Geoff Regan

[Purple Day Act, March 9th, 2012]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, how about that indeed. It does not happen around here every day to have unanimous agreement on something like this and to have it move so quickly. I must manage to speak today without bringing tears to my eyes.

I thank members for their ongoing support of the bill. I look forward to marking Purple Day on March 26, even though the bill will not likely be law by then. However, I am hopeful that today we will see it pass the House and go off to the Senate. I hope it goes there very quickly. However, who knows how quickly this act to increase public awareness of epilepsy will in fact move. We will wait and see.

As I said at the health committee recently when the bill was heard there, I was delighted, surprised and even shocked how quickly, after passing second reading here, the health committee decided to hear the bill and consider it. I really appreciate the amendments that were brought forward at that committee to correct some issues with the French language side of the bill.

I am very pleased that amendments were proposed by the hon. members who suggested that some terms should be changed in the French version of the bill; for example, “maladies” should be changed to “conditions” and “pourpre” should be changed to “lavande”. That is the French word used in reference to epilepsy by the Canadian association for this disorder.

I was also very pleased to be in committee with witnesses who know much more about this subject than I do. There was Aurore Therrien, executive director of Épilepsie Montréal Métropolitain, and members of the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance.

Mrs. Iris Elliott of the Epilepsy Association of Nova Scotia was there as was Ms. Sarah Ward, a medical student who has quite bit of knowledge and interest in this area and who has done a lot of volunteer work. I appreciated all of them being there.

I am very grateful for the support that all members of House have shown for Bill C-278, the Purple Day bill.

I was also moved by the amazing and touching stories that my colleagues brought forth during second reading debate. I believe we have already had tremendous success in making Canadians aware of epilepsy and how it impacts the lives of thousands of Canadians through this process. It is a great example of how members from all parties can come together. People do not see that very often. They do not realize that it does happen more than they know. Members actually can, when question periods are over, often get along, get things done and make things move. Even in committee, we often have a great deal of co-operation. It is too bad more people do not see that we do come together and put partisan interests aside, as we are in this case, and push for a bill that has an impact on a policeman in Ottawa, a dad in Edmonton or a little girl in my riding of Halifax West.

I think many members now know that in 2008, 9-year-old Cassidy Megan founded Purple Day for epilepsy and started a global trend. In fact, when she had her first epilepsy seizure at the age of 7, she was a bit embarrassed and concerned about the fact that other people around her did not know anything about epilepsy and why she was having this seizure or why she had it. Her classmates obviously would not know what to think of that. Therefore, when she was 9, she talked to her teacher about the idea of having a day for that at the school. It just so happened that the principal picked March 26, and that is the day that has now stuck and is the day that continues to be celebrated as Purple Day.

I hope Cassidy is listening today. She would be pleased, as I am sure we all are, that Canada has been a leader in epilepsy awareness. I am pleased to hear, and I am sure members will all be pleased to hear, that other legislatures, such as the state of New Hampshire and many others around the globe, are following this with Purple Days of their own. I understand that Purple Day is now celebrated in more than 60 countries. How about that? I am sure we will hear more about that as that number continues to grow.

This is an opportunity to remind members and their staff who are often back in their offices around the Hill and are watching or listening to the proceedings that Purple Day this year will be on Monday, March 26, which is the Monday after the break week. I would suggest, just as a thought, that perhaps members' staff should consider putting a note on their calendars for two weeks from today, that would be the Friday of the break week, to remind their members to bring something, a tie, a blouse, whatever, something purple to wear on Monday, March 26. I am hopeful that little reminder will be heard by members and their staff.

I am very happy to be associated with this initiative. However, it is people like Cassidy herself, Aurore, Iris, Sarah and many others who really deserve the credit. Bill C-278 is a direct result of their commitment to this cause and their support of the bill.

