Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Small Business Loans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would simply ask the member for Provencher in his response to please keep it within the next two minutes if possible.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Basically, the praise for this particular initiative rests not with the member for Provencher but with the Prairie Harvest farm group from Altona which came up with the idea.

I can only tell the member that the role of the Government of Canada throughout this whole process has been one of facilitator. These kinds of innovative ideas with respect to secondary processing of our natural resources, which the World Bank has just said that Canada is number two in the world, have been there for quite some time.

I want to point out our trade difficulties with the U.S. and the cap on durum wheat which was unfairly placed on us by the Americans. The Government of Canada responded to that unfair trade action by going through the office of the Prime Minister to the minister of agriculture and indeed the minister of western economic development to say: "Okay, if we cannot ship our durum over the border, let us be really smart and keep it in our own back yard. We will process it and sell it to Canadians and Americans".

The short answer of course to the parliamentary secretary is that the Prairie Harvest group out of Altona came up with an idea, approached the Government of Canada for some help and we were glad to act as a lever on this important project.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to thank the hon. member for Provencher for his co-operation.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this bill but there are some things that have concerned me for some time about small business and this is an opportunity to say a few things.

Bill C-99 gives access to capital for small businesses in Canada. My concern is basically if it is really looking at small business, the value of small business to our country and just what small business needs. That is where my concern stems from, where the banks have refused to take a risk. I contend that the banks should have taken a risk in the past. We do have the Federal Business Development Bank which was in the past supposed to be the bank of last resort. Often this has not been the case and somebody else has had to come up with the funds.

If we are talking about other programs for small business, like community futures, it really does depend, as the member for Kamloops said, on the expertise of those that run those programs. I have had some experience with it and I have found that perhaps that is one of the reasons why some of the losses are a little greater than they should be.

Of course there is risk involved. There is a risk involved for anybody going into a small business and we expect some losses. However, we do not expect the amount of loss to be higher than normal businesses would have going through the banks.

There have been some successful businesses through the community futures. Some good ones are still running right now in my community. However, the difficulty with the community futures program is that some of the businesses that are successful could have been funded by the Federal Business Development Bank which is the bank of last resort. It should have been funded there, not with the taxpayers' dollars in another program.

What I am trying to say is that community futures has to be accountable. There is no bottom line. We have a Privacy Act and we cannot access that information. That is not acceptable to the Canadian taxpayers. I found the rate of losses higher and, being unaccountable, therefore unacceptable to me as an MP responsible for taxpayers' dollars.

I felt that the people going into the community futures program were protected so that perhaps the incentive to succeed may not be as great if one knows one does not have to worry if one has a loss.

In small business there is always a challenge and a risk. Those people who go into a small business are usually entrepreneurs who have some wonderful talents and expertise. We usually see good results. Unfortunately, often in community futures we do not see this because the accountability is not there. Wherever we do not have accountability we have a future problem of breakdown.

The purpose of the Federal Business Development Bank is that it is a bank of last resort. It is supposed to be the money lender of last resort.

The member for Kamloops said it very well. He said that small businesses just want the government to get out of their way. Being in small business myself I can say that this is exactly true. We need a healthy marketplace if we are in business. We need to have fewer burdens on us.

The tax structure is far too heavy today to encourage anyone to go into small business. The first couple of years are difficult. In the past if businesses had troubles the Federal Business Development Bank was not always there to back them up but often put them into receivership at a time when all they needed was some support to get through. I would suggest the Federal Business Development Bank has not always done its job in the past.

Small businesses want less government interference. They need some incentive. We are talking about younger people coming into the marketplace. I have often mentioned this in my community and I have talked to small businesses in my community about this. There is a program in Europe where small businesses apprentice a younger person coming out of a college, a technical school or whatever. If our small businesses apprenticed a young person for a year, they would be providing a training program built into the most natural area possible. It would be built into the marketplace, the economy, into a natural spot in the economy, in a working spot in the economy.

I honestly feel when speaking to small businesses this is an avenue we could travel. Considering small business supplies about 80 per cent of jobs, I feel this is an ideal opportunity for our young people that are unemployed with nowhere to go to get the training they need if they do not have it.

Why is the small business person going to do this? There would obviously have to be some incentive. Perhaps a tax break in some area would help as small business is overtaxed already. They have the fewest tax breaks. Big business seems to qualify for them where small business does not. I would really like to see the government take a look at some serious ideas for helping small business in this area.

The banks have not always lived up to their responsibilities. They are there to encourage small business and they are there to do it in a realistic way.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed today's debate because it clearly illustrates the different philosophies of the different parties. We on this side believe the role of government is to act as facilitator, to aid small businesses, to give them the types of tools required not only in the financial sector but also in the development of human resources.

The hon. member who has just spoken cited some of the areas in which she would like to see an improvement. She was referring to the concept of developing an apprenticeship system which might give some tax breaks to small business and providing the sorts of incentives that would result in the development of the type of workforce that may be more in tune with the economic reality of today's marketplace.

I would like to tell the hon. member that the federal government has initiated a number of programs in co-operation with the private sector which speak to the issues raised by the hon. member.

I had the pleasure on August 28 to be in the province of Quebec with the president of Chrysler Canada, the CARS Council and a local school board to engage in the type of partnership that will lead to approximately 1,000 jobs for young people. This is done through the youth internship program in co-operation with the National Sectoral Council.

I would like to speak about these initiatives because they address the human resources planning that a modern, developed nation should be addressing. In fact, surprisingly, the minister of education from the Parti Quebecois was present and co-operated with the federal government in kicking off this initiative.

