Babblelogue.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 64% of the vote.
The Balkans December 4th, 1995
Babblelogue.
Young Offenders Act December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the reason I might resort to volume from time to time is in the hope the message might get through to the minister.
The Minister of Justice has sent the justice committee packing. The committee is to cross the country seeking the opinions of Canadians on his new and improved Young Offenders Act. Will the justice minister commit today to the members of the standing committee, to all members of this House and more important, to all Canadians, that he will listen and pay attention to the recommendations of the committee, or will this be just another colossal waste of taxpayers' time and money?
Young Offenders Act December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 which amended the Young Offenders Act did not go far enough. Canadians said it and Reform said it, but the justice minister went ahead with it anyway. Bill C-37 just received royal assent and the committee is already off on another mission to uncover the inadequacies of his improved act.
For years Canadians have been telling governments what is wrong with the YOA but governments will not listen. The minister did not listen to witnesses appearing before the committee last time. What assurance can he give them that he will listen this time?
Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House tonight on an issue of grave importance, the protection of personal information. I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-315, an act that will help to protect the privacy of Canadians. Since Bill C-315 was last in the House much has happened on the issue. Several groups have called for federal government action to protect the personal information of Canadians.
First, the Canadian Standards Association has expanded on its voluntary privacy codes and its desire for implementation of those codes.
Second, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre based in Ottawa released a document entitled "Surveying Boundaries: Canadians and their Personal Information".
Third, the Information Advisory Council established by the Minister of Industry continues to push for recognition of its privacy recommendations.
The protection of personal information is a serious concern for all Canadians. If we do not begin to address the unauthorized collection and exchange of personal information about unsuspecting Canadians now, we may not be able to stop it at all in the future.
Bill C-315 gives us the opportunity to counter the invasion of personal privacy before it gets out of control. New technology and
universal access to the Internet have accelerated the problem and immediate government action is critical.
I quote from The Economist :
Individually, most new technologies are introduced for perfectly benign motives. Their cumulative effect, however, is to cast a shadow over personal privacy. Is it really acceptable for most of your actions, even the most mundane, to be recorded and then sold to the highest bidder? Most people take their privacy for granted but are outraged when it is breached.
The growth of computer technology makes tasks easier for Canadians, but at what cost? I am very concerned that Canadians have their privacy compromised every day without their knowledge. Companies routinely collect information about them every time they use a credit card, buy something over the phone or subscribe to a magazine.
An Industry Canada paper released in October 1994 stated:
While each technology brings different capabilities, they all contribute to a completely unprecedented capacity for the surveillance of every man, woman and child, whether as a customer, student, employee, patient, taxpayer, or recipient of government services. It is this growing trend for information systems to place limits on our freedom, on our life's potential, that privacy advocates and science fiction writers alike find utterly chilling.
Just what will Bill C-315 do? It specifically tries to curb the collection and exchange of personal information. This could include names and phone numbers, business addresses and phone numbers, any identifiable physical characteristic, religion, national or ethnic origin, age or other information about education or financial history. The information is recorded in many ways: electronically such as on a floppy or hard disk, manually on paper or microfilm, or virtually such as in computer memory or an electronic network.
Bill C-315 would require all companies covered by the Canada Labour Code to abide by some very strict privacy protection guidelines. Before selling any list containing an individual's personal information, the person would be sent a notice that, first, personal information about the individual as listed in the notice is held by the company; second, permission is needed to keep the person's name on the list; and, third, the person shall be told his or her name can be removed at any time at no cost.
In addition, any corporation using a purchased list shall send to everyone on the list a notice containing the source of the information, a description of the information held and a statement outlining how individuals can have their information removed. Companies receiving a removal request must comply within 10 days and confirm with the individuals that their requests have been acted on.
Non-compliance will result in a summary conviction. For a first offence a company or individual would face a fine of up to $5,000. A repeat offence could double the maximum fine to $10,000. Charges would have to be laid within one year of the offence.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin who introduced the bill would be amenable to increasing the sentences if the industry committee studying the bill believed that they are too weak. It might also look at strengthening the bill to prevent the rental of information lists.
In September the Canadian Standards Association released a set of privacy codes after wide consultation with several agencies and associations. It sought to develop its code at a time when there was growing debate about the range of innovative approaches to the protection of personal data on the information highway.
There is one big problem with the code. Adherence is strictly voluntary. While the code may be good, it is merely a band-aid solution and has no teeth to protect consumers from greedy companies with no regard for their personal privacy. By the association's own admission none of the codes has any explicit statutory force in contrast with the privacy codes developed under the mandate of legislation and the oversight of a data protection agency.
In addition, the association also admits that ultimately the success of the CSA model code will depend on the various incentives that might operate to encourage registration. Several are noted and discussed: moral suasion, the desire to avoid adverse publicity and the use of the privacy standard for competitive advantage.
Is this realistic? Companies that profit from a $300 million a year industry will hardly be overcome with moral suasion or a concern about adverse publicity. While the CSA code may convince some organizations to operate more responsibly, most organizations will only use it when it is convenient for them or if they must comply.
The CSA notes that in New Zealand and the Netherlands where privacy codes have been complemented by statutory regulation, there is more effective protection of their citizens. In Canada combining the CSA's code with the legislative teeth of Bill C-315 will provide consumers with real privacy protection.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit group that is also focused on the protection of personal information. In a recent paper it investigated whether there is a problem. It found that 76 per cent of Canadians believe they have less control over their personal information than they did 10 years ago; 95 per cent of Canadians want to be informed about collection processes and about the uses to which their personal information may be put; 94 per cent insist permission be sought and given before any informa-
tion is passed on to another organization; and 86 per cent want to understand how new technology can affect their personal privacy. It is clear from the research done by the organization that Canadians are very concerned about their privacy.