The bill is a pretty simple one, as members know. Bill C-278 would help to create public awareness about epilepsy and would officially designate March 26 as Purple Day in Canada. We will ask Canadians to wear purple clothing that day. It is not a legal holiday but it touches a lot of lives. I thank members for their support.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Nova Scotia who are concerned that global warning is a reality. It is no wonder they are concerned about it after such a mild winter.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt the following policy goals in the spirit of global solidarity: that the government take collective action by signing and implementing a binding international agreement replacing the Kyoto protocol, an agreement that will commit nations to reduce carbon emissions; that fair and clear targets be set to ensure that global average temperatures stay below a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels; that the government demonstrate national responsibility by committing to national carbon emission targets and a national renewable energy policy designed to achieve sustainability; that it implement climate justice by playing a constructive role in the design of the green climate fund under United Nations governance; and that it contribute public funds to assist the poorest and most affected countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition is from residents of Nova Scotia who are concerned that about the fact that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth and children.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure swift passage of Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Health, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government's shameless attempt to blame the provinces for drug shortages shows its callous disregard for thousands of patients whose health and lives are being put at risk. The government failed to provide adequate warning about a slowdown in production and now the provinces are scrambling to deal with the problem.

Why were the provinces only notified two weeks ago when the government knew for months? That is scandalous.

[Health, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government has failed to protect patients’ health and safety.

In the Sandoz case, the Conservatives gave their facilities the green light only a few weeks before the American FDA cited serious contamination problems, which it had already identified in 2009.

Why are the Conservatives asleep at the switch? Why do we have to depend on the United States to provide us with assurances of quality control?

[University Basketball, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to pay tribute today to St. Francis Xavier University basketball coach Steve Konchalski.

Already the “winningest” coach in Canadian university sport history, he reached a new milestone on January 7 with his 800th victory.

As a player, he led Acadia University to a national title in 1965 and was chosen tournament MVP.

Coach K has led the St. FX X-Men to three national championship victories so far, and he has taken Canada's national team to three Olympic games. He has served as assistant coach of the Canadian team for 16 years, and as head coach for four.

He has been inducted into the Acadia Sports Hall of Fame, the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame and the Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame.

He is known as a class act, a man of intelligence and humility, but perhaps the greatest tribute to Steve Konchalski comes from his players who say that he always demanded a lot from them, both in the classroom and on the court.

I invite all members to join me in recognizing Coach Steve Konchalski on his 800 victories.

[Financial Literacy, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today on Motion No. 269 brought forward by my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Leduc on financial literacy.

I will read the five components in the motion that my colleague is recommending:

--the government should help improve financial literacy in Canada by: (a) working to implement the recommendations of the task force on financial literacy: (a) creating, promoting, and continuously upgrade a single source website for financial literacy to increase public awareness and ease access to information for Canadians; (c) requiring federally regulated financial institutions to publicly disclose their contributions to financial literacy initiatives; (d) ensuring the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada works with willing provinces and territories to promote financial literacy to youth through the educational system; and (e) designating November as financial literacy month.

Those are all worthwhile objectives generally because there are things to be concerned about, whether it is helping Canadians pay for their education these days, which is getting more difficult as we see young people struggling with the higher cost of tuition let alone the cost of living as a student, or whether it is people who are trying to buy a house, manage their debt or save for retirement. There is a clear need for greater financial literacy in Canada.

All of us I am sure can think of times in our lives when we would have benefited from a better understanding of how things work in finances, such as understanding how to budget, how a mortgage works and how interest is calculated.

When I was practising real estate law, I found that people often did not understand the rules if they wanted to prepay a mortgage. If they were in a position at some point during the term of the mortgage to pay part of it down early or pay it all off, they did not know the rules ahead of time unless they were explained to them. I always took time to tell them what rules in the mortgage document would apply to them and the penalties that would need to be paid by them if interest rates had gone up between the time they signed the mortgage and received their loan and the time they were trying to pay it off. From the bank or lender's point of view, it would lose money because it would need to lend that money out at a lower rate and, therefore, would charge a penalty. People did not always understand that going into a mortgage. That is just one small example of why people need to understand financial rules.