What does this really mean? It means that we on this side of the House have realized we cannot have a program for every challenge we face. The answers are really found at the community level, at the industry level. Our role as a government is to bring about the meetings of the minds around the table, so that we can institute programs which deal with the challenges of the ever changing nature of the workforce.

At that announcement, Chrysler committed itself to provide an internship program for 200 young people. The sectoral council initiative committed itself to a cumulative number of 1,000. That means these young people will go through an internship program and will have a job waiting for them at the end of their one year or nine months worth of training.

This federal government initiative has been extremely successful. Under our red book commitment we originally stated that 24,000 young people would participate in this program. To date, 27,000 young people are participating. They are participating in programs I am certain will bring about positive changes in their lives.

Equally important is that for the very first time all sectors of our society, the educational institutions, industry, labour and management, together are addressing standards for the industry. They are addressing issues and concerns that have blocked the progress of a particular industry.

Whom are we linking these industries with? We are linking them with Canadians who are willing to learn a profession or trade so that they will have the type of skills required in the ever changing Canadian economy.

Why are we excited about these prospects? We are excited because we see our role as a facilitator to be a very important one in setting the parameters of economic development within our country. That is one initiative which has worked very well. We have linked our initiative not just to any industry, but we have linked our initiative to industries that provide jobs with a future.

For example in the automotive industry, gone are the days when there were mechanics. Those are jobs of the past. My father was in the trucking industry for a number of years. He would have the local mechanic look at his truck and the mechanic would put his ear near the engine to hear the noises. That is gone. Computer chips are now a very important part of the engine. The job of a mechanic is obsolete. What do we do? We have to retrain people to become auto technicians, to give them the tools to understand how the new engines work.

I give that example because I think it is a fundamental one. It clearly illustrates how quickly our country and our economy is changing. In the same way we cannot fix a 1995 car with a 1965 car repair manual, we certainly cannot fix the challenges we face in 1995, whether it is labour market strategy or small business initiatives, with 1965 programs.

This is very important to this government. It is for this reason that we have taken up the challenge to modernize Canada's social security system. This is the reason we are reviewing all our training programs. This is the reason we are promoting innovative programs and effective and strategic partnerships that speak to a modern economy.

How does this translate to the local reality where I live in my riding? What does this all mean to the residents of Aurora, Woodbridge, Maple, Richmond Hill, Oak Ridges, King and Nobleton? What does it mean to the over 260,000 people I represent in the House of Commons? How do I as a member bring about this vision of how we modernize and become more innovative in real terms? How do I make the translation from this beautiful Chamber of the House of Commons on to where the people live, play and work?

Yesterday was our anniversary as elected officials here. I have spent the past couple of years building the partnerships required to have real change occur at the community level. Last year I began planning and setting priorities for my area. I developed the York North technology strategy. Today I take this opportunity to outline some of its major principles.

Along with the residents of York North, I have realized quite clearly that in order to succeed in the new economy we cannot fear technology. We cannot fear technology infusion in the workplace. We cannot fear that in certain cases technology may reduce employment opportunities in old economy industries.

Instead of fear, the response I received from the residents of York North was one of excitement. Change in a society brings about two emotional responses: one either gets anxious about change or one gets excited. The people of York North decided that there was no great happiness in being anxious about change and technology and that we should not only absorb the technological revolution which is occurring globally but we should also find ways in which we could lead the way in our area.

I called a meeting of local stakeholders in my community, mayors, business representatives, members of labour unions. I called local school boards and people from the Career Foundation, the foundation which brings all these people together. I said that perhaps we should begin to experiment to find new ways of dealing with the technological changes that were occurring.

On September 11, 1995 we announced a major local economic development strategy, the York region strategic alliance. For now, it is a pilot project. What does it do? It gives the businesses in my area an opportunity to place their business in a database which can be accessed worldwide. We are not happy with just being able to access it within Canada. We understand the potential for export. We also are fully committed to building worldwide strategic alliances in order for business in my community to prosper. This is what some of the partners have said about the initiative.

Steve Quinlan, president of Seneca College, said that Seneca College, York region, the federal government and other partners have co-funded and developed a strategic alliance partnership to strengthen opportunities for jobs and growth. This initial research is a valuable resource, using information systems technology to rapidly assess regional needs in response to a changing global economy. This initiative is a pilot model to show how business, government and education can in fact work together.

Eldred King, chair of the Regional Municipality of York, stated that the strategic alliance initiative is an important component of the region's visions and plans for the 21st century. The region must provide leadership if change is to occur. He said that their plans strike a balance between economic growth, healthy communities and sustainable development.

Mayor Lorna Jackson from the city of Vaughan said that she was very excited that Vaughan was chosen as the test site. Not only is it one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, it is a bastion for industry. She stated: "I have no doubt that we will serve our country proud".

The reason I bring these names to the floor of the House of Commons is to clearly illustrate to Canadians that partnerships at the local level can work. Government, business and labour can come together to create the type of environment in which jobs flourish. This partnership is not just found in the riding of York North, it is found in every single community in Canada.

I say to hon. members that they should return to their ridings and engage local stakeholders to take charge of the future of the community. They should excite people about the new economy. There are great opportunities.

If there is one thing about the information highway, if there is one thing about the new economy, it is that they have redefined time and space. They have made geography less important. Now we are linked by satellite. The information highway will link us to the world. This is something we should be getting excited about.

We need to give people the tools. That is why I am happy with the commitment of the federal government to establish the Canadian Business Development Bank, which is providing people with the important capital to start their businesses.

That is why I am happy that on October 2 of this year I was able to establish the Vaughan Technology Enterprise Centre where 60 young people will be taught entrepreneurial studies. They will be linked with small business people in the community in a mentorship program. They will acquire the skills which are so important in creating jobs.

