Jim Jones

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. This bill represents a key advancement in Canada's important role in the development of the international space station and further strengthens the very valuable level of international co-operation that began under the previous Progressive Conservative government.

As a point of recognition the PC Party has supported this bill from its inception as it is a further development in the process that began under the leadership of Brian Mulroney. On this level I must congratulate the minister for continuing his government's commitment to the agenda set by the former prime minister.

Beyond furthering Canada's reputation as a major player in international efforts, the bill provides for an important contribution to the development of the Canadian scientific community. However, it must be noted that this is but a scratch in the surface of where we must go in order to further develop our high tech industry which stretches well beyond our responsibilities to the space program.

The bill is easy to support given the origins of its purpose. Beyond this, it is one that is merely evidence of the Liberal government's chronic, mediocre commitment to advancing the Canadian context of technology. For instance, since 1993 the government has steadily cut into the budget of the Canadian space agency, reducing it from $378 million in the 1993-94 budget period to $350 million this year and ultimately down to a level of $300 million in the future.

As the developed world around us races toward the future the Liberal government creeps along a path of complacent indifference toward this most vital sector of our economy and of our well-being. As our talented technology workers head south of the border—incidentally, with the Prime Minister's full support—the Canadian technology sector, stifled in large part by high taxation, slips further and further behind our competitors.

As an example of the fast rate of change in the United States I will point out the incomprehensible speed at which the technology sector is advancing in the United States. Through innovation and e-commerce, for example, Dell Computers is generating $30 million per day in Internet sales every single day of the year. How does it do it? Hard work and a system that rewards innovation and growth.

As further evidence, in Santa Clara, California alone, 64 millionaires emerge every day from the competitive and rewarding environment that is so vital in fostering this astronomical rate of growth. These are two examples of many.

Why does this not occur in Canada? One need only look at this bill to appreciate the cause. It has taken nearly two years for the government to finally get Bill C-4 through parliament, just barely making it for the international co-operation deadline in January.

This slow rate of progress is not a confidence building approach. Taking this long to get through a piece of legislation which we all, in essence, support is remarkably counterproductive, especially when one realizes that we should be dealing with far more issues related to the technology sector.

The government must get off its duff and accept that we are losing the great war for talent. Yes, the bill does provide money for research and development to the technology sector, but it is incredibly far from being enough. Everywhere else this industry is in a brawl with no rules, whereas in Canada, among the countless punitive regulations and taxes, the most telling rule is “Leave if you don't like it”.

That is what our talent does. They do not wish to have to reply to the question of “Where were you during the great enterprises of Y2K?” by saying they were waiting for the Liberal government to stop diddling over long overdue legislation and tax cuts. That is why they leave. There is virtually no commitment to ensuring that we give our massively talented workforce the tools to prosper in the most important industry of the present and indeed the future.

It should come as no surprise that the government waffles on this issue. In fact it becomes more and more apparent that its interest wanes when it is asked to support something it did not create.

I strongly urge that the government take some leadership on this issue. I do not offer this appeal on the basis that we begin massive new spending projects. Quite the contrary, we need to offer an environment that allows the technology industry to do what it does best, innovate. However, it is hard to do so when there is an increasing burden of taxation on the corporate sector and on the individuals it employs. This is completely unacceptable.

The only way we can bring Canada up to a far greater level of productivity in technology is to slash taxes. We need to cut taxes in a meaningful way for Canadian businesses and Canadians, not as window dressing for the posterity of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

The government need not provide the capital if it is encouraging the incentive. That incentive lies at the end of the day, when the hard working and talented Canadian workers are able to see a substantive reward for their efforts. Should this occur, should we rise to the occasion, the government and the country will reap the rewards of excellence.

My party and I fully support Bill C-4 and do not wish to further delay this valuable piece of legislation. I will, however, restate my message to the government that it best begin to change this lethargic approach to the industry and get on the ball. It has to recognize and respond to the rapid rate of change. It is barely able to govern effectively with its present complacence with regard to pressing issues which, as it happens, may disqualify it from successfully governing for the future, and that is the kind of leadership which the country so desperately needs.