Financial literacy is a vital component for our consumer protection regime. I would agree that the federal government should be taking leadership and working closely with the provinces and territories to improve financial literacy, especially among young Canadians.

It is important to note that what we are talking about here is a matter of education, a matter primarily within the responsibility of the provinces. In a sense, it is an odd issue for a member to bring a motion on. On the other hand, I am interested and pleased to have the chance to debate this issue as we are all concerned about what is happening with Canadians' finances, with their high debt loads, which I will talk about more in a moment.

There is, among other things, a growing need for credit counselling services across the country. That is unfortunate because it is often the people with high debt loads who have difficulty managing them.

The reality is that, under the Conservative government, household debt has soared to record levels. The debt of the Government of Canada has also soared. The Conservative government ought to learn some financial literacy itself when we consider that it inherited a $13 billion surplus and, by April and May of 2008, about six months before the recession began, the government had put Canada back into deficit, which is a shocking fact. There is certainly a need for the Minister of Finance and others on that side of the House to learn some financial literacy.

A new record was set for household debt in the third quarter of last year. The average Canadian now owes $1.51 for every dollar of annual income. That is a worrisome figure when we consider how much that has gone up in recent years. However, the measures proposed in my hon. colleague's motion are only the first steps in promoting greater financial literacy across the country.

When we think of literacy and education, there has to be a strong base for whatever kind of literacy we are talking about. That is why the Government of Canada ought to be investing in affordable early childhood education and in adult literacy programs.

For example, Senator Joyce Fairbairn has throughout her time in Ottawa been a very strong advocate for literacy programs across the country. I think back to several years ago when the Conservative government made substantial cuts. It gouged out a lot of funding from literacy groups across the country. That was a very short-sighted and unfortunate thing to do. Early childhood education is really important for our future. We know that children who get a head start, learning their ABCs and their 123s before the age of five, have a huge advantage. The records of people who have had that experience show they are far less likely to get into trouble with the law and far more likely to have a job throughout their lives because they had that good, strong head start.

We need to create a culture of lifelong learning. All of us can benefit from learning on an ongoing basis, of course. However, we have to make sure that all Canadians have the skills to manage their finances. There is a role that, with the provincial governments, can be played.

The government must also help people save for retirement. That is certainly a federal responsibility. It is surprising that older Canadians have been growing their debt loads at a considerably faster rate than younger Canadians. That is not what we would expect. We would think that those of us, say over the age of 50, would be less likely to be growing debt levels. This is an indication of how difficult people are finding it these days to prepare for retirement. It is very worrisome that older Canadians are growing their debt much faster than younger Canadians. What does that mean in the next 30 years when they are heading toward retirement age and the government is talking about increasing the age for the old age supplement and the guaranteed income supplement? It is very disturbing that people are having a tough time and yet the government is saying it is not going to help them.

We know, for example, that 50% of the people who receive OAS are making less than $25,000 a year. In fact, 40% of them earn less than $20,000 a year. These are not people who are well off. These people really need the help. To make them wait two more years is unconscionable. It is certainly not good for the future of the country.

In Canada, the average debt load in the past 10 years has increased twice as fast as income. That is a scary thought. However, the rate is three times as fast for older Canadians. Many older Canadians simply cannot afford to retire. They need all the help they can get. That is why the Liberal Party has proposed a voluntary supplemental Canada pension plan that would give Canadians access to a low cost, well diversified financial opportunity. I hope that members can see the advantage of doing that. People would feel much more comfortable knowing that they can have those retirement funds managed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, by people who have real expertise and great knowledge of the investment world, which is a mysterious place for many people.

The Conservative government has missed an opportunity. It failed to follow up on the report of the financial literacy task force in the last two budgets. It failed to protect consumers with the voluntary code of conduct the Minister of Finance negotiated with the credit card issuers and the banks behind closed doors. There is real room for improvement there.

