague has presented to the House as a positive thing, as something that can at least begin to address and support the study done by the industry committee. We need to be very concerned about the privacy, security and protection of the new technology, of the information highway, of information systems and of all the different areas of the new technology that can be interfered with and interrupted and undermined by a criminal mind.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to support my colleague. I appreciate his diligence in putting the bill before the House. I hope that all parties would see the need to support the legislation and ensure that it at least advances beyond a private member's motion.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the BDC wanted these documents because they contained information about an alleged debt owed by the Auberge Grand-Mère to the Prime Minister's company.

Only after the Prime Minister's Office determined that these documents were forgeries did the BDC decide to refer the matter to the police. Did the Prime Minister or the PMO have anything to do with the BDC's decision to refer these documents to the RCMP?

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Prime Minister's former chief of operations, Jean Carle, is in charge of the Business Development Bank's legal department. This is the same department that asked to search, seize and destroy documents related to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Did Jean Carle play any role at all in getting his legal team to go after those documents?

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly one way to get the government members to join in this debate.

There was almost unanimous agreement that the government had no right to take over the rate setting processes from the commission. There was almost unanimous consent from all parties, with the exception of the government side, to removing this aspect. Although the government said that this was a temporary measure for only a two year period of time, it is very clear to all of us in the House, and to most Canadians, that whenever the government takes over control of anything it very seldom, if ever, returns that control where it belongs.

Both employers and employees, and I will include the unions in this, are very much against the government using the EI surplus of $35 billion to balance its books. They feel that money has been accumulated by premiums of both employers and employees, and should be used for no other purpose than the employment insurance account. This is just one more example of how the government has taken control. It has taken responsibility, authority and control of matters like this and put them into the hands of a small group of people in the cabinet.

I would like to report the position as I heard it from the business community. The Canadian business community was almost unanimous in the opposition to major elements of this bill. While the business community believes that people in seasonal industries need assistance, they do not believe that it is appropriate for it to come from the employment insurance fund of which they are required to pay 60%. The business community felt the EI fund should not be used by the government to fund social programs. It felt that was a taxation that should be shared by all Canadians, not just the business community and the workers.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce viewed Bill C-2 as being inconsistent with development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit and did not advance Canada's competitiveness in a global economy.

A survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs went unfilled because of a shortage of suitable skilled labour. It is criminal that there would be 250,000 to 300,000 jobs that we cannot fill because we do not have a trained, skilled labour force.

It was also obvious from the witnesses that we heard that this bill is a major concern in rural areas of Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Approximately three-quarters of the witnesses representing local communities or organizations were from these regions. They talked a lot about the impact the 1996 changes had on their communities. In some cases millions of dollars had been removed from the regional economy. That should be a concern to the government.

I want to respond to some comments that have been made about the attitude of people in Atlantic Canada. Comments have been made that Atlantic Canadians might be considered to be lazy. Lazy people do not work in Cape Breton coal mines. Lazy people do not go out in December to pull up lobster traps in the cold and the dark.

While some businesses have complained about being unable to find workers, there is little wonder when one considers that the maximum weekly employment benefit is $413. A minimum wage job of $7 an hour, seven hours a day, five days a week is only $245.

The question has to be asked. Is Atlantic Canada only good enough for minimum wage jobs? The answer to that is no. Atlantic Canadians have as much right as any other Canadian to expect to get paid a decent wage so they can support their families.

Two generations of Atlantic Canadians have been caught in the EI trap. Witnesses testified that young adults were leaving the fishing communities. The average age of food processing plants in Atlantic Canada is 44 years. It is unlikely that these individuals will be writing software in the high tech businesses in the near future. With the way the high tech businesses are going in today's economy, those jobs might not be there anyway. Atlantic Canada has a burgeoning offshore resource economy. It is vital that the government provide the necessary education and training to assist this region in diversifying its economy.

I sometimes get into trouble in my caucus when I say this, but there is a parallel between Atlantic Canadian fishermen and Canadian farmers in the prairies. While fishermen suffer from a lack of supply, farmers suffer from a lack of demand. However, in both instances these are traditional occupations in the midst of dramatic transformation. The government must work with stakeholders to reinvent these industries for the 21st century. The government has an obligation to make sure that people who rely on those industries move forward in the economies of the 21st century.

For people who are in situations that do not offer them opportunities, government has an obligation to think outside of the box. The government has to look for alternatives for people who are working in a seasonal industry area. One of the most important things the government has to show some support for and put many resources into is education.

Young people in communities who traditionally rely on seasonal employment must be provided with other alternatives. Education will afford them choices that they may not have now. Individuals must be provided with job skills for the workplace in the 21st century. We have to move forward in what we offer for education.

We have to provide training so that people who are stuck in a seasonal industry can move into another industry that becomes available, which hopefully the government will help to develop. We must provide people who are presently in a seasonal workforce with job training and job skills for the workplace in the 21st century.

Another thing we heard was the way the apprenticeship program operated and that sometimes it discouraged young people from looking at it, or even older people, because of the delay in receiving benefits or the two week disallowance for benefits. We feel that anybody who is in job training or in educational programs should be covered for those two weeks. We do not think there should be downtime for people who are trying to advance their skills so they can move on in the workforce. It is important that the government address this in order to encourage more young people to continue or enter apprenticeship programs.