That is why I am so happy that the federal government has a program called self-employment assistance which has enabled 34,000 unemployed Canadians to create their own businesses. Better still, not only have they created businesses, they have created over 68,000 jobs.

That is the type of transition we want. We want people to get off the unemployment rolls of the country and onto the payrolls of this nation. It is happening in every single community.

I have a very clear message that we on this side of the House understand the important role small business plays. We want to clearly reach out in as many ways as possible to bring about positive change, jobs and healthy communities throughout this land.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to inform the House, particularly the parliamentary secretary, that when we resume debate on Bill C-99 he will have approximately five minutes remaining, should he so choose, when the bill comes back to the House for debate.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

moved that Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individual with respect to personal information about themselves obtained by certain corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the House today on the issue of personal privacy and specifically on Bill C-315.

Canadians are living in a world that seems to get smaller with each passing day. The distances that separate us from our families and friends are becoming easier to traverse. It has become easier to communicate with our families and with others around the globe. Sometimes, though, it feels like these same distances are becoming a little too short and the rest of the world is getting a little too close.

What has led to this dramatic change in our society? The answer is simple: the industrial and technological revolution that has so dramatically changed the face of Canada over the past 100 years. The telephone has brought friends and family from hundreds of miles away to within earshot of our voice. The car and the aeroplane have reduced long distance trips from months to a matter of hours. The computer has put volumes of information at our fingertips. The Internet has provided a gateway for the free flow of information to a knowledge hungry world.

Each of these changes has brought convenience to our daily lives. With each change came a loss of some small piece of our personal privacy. Historically our laws and traditions have responded to some aspects of the loss of our personal privacy. Trespassing laws and exclusion orders, for example, keep those we do not want to associate with at a distance.

Recent telephone innovations like call display and call blocking help us see who is trying to contact us and help us prevent unwanted calls.

Where we as a country fall short, though, is in our response to the growth of computer technology. This technology has the ability to retrieve, store and send vast amounts of information. The information age has brought a booming industry, creating a $300

million per year industry in the buying and selling of personal information.

Ontario's assistant commissioner for privacy recently exclaimed that privacy as we know it may not exist in the year 2000. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Bruce Phillips, agreed when he stated earlier this year that Ottawa should consider protecting the right to lead a private life and that in the next year or two is really going to tell the tale. Mr. Phillips clearly believes it is time for action in protecting personal information.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is not the only one who believes the time is now to protect privacy. The information highway advisory council, created by the Ministry of Industry, reported last month: "Manipulation of data may occur without the consent of the individual from whom it was collected. Moreover, the information is often used for purposes unrelated to those purposes for which it was originally collected. Because of the enormous potential for abuse there is a need for effective privacy protection. Only Quebec has enacted specific legislation governing its private sector. The council believes strongly that there should be national legislation to establish fair information practices on the information highway".

A recent Gallup poll conducted for Anderson Consulting, a private financial consulting firm based in Toronto, found similar concerns about privacy and the information highway: "Notwithstanding strong interest in the information highway, Canadians have a high level of concern as to how it may affect their privacy. Asked to indicate their level of concern for their privacy because information about them might be collected by companies involved in the information highway, 83.7 per cent described themselves as very concerned or somewhat concerned".

Bill C-315 responds to these calls for privacy protection. I should put forward a definition of the term personal information. The definition of personal information used in crafting Bill C-315 refers to data on an individual that are recorded. This could include name and phone number, business address and phone number, any identifiable physical characteristic, religion, national or ethnic origin, age or any information about education or financial history.

This information is recorded in many ways, including electronically such as on a floppy or hard disk, manually on paper or microfilm, or virtually as in computer memory or an electronic network.

Historically there are several sources that reaffirm the right to personal privacy. There is the right to privacy as guaranteed in both Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications, and in the 1989 case of the Queen v. Dyment, when it was established that the right to privacy does exist in Canada, that it existed before the charter of rights and freedoms and that the charter has not diminished that right. The CRTC has been vigilant in protecting this right especially with regard to junk faxes and messages.

There is the right to anonymity as determined by Telecom decision CRTC 92-7. In other words, all Canadians have the right to be left alone and the right to remain anonymous as they go about their daily activities.

In addition, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member, has established a set of basic principles to help define and support the protection of personal privacy. These principles share a common theme that the collection of personal information should be open, accountable and limited to the purposes intended.

Canadians are often surprised when they learn how information is being collected and where it ends up. Personal information on Canadians is being collected in a wide variety of ways. Credit card applications, contest forms, polls and surveys, warranty cards, magazine subscriptions and other means are all used in one form or another to collect personal information.

By combining these individual client lists a detailed profile of an individual can be made without the knowledge of that individual. Firms in Canada and around the world are able to have multiple lists, cross referenced, and create a remarkably accurate portrait of an individual.

Allow me to quote from a recent consumer report study: "By overlapping the data available through thousands of information systems it is now possible to create a remarkable picture of anyone. That picture could include your age, income, political party, marital status, the number of children you have, the magazines you read, your employment history and your military and school records. A database might also know what kind of breakfast cereal you eat, the make of the car you drive and even the brand of diapers your children wear".

A recent article in "Telecommunications Policy" entitled "Will My House Still be My Castle?" added to this concern: "In the future things will be very different. It will essentially be one stop shopping for the data gatherer in the digital super highway. Information gathering, analysis, correlation and dissemination can all be automated, depersonalized and made inexpensive. The time to establish coherent public policies and safeguards is before such systems are in place and adverse precedents and vested interests become established".

Currently Canadians enjoy very little personal privacy protection. The current Privacy Act, Bill P-21, is limited to information

held by the federal government and certain federal institutions. Similar laws exist in eight of our twelve provinces and territories.