It concerns me that I heard the Royal Bank and the Toronto-Dominion Bank are planning to withdraw from the services of the banking ombudsman. Considering that that institution is already just a voluntary one, and not binding on the banks, to think that they are actually going to withdraw from that is very disturbing. I would hope they would reconsider that decision.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the bill brought forward by the Liberal government back in 2005, as I said earlier, the practice of that government and our party was that there was great debate in committee and openness to that debate. Sometimes a bill would go to committee and come back and be changed after that or have big changes in committee because of the debate that went on.

My hon. colleague has raised a valid question and that is the kind of thing with which the committee has to grapple. We know that 95% of police requests for information from Internet service providers are granted. This is really about the other 5% and how we deal with those. I will not suggest for a minute that I want to see that 5% of the people involved in child pornography get away with it, that is not the idea at all. However, there must be some mechanisms in place so there can be approval given quickly, an examination of this sort of question, and that there is also oversight.

One thing that worries me is this idea that every Internet service provider is going need to have the wherewithal, the software or something, to be able to watch what is going on. The worry is that once this is the case, when is it going to be abused and how can we—

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. classmate. I do not know how often that is said in the House. We often say hon. colleague, hon. friend but not often hon. classmate, so it is nice to be talking about the law with a young classmate from a few years ago.

The idea that without warrant investigators could have access to personal information that, as most Canadians feel, ought to be private is very disturbing and disconcerting. That is the question. What can we find as a balance to ensure police officers have the tools they need so they can quickly get the authorization they need to do the investigation and stop people who are engaging in child pornography from distributing it or taking part in any way in that kind of activity? We have to do that, while at the same time protect Canadians who are law-abiding computer users going about their activities online in a legitimate way, but who ought to be able to do that privately, without someone watching what they are doing. Therefore, it is very disturbing and that is the question with which the committee has to grapple.

The attitude of trying to figure this out is how a government ought to bring this kind of bill to the House, not saying it knows what it is doing and that it is not listening to anybody else and that if it is challenged, it will attack. It is by taking a much more open approach and being open to criticism and to changes.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this opposition day debate on the motion concerning privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

We are talking today about Bill C-30 which of course we all know has been before the House. We heard the unfortunate statements of the Minister of Public Safety when he was asked by a member from this party about the bill, when he was challenged about it two weeks ago. He suggested that in fact we are either with them and the bill, or else we are with the child pornographers. That was a very unfortunate start, and a very unwise and unfortunate thing to say.

This is a significant piece of legislation. It is important to get the right balance, but it also important to have the right balance in this discussion and not bring such inflammatory language and outrageous statements to us, suggesting that people who are opposed to the bill, law-abiding Internet users and law-abiding computer owners, are in fact somehow on the side of child pornographers. It is outrageous. To suggest that those people who are concerned about maintaining the right of privacy are somehow in cahoots with people who are doing horrible things is unfounded, unjust and unwise. This debate really did get off on the wrong foot.

There has been a great deal of opposition to this bill. There was a great reaction to the comments from the Minister of Public Safety. In fact, we know that even a few of the Conservative backbenchers were expressing their concern that this bill was going too far. They obviously must have heard from an awful lot of people, as I did and as most members in the House did, who were upset at what the government appeared to be trying to do.

This was certainly perceived by many Canadians as intrusion into the private lives of Canadians without judicial oversight. That is the key point here, what kind of oversight there is going to be. I think that most of us, if not all of us, can understand why this legislation has to be updated. The world has changed in the past year, technologically, and it has certainly changed a lot in the past six years and in the past decade or two.

I noted the comments of Police Chief Frank Beazley of Halifax. He indicated that there is a need for police to have the ability to look at these things. I take his concerns seriously. I share his concern about the ability to prevent crime from happening. I think it is fair to say that, rather than suggesting that someone who opposes this bill or has questions about it is on the side of child pornography. I do not believe there is a member in this House who is on that side. I believe that all of us strongly want to condemn and combat child pornography. Let us have this discussion in a serious sombre way.

