Published by Senator Tommy Banks (retired) on 07 December 2009
The Journal editorial of Nov. 28, says that senators "could" be correct in making sure that consumer legislation is carefully crafted. We would not only be correct in doing that, it is a precise description of our job.
But the editorial suggests that the Senate is spending too much time in examining the bill and its various provisions.
Bill C-6 spent 72 sitting days in the House of Commons before that place passed it and sent it to the Senate for consideration.
So far, as I write this letter, it has been in the Senate for 29 sitting days, and I expect we'll finish dealing within the next two weeks.
The editorial says that "this is no time for partisan bickering or selfinterested foot-dragging." We're not doing either of those things. Senators on all sides, Conservative, Liberal, and independent, have questions about some of the Bill's provisions. I will give you just two of many examples.
1. Although this is not criminal law, the penalties would include substantial fines and jail terms. But then, in Clause 56(1) it says that "A person named in a notice of violation does not have a defence by reason that the person (a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation, or (b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person."
For centuries the "Colour of Right" and "intent" concepts in the Common Law have recognized these defences.
Now the government is proposing that for the purposes of this legislation they should be eliminated. Some of us think this needs to be carefully questioned.
2. Clause 16 of the Bill requires a written undertaking of confidentiality (and other things) by a foreign government before confidential business information can be disclosed to them by our government;but Clause 15 contains no such requirement for the disclosure by our government of personal information to other governments.
Some of us think that when it comes to our government sharing information with foreigners, individuals are entitled to at least the same privacy protection as big companies.
There are many more questions about this bill, and those questions are being asked (and amendments will be proposed) not in the interests of "partisan bickering or selfinterested foot-dragging," but in the interests of Canadians.
Tommy Banks, Senator for Alberta, Ottawa