Bill C-315 would establish statutory protection without the requirement for any new taxes. It is the missing link advocates are calling for. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has assured me he would support changes the industry committee might suggest when it examines the bill. We must act soon. Every day we dawdle, more personal information about private citizens will be collected and sold.
I conclude with a quote from a book called "A Consumer's Survival Guide to a Cashless World":
As consumers we often feel powerless to change the status quo, but public pressure can succeed when enough people get excited about practices they feel to be wrong or unfair. The only way it will change is for us as consumers and citizens to demand fuller disclosure, stronger privacy protections and better security procedures.
We can wait no longer. Consumers and citizens want and need to see changes to the rules that protect personal information. Bill C-315 is an answer to a concern that each and every member of Parliament shares with his or her constituents. I urge the House to support the bill so we can begin to protect the personal privacy of all Canadians.
Indian Affairs November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I was not asking the minister whether he had seen it or heard of it. I was asking him whether his ADM is responsible for it. Does the buck stop with him and his department or not?
We believe in the equality of all Canadians but clearly this Liberal government does not. This week the Prime Minister is adding a new class of citizens by recognizing Quebec as special and giving Quebec distinct society status. Now we learn that the department of Indian affairs is considering granting premier status to Quebec native leaders.
Apparently the Liberals intend to grant distinct status to two groups so far: the Quebec separatist government and Quebec native leaders. How many more do the Liberals intend to recognize?
Indian Affairs November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, a recent memo confirms Indian affairs is planning to throw money at resolving some outstanding issues it has been dragging its feet on. This is a payoff to silence Quebec's aboriginal people during the dream team's constitutional talks in Quebec.
While I can understand that Quebec natives want to see their issues resolved, blatantly bribing them to keep quiet during the Quebec round of talks is an insult to them and to all Canadians.
Will the minister of Indian affairs confirm whether one of his ADMs is responsible for this policy position, yes or no?
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Madam Speaker, the veto seems to be falling back on the old premise that Quebec supports the concept of two founding nations.
Would the hon. member who just gave such a heart rending emotional speech care to comment on the La Presse Gallup poll released this morning? It stated that 42 per cent of Quebecers polled support the 10 equal provinces scenario while only 37 per cent polled actually believe in two founding nations. The government clings to an outdated way of thinking.
British Columbia Treaty Commission Act November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I seem to be the only one who would like to participate in this debate with the hon. member.
I take exception to the point the member made that he believes this process will bring greater stability and certainty for British Columbia. That is certainly not what I have seen. I am not opposed to negotiations if they lead to the type of agreements that all of us and the vast majority of Canadians can ultimately support. My great concern and the concerns expressed to me all of the time from my constituents is that these processes are not doing that. They are driving a further wedge between the Indian people and Canadians at large.
A great concern of mine is that we are not bringing about finality or extinguishment of special rights. We are just further enshrining them.
Sometimes I question and am questioned as to whether we are really addressing the concerns of the average Indian in this country who in many cases is living in poverty on reserves. Or, are we really addressing the concerns of the Indian leadership which in many cases is vastly different from the primary concerns of the individual Indian?
It is estimated that combined provincial and federal spending is between $7 billion and $9 billion a year on Indian programs. When I travel to the reserves in my constituency, which, I am assured by colleagues in the House, are not that much unlike other constituencies, I see very few examples of where that money is being spent on the reserves.
I really question whether this process is the best way to address the concerns of the average native in this country.
British Columbia Treaty Commission Act November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's comments. He said the whole business of the Indian question and what to do about land claims, self-government and these types of issues will be resolved only through negotiation.
That is true. That is something we can all agree on. But if that is true, why have so many of the Indian bands in British Columbia either backed away from this process or not participated to begin with?
One of the reasons we are opposed to this treaty process is that the only examples we can see are the ones history has taught us. Treaties enshrine special rights. They enshrine racism because certain rights are attributed to one group of Canadians based solely on their race.
The Reform Party believes the ultimate goal of any negotiations, as the hon. member said and I agree, is we must get to the point at which we can negotiate an end to these issues and put them to rest. The end goal must be the equality of all Canadian citizens, not further inequality, not enshrining inequality in agreements.
Another point is the finality. We believe on this side of the House these must be final agreements. They must bring about extinguishment of special rights and they must be final.
Once again when we look at history and at what happened with the settlements in the northern territories, we do not see that finality. Rather, there are clauses in those agreements whereby any future negotiations that bring about benefits south of 60 could also accrue to those bands that have already completed negotiations in the territories. We do not have finality. Canadians do not know what the final bill will be.
One of the reasons the Charlottetown accord was defeated was the ambiguity of the Indian questions. In other words, what did native self-government really mean? How would it come about?
I heard my hon. colleague putting forward the Reform perspective that what we need is a very clear definition of whether self-government will be based on a municipal model or some third level of government. These are the types of questions Canadians want answered.
Where is the involvement of the third party during these negotiations, private landowners? There are a whole bunch of questions not answered and not adequately addressed by this treaty negotiation process presently underway and which this bill would enshrine.
In a constituent survey in my spring householder I asked a number of questions on native land claims because I wanted feedback from the citizens of Prince George-Peace River. The first question was: Does government have an obligation to negotiate modern day treaties with natives?
This is exactly what we are talking about today with this bill. It is interesting that although the returns were low, the sample size was low, of the more than 500 people who returned the questionnaire two to one voted no. They said we are not obligated to negotiate treaties.
For that reason and the others I outlined I will be joining with my Reform colleagues in opposition to this bill.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995
Baloney.