One of the things the government has to address in thinking outside the box is that there has to be a long term commitment to infrastructure programs in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and all across this country, because only long term infrastructure programs will open up those economies to diversification. It is only by building bigger and better roads that material can be moved to and from industries and that will open up those areas.

There is a reason why the Halifax port did not become the super port. It lacked the infrastructure necessary for it to get the product to the marketplace. It lacked the infrastructure necessary to be considered a super port.

The government has to make a commitment to those areas where there are seasonal jobs. The government has to commit to opening up those areas, to putting infrastructure money into those areas and to putting money into job training and skills training so those economies can diversify and move forward in the 21st century.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak at third reading on Bill C-2. The bill was introduced by the government to live up to some of the election promises it made before the last election.

The minor amendments included in Bill C-2 are, at best, tinkering. It is quite obvious after listening to many witnesses that the EI act has become so convoluted and confusing that a new act is required to treat all employees and employers fairly and to clearly define the role and limits of employment insurance in Canada.

The Liberals' misuse of EI has betrayed workers in traditionally seasonal employment. That was made abundantly clear by the witnesses we heard from. The current EI rules discourage education and skills acquisition. It is incumbent upon the government to develop a strategy for workers in traditionally seasonal employment which, to a large extent, is a rural Canadian issue. It is incumbent upon the government to address that issue.

However, there are many who felt that EI legislation was not the vehicle for the government to do that. The 1996 amendments to the EI legislation were to do three things: one, to make unemployment benefits more active, for example, to rely less on income support and more on labour market adjustment; two, to enhance employment stability; and three, to lower program costs.

When the government introduced Bill C-2, it said that these objectives had not been met, that in fact the adjustments had failed to reduce frequent EI use. The government bases its position on a study that examined the impact of intensity rules during the first year of application. While the professors who did the study justified an examination of only one year, another professor testifying at the very same time said that one year was not sufficient to study a change in behaviour. Therefore, there is some contention as to whether the information the government has used in Bill C-2 to rescind changes made in previous legislation in 1996 is questionable.

I want to examine some of the aspects of this legislation which we are dealing with at third reading.

I want to deal specifically at this time with the intensity rule.

The minister stated that the intensity rule has had the unintended consequence of being punitive. Some industries at the committee told us that they had seen their entire workforce, subject to the maximum reduction of benefits, going from 55% of their salary down to 50%. In some industries, like the fishery industry, the workers pointed out that they were not seasonal workers, they just worked in an industry that was seasonal. The government designates the period of time when these fishermen can work. The government determines when the fishing season is open, thus limiting the time when work is available.

However, the seasonal use of EI has permitted more companies and individuals to remain in an industry than is economically viable. We cannot escape the fact that by definition the regular use of the EI program makes it a wage subsidization program and not an insurance program.

I would like to move on to the benefit repayment provision which is known to most Canadians as the clawback.

The minister stated that the clawback was being modified because it was not properly targeted. The clawback was introduced to discourage individuals with higher incomes from repeatedly collecting benefits.

The minister stated in her appearance before the committee that some affected groups under the clawback provision from 1996 were not clearly dependent on employment insurance. That may be, but by exempting individuals who have collected less than one week of EI in the previous 10 years from the clawback, it is clear that the main point of the clause in Bill C-2 is to eliminate the graduated schedule of high repayment rates for frequent claimants that was introduced in 1996.

With Bill C-2, an individual who collected two weeks of EI benefits in the past 10 years would be subject to the same 30% clawback as an individual who collected 200 weeks of EI over the past 10 years. That is taking someone who only collected two weeks and treating that person in the very same way as someone who collected over 200 weeks. It is quite clear that the attempt is to eliminate the graduated schedule of repayment for frequent claimers.

I think every Canadian understands and appreciates that there has to be a limit set and that there has to be a set amount of income where an individual no longer qualifies. I do not believe any Canadian would like to see NHL players collecting EI in an off season. I think Canadians accept the fact that there has to be a limit set. The big question is where should that line be set? What is the limit that should be set?

The average yearly earning in Canada is currently $31,700. This means that the clawbacks affect only those individuals who currently make significantly more than the average Canadian. The elimination of the graduated schedule of increased clawbacks for high income earners who are frequent EI collectors means that low income contributors to the EI fund who never claim employment insurance are in effect subsidizing those high income earners who frequently claim employment insurance.

The one issue we all agree with is that there was widespread support, or opposition to depending on how we look at the issue, from both the employers and the union. While they had different objectives with the rates, both groups strongly opposed the way government was using surplus EI premiums in general revenue. Both the employers and unions objected to the cabinet taking over the control of setting employment insurance rates. Clause 9 has been snuck into the middle of a bill.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, for unanimous consent to have clause 9 struck from the bill.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

[Privilege, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today pertaining to comments made by the government House leader yesterday in the House.

On page 2668 of Hansard , the government House leader is quoted as stating:

Both speakers from the Alliance who have preceded my remarks have been sued, both successfully and both for saying wrong things about Canadians.

