Debates of Oct. 30th, 1998

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I counted 20 members. Members are counted if I can see them. I could see 20 members. I counted them personally. I am satisfied that there were 20 here.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather proficient in French, but not that much in mathematics; however I am sure that students in primary and secondary schools would have seen, when you said that we had quorum, that unfortunately there were not 20 members present, even though some of our colleagues count for two.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but when I looked in the House and around the House, there were 20 members, I counted them more than once. The matter is settled.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we were to look in Beauchesne's, we would find that only members in their seats can be counted.

I know that you have too long an experience in this place to think that rules could dictate otherwise; we know for a fact that we did not have quorum. We are asking you to reconsider.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member considers the precedents, he will realize the Chair can see members anywhere in the House, and even in the gallery.

I counted 20 members present. I can see them in the House here. This decision is final, and I cannot hear any more points of order on this. The Chair has ruled and the matter is closed.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could you quote from Beauchesne's?

We maintain that you cannot count members that way, and

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

We ask for a quorum check once more. This is a matter of integrity.

You cannot check the quorum the way you say it can be done. I am ready to abide by your ruling, but I should be able to find a basis for your ruling in precedence.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please.

We have quorum. As I indicated to the House, I made my decision based on precedents. I have often discussed this issue with House officials during my 10 years in the House.

I am convinced members can be counted if they are in the House, even if they are not at their seat. There has been enough discussion on this point, and the matter is closed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have a couple of minutes to address this topic. I do not have a lot to express, but I have had constituents come to me and I would like to raise a matter with the House.

The primary concern that people have had with the bill that is before the House and the regulations of the Internet and so on is that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. The concern is that these regulations are the beginning of an attempt to regulate commerce over the Internet in such a way as to discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. That is a key point.

People are really concerned that when we begin to meddle in this the intention may be good at the beginning, but these regulations will discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. It will somehow force those who want to do business over the Internet to establish themselves outside Canada.

We need the assurances of the government that it is not heading in this direction.

Furthermore, the other concern they express is that when we begin to regulate, at some point we may begin to tax. This may be the tip of the iceberg. There may be taxes coming down the pike that would tax the various transactions that are going to take place over the Internet, especially economic transactions. This is a concern of people and I have to raise that concern. I am glad I have had a few moments to do that.

I understand the debate is about to collapse, but my constituents would not want to see trade and commerce over the Internet hampered by what might be at this point an innocuous attempt to bring in a tax that would begin to discourage entrepreneurs from using the Internet to transact all kinds of transactions.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, while protecting personal information, so that consumers can engage in electronic commerce with confidence.

For the benefit of this House, let me first explain in general, easy to understand terms what this legislation is all about. When we talk about electronic commerce, what exactly are we talking about?

We are talking about making purchases or transactions—bank transactions, transactions with suppliers, with manufacturers, with clients—electronically. These types of transactions have been in existence for quite some time. Telecommunications have been with us for thirty years or so. They have been relatively well structured in terms of standards for 25 years.

As for electronic data interchange, it has been governed by international standards for more than 10 years. In fact, electronic data interchange is used relatively often by many businesses.

For the past ten years or so, large businesses have been using it in their dealings with suppliers. That means that a supplier does not send a written bill to his client, but rather an electronic bill that is received on the client's computer, allowing the client to authorize payment after verifying that the goods or services have actually been delivered.

What is happening today is an acceleration, and I was going to say a democratization of this process. Electronic data interchange is not longer restricted to large corporations and government. It is now accessible to the average person through, among other means, the Internet.

So far so good. However, if I give my credit card number when I make such a transaction, I want to be sure that this number will not be used for other purposes than those for which I wrote it on the electronic form.

I want to be sure that somebody will not use my credit card number to travel around the world. Of course, I would only find out about it when receiving my statement at the end of the month. It would be terrible.

True, particularly well equipped hackers might be able to get at that information. But we have the tools to make it very difficult for them. One should not generalize and panic.

We have to recognize that in everyday life, you and I and a lot of other people are using their credit cards in a lot of establishments, restaurants, clothing stores, to subscribe to a magazine. Our credit card number is handled by strangers.

When I go to the restaurant and I pay with my credit card, the waiter takes it away for a while to pass it through a mechanical device or a magnetic tape reader to charge the check on my account at my credit card provider. During those few minutes, he or she could take note of my number to use it improperly.

However, in 99.99% of the people are honest and that kind of fraudulent use of credit card simply does not happen. But it is true that there are fraudulent uses of credit cards.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you, please call the House to order?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Yes, this is ridiculous. And it is such a great speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that all hon. members would want to hear the speech by the hon. member for Laurentides. I, for one, can hear it very distinctly. I would ask her to continue without being interrupted.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I personally listen to my colleagues with great pleasure.

As I was saying, if a dishonest person wanted to get some credit card numbers to use it for his or her own profit, that would be perfectly possible unless protective measures are taken. That is where all the question of electronic commerce facilitation kicks in.