[The Late Roderick Webb, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Roderick Webb, a name synonymous with leadership and patriotism, a man who put his hometown of Norwood on the map, passed away on October 1, 1999. Mr. Webb, the former Conservative MP for the Hastings—Frontenac riding, was a man said to bring water to Norwood homes in 1949.

Married on June 12, 1941, Mr. Webb poured out his life as an example in love, marriage and family, along with his wife Roxie and son Fred. He devoted his life to the people of Norwood who frequented his small town business, Rod Webb Electric, for 15 years. He gave to his friends in a most typical small town Canadian way through the making of stained glass lamps and through the repairs of their household appliances.

Mr. Webb poured out himself to his town and his country in the same way. He served 13 years on Norwood council, 11 as a councillor and the last 2 as a reeve. He was president of the East Peterborough Agriculture Society, the Travellers Association and numerous other community organizations that typified his desire to give back.

Rod did not know how to give anything less than his best effort. Too often in politics superlatives are used loosely and generously, but make no mistake. Rod Webb was legitimately “an inspiration” through his kind disposition and strong leadership. In many ways he typified what it meant to be a constituency MP.

The courage and patriotism he displayed by serving in the Royal Canadian Air Force in the second world war remained with him. These attributes were witnessed time and time again by my former colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party.

During his time in the House of Commons he was fortunate enough to serve in both government and opposition. Mr. Webb was first elected to the House of Commons on October 5, 1959, where he served under Prime Minister Diefenbaker. He was re-elected in 1962. He then successfully held his seat in the subsequent Pearson victories in 1963 and 1965.

As we remember and salute Mr. Webb, we say thank you. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for your patriotism. Thank you for pouring out your life to your hometown and the rest of Canada.

Also, as a man who held true to the ideals of Sir John A. Macdonald, those of us in my party thank you for contributing to the history and tradition of the Progressive Conservative Party. We are stronger because of you.

As we honour you today, Roderick Webb, the collective prayer of the House where you once served is a simple one. May the Lord's peace be with your family.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to finally be able to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. This bill will allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under the agreement concerning co-operation on the civil space station. Bill C-4 legally formalizes Canada's partnership in the space station.

Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will work co-operatively with the government to ensure speedy passage of the bill. Why would we not? It is the culmination of a process that was started by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan at their infamous shamrock summit. I am sure I do not have to remind the House that it was that conference which saw Canada-U.S. relations begin to thaw after the acrimonious Yankee baiting Trudeau years.

It was due to this new co-operative relationship that the Progressive Conservative government was able to successfully negotiate the free trade agreement, an agreement that has provided the present finance minister with balanced budgets and a fast track to the leadership of his own party. I am sure he joins me in congratulating the foresight of the previous government, just as my party congratulates his government for continuing this positive relationship with Bill C-4.

There are many issues I want to touch on regarding the initiative to have a permanently inhabited space station, but for just a moment I would like to pay tribute to the powers of the dreamers. One man had a dream, a dream that many different friends and allies could design, construct and permanently inhabit a space station, a station whose sole purpose would be for peace and scientific study. What is even more remarkable is that this vision arose in the midst of a cold war, a time when new space initiatives were routinely judged by their strategic benefits, not necessarily by their humanitarian and scientific attributes.

This bill honours the dream of former President Ronald Reagan, as well as the vision of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and other world leaders who quickly coalesced behind the initiative.

I do not wish to have my words misconstrued by detractors in our ranks. Certainly my party is not advocating carte blanche spending on any and all flights of fancy. Quite the opposite, since my party created the Canadian Space Agency in 1989, frugal spending with an eye to the return on investment has been the hallmark of this institution.

In this case it is the return on investment that I want to deal with. Over a 20 year period the government is telling us that Canada's total investment will be $1.4 billion, with 90% of that investment going to Canadian industry. Projected returns on investment are three to four times that amount, or at least $5 billion. Thus, from a business perspective, this investment makes good sense.

Why is Canada involved? Is it because we are good friends and neighbours with the Americans? Of course not. If that were not the case we could certainly expect to be excluded. The point here is that Canada has been invited to take part because of our own scientific merits. Our contribution to the space station includes the design, construction and operation of the mobile servicing system, plus responsibilities for the operation and use of the space station.