In the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, Prince Edward Island and Alberta action has not yet been taken to protect personal information held by these provincial and territorial governments.

When it comes to controlling information held by the private sector the picture is far less promising. Only Quebec has taken the bold step of limiting the sale and access of this personal information.

Through bill 68, the province of Quebec has given its citizens the power to say no to the sale or exchange of their personal information. No other provincial government has acted as decisively as Quebec in this important area. I applaud Quebec for its initiative here.

Even Quebec's law, though, is far from complete. Many areas of business such as banking, cable television and numerous transportation companies are beyond the reach of Quebec's bill 68. This leaves Quebecers as vulnerable to privacy breaches in the federal jurisdiction as their counterparts in the rest of Canada.

Private industry, in a bid to avoid further federal and provincial control, has tried to address these privacy concerns. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association has created a bureau to deal with client list complaints and circulates the names of individuals who do not want their names on any member lists. However, individuals must repeat the request several times a year to ensure their names stay off the computer lists. As well, not all direct marketers are members of the CDMA, making privacy protection a hit or miss exercise.

Recently the Information Highway Advisory Council called on the Canadian government to regulate the flow of personal information. The Canadian Banker's Association has also created a set of voluntary privacy guidelines. According to a director with the office of the privacy commissioner, though, these guidelines are wide enough to drive a logging truck through. The bank guidelines are so ineffective that the Royal Bank of Canada admitted in 1993 that it sometimes included client card numbers, names, ages and addresses to market research firms without the client's knowledge.

We have to face the facts. Self-policing is not working. I have seen case after case in which guidelines and bureaus have turned their heads when the corporations break the rules or, at the very best, have given them a very light slap on the wrist. Industry has clearly failed Canadians in this area and it is time for Parliament to take action.

With this in mind let us turn our attention to Bill C-315. The bill stems from the concerns of a constituent of mine, expressed to me when he learned he had ended up on some questionable mailing list through which he had received advertisements for explicit pornographic material. After doing some extensive research I learned the federal government has yet to seriously address the issue of personal privacy.

Bill C-315 is the first step in addressing this serious oversight. The bill was designed to work in harmony with provincial privacy laws such as Quebec's bill 68 and to respect provincial jurisdictions as outlined in the Constitution. At the same time, it sends a tough message to companies around the country that the misuse of personal information is a concern and that the privacy of people has to be respected.

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 shall be sent a notice stating, first, that personal information about the individual as listed in the notice is held by the company; second, that permission is needed to keep the person's name on the list; and, third, that the person shall be told his or her name can be removed at any time at no cost to the individual.

At the same time any corporation using purchased lists shall send each individual on the list a notice containing, first, the source of this information; second, a description of the information held; and, third, a statement outlining how the individual can have that personal information removed from the list at any time and at no cost to themselves.

Companies receiving a removal request must comply within 10 days and confirm with the individual that his or her request has been acted on. Breaking this law would be classified as a summary conviction. For a first offence a company or individual breaking this law would face a fine of up to $5,000. A repeat offence could double the maximum to $10,000. Charges would have to be laid within one year of the offence.

I will be the first to admit that these are tough measures. In my view they only reflect the importance people place on their own privacy. Polls have shown time and time again that Canadians feel their privacy is at risk and action must be taken to reverse this trend.

Interesting enough, the criticism I have received concerning the fine limits is that the proposed fines are not high enough, that for large institutions affected by the bill the suggested fines would merely be a nuisance or a slap on the wrist.

The Canadian public wants to have more control over personal information. A national privacy survey published in 1993 discovered that 71 per cent totally agreed that privacy rules should apply to both government and business. Sixty-six per cent believe that the

government should be working with business to come up with some guidelines on privacy protection in the private sector.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada estimates that the average Canadian has his or her name crunched through various computers across the continent perhaps five to ten times daily. He further estimates that in the private sector alone $300 million a year annually changes hands in the buying and selling of client lists.

This industry is growing at an incredible rate as technological information becomes more widespread. The privacy commissioner thinks that now is the time to take action in the protection of personal information and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The rights to anonymity and privacy are constantly being threatened in the pursuit of information. It is time to restore a balance and return to Canadians their right to have some control over their personal information, privacy and anonymity.

Let us respect this right by supporting Bill C-315 when it is brought to a vote.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Bill C-315, a private member's bill put forward by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I came into the House not as supporter of the bill initially when I read it. However after listening to the member's speech I became more and more convinced that he had the basis of a solid piece of legislation.

I cannot stand here today and make a final decision on what the government will decide in terms of voting on the legislation, but as a government we will have to look at the bill to see if there is some way to get it into committee.

Basically I support the aim of the bill. I want to make it perfectly clear that the way to achieving that aim should be modified. Some views have been put forward indicating that the bill is unduly burdensome on the industry and that it has a narrow focus when broad based measures are needed to ensure a level playing field for industry while protecting the privacy of Canadians.

Let us deal with the issue of it being unduly burdensome. The bill, and I am not saying it cannot be amended, would require that each time a mailing list is sold would necessitate notification and individual consent. More flexible approaches have been suggested such as the one using a combination of general principles and legislation coupled with industry self-regulation.

Another concern that has been put forward is about the focus of the bill being too narrow at this time. As the bill is written now it applies only to the sale of lists containing personal information when in reality the normal business practice is the rental of such lists. The bill focuses narrowly on lists when a vast amount of personal data can be blended and put together from the consumer transactional data currently exchanged between firms or within a large organization. The definition of personal information provided in the bill is unduly narrow. It is more restrictive than the definition of personal information found in the federal Privacy Act.

Also the bill only applies to corporations when mailing list information is often transferred between individual proprietorships and partnerships that are not organized into corporate forms. That can be fixed also.