If I feel that my purchasing something on the Internet might reveal things I do not want to be known, such as what I am buying, how much I paid for it, what my credit card number is or other confidential information I might give, if I am not convinced it will all remain confidential and will be used for the intended purpose only, I will be very reluctant to engage in any electronic transaction. I would not do it.

Of course, if the legislation were to require businesses to take the appropriate steps to ensure that all electronic transactions are secure, confidential and protected, then we would feel much more at ease and e-commerce would blossom.

What are the two problems that can arise in terms of protection of personal information? First, there is the illegal access to the information by someone who is not entitled to see the data. Of course, none of us would like information about us to fall into the hands of people who should not have access to it. That is the first problem.

Then, there is also the misuse or illegal use of the information. Someone who should not even have had access to your information is using it to harm you or for some other illegal purposes. So, it is important to ensure that the information can only be accessed by the people who are entitled to see it, by the final recipient, and used for the purposes for which the information was made available.

In this area, Quebec has been fully protected for four years now through its Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. The bill before us today, Bill C-54, only deals with businesses. It does not extend to any other activity and has some serious deficiencies.

This is extremely important because, whether we like it or not, electronic commerce is bound to expand. It is here to stay.

We have nothing against the fact that the rest of Canada is passing legislation. It makes sense to do so. However, we want to make sure that the act in effect in Quebec will remain in effect, and we do not want yet another imbroglio after all the ones we have had in the past.

We can make a judgment on how the Canadian federation has worked in the past. We can condemn duplication. We can say that things should have been done differently. We can propose ways other than those used in the past. If there is one area where the industry does not want two levels of legislation, and does not want to get dragged into problems relating to the constitution and to the interpretation of the act, it is definitely that of electronic commerce which, in any case, will be significantly affected by the need for international agreements.

The bill opens the door to several interpretations, and it also provides a discretionary power to the governor in council. But the governor in council is really the cabinet. It is the government which, under clause 27( d ) can decide to change the application of the act, without having to go back to parliament.

That principle is not often found in legislation and, under the British tradition, is avoided as much as possible so there is no abuse of power, particularly in areas as contentious as the protection of personal information, where the government itself could be involved while having the power to change the law if it did not want it to apply in the way it was intended when it was adopted.

We can also wonder if the bill meets the expectations of consumers and of Canada's and Quebec's privacy commissioners. The respective titles of both the Quebec and the federal act are very explicit. While the Quebec act is designed to protect privacy and governs all organizations, the federal act applies only to commercial transactions. We can see right there that the ideology is totally different.

In conclusion, we, of the Bloc Quebecois, find this bill totally unacceptable because it is confused, because it uses the conditional, because its main component is a schedule and because it can be amended by the governor in council without debate. This bill will make federal-provincial relations extremely difficult for Quebec and will open the door to more federal interference.

This bill focuses on electronic commerce, giving second billing to the fundamental concept of privacy, to the protection of privacy. This bill, in its present form, gives no power whatsoever to the commissioner, has no teeth and ignores the unique experience of Quebec with regard to protecting personal information in the private sector.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important as we enter the 21st century and as we are poised to participate in a global knowledge based society that we debating the issue of e-commerce and the issues of the Internet in the House.

We need to create in Canada domestic policies that provide an opportunity to Canadians not only to compete globally but to succeed globally. That means more than simply changing our approach to e-commerce. That means creating domestic economic policies that succeed and allow Canadians to succeed. That means effecting change in the structural barriers we have to competitiveness and productivity in the Canadian economy, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, reducing the tax burden, reducing the regulatory burdens and allowing Canadians to grasp the levers of the free market in a global sense.

This new world of globalization that has been demonized as of late due to some failures in domestic economies represents more opportunities to Canadians than threats. But we have to ensure that the policies we create and the legislation we pass in this House are able to guide Canadians and this very important industry for Canadians into the 21st century.

This is particularly relevant if we consider the very sparse population over a large country. We have already demonstrated because of that situation and the position Canadians are in an ability to succeed in e-commerce. My part of the country, Nova Scotia, has one of the fastest growing high tech industries in the country. We are succeeding because of the quality of life issues, the death of distance as a determinate in the cost of telecommunications and our proximity to markets like New York and Boston.

Now we, as legislators, have to work with our provincial legislatures to ensure that we create policies that allow provinces like Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba to succeed in this environment.

I agree with the principles of trying to at least come to grips with regulating the Internet. It is extremely important that we come to grips with this challenge. It is not a matter of whether we come to grips with the challenge but it is how we will do it.

the Internet is a lot like an adolescent in some ways. Governments are seeking to treat the industry as an adolescent, to try to create rules to control this adolescent.

When we are parenting or creating regulations for adolescents we have to realize that adolescents are in a period of change and transition. This industry is in a period of change and transition. It is important that we do not create rules and regulations that reflect the realities today but that are not adaptable to the realities of tomorrow because this industry is changing extraordinary quickly.

We have to balance this whole privacy issue. Privacy versus consumer protection is going to become increasingly important. They need not be mutually exclusive in what we do. There will be stresses to make it very difficult, particularly if we consider the global consequences of what we do relative to the Internet.