We need to have a discussion about what the bill should and should not do, and how it should go forward. We believe it is currently flawed. My leader said earlier today that we on this side would never say that we do not believe there are grounds, times and ways in which the police and other investigating officers have a right to access information which is held by a service provider. He went on to say that the key issue is whether the House is prepared to say to Canadians that it can happen, but it cannot happen without prior judicial authorization. It is really a very specific issue.

Of course it is a complicated bill. There is much more to it that we could talk about. It should be examined, and that is fine. In fact that is how a government should approach things. It should bring forward a bill, which gets to committee if the House decides to send it to committee, and it should be examined there. Members should take a strong interest. Members from all sides, even from the government side, should look at it very critically.

That is the responsibility we have as members of Parliament. I want to refer to what the Minister of Public Safety said today. He has taken a much more moderate tone, thankfully. He said that he believes in the principles of due process, and has respect for privacy and presumption of innocence. Those are fundamental principles. He said that he believes that in his view Bill C-30 adheres to those principles but that we need to update our laws, while striking the right balance.

There is much of that with which we can agree. He says that he wants the balance between combatting crime and protecting privacy. We agree with that. Our sense is that too often the Conservative government's idea of balance is what we may consider a little too far to the right. It is not exactly a balance, in our mind, with what the Conservatives started with here and certainly with the way the minister reacted to being challenged on this.

Therefore, why not get it right? The Conservatives should have had it right before bringing in the bill. The minister ought to have known what was in the bill. We saw that when he was questioned about it and he did not know about a particular provision in the bill and then discovered it was. That is not an indication of a minister who has done his homework, has prepared himself and has carefully gone over the bill that he is responsible for bringing to the House. It seems to me it is important that the Conservatives stop playing political games.

Let us examine the motion moved in the House today. It asks the House to recognize the fundamental right of all Canadians to freedom of speech. That is very important. It also calls for recognition of freedom of communication, which we are enjoying right now. This has changed a great deal in our lifetime. There were no cellphones or computers 30 or 40 years ago, and we could not exchange emails as we do today. The means of communication have completely changed. This must be reflected in the law and, at the same time, we must protect Canadians' rights.

The motion also asks that the House recognize “that there must be a clear affirmation on the need for these rights to be respected in all forms of communication”. It also suggests “that the collection by government of personal information and data from Canadians relating to their online activities without limits, rules, and judicial oversight constitutes a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protections against unreasonable search and seizure”.

My question is as follows: how can we ensure that Canadians are protected and that there is oversight of government and police activities, while providing police with the tools they need?

I hope the government will seek a good balance and be open to the comments and arguments made in committee. I remember when our party formed the government. We often had great debates within our party. During committee meetings, Liberal MPs were free to express themselves and, from time to time, they were against the government's position. In a committee considering a bill, it is very important that the members consider their responsibilities toward the public. When we are sworn in as MPs, it is to serve our constituents, but also our country. We have a responsibility to seek the best bills and to make amendments that are going to improve them. Those are challenging and serious responsibilities and we have to take them seriously.

Today's motion also states that “Canadians who have expressed deep concerns about Bill C-30 should not be described as being friends of child pornography or advocates of criminal activity”. That seems obvious to me. I am glad the minister has stopped making such characterizations and, in future, I would like there to no longer be such unfair and abusive responses.

The motion also states “that the Charter is the guarantor of the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians”.

I hope that the government will support this motion. I find it hard to see any reason why it would not. There are some things we can all agree on, and I hope this is one of them. We shall see.

As I was saying, I am anxious to hear the speech by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who will follow me after the period for questions and comments. I hope all hon. members of the House will support this motion. I see no reason why they would not.

When Bill C-30 is reviewed in committee, I hope there will be a good debate and that there will be openness to amendments.