Bill C-315 applies to the narrow range of corporations engaging in a federally regulated activity. As used in the bill, federally regulated corporations would include, most notably, those firms operating in the interprovincial and international transportation sectors: broadcasting, telecommunications and the banking industry. Needless to say, many corporations and sectors are exchanging personal data that fall outside these delineated categories.

The effect of the bill is to protect consumers in a narrow range of circumstances from a narrow range of commercial actors in a burdensome fashion without any co-ordination or harmonization with other current or proposed privacy initiatives. If passed in its current form, the result would not be a level playing field of the clear and consistent privacy rules applying to all sectors but a patchwork quilt of uneven privacy obligations from sector to sector, firm to firm, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Other initiatives currently under way might provide a better approach. At least we can listen to some other initiatives. We are currently studying the options, as the hon. member knows. Most notable is the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code ratified in September by a committee consisting of a broad cross section of consumer, private sector and government representatives including Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs, Spectrum Information Technologies and telecommunications units.

Three years in the making the model code sets out 10 principles governing how personal information should be collected, retained, kept up to date, used and disclosed by the private sector. Adoption of the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to ensure that consumers are informed of the existence of such lists and are given the opportunity to consent to their use and to verify their accuracy.

The code is voluntary in nature but a number of different parties have suggested that it could become the basis for flexible framework legislation, leaving it to industry sectors to determine how they would meet the CSA, the Canadian standards.

The CSA code provides a clear example of the commitment and ability of consumer groups, the private sector and governments to work together to develop privacy protection solutions. As the member mentioned in his speech, the Information Highway Advi-

sory Council recommended a broad based, flexible privacy framework legislation drawing on the CSA model code as a basis. We have also received a recommendation from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association urging the creation of a flexible national privacy framework legislation using the CSA model privacy code as a basis.

The essence of both recommendations is the recognition of the need for coherent national privacy standards, protecting the consumer while providing the private sector with a flexible and level playing field.

The member has done a lot of terrific work on the legislation. We have heard him put forward many good ideas in his speech. Over the next while we will have to review the bill to see if there is some way to make some of the necessary amendments.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-315, entitled the protection of personal information obtained by certain corporations act, sponsored by my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. The bill seeks to enhance the protection of every citizen's right to privacy. Each and every citizen has a right to privacy that protects any confidential information.

Personal information is much more than data, much more than a simple product. It is the essence of who we are and defines our uniqueness. It not only describes the facts but the nuances of our life patterns and our choices. The importance of the right to protect that individuality is a measure of the importance of the individual in society.

The right to privacy is well established in our constitutional and legal history. It is recognized in our common law and has been recognized to be included in the charter of rights and freedoms. In Canada we value privacy to such an extent that we established a Privacy Commissioner of Canada in 1983. There are also provincial and territorial privacy commissioners including in my home province of British Columbia.

The importance of privacy for individuals and Canadian families is shown in that through 1994 and 1995 the federal office of the privacy commissioner processed over 1,300 investigations and dealt with over 10,000 inquiries from the public.

I should like to focus upon the relationship between privacy, family and our current laws. Family is the fundamental building block in our society. It is the family that provides the social cohesion necessary for stability and prosperity in society. Many things are needed to promote and provide stability for families. Privacy is one of the essential elements needed to ensure inviolability of the home.

Increasingly, though, the family home is being subjected to intrusion from a number of sources. The age of contemporary information technology has meant that personal and confidential information has entered into the public realm with little or no safeguards established to protect the use and distribution of the information. With technology, data collection and assimilation become easier and less subject to scrutiny. Information from a multitude of sources can be accumulated, cross-referenced, and misrepresented with increasing facility and speed. While the public becomes increasingly conscious of uncontrolled information flow, they worry that the knowledge may lead to manipulation and intervention into their lives.

There is increasing public unease over the issues surrounding privacy. Almost 90 per cent of Canadians recently replied that they are concerned about their privacy. There is a mounting public pressure to initiate greater control to prevent abuse.

Of course the single largest collector of information on people is the government itself. We have legislation in place to attempt to control that information through the Privacy Act. A quick look at the statistics from the privacy commissioner is meaningful. According to the 1994-95 privacy commissioner's annual report, the number of complaints increased over 38 per cent from the previous year. The number of inquiries has risen from just over 1,000 in 1985 to nearly 10,000 in 1995.

The use of the multiple information database can construct a complete information profile on an individual or that individual's family. It can contain everything from their name to their age to their political affiliation, military service, and even information about related family members. As my colleague mentioned, it can contain the stores you shop at, the kinds of food you eat, and perhaps even your medical history.

The privacy commissioner has estimated that the average Canadian's name is processed through a computer five to ten times on a daily basis. I believe it is crucial for us to take the measures that are necessary to safeguard the privacy of individuals and their families. I believe Bill C-315 will do much to assist that.

Under the federal Privacy Act only government departments, ministries of state, and certain federal institutions are covered. This bill would expand those privacy laws by increasing protection to include federally regulated institutions. This bill would require that those companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Canada Labour Code notify an individual whose personal information will be sold as part of a list to another corporation or client. It would also require that the individual concerned give their permission if they want their name on the list. This notice would outline the source of the personal information, a description of the information held, and a statement that the individual can have their name removed from the list at no cost to them. If an individual requests that his or her name be removed from the list, then the company concerned will be required to comply with that request

within ten days and send a confirmation of that removal to the individual concerned.

This bill expands protection by amending section 2 of the Canada Labour Code to include banks, radio broadcasting companies, air transportation companies, any shipping lines that operate between provinces or between Canada and another country, any company involved in the railway, canal, telegraph, or other industries linking provinces, and any work identified under the Canada Labour Code or deemed for the general advantage of Canada. All these fall under federal jurisdiction and are federally regulated.

