I do not know why some on the other side are squawking. I am simply trying to explain the difference between “may” and “shall”. In legislation, with a “shall”, we are governed, obliged to do something. With a “may” or a “could”, it means we can do it if we want, or if we have the time, etc. So the “may” and the “shall” do not have the same mandatory nature.
Bill C-54 does not even extend to the private sector the principles governing the protection of personal information under federal jurisdiction. Section 5(2) of the Privacy Act provides that:
5.(2) A government institution shall inform any individual from whom the institution collects personal information about the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected.
However, clause 4.2.3 of the schedule in Bill C-54 reads as follows:
4.2.3 The identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected.
Clause 4.2.5 of the same schedule reads:
4.2.5 Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.
Since I have only two minutes left, I will have to slightly change the rest of my speech and immediately move to my last two points.
Bill C-54 is based on the voluntary CSA code. But let us take a look at some reservations made regarding the bill by Quebec's access to information commission, in its 1997-98 annual report. The commission says, among other things:
In the opinion of the commission, to adopt that proposal would be a step back in Quebec, as regards the protection of personal information.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the tools provided in Bill C-54 are ineffective, since the commissioner cannot issue orders, but can only write reports. Second, ordinary citizens will have to go to the federal court to solve disputes. Third, they can only go to court once the commissioner has issued his report.
In conclusion, Bill C-54 will have little effect, since it will create a long and complex process. Under the circumstances, how can one claim that this bill will protect people? If it has no effect, how can one claim that its purpose is to protect people? The answer is obvious.