I can look at something on the Internet from Finland, for example. Finland may be guided by completely different rules than Australia. If we look at something from Finland, we may as Canadians be looking at a medium that is controlled by completely different legislation from something from Australia. It is very important that we do not deal with this complex global issue in isolation.

Canada has an opportunity, I would argue an obligation, to pursue this on a global basis through the OECD perhaps and to demonstrate the type of strength that Canada has been able to demonstrate in the past as a middle power as being very effective in guiding the changes necessary to ensure we balance privacy versus protection in this industry.

I was interested in hearing the comments of my colleague in the Reform Party. It is interesting because the Reform Party is averse to regulation in this area because it may lead to tax. It is kind of a difficult position in some ways for some members of the Reform Party. In a sense as the party of social enslavement and economic freedom, it brings the whole contradiction of its policies into line because effectively it wants to give people all kinds of freedom with their cheque books but it wants to control what they do in their own homes. There is an inherent contradiction in those policies, in particular when we are dealing with issues like the Internet.

I point that out because as the party of economic and social freedom, our party will be consistently vigilant in defending the rights of Canadians to succeed in a free market and to also enjoy freedoms in their own homes and with their families and in their country, the types of human rights absolutely necessary to the quality of life in this country.

It is extraordinarily important that we address the fundamental economic issues as well as the tax issues relative to e-commerce. I received recently a briefing on some of the e-commerce tax issues. These are becoming increasingly difficult, in particular with complex financial instruments like derivatives. How are we as regulators going to track these increasingly complex financial instruments? How can we tax these financial instruments and these exchanges through commerce?

Although I do not have all the answers I probably have more than some members opposite. We need to work collectively, not only within the House but with all our provincial counterparts and in a global sense with other countries, to ensure we are creating regulations for the Internet that will grow and will not inhibit our opportunities in this extraordinarily important area in which Canadians can prosper and succeed in protecting the privacy of Canadians.

At this juncture we are debating the MacKay task force and discussing changes in the Canadian financial services sector. No other sector has been as dominated by technology as the Canadian financial services sector. We are grappling with the idea of trying to control the Canadian financial sector. We are trying to create a balance between competitiveness, consumer protection and the success of our financial services sector into the 21st century. We must recognize that this industry is controlled largely by changes in technology.

Some people have bank branch myopia. They somehow think the prevalent provider of banking services is still the bank branch. It may be now but in 10 years we will find it difficult to explain to a new generation that we used to go to a bank branch to withdraw money and to talk to a loans officer. More and more of these functions will increasingly be done in front of a computer terminal. That is why any legislation debated in the House needs to consider the incredibly dynamic risks and opportunities of this new medium of e-commerce through the Internet.

We will miss the point if we ignore the impact of technology on sectors like the financial services sector and if we pursue policies and procedures like the Liberal witch hunt on the banking industry that was conducted last summer. The Liberals are wont to sacrifice good public policy at the pyre of political palatability. That is the Liberal way.

I commend my colleagues opposite. There has been a proselytization that should be commended. As we debate e-commerce in a global environment, we should remember that it was not that many years ago that many members opposite fought vociferously against the free trade agreement which paved the way to allow Canadians to compete and succeed in the 21st century. It was our party that was proud and steadfast in defending the principles of free trade and in defending the opportunities for Canadians to compete in the 21st century.

I suggest David Orchard would find a more natural home among the social and economic Luddites opposite.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I not get a chance to reply to that vociferous attack on Reform about—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid not. We are in a position where it is 10 minute speeches for everybody and there are no questions or comments.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce.

First of all, let me read the title of the bill. It is highly important in this debate, because it sets out the main goals of Bill-54. The title reads as follows:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Members will have realized that this bill promotes the development of electronic commerce instead of the protection of personal information.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

What is the short title?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate comments from the members opposite, it shows that they are listening, but maybe they could listen carefully.

This bill should deal primarily with the right to privacy. It is ironic however that the Minister of Industry should have chosen to include the privacy provisions in a schedule of the bill. But what is a schedule?

A schedule should contains additional or secondary provisions. And in this case, we can see where the minister has put what should be considered as the main element of the bill, the key element. He has put it in the schedule.

Moreover, the provisions contained in this extraordinary schedule are vague and open to interpretation, excessively so. Let me simply give a few examples of some of the unclear wording of this bill.

Clause 4.2.3 of schedule 1, says on page 41:

The identified purposes should be specified—to the individual from whom the personal information is collected.

Clause 4.2.5 of the same schedule says:

Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.

I could go on like this at length since I know of at least eight of those conditional clauses in schedule 1.

One does not need a Ph.D in linguistics to understand that the use of the conditional has nothing to do with an order to do something. There is a world of difference between shall and should. However, fearing nothing except, of course, the business lobby, the minister even specified in clause 5 of the bill, and I will quote because it is really worth it—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

It seems that for some hon. members, the difference between the present and the conditional has no meaning. This might explain why things are so bad here.