This high tech repair system will feature an agile robotic arm with a sleeve bearing the Canada wordmark. This remote manipulator will be monitored on the ground by the Canadian Space Agency headquartered in St-Hubert, Quebec. Clearly, Canada has made a name for itself in arming spacecrafts for peaceful purposes.

The Canadarm has become a cliched reference to our contribution to space study. I have no desire to belittle that important innovation which put us at the table with other world class space studying nations, but the reality is that we have moved exponentially beyond those days in both our research and capabilities.

Our capabilities in space robotics are renowned around the globe. In fact, it would not be arrogant bluster to state that this project simply could not go ahead without Canada's involvement. Our investment provides us with one laboratory shelf per year for science and technological experiments. This will allow us to further our research in the microgravity field which has already produced medical benefits for us in several areas, including the treatment of osteoporosis.

Since 1987 the Canadian Space Agency has allocated over 150 contracts to Canadian firms and universities for automation and robotics technology developed projects, resulting in the development of several new technologies which have already been alluded to by my colleagues in the House. In many ways this is remarkable considering the shrinking budget that the CSA has had to endure over the last several years.

Since the Liberal government was elected in 1993 it has cut the budget to the CSA by 7% thus far. In the 1999 budget the Liberals bragged that they were giving new money to the Canadian Space Agency, but in reality the government was cutting the budget by 21% from when it was first elected. We all realize that hard decisions have to be made so that we live within our means. However, when a sector of the economy provides so much spinoff and keeps racking up success after success, I really think we should re-evaluate our goals.

This project goes beyond technological and scientific advancement. As we are all aware, it was due to the hard work and lobbying efforts of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that Canada gained entry, along with Italy, into what was the G-5. Membership in the G-7 guaranteed that no longer would Canada be relegated to afterthought status when it came to important international initiatives. At that point we graduated to the big leagues. Bill C-4 continues that status for us.

Along with the United States, the space station's other partners include Russia, Japan, Brazil and 11 other European countries. It is interesting to note that whenever this agreement is referred to in terms of its partners, it almost always lumps the 11 European countries together as one, while leaving Canada as a stand-alone. Even the NASA website does this. The message from the rest of the world is clear. We have assumed the natural leadership mantle that the 20th century promised us.

My party's support for this bill is both resolute and strong. However, I would be remiss if I failed to mention our disappointment with the way the Liberals have dragged their heels in getting this bill before the House.

The partners in the international space station signed the original agreement in January 1998. This agreement provides a legal framework for the operation of the space station, including provisions for each inhabitant of the station to be subject to the laws of their own nation, a very important sovereignty issue for all the participants. The question though is why the delay? The bill seems simple enough yet it had not been called for second reading before the House prorogued.

It is now the beginning of November. This agreement has sat around for 21 months. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? In all fairness, I do not see any reason to be suspicious, but it is easy to see how waiting until the last minute when this bill must receive royal assent by mid-December can raise questions. These questions are entirely unnecessary when a government respects the role that parliament and the parliamentary committees have to play.

Having said that, I will not delay the bill any further. Let us move this bill along and give Canada's best scientific minds one more reason to stay and work in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

Before I begin I would like to thank many witnesses who took the time to make submissions, either in person or in writing, to the Standing Committee on Industry. Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to bringing new issues to light. I would also like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the industry committee for their vigorous discussion of the contents of the bill, in particular my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Regardless of our political differences we are all trying to ensure that parliament acts appropriately on legislative matters.

Moreover, I would like to note the efforts of the member for St. Catharines, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, in terms of his credible defence of the government position. I would also like to commend the member for Durham for bringing forward an amendment at committee to section 18 of the bill which was identical to an amendment I had sponsored.

It is always a rare pleasure to see Liberals deviate from the government line. Perhaps we will see a day when the chair of the industry committee shows similar courage, but I digress from the subject at hand, Bill C-6.

The intent of Bill C-6 is a positive one. The bill unfortunately has become known as the e-commerce bill, which is a bit of a misnomer. Part 1 of Bill C-6 deals with the protection of personal information irrespective of whether it is in an e-commerce environment or whatever. Meanwhile parts 2, 3 and 4 of Bill C-6 pertain specifically to electronic documents.

