James Rajotte

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to its study on the policy direction to the CRTC.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what we are actually debating here today. We are debating the budget implementation act. I want to actually explicitly state what we are doing in this bill and why the member is opposing this bill.

For workers, we are creating a new Canada employment credit for every worker across this country and a new deduction for tool expenses for tradespeople, which is very needed certainly in western Canada.

For students, we are creating a new textbook tax credit and a complete exemption for scholarship income. The member talked about students. This is what we are doing for students.

For public transit users, we are creating a new tax credit for public transit passes.

For seniors, for the first time, we are doubling to $2,000 from $1,000 the amount on which the pension income credit is calculated.

For small businesses, something the NDP should be in favour of, we are reducing the current 12% small business tax to 11.5%, and then to 11%, and we are also increasing to $400,000 from $300,000 the exemption for small businesses.

This is for workers, students, seniors and small businesses. This is what is actually in the budget implementation act. This is what is in the budget. This is what is in the bill. This is why the NDP should stand and support this piece of legislation.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the speakers, both those from today and in June. I think it has been a very good debate.

I want to thank: the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry; the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel; the member for Mississauga South, who had some very good points on identity theft in general; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who has been very helpful throughout this entire process; the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, from the NDP; the member for Hochelaga; and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, who I think had some excellent suggestions in terms of improving this piece of legislation.

I want to touch on just a few points. First, I know that the two members of the Bloc Québécois have expressed some concern about this legislation. They argue that section 403 adequately addresses the issue of identity theft that I am trying to address in my bill. I would respectfully say that section 403 does not adequately address the issue of identity theft, particularly as it relates to new technologies like the Internet. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Second, I want to say very clearly that this bill is not in any way about micromanaging any actions of judges. I am not quite sure where the members were getting that in the legislation, but it is certainly not in the legislation. That is not the intent of this legislation at all.

Very plainly, the purpose of this bill is to protect individual citizens against identity theft. It does not deal with the whole problem of it, but it certainly deals with part of it. Identity theft is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

The purpose of this bill is to protect individuals against the collection of their personal information through fraud or through impersonation. The practice, which is known as pretexting, is a growing problem here in Canada and it needs to be dealt with.

Bill C-299 seeks to do three specific things.

First, it would make the practice of pretexting illegal through changes to the Criminal Code and the Competition Act.

Second, it seeks to provide a remedy for victims of this kind of invasion of privacy through legal recourse in the courts and compensation. It is very much about empowering individual citizens to respond to this invasion of privacy.

Third, the bill seeks to tackle the cross-border aspect of pretexting by holding Canadian affiliates of foreign countries liable for invasions of privacy committed against Canadians, one of which was committed against our own Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart. I met with her on this legislation. I cannot speak for her, but I think, judging from her reaction, that she would very much like this bill to go to committee and move forward.

I want to also point out that a number of companies, associations and others that deal in the information technology area support this legislation. I am speaking of companies like Alcatel, Bell Canada, Alliance Bell , Telus, Rogers, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, and ITAC, the Information Technology Association of Canada. All of these companies have pointed out that identity theft is a growing problem here in Canada. They would like to see it dealt with. Even the Chamber of Commerce, which has pointed out some of its issues with specifics of the bill, supports the bill going to committee. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association also has supported this bill.

I have sought to present a bill which deals with a problem that needs to be dealt with here in Canada. I appreciate the comments by all members. It has been a very good debate. I would ask all members to support in principle this bill at second reading and send it to committee, where I would be very open to engaging in a debate and to entertain any amendments that would improve the substance of the bill.

I would like to thank all members of this House for their participation. I look forward to the vote next week.

[Railways, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Railway Association of Canada, comprising close to 60 railway companies and their 500 supplier industry supporters, are on Parliament Hill today as part of their annual industry advocacy day, “On Track for the Future”.

Representatives will be meeting with MPs to discuss rail's contribution to our economic prosperity, environment and quality of life.

Canada's railways do 65% of total surface freight activity measured in tonne-kilometres and yet produce only 3% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

I am sure my colleagues in the House will agree that with the right public policies, freight and passenger railways can do more to de-stress our highways, unclog our borders and ports and improve the air we breathe.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be surprised, but the agreement was not signed to address the situation that may occur in Alberta. I think his comments about Alberta are obviously inappropriate, so I will not even dignify those with a response.

The fact is that we had a choice between further litigation and even if we won all of the current legal cases before the courts at present, the United States could easily alter legislation and start another round of litigation. The fact is that the only way, if we pursued that route, to recoup any of the over $5 billion would be to go through the American court system and do that. Is that what the member is suggesting?

The member is suggesting that we litigate for years and years, and go through the American court system to try to get any of the over $5 billion. That is the solution he is presenting.

