Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for offering us the opportunity to present our comments.
My name is Alexandre Plourde. I am a lawyer with Option consommateurs. With me is my colleague Sara Eve Levac, who is also a lawyer with Option consommateurs.
Option consommateurs is a non-profit association whose mission is to help consumers and defend their rights. As a consumers' association, we are in regular contact with people who are having privacy-related problems. In recent years, we have often become involved in privacy issues, for example by publishing research reports and taking part in consultations on proposed legislation. We have also initiated large-scale class actions, including under the federal Privacy Act.
As you can read in the brief we have submitted to the committee, Bill C-27 contains a number of flaws, in our opinion, particularly regarding the exceptions to consent, the absence of a right to be forgotten, the limitations on the right of portability, and management of individuals' data after their death.
Since our time is limited, we will first address two aspects of Bill C-27 that are of particular concern to us.
First, I am going to talk about Bill C-27's lack of deterrent effect and the obstacles this may create for civil actions by consumers. Second, I am going to talk about the flaws in relation to children's privacy.
Our first concern relates to Bill C-27's lack of deterrent effect. We believe that the bill contains flaws that could make enforcing it problematic. First, although the bill contains high administrative monetary penalties, only certain violations of the act can result in such penalties being imposed.
Second, the Privacy Commissioner will not have the power to impose penalties directly; they will be able to do so only by recommending to the new personal information and data protection tribunal that penalties be imposed. That additional step suggests, at least, that there will be significant delays in applying the penalties imposed on businesses that commit offences.
In addition, the deterrent effect of legislation is also based on the public's ability to rely on it in the civil courts. However, we believe that the new private right of action provided in proposed section 107 in the bill seriously threatens consumers' ability to apply to the courts to exercise their rights. The problem arises from the fact that the new private right of action allows a company to be sued only if prerequisites are met, requiring, in particular, that the situation have first been dealt with by the Commissioner.
In our opinion, it is entirely possible that the big companies targeted by class actions will rely on these very stringent conditions in order to defeat the legal actions brought against them. There will then be interminable proceedings in the courts to determine the scope of the federal private right of action, given the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction over civil law.
We therefore invite the government to clarify that section 107 is in addition to the other civil remedies provided in provincial law, to ensure that it does not obstruct civil actions instituted under Quebec law.
I will now give my colleague, Ms. Levac, the floor.