It is unfortunate that the industry committee spent most of its time on part l of the bill at the expense of the other parts. We really did not delve into the technological feasibility of the bill's clauses related to electronic signatures. For a so-called e-commerce bill, the committee should really have devoted more time to sections pertaining to electronic documents.

That being said, let us never forget that this is as much a personal privacy law as an e-commerce law. The two distinct issues have become intertwined. It is the growth of e-commerce that is driving initiatives such as Bill C-6.

As I noted during my remarks on second reading the increase of electronic commerce in Canada and throughout the world, more appropriately North America, is growing exponentially. We require a law to carefully examine the extent of government regulations in this domain.

The European Union has before its member countries a hard hitting directive to require companies to take exhaustive measures to protect the privacy of their customers. Meanwhile the United States has chosen the route of self-regulation. In essence, it is letting companies prove their worth in protecting the personal information of their customers. As someone who has spent 28 years working for one of Canada's largest high tech companies, with many of those years spent in sales and marketing, I understand the logic of the U.S. approach.

The private sector has a strong stake in protecting its customers, especially as it relates to the still unrelated realm of e-commerce. If customers do not trust a company with their information they will find another company that will. Competition is therefore a strong motivator for companies to take meaningful measures to protect the information of their customers. While I understand the U.S. approach, and I do believe it is the right answer for Canada, I also understand that the U.S. is now beginning the process to develop a privacy and e-commerce act.

Today I listened to the industry minister in the House when he said that we must do something and that people were saying we must do it now. I am not saying that the privacy and e-commerce act is not important, but when I look at privacy, at e-commerce and at the consumer or the customer, I think we should have been a lot more transparent. We should have had a comprehensive e-commerce privacy act that incorporated all the provinces, more importantly, and made sure that we were in step with our biggest trading partner, the U.S.

The PC Party and I believe in the need for legislation to protect personal privacy.

There are many flaws in Bill C-6 that I have attempted to address at committees, flaws which many witnesses have asked parliament to correct, flaws which the government continues to leave in the bill.

For example, subclause 18(1) gives the privacy commissioner the right to audit a company based on a dispute regarding recommended business practices which are listed under schedule 1 of the bill. Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations. They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such. The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been violated.

Audits are intrusive and place a heavy administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian companies. The audit power under Bill C-6 should only be used to cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the bill. The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage whether a company complies with recommended business practices such as what type of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company.

Subclause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary since Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For example, section 11 allows an individual to file a complaint if he or she feels that an organization is contravening the legislation or not following a recommended business practice. Furthermore, section 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all complaints including complaints that an organization is not following recommended business practices.

I must also reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to extending search and seizure powers to the privacy commissioner under Bill C-6, it is in the best interest of all concerned that his office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization. The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain the approval of our courts before exercising certain seizure powers is deeply troubling.

Clauses 12 and 18 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy commissioner to determine whether to exercise search and seizure powers and execute those same powers. The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party as in the case of criminal investigations.

Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad investigative and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and enforce appearance of persons under oath, converse with any person, compel the production of documents and receive and accept any evidence in the same manner as the superior court. It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in Bill C-6 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or his delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization and seizing records.

Indeed, Blair Mackenzie of the Canadian Newspaper Association told the industry committee that the provisions within Bill C-6 are “frightening”. Other witnesses have alluded to a challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms if the privacy commissioner acts on clause 12 or 18.

Furthermore, I am also troubled that the government did not bring forward any study or report on the cost impact of Bill C-6. From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint these unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.

Sadly the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free speech advocates and the pleas of the private sector and chose to defeat my amendment to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising certain seizure.

However there are many other problems with the bill which the Liberals chose to ignore. As Bill C-6 is currently drafted there is no provision to facilitate the sharing of personal employee data between management and the union pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Again the Liberal majority defeated my amendments before the industry committee to remove these potential obstacles to the employee-employer relationship. Moreover, I do not feel that the amendment brought forward by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to clause 27 adequately addresses this problem with the bill.

The Liberal majority also defeated my amendments to limit the costs charged by an organization for those seeking personal information to the same level of fees charged by government organizations. Despite the great rhetoric from the Liberals regarding personal privacy, Bill C-6 leaves the door open to the application of high fees for someone's personal information which if not properly regulated could become a barrier to access.