It is a little surprising that the Bloc members are sort of standing up and criticizing the agreement and yet they are going to stand in the House and vote for it because their own provincial government is in favour of it. The industry in Quebec is in favour of it because it realizes what perhaps the Bloc does not, that what workers across this country need is a resolution to the dispute and not a continuation of litigation which may result in no benefits whatsoever.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would say in reply to the member's question. The member should be completely forthright in identifying that there are in fact two options available. There is option A and option B.

Option A is in fact the export tax, when exports rise above a certain level. Option B is a self-imposed quota system plus a smaller tax.

An important difference there is that the funds stay in Canada. As I mentioned during my speech, and I did not hear any other member talk about it, so it is not a speech that has been passed around, when a situation arises in Alberta where we may have the pine beetle infestation, it in fact will allow the province of Alberta to deal with that, where there may be a surge in exports caused by increased harvesting caused by the pine beetle infestation. In fact, I think this agreement addresses that.

The member talks about a little money being returned now and having a greater cost later. I know that $4.4 billion is a fair amount of money. The fact that we have 80% of the duties returned is, quite frankly, a tremendous achievement. I would applaud the Minister of International Trade for doing that.

I would also point out to the member that the Minister of International Trade was a member of the Liberal caucus prior to the last election. He says very openly that this agreement is better than the agreement that the Liberal government was prepared to sign with the U.S. administration.

I think the member should be very aware of that. This agreement is better than what his own government was prepared to sign. This agreement is just for the families and workers across this country. This agreement deserves to be supported.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-24, which outlines the government's resolution of the longstanding softwood lumber dispute.

It was interesting to listen to the member who spoke previously. He says it is a dispute that he has been following since he was elected in 1988. I have not been here for quite as long as the previous member or as long as the Speaker himself, but this has certainly been a dispute that has attracted the attention of Parliament and the country since I was elected in the year 2000.

It certainly affected our trade. It was the biggest trade irritant between us and our greatest trade partner south of us, the United States. It was certainly impeding what I would consider a very successful trade agreement, NAFTA. It was certainly having an impact on that.

It is perhaps helpful to remind ourselves just how successful that agreement has been in the sense that I believe softwood lumber consists of about 3% of the trade between Canada and the United States, while 95% of the trade between the two countries goes through irritant free. That shows exactly why it was so important to address the softwood lumber issue. That 3% in fact was very much affecting other trade areas.

I want to compliment the Minister of International Trade for tackling this head-on. I know he certainly did as much as he could in the former government, but certainly since this Parliament started he has been very active on this file.

I think it is important for us to remember exactly what we were facing as a government and as a country. We were facing two choices. The first choice was to continue the route of litigation, to continue to try to win disputes through NAFTA and the World Trade Organization to force the United States to recognize that we were not subsidizing our lumber industry, our forestry products industry, and to try to force the Americans to reduce the countervailing duties and repay the upwards of $5 billion they had collected to that point. That was the choice. The choice was more litigation.

Looking at that, I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The fact was that this was not a resolution. The fact was that we would be spending more in legal fees to go down that route. The fact was that we would probably be discussing some form of loan guarantee program and putting taxpayers' money at risk in order to support our industry.

The fact is that there was no real end in sight, because if we won another NAFTA dispute, another resolution, the United States could simply change its own legislation, start another series in litigation along this route and we would be no closer to a settlement than we were two, three or 20 years ago. So we had a choice. We had a choice between more litigation or this resolution.

In fact, I know that a lot of members of the House have been very critical of this agreement, but I will say quite honestly that this agreement is better than I thought we as a government could get in the first place. I thought the Americans would never sign an agreement of this type. In fact, I want to review some things that are in the agreement and some of the benefits that accrue to Canada.

The agreement eliminates the punitive U.S. duties and returns more than $4.4 billion to producers to provide stability for the industry. It spells an end to the long-running dispute. It obviously addresses the massive trade irritant between ourselves and the United States. U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duty orders will be fully and completely revoked. The absence of U.S. trade remedy action under the agreement will offer a period of stability for the industry, which will allow Canadian companies to make the investments necessary to ensure that their competitiveness goes forward.

There is also an issue that some members are raising now in portraying what kind of export tax would have to be paid if certain provinces go over a prescribed limit. In fact, as members know, there are two choices. Option A is the export tax if our exports rise above a certain level, but there is also option B, which is the quota and a small tax. What this does is keep these moneys in Canada, in the provinces, thereby allowing the provinces to not only direct their own forestry practices but obviously address situations that may arise.

One of those situations is in my own province of Alberta. Members will know, and certainly members from British Columbia will know, of the seriousness of the pine beetle devastation in that area of the country. Two summers ago, I had the opportunity to survey from a helicopter how much had actually been affected by the pine beetle. It was incredible. One had to see it to believe it.

The concern from the Alberta industries is that the pine beetle will make its way into Alberta very shortly. It would cause some of the producers to want to harvest more quickly, as they did in British Columbia, and therefore the amount of exports would go up.

