Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this most important bill. This bill is about a fundamental value in our society, namely the protection of privacy.
The need to adopt a bill to protect personal information and privacy is nothing new. Most provinces have already passed such legislation. The federal government was late in taking its responsibilities and introducing a bill that would apply to businesses under its jurisdiction.
We could have expected that lengthy delay to be beneficial to the Liberal Party, that it would have allowed it to introduce a bill that is coherent, effective, clear and in harmony with other jurisdictions. Unfortunately for all Quebeckers and Canadians, this bill is wide of the mark.
Instead of protecting privacy, this bill does nothing but protect the right of large private businesses to make profits with as few restrictions as possible. That is unacceptable.
In the next few minutes, I will review with the members some of the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is categorically opposed to this incoherent, unfair and incomplete bill.
First, we deplore that fact the Liberal Party of Canada is using this empty and confused bill to try to convince Quebeckers and Canadians that it is concerned with the protection of privacy. No one can trust a bill filled with ifs and whens and shoulds, based on voluntary compliance and full of loopholes as far as protection of privacy is concerned.
First of all, I must stress the fundamental nature of the right to privacy. Others have spoken of this before me, but I am returning to it because, with this bill, the Liberal Party is putting the right to make a profit before the right to privacy.
The experts equate the right to privacy with other human rights such as the right to equality and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 50 years ago and to which Canada was a signatory, states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. It also states as follows: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation”.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also impacts on the protection of privacy, even though this is not specifically in the charter. This is how the courts have interpreted sections 7 and 8 of the charter. Section 7 reads as follows:
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 8 stipulates:
- Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
In Quebec, as you are probably aware, this right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975. There is nothing ambiguous about section 5, I repeat nothing ambiguous:
- Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.
This is from Quebec's charter of human rights and freedoms. The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”, from which I will also quote. I urge my colleagues opposite to listen carefully. They would perhaps do well to look at what Quebec is doing and follow its example. Section 35 reads as follows:
- Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
I think I have shown that respect for privacy is a fundamental right that is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada and in Quebec. It is wrong for the federal government to introduce a bill that does not protect this fundamental right.
The situation in Quebec in this regard is particularly exemplary. The Government of Quebec is the only government in North America—that is correct—that has passed legislation protecting personal information in the public and private sectors. Furthermore, many experts say that Quebec's law, which applies to the private sector, is one of the best in the world.
It is surprising in this context that the government did not draw on Quebec's legislation. It would have achieved two objectives at once. It would probably have achieved its objective with its bill, but it ignored what inspired Quebec, preferring instead to focus on an empty bill. What are the two principles and two objectives the government could have achieved had it followed the Quebec model? First of all it would have ensured consumers would have top-notch protection. It would also have avoided all the inevitable loopholes and pitfalls of unharmonized federal and provincial legislation.
Had the government drawn on the legislation in Quebec, it would have met these two objectives. But it decided to ignore what has been done up to now in Quebec.
This leads us to believe that the real objective of this bill is not the protection of privacy, but a vague exercise in public relations. The government would like to use this bill to show that it responds to the public's concerns. This, however, is totally wrong. The bill does not meet the expectations of the people of Quebec who want their privacy protected. Instead, it serves commercial interests.
Even Canada's privacy commissioner notes that the working document proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of Justice focuses more on commerce than on protecting privacy. He also is critical of the federal government's defining the public as simple consumers and not as individuals with the right to protect their privacy.
The Bloc Quebecois and the opposition are not the only ones saying this. I just referred to the privacy commissioner of Canada.
In conclusion, one simply needs to compare the titles of the two acts. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve did it in an eloquent way earlier. Quebec's act is entitled “an Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector”, whereas the convoluted title of the federal act is “an Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances”.
While the Quebec act seeks to protect privacy and governs all organizations, the federal bill only applies to commercial transactions. The Quebec act is clearly more strict and more comprehensive, in terms of its format, definitions, clarity and because of the power of order given to the commissioner. Such power simply does not exist in the federal legislation.
It is for these reasons that we categorically reject Bill C-54. The federal government refused to follow the example of the Quebec act, even though it is recognized as a model in this area.