The dilemma of privacy issues has been all too common in our news lately. The news stories illustrate the tension that exists between cost efficiencies and the protection of the integrity of information for the protection of the individual.

For example, in my province of B.C. the provincial jurisdiction of privacy limits was recently tested with the introduction of a database on prescription drug usage. This program was introduced in the name of cost efficiency in the ever-diminishing health care system funding and for the health benefit of preventing incompatible or dangerous prescription overlap. However, there was a huge public outcry that the privacy of citizens would be threatened by the potential misuse of this database. The government did set about to dispel those fears and in fact has come up with some instructive examples of safeguards for a shared database.

I want to draw to the attention of the House a statement by the B.C. privacy commissioner, Dave Flaherty, who said that too many people have too much access to too much information on the computer system. That pretty well sums up much of the problem of all the world as we proceed with this privacy debate.

The banks are probably one of the largest non-governmental processors of private information and are also one of the strongest resisters to privacy legislation. They maintain that their voluntary code should be sufficient. There have been noteworthy attempts in all sectors to voluntarily protect the privacy of information. In addition to initiatives by the banks, in 1993 the Canadian Direct Mail Association adopted a compulsory code of conduct for its members.

I commend those in the private sector for voluntary measures they have taken. However, it is interesting to note that one of the largest public outcries to the privacy commission was as a result of a recent Visa gold card application of the Royal Bank. Typically, banks require a social insurance number specifically and solely for the issuance of interest statements under the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, the Royal Bank's recent request for consent was far broader. It reads: "If I have ever given you my social insurance number you may treat it as information and use it as an aid to identify me with credit bureaus and other parties. Even if I am no longer your client or this agreement terminates, you may keep information in your records and use it for the purposes noted above."

It is such liberties that make the unbiased and arm's length controls of information necessary. With banking institutions offering services in diverse fields of deposit taking, trust processing, securities and insurance subsidiaries, it is necessary that the interests of the consumers and the marketplace be protected by comprehensive guidelines.

Potential for abuses must be recognized both in what services are allowed and in the regulation of the privacy of the information that is collected. With legislative rules and penalties there will come a predictable and enforceable protection for citizens.

Like all government initiatives, privacy regulation involves cost. Quebec introduced privacy legislation in the private sector two years ago. The Quebec experience would seem to indicate that their new private sector privacy commissioner has generated minimal resistance, very mild activity, with only 300 complaints, and minimal cost. This would seem to indicate that there can be an ongoing affordable privacy control within the private sector.

Ideally, the federal system should be designed to be self-funding if possible. The one question I would have of my colleague's proposal is the possibility of cost recovery for the program. The penalties imposed on large institutions seem small and may not serve either as a deterrent or be cost-effective.

The challenge of protection of the right to privacy is great. The growth of that challenge will be exponential as new technologies and falling international, provincial, and private borders become more and more a reality, not only in the marketplace but in our homes. Government and voluntary attention must be given to this crucial concern.

Today I urge my colleagues from all parties to support my colleague on Bill C-315.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I resume debate, there has been an oversight by the Chair. In the normal practice of private members' hour on the first round I would see if a member from each of the official parties was seeking the floor and then revert to the normal procedure of government, opposition, and so on. An oversight caused me to fail to recognize a member from the Bloc Quebecois on the first round. I will now go to the hon. member for Drummond and then I will look to the government side, if in fact one should choose to speak. That will bring us approximately to the conclusion of the first hour of debate.

If there should be any questions, feel free to approach me at the chair and I will explain it further with the appropriate time allocations that have been distributed evenly this evening.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-315 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The purpose of this bill is to complement the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves obtained by certain corporations. It is part of a debate that has been going on for several years about the best way to protect personal information obtained or held by federally regulated private corporations.

In the public sector, the federal Privacy Act already protects employees and the public against abuse of this information. However, this legislation does not in any way affect the activities of private companies that are subject to the Canada Labour Code. The latter are therefore free to act as they see fit.

Although it is certainly not my purpose to point an accusing finger, we must admit that in some cases, this could lead to abuse both unpleasant and unfortunate.

In Quebec, as the hon. member pointed out on first reading of this bill, a number of unique legislative measures were introduced to improve the protection of personal information. In fact, Quebec's Civil Code deals with the issue of protecting individual privacy, which provisions came into force by a decision of the National Assembly in 1993.

The Commission d'accès à l'information, chaired by the former director of Le Devoir , is responsible for implementation of the various provisions included in the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information. Finally, since 1994 the same commission has been responsible for implementing legislation on the protection of information in the private sector.

This goes to show that the protection of personal information, both in the private and public sectors, requires considerable co-ordination between the various acts and regulations and the activities of those responsible for compliance and enforcement. Although I did not say so explicitly, it is of course not easy to protect privacy fully and effectively. In this respect, Bill C-315 may seem to be somewhat lacking.

First, in its present form Bill C-315 regulates only the sale of lists. These lists of names containing personal and confidential information could therefore be lent or given away without breaking the law. Since these are still the same lists with the same information, it seems to me that the mere fact of passing them on to various organizations, for purposes for which they were not intended initially, should be prohibited and punished in the same way, whether or not any money changed hands.

Another aspect I think is unsatisfactory is the description or enumeration of what constitutes personal information. As we read the bill, we see that information as important as mother tongue, place of birth, sexual orientation and political affiliation is not included. Does this mean that this kind of information is not important enough to warrant protection? It would be important, in my opinion, for all information liable to trafficking, or rather to commerce, to be protected.

