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—