I was one of the speakers to whom the minister referred. When the government House leader stood and made that comment he spoke about a case he had heard as a member of the Board of Internal Economy. As a member of the board, he had firsthand knowledge of the details of the case.

As the House leader was making a definitive assertion, one not in the public domain, it is logical to conclude that there was only one place he could have obtained the information, which was via his role as a member of the Board of Internal Economy.

As every member of the House knows, members of the Board of Internal Economy are bound by oath or affirmation of fidelity and secrecy as legislated in the Parliament of Canada Act. It is my contention that the government House leader violated his oath as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of Canada Act and my privileges as a member of parliament.

There are no public documents or media reports which show that I was ever successfully sued. The court documents show that the lawsuit against me was dismissed without cost. In an October 15, 1999 Ottawa Citizen article, authored by Jim Bronskill, there was only mention of an out of court settlement.

When the government House leader claimed that I was successfully sued, he obviously obtained the information from a source outside the public domain.

As a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the government House leader has firsthand knowledge of the disposition of my lawsuit. In fact, he played more of a role in determining the outcome of the lawsuit than I did, as I was not privy to the discussions of the BOIE.

When the government House leader stood in the House yesterday and said that I was successfully sued, people would infer that he knew what he was talking about because he had access to information not available to the public.

Despite taking an oath of secrecy, the minister chose to discuss the case in public because it suited his political purposes.

The Board of Internal Economy finds its authority in the Statutes of Canada, specifically the Parliament of Canada Act. Subsection 50(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act reads:

Every member of the Board shall, as soon as practicable after becoming a member of the Board, take before the Clerk of the House of Commons an oath or affirmation of fidelity and secrecy in the form set out in Form 3 of the schedule.

Form 3 of the schedule reads as follows:

I,..., do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully, truly and to the best of my judgment, skill and ability execute and perform the duties required of me as a member of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons.

I further solemnly swear (affirm) that I will not communicate or allow to be communicated to any person without due authority in that behalf any information relating to matters of employment and staff relations, tenders, security and investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons, nor will I allow any such person to inspect or have access to any books or documents belonging to or in the possession of the Board and relating to the business of the Board. (In the case where an oath is taken, add “So help me God”).

I know that members of the board generally hold their oaths very dear because when my case was heard the level of secrecy was so high that even I received extremely limited communication from the board.

However, for reasons of his own, the government House leader chose to ignore his oath, which is the law, and to make a new allegation.

Under no circumstances should the government House leader or any other member of the board discuss in public a case they have heard as members of the Board of Internal Economy. He certainly should not have made an accusation that was not in the public domain when he had firsthand knowledge of the true facts of the case.

It is clear that the government House leader's comments were not just an off the cuff mistake. He led the government's opposition to our motion yesterday and his attack on me was obviously part of his strategy.

The government House leader's accusation was also made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister during debate and by the Minister of Industry during question period. This was clearly a planned and deliberate act by the government House leader.

If the government House leader's assertion that I was successfully sued is true, then he is obviously in clear violation of his Board of Internal Economy oath, the Statutes of Canada and my privileges as a member of parliament.

This situation is even more egregious. Not only did the government House leader talk about a case that he had dealt with at the Board of Internal Economy, he chose to deliberately misrepresent the facts of the case. By no legal measure could it ever be considered that I was sued successfully.

It must be pointed out that the very next government speaker, the Minister of Industry, who was not a member of the BOIE at the time in question, presented a more accurate portrayal of what transpired and carefully avoided any mention of me being successfully sued. The truth, therefore, was obviously known to the government side.

However, for purely partisan, political purposes, the government House leader chose to ignore the truth. Instead, despite having firsthand knowledge of the truth through the BOIE, he deliberately chose to present a misleading statement to the House.

As stated on page 119 of Erskine May's twenty-first edition:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

As previously mentioned, this was not an off the cuff remark by the minister. It was obviously a calculated strategy devised by the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, I also refer you to the twenty-second edition of Erskine May, where on page 63 it states:

It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.

I do not believe members of the House will have a great deal of confidence in the Board of Internal Economy if members of that board believe they can discuss in public the cases they have heard. Certainly there will be no confidence in the BOIE if its members are free to not only discuss cases in public but to deliberately misrepresent them.

In conclusion, the government House leader made a definitive statement about me. It is either true or false. If the statement is true, the minister has violated his oath as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of Canada Act and, by extension, my privileges as a member of parliament.

If the statement is false, and I contend that it is, not only has the government House leader violated his oath as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of Canada Act and my privileges as a member of parliament, he has also deliberately misled the House and is therefore in contempt of the House.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find this a prima facie case of both privilege and contempt. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion in that case.

[Prime Minister, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Gauthier got the $6.3 million CIDA contract, for which he did not qualify, and soon thereafter bought land from a company in which the Prime Minister had a financial interest.

After donating $10,000 to the Prime Minister's election campaign, the PMO ensured that Mr. Gauthier received a $1.2 million HRDC grant.

Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when in 1993 he promised Canadians to govern with integrity?