Another point: Bill C-315 deals with the transmission of lists containing personal information. This implies that any entrepreneur so desiring may, in total legality, sell information concerning one individual without risking any sanction. This point, in my opinion, constitutes a significant glitch in the very principle the bill is defending.

Before I conclude, looking at the sanctions set out in the bill, it will be seen that fines for noncompliance range from $5,000 to $10,000. To large companies, which generally have fairly sizeable lists, these fines do not mean much, particularly when we know the price a list containing confidential personal information can command.

There is no point here in continuing to examine Bill C-315 line by line. Merely reading its contents, plus a proper knowledge of the situation it is trying to control, is enough to understand that this bill, although well intentioned, is far from being equal to the objective it has set itself. There are many shortcomings in this bill. A number of amendments could be made to it. It seems to us that the best way of ensuring a complement to the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of Canadians might have been to follow the same path as the new Quebec Civil Code. However, since the bill represents at least a small step forward, the Bloc will support it.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the efforts of the hon. member to address a practice that is of concern to many consumers. He and I are two of them.

It is certainly true that when we speak about the problems of protecting personal information, probably at the top of the list are complaints and calls by telemarketing firms that usually call at the dinner hour and follow those calls up with unwanted flyers and advertisements.

While I agree with the spirit of the bill, I have discovered that it has its gaps. It is also cumbersome and overly restrictive, particularly in light of the more broadly based and flexible options that are currently on the table. I will get back to that in just a moment.

As part of a global economy, we can expect that cross-border consumer transactions will of course only increase, and with them a related growth in direct-to-home sales of the type that make regular use of mail lists in order to gain access into Canadian homes.

Mailing lists, when combined with other transaction related databases such as credit ratings and financial accounts, can be assembled into profiles of individuals. These records can cross national borders, be exchanged, resold, re-used, or integrated with other databases often without consent or remuneration for purposes unrelated to those for which the data was originally collected.

In some ways this type of information sharing can be beneficial to Canadians in the sense of targeting marketing of services and products to consumers with particular interests in particular items. However, consumers are frustrated and angry when subjected to perceived intrusions by commercial interests into their personal domain.

Personal information privacy is an issue of considerable importance to Canadians. I have a copy of a survey released earlier this month, October 5 to be exact, conducted on behalf of two Canadian consumer groups, indicating that 90 per cent of consumers are concerned about personal information being shared between private firms. However, that same survey also suggests that consumers do not want any additional burdens imposed on them in order to protect their privacy.

While I think my friend across the way has presented some good ideas, and my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood has suggested that a little bit of tweaking in the bill might find some favourable response, the approach adopted in this particular bill is truly highly restrictive and even burdensome.

The bill would require that an organization notify each individual on a mailing list each time the list is sold to another organization and then ensure that an individual's consent has been received. In addition, it requires that the organization buying the list also notify the same individual that their name has been obtained. Organizations would have up to 10 days to comply with the requests from individuals to have their names or certain elements of information removed from the lists. Fines for repeat offenders-I think I heard it correctly-can reach $10,000 or more.

Not only is this burdensome for the consumers, preventing them from consenting to occasional mailing list exchanges between firms in prearranged circumstances, it is also burdensome to individual firms. More often than not, increased burden to firms translates of course into increased costs for products and services ultimately paid for by, guess who, the consumer.

Bill C-315 also has a number of gaps in the following areas. First, it applies only to the sale of lists containing personal information, when in reality the normal business practice is the rental of such lists.

Second, the bill focuses narrowly on the lists, when in fact a vast amount of personal data can be blended and put together from the type of consumer transactional data currently exchanged between firms or within a large organization.

Third, the definition of personal information provided in this bill is narrow and more restricted than the definition of personal information found in the federal Privacy Act.

Fourth, the bill only applies to corporations, when in fact mailing list information is often transferred between individual proprietorships and partnerships that are not organized into corporate forms.

Fifth, Bill C-315 applies only to that narrow range of corporations engaging in a federally regulated activity. As used in the bill, federally regulated corporations would include those firms operating in the interprovincial and international transportation sectors, broadcasting, telecommunications, and banking. Needless to say, there are many corporations and sectors exchanging personal data that fall outside of those categories.

The effect of the bill then is to protect consumers in a narrow range of circumstances from a narrow range of commercial entities in a restrictive and even burdensome fashion without any co-ordination or harmonization with other current or proposed privacy initiatives. If passed, the result would be a patchwork quilt of uneven privacy obligations.

The hon. member might not be aware of other positive initiatives that are currently under way. I think some of them have already been referred to by my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood. I do not know if the hon. member is familiar with the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code. It was ratified last month by a committee consisting of a broad cross-section of consumer, private sector, and government representatives, including Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs and spectrum information technologies and telecommunications units.

Three years in the making, the model code sets out 10 principles governing how personal information should be collected, retained, kept up to date, used, disclosed by the private sector. Adoption of the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to ensure that consumers are informed of the existence of such lists and given the opportunity to consent to their use and verify their accuracy.

The CSA code provides a clear example of the commitment and ability of consumer groups, the private sector, and governments to work together to develop privacy protection solutions. The Minister of Industry is currently considering the recommendations of the Information Highway Advisory Council, which reported to him September 27. Among other issues, the Information Highway

Advisory Council addressed the privacy implications of interactive converging telecommunications and information technologies.

The Information Highway Advisory Council stated, and I quote: "In order for consumers and users to benefit from electronic information networks, there is a need for a coherent national standard as to what constitutes effective privacy protection in an electronic environment among business, consumer organizations, and governments. The council believes that such a standard can be best achieved through legislation."

As well, the council stated that the federal government must take leadership through the creation of a level playing field for the protection of personal information on the information highway by developing and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both the public and private sectors. The legislation would require sectors or organizations to meet the standards of the CSA model code while allowing the flexibility to determine how they will refine their own codes.