Bill C-6 also raised the spectre of a new round of federal-provincial battles. The governments of Canada's two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have spoken loudly and strongly in opposition to Bill C-6.

The industry committee heard from distinguished constitutional lawyers including a former deputy minister of justice. They disagreed passionately on whether or not Bill C-6 intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. I found it quite troubling that one of these distinguished experts mentioned the possibility of Bill C-6 as presently drafted becoming another referendum issue.

The Liberals had a chance to suspend clause by clause consideration at committee to allow the industry minister to negotiate a possible solution to prevent a constitutional challenge but the Liberals said no. They refused to co-operate.

The Ontario ministry of health also expressed its concern that health information falls clearly under provincial legislation. It was better prepared than the federal government to bring in such legislation. Regrettably the federal Liberals did nothing to address these concerns. They seem more interested in provoking fights than finding real solutions. Anybody who witnessed the partisan Liberal attacks against the Ontario ministry of health bureaucrat would attest to the poor attitude of the Liberals.

I will give credit where it is due. For example, the government supported my amendments to subparagraph 7(3)(h)(i) which would protect personal information for the shorter of 100 years after the record's creation or 20 years after the individual's death. Bill C-6 previously would have allowed for the disclosure only after the shorter of 110 years after the record's creation or 20 years after the individual's death.

As amended, this provision of the bill is now a more reasonable balance between protecting the personal information of the living and allowing the use of such information for historical, research or literary purposes. This is still a relatively small aspect of Bill C-6. I thank the government for helping me to get this part of the legislation right.

I also thank the government for supporting my amendments to remove a clause from the original version of Bill C-6 which would have allowed the government through order in council to change schedule 1 of the bill.

Regardless of these minor improvements the bill remains fundamentally flawed. The PC Party supported Bill C-6 with the hope that the government would allow the industry committee to correct many of these errors and omissions. Sadly not enough of these flaws were corrected.

The bill opens the door to legal battles due to the unfettered power given to the privacy commissioner. It unduly restricts the legitimate activities of small and medium size businesses. It causes a new restrictive, regulatory framework without a cost impact study. It aggravates the delicate relationship between the federal government and the Ontario and Quebec governments.

It rushes headlong into meeting an European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted a position with the directly opposite approach.

I have tried to be constructive and I have tried to improve the bill at committee, but by and large the Liberals have refused to co-operate. They have refused to compromise. Without concrete evidence they ask us to trust them that all the problems will sort themselves out.

On behalf of the PC Party I oppose Bill C-6 and urge the government to respect and act upon the differing points of view raised by so many in opposition to the bill as it is currently written.

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-6, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 40 with the following:

“Parts come into force on a day or days that are not earlier than three years after the day this Act is assented to, to be”

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information and electronic documents act.

Before I comment on this group of motions, I would like to welcome the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valley as the new NDP member, the member for Peace River as the Reform member and the member for Témiscamingue as the new Bloc member of the industry committee. I know we share many political views. In a lot of ways we do not agree, but I look forward to their active involvement and participation in the committee.

Unlike the Group No. 1 motions which consisted exclusively of amendments of my Bloc colleague, Group No. 2 motions comprise amendments of a variety of members both from the government and the opposition. I will try to address as many of the amendments as possible during my 10 minutes.

I should like to differentiate from the Bloc on one of its amendments. Motion No. 51 would amend clause 29 which deals with a mandatory review of the act every five years. On a side note, I find it interesting that the Liberal government would support this clause when the government House leader recently expressed his discomfort with mandatory statutory reviews.

Motion No. 51 from the member for Témiscamingue would delete the reference to a statutory review by a committee of both houses of parliament, opting instead for a committee exclusively of the House of Commons. This is just the latest example of needless Senate bashing.

Senators have made valuable contributions to joint committees, the latest example being the joint committee on child custody and access. Were it not for the battle waged by Conservative senators and courageous Liberal senators like Senator Anne Cools during the last parliament, we would not have had the review of the Divorce Act as it relates to child custody and access.