The agreement allows the Canadian government and the provincial government of Alberta to deal with that situation by having the resources come back to the province and then the province can deal with that situation. Rather than have the United States collect those duties, it allows the provinces to deal with it in a much better way. There is an option between litigating it with possibly no resolution, probably no resolution in sight. In my view, this is the best possible agreement that could have been negotiated.

As I mentioned, it makes a $4.4 billion immediate cash infusion into our communities across the country. It is one thing to talk to the industry itself, and the Minister of International Trade has identified that over 90% of the industry supports this agreement, but let us talk to the communities that are most affected.

Hon. members should talk to the people in those communities, mainly in the rural regions of our country. We should ask them if they want a situation where they will be paying duties, there is no resolution, and they do not know whether they will have a job in a year or two because this situation could carry on, or do they want to have the situation resolved? Do they want to have some stability? The companies in various provinces would then know what kind of situation they are dealing with and have some cash infusion to make their company more competitive.

It is incumbent upon members who are critical of this agreement to put on the table exactly what they are criticizing, to say what specific measures they would want to see in place that the agreement does not address. They should be realistic in the sense that there are two sides to a trade dispute, two sides that have to come to the table and two sides that have to come to an agreement.

In my view, the agreement is the best possible agreement that Canada could have signed. As I mentioned before, it is a better agreement than I thought we would have been able to get. I would like to encourage all members of the House to support the agreement. The Bloc Québécois is supporting it.

I am very surprised that the Atlantic Canadian members of the Liberal Party are not supporting the agreement. It is a very good agreement for Atlantic Canada. Responding to a previous question, a very good question from the NDP to my colleague from Atlantic Canada, I would agree with him. As a westerner, as someone from Alberta, I would say Atlantic Canada, by its forestry practices, deserves this exemption. I, as a Canadian from western Canada, support that.

I want to finish up by saying that I did have the opportunity, and companies across this country have been very open to all parliamentarians, to see firsthand what the industries do and what their workers do. I have seen all aspects of the forestry industry in this country and have been amazingly impressed.

We hear the expression “hewers of wood and drawers of water”. If anyone has been to a softwood lumber facility, and they should go to the one near Prince George, they would see the computer system that measures every single log and the IT system that follows that. If they went to the mill just outside Calgary in Palliser, they would see the way that all the employees, aside from just working in the plant, are also upgrading their skills, learning how to move up the system, and taking logs that other companies may not utilize and turning them into a wood product that they can then export. It is a fantastic industry and one that all Canadians should be very proud of, but it deserves some stability. It obviously deserves our government's support.

We have signed, in my view, the best agreement possible. It is obviously supported by the large lumber producing provinces and it should be supported by all members of Parliament. I encourage all members of Parliament to take a serious look at the agreement, to support it, and to support our lumber industry across this country, but most important, to support the families in the communities who really need a resolution to this issue.

[Committees of the House, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to the challenges facing the Canadian manufacturing sector.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I did cover part of the hon. member's question in my speech. I hope it does address it, but the concern is that there are three loopholes that are not covered by section 403.

First, though fraud and impersonation are crimes under the Criminal Code, they do not apply to personal information such as phone records, consumer preferences or purchases. Second, while these actions violate that section and they violate the PIPEDA insofar as it says that information cannot be disclosed without express consent, this does not guarantee a remedy in the sense that the Privacy Commissioner is very limited to what she can actually do.

Our concern is with the Privacy Commissioner in her own situation. Maclean's magazine highlighted the fact that it was an American data broker who did this through impersonation. There is no recourse for the Privacy Commissioner or anyone else to remedy that problem unless there is a situation that we are putting forward in the bill whereby we make Canadian affiliates responsible in some way.

We feel that, in the new information technology, section 403 simply does not cover that. We need to cover phone records as the United States is doing through VoIP services. That requires these three pieces of legislation, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Criminal Code to be amended for that purpose.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for sending me a note, offering some helpful suggestions.

First, we should acknowledge that this is a first step.The broader issue of protection of privacy and personal information identity theft would have to be dealt with in a much more comprehensive package. I readily acknowledge that.

I think a second issue, which the member may be hinting at and which the parliamentary secretary has raised, is the bill may have to be amended to insert “knowingly” to add mens rea so there is intent itself in the legislation. That is something I would be willing to add, if it goes to committee.

With respect to what other nations are doing, the member mentioned the United Kingdom and the United States. As he knows, two House committees in the United States are looking at three pieces of legislation: protecting consumer phone records act; law enforcement and phone privacy act; and prevention of fraudulent access to phone records act. According to my information, these bills have been approved at committee. My understanding is that both the senate and the House will be working in conference to try to bring the bills forward in a more comprehensive package.

I hope that addresses what the United States is doing in creating offences for fraudulently obtaining confidential consumer information from telephone or VoIP carriers to selling information, providing for substantial fines and a range of maximum years of imprisonment, from five to 20 years, and also creating a civil right of action, which I have in my bill. It is important to note there is a criminal as well as a civil provision in my bill.