The minister has also received a recommendation from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association urging the creation of flexible national privacy framework legislation using the CSA model privacy code as a basis. I am reiterating the CSA's model privacy code as the basis for these different approaches, but that seems to be the foundation for those approaches. The essence of both these recommendations is recognition of the need for coherent national privacy standards, protecting the consumer while providing the private sector with flexibility and that level playing field we have been speaking of. The CSA model privacy code represents a potential basis for development of flexible national standards.

Let me just say that I am in agreement with the spirit of Bill C-315 as put forward by our colleague opposite and I can applaud the efforts of the hon. member in this regard. However, because of the gaps and some inconsistency for the national perspective and some of the burdensome regulations that are addressed in the bill, I cannot support its contents.

I appreciate the opportunity of addressing Bill C-315.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

While there are seven minutes remaining in Private Members' Business, it would be my intention to allow the next speaker, the member for Elk Island to conclude his remarks in their entirety, the full 10 minutes.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in defence of the private members' bill offered by my colleague.

All of us have characteristics and facts about us which are of interest to many people. I cannot begin talking about all the information private firms would like to have about us without also thinking of that vast array of information the government has about us. We know of some of the abuses of that information, its lack of accuracy and its inaccessibility to the individual in order to check its accuracy.

There was a very interesting case about which I will not divulge all the details. As a member of Parliament, I was approached by an individual who was caught in a cross web of government databases. Before he knew what was going on, he was having some very serious problems with the government. The government thought there was money owing on a student loan account but there was not. It took a lot of work to get that straightened out. The information was wrong. He had a lot of trouble finding out what information the government had on him. Information was missing. The government said that because it did not have that information, what he was alleging was not true. It went on and on.

The same thing is true with data which is gathered by private firms in order to know more about us. To a degree, I agree with this. There is a value for organizations like financial institutions to maintain databases. It protects us. That is if the databases are properly managed and there is accountability built into the system.

For example, I do not think credit ratings are all wrong. I like the ability of applying for a loan and receiving speedy service. That is only possible because businesses can very quickly check whether I paid my last loan. If they could not do that quickly and reliably then of course it would take them longer to check it out.

Also, as a consumer I could end up paying for more people who take loans and then disappear without paying for them. With the modern database systems it is possible to find out a person's history and consequently deny that person a loan because of his unreliability in repaying. As a person who pays interest to financial institutions I could then be spared the cost of picking up the tab for both the principal and the interest which was lost.

There is some merit to this but certainly as in many other areas, whether it is government or corporations, there needs to be accountability. We ought to look very seriously at the proposed bill in terms of the accountability and accessibility it would provide to a person who wants to find out what is known about him.

The government likes to have all kinds of data on us, income tax information, where we earned our money, how much, how much we gave to charity and all the details of our personal financial lives. This data needs to be accurate. Like government, organizations like to keep census. They like to know everything about us, our religion, how many children we have. They want to know whether we own or rent our residence. They want to know whether other people live with us. On and on it goes. There definitely needs to be a limitation on business and government on how much data can be gathered.

In order to make this efficient there should be a procedure where individuals give consent at the time of giving the information or where they may refuse it. Although the private member's bill says the firm which proposes to sell a list needs to check with the individual on the list to gain permission, it would be much better if each database were flagged. If I indicate at the time I give information that my name is not to be passed on to another buyer of the list, it could simply be another field in the database. Then that information would not be given and it would not incur the cost the hon. member opposite was complaining about.

Certainly to mail consent forms to thousands of people on a list would be very costly. This could be done in advance and would protect individuals from having their data circulated all over.

I was able to find a few examples of people who use databases incorrectly. Many of us are now involved with the Internet. I remember when I first signed on with the firm I am using, at the top I was asked: "Do you give permission for your name and your Internet address to be in the database that is searched by other members?" I gave permission because I want people to be able to find me. If they look for my name in the city where I live, my name and my Internet address will come up.

There have been some serious examples of breaches of this principle. An example to which I take great offence is from New Zealand. A chocolate factory there obtained a client's list from a weight reduction clinic and used that client list to produce some personalized advertising for their chocolates. That is an unfair intrusion into a part of the population that might have a weakness in that regard. That type of thing also needs to be prohibited. Of course there have been many cases of people who have used databases for illegal purposes.

It is most important that consent be given either in advance or at some future time before the data is passed on to another firm or another business.

I had a very interesting example of my name coming up. I received a brochure that was mailed to me personally. It had my name and my correct address. When I opened it I was amazed to find out it was totally in French. Unfortunately I do not speak French, I wish I did. I could not understand it but I could figure out that it had to do with a contest. There was a picture of a new car. I thought: "This has to be my lucky day. They have written me a personal letter to tell me that I have won this car".

I wrote a letter back and apologized for not knowing the language. I also told them that clearly from what information I could gather I had won this new vehicle and I would be very willing at their convenience to show up at the specified place to collect it. I thanked them greatly for that.

That is a very dramatic way to emphasize it but I knew that I had to do something that was really spectacular in order to get their attention because of other situations where I have received information and could not get off the mailing list. I tried and I could not. I wrote a letter and the mail kept coming. It seems these data lists go from one owner to another and even though the last purchaser may purge the list of my name, the next week the parent corporation sends an update of the list and my name appears again. It is virtually impossible to find out from where the name originates because these lists are passed from one firm to another to another.

I commend my colleague for this bill. It certainly points out a need. I am not sure that in all details it totally answers the question.

I would like to see that little amendment to give a disclaimer or a refusal to pass on the information at the time of giving information. In general the principle of the bill is sound and I am glad to support it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 6.35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)