I therefore do not feel that we should tie the hands of future members of parliament and future governments by not allowing them to review their statutes with their colleagues in the upper house.

Nobody disagrees that the Senate as currently constituted needs to be changed, but until that happens let us not prevent senators from making meaningful contributions to our system of government. For example, the House Standing Committee on Industry heard from three noted constitutional law experts: Roger Tassé, Jacques Frémont, and Claude Massé. With all due respect to my committee colleagues, we would have benefited from having a noted constitutional law expert like Conservative Senator Gérald Beaudoin asking questions of these benefits. Let us oppose Motion No. 51 to keep the door open for Senate expertise on statutory review.

I commend my Reform colleague from Peace River for the amendments he brought forward under Group No. 2. They reflect a concern expressed by several health care organizations, several of which I had the pleasure of meeting prior to their appearance before the industry committee. The amendments clarify the definition of personal information and disclosure as they relate to the health care field.

I recognize that the Ontario government would prefer this definition to be left with provincial governments. I agree, but I worry what will happen to medical practitioners if this law passes without some guidance as to their use of personal information.

The PC Party of Canada will offer guarded support to Motions Nos. 11, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. This position is not my first choice. The federal government should have sat down with the provinces and territories to negotiate a harmonized definition of personal information as it relates to health care, but by and large the Liberals refuse to compromise or co-operate. As I did during my remarks on Group No. 1, I will give credit where credit is due to the government on its amendments in Group No. 2.

Many in the insurance and law enforcement community objected to the overrestrictive provisions on the disclosure and use of personal information. They were concerned this would seriously hamper efforts to fight crime or cases of insurance fraud. I was pleased to reinforce the concerns expressed by organizations such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada. With this in mind I trust with these amendments we have struck a better balance for all concerned parties.

We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy legislation, but we do not feel the government has adequately taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and Quebec governments. We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of the new regulatory regime of Bill C-6 on the private sector.

In many ways this is a frustrating process for the simple reason that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus support the aims and principles of what Bill C-6 is trying to accomplish. However it cannot be lost to even the casual observer that the Liberal government is zealously attempting to buck the reality of our economy. The reality is that our neighbour to the south is our biggest trading partner. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of xenophobic colleagues across the way will change that. Our tax regime is oppressive when compared to that of the United States. Thus foreign investment dollars end up south of the 49th parallel.

On the brain drain which the government has ridiculed as being a figment of our imagination, it was refreshing to see that it woke up long enough to address it in the throne speech last week. Brain drain is another natural consequence of Canadian politics being out of step with that of our American colleagues. It is simple cause and effect. That is why I have tried in vain to convince my Liberal colleagues on the industry committee that by pushing through the electronic commerce bill, a bill modelled on the European approach and in direct opposition to the American approach, we are headed for a competitive headache.

Foolishly I had hoped that the long summer break and extended delay caused by the prorogation of the House would have motivated the minister to take the time to try to improve Bill C-6. Unfortunately we still have a bill that deliberately antagonizes Quebec, Ontario and the United States as well as scores of associations whose well-intentioned submissions to our committee were ignored. Arrogance remains the order of the day.

[Airline Industry, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in Air Canada's press release, Air Canada says that it can only go ahead with its proposed airline merger if the Government of Canada has determined that it will abandon its dual airline policy.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the Government of Canada have a dual airline policy?

[Airline Industry, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the European Union probing Canada's airline mergers, the United States also is concerned about its impact under the Canada-U.S. open skies agreement. Why can the government not be clear with Canadians on this question?

My question is for the industry minister. Is he going to extend section 47 beyond the 90 days? Yes or no?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada, I am pleased to speak on the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

Before I begin my comments I would like to thank the many witnesses who took time to make submissions either in person or in writing to the Standing Committee on Industry. Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to bringing new issues to light.

I pay tribute to all my colleagues who were on the industry committee and the new colleagues who are coming on board because this is definitely a very important area. I compliment the government for bringing forth in committee an amendment to clause 18 of the bill which was identical to the one I had sponsored.

We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy legislation, but we do not feel the government has adequately taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and Quebec governments.

We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of the new regulatory regime in Bill C-6 on the private sector. We do not see the need to pass a law to meet a European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted a diametrically different approach. Ninety per cent of all the e-commerce traffic in this country is in trade with the U.S. Therefore I cannot see the need to rush to beat the Americans in this regard because down the road they could adopt a different standard and we would have to change.

I will speak to the specific amendments tabled in Group No. 1, all of which were sponsored by the member for Témiscamingue. To be fair to the member I note for the record that the industry committee and a Bloc member at the time presented the following motion:

Whereas witnesses were recently heard by the Standing Committee on Industry, on Bill C-54 concerning the major problems in implementing this legislation; and took into account the big application difficulties of this bill,

Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill C-54 be withdrawn,

That the Committee suspend Clause by Clause consideration of Bill C-54 and ask the Industry Minister to undertake negotiations with all the provinces, to forestall any constitutional challenge that might impair the attainment of its objectives.

This motion was defeated by seven to four. It was basically the Liberal majority that won the day and it was supported by all opposition members of the committee.

Having heard many concerns from witnesses the Liberals had the choice to take their time to consider meaningful changes to Bill C-6. The Bloc, the Reform and the Conservatives were ready to work together to draft a better bill. To their credit the Liberals allowed some minor tinkering to Bill C-54 which is now Bill C-6. For example, they supported two of the sixteen amendments I brought forward, but on the major question of overall regulation in the form of excessive power granted to the privacy commissioner and provoking battles with the Ontario and Quebec governments, they refused to budge. They refused to co-operate. They refused to compromise.

On behalf of the PC Party I refuse to blindly support Bill C-6 for the sake of getting a law, any law, on personal privacy and e-commerce. One glaring example of the defects in the legislation is subclause 18(1) which would give the privacy commissioner the right to audit a company based on disputes regarding recommended business practices listed under schedule 1 of the bill.

Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations. They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such. The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit only when there are reasonable grounds to believe the law has been violated. Audits are intrusive and place a heavy administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian companies. The audit power under Bill C-6 should only be used to cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the bill.

The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage whether a company complies with recommended business practices such as what types of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company. Therefore subclause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary since Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For example, section 11 allows an individual to file a complaint if he or she feels an organization is contravening the legislation or not following a recommended business practice.

Further, clause 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all complaints including a complaint that an organization is not following a recommended business practice.

I reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to extending search and seizure power to the privacy commissioner under Bill C-6, it is in the best interest of all concerned that his office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization.

The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain the approval of our courts before exercising search and seizure power is deeply troubling.

Clauses 18 and 12 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy commissioner both to determine whether to exercise search and seizure powers and execute those same powers. The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party as in the case of criminal investigations.

Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad investigative and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and enforce appearances of persons under oath, converse with any person, comply with the production of documents, and receive and accept any evidence in the same manner and to the same extent as the superior court.

It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in Bill C-6 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or to his delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization and seizing records.

These are not just the concerns of allegedly self-interest companies. Indeed, Blair Mackenzie from the Canadian Newspaper Association told the industry committee that the provisions within Bill C-6 are “frightening”.

Other witnesses have alluded to the provisions in the bill prompting challenges under the charter of rights and freedom if the privacy commissioner acted upon clause 12 or 18.

I am also troubled the government did not bring forward any study or reports on the cost impact of Bill C-6. From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint these unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.

Sadly the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free speech advocates, to ignore the pleas of the private sector and to chose to defeat my amendments to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising search and seizure.

If there is any reluctance I have in supporting the Group No. 1 amendments, it is due to Motions Nos. 56 and up which deal with parts 2 through 5. Most of my objections pertain to part 1 of Bill C-6.

Unfortunately the familiar double dose of Liberal arrogance and heavy-handedness has left me with no choice but to support the Group No. 1 amendments on behalf of the Conservative caucus.

The Liberals had their chance to co-operate at committee to make a substantially better bill and they chose not to do so.

[Auditor General, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today will likely be the last day the House sits and we are still no closer to the truth on Shawinigate. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to admit that he has the power under section 11 of the Auditor General Act to independently investigate specific projects. The Prime Minister claims he is innocent but offers no independent corroborating evidence.

Why will the government not take politics out of this affair and use section 11 of the Auditor General Act to get to the bottom of these projects?