Debates of Oct. 30th, 1998

Points Of Order

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicated her willingness to table a document. We would be very interested in this. I think you would find unanimous consent to have this document tabled so we could all see it.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would be thrilled to table the document of literally over 1,000 magazines whose voices will be protected as a result of this legislation that is strongly supported by almost every party in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the minister wishes to table a document she may do so. We will consider the document tabled.

Government Response To Petitions

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 8, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to amend an Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

On behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians who have written supporting my efforts, I have the pleasure of once again introducing my private member's bill to strengthen property rights in federal law.

Unfortunately, property rights were intentionally left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaving Canadians highly vulnerable to the arbitrary taking of property by government. My bill would fix this by making it more difficult for the government to override the property rights of its citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the House.

Nor does the Canadian bill of rights provide any protection of our right to be paid any compensation, let alone fair compensation for property taken by the government.

My bill strengthens the property rights provisions of the Canadian bill of rights by providing protection of our right to have compensation fixed impartially, protection of our right to receive fair and timely compensation, and guarantees every Canadian their right to apply to the courts when the government has violated their property rights.

Finally, approval of my amendments to the bill of rights would allow Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1998 knowing that we have finally provided the protection of property rights in federal law that the United Nations declaration called for so many decades ago.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 25 people living mainly in my riding. In this petition, the petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to repeal Bill C-68, the firearms bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today.

The first one is a petition signed by more than 300 people asking for mandatory labeling and comprehensive inspection of genetically modified foods.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a second, rather large, petition calling on the Canadian government and the United Nations to take action to oppose human rights violations against ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia. This petition is signed by several thousand citizens.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you had to interrupt me—and I am sure you were not happy about it—before Oral Question Period when I was on a roll.

I will start the second part of my speech with another quote from Mr. Bourassa, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec who said on Wednesday, March 4, 1992, in reaction to the Beaudoin-Dobbie Commission's report:

What we find in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report is some kind of domination reflex, of dominating federalism. They think they must be involved in all sectors and that, for all intents and purposes, they could have the last word. We do not think this approach respects the Canadian Constitution.

That is what former federalist premier Robert Bourassa said.

Having said that, I should draw a parallel with this bill, which is a very good example of the dominating federalism to which we are constantly subjected in this Chamber and to which Quebeckers want to put an end. We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and many in Quebec agree, that the only way to get rid of this dominating federalism is to have a sovereign Quebec.

When it comes to the defence of consumers and the public, governments should sit up and take note. Many have said so. I was pleased to hear the Canadian Federation for Independent Business say how important it is to remember that consumers are not only individuals or citizens, but also small businesses that do not have the same financial means as the large corporations and that find themselves in the position of David versus Goliath, and this has nothing to do with the Bible as things currently stand.

It is important to remember that small business is a large part of Quebec's social and economic fabric. True, there are some large corporations, but there are also small businesses and we in the Bloc Québécois are trying to represent their interests as best we can.

This bill is extremely disappointing. It fails to give citizens the protection they expect. The Internet is not just for commerce and cannot be isolated from civil society.

We had a debate on telemarketing in the House. The government wanted to deal firmly with companies engaged in misleading telemarketing, by requiring them to sat very clearly at the beginning of the call who they were and what the purpose of the telemarketing was. I am in favour of this approach.

The Bloc Quebecois sought to introduce an amendment extending that to the Internet. Now we have a bill on electronic commerce which says nothing on that score. Yet, more and more people would like to use this medium—which is only a medium and not another universe, as the OECD acknowledged—but they will do so only if they have real protection.

The first step is a full protection, extending not only to electronic commerce, but also to personal information and privacy. This is what the bill is all about.

Those who speak after me will come back on that, but it will probably require international agreements.

To conclude, I will say that that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, expect the country to which we will belong for a few more years, Canada, to show leadership, the kind of leadership that will reassure the public. Based on the promises of this Liberal government and the previous ones, we were expecting real legislation, legislation that would protect privacy in the private sector.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that I was somewhat astounded by the comments made by members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois. Their misinformation on this very important matter is disturbing. Perhaps they do not understand what is being proposed in Bill C-54, but I think that is probably not the case. I believe they are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts.

I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on this very important matter. Let us do so by reviewing the facts.

The province of Quebec was the first jurisdiction to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation for information held in and by the private sector.

In 1994 the province passed an act representing and respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. This act grants individuals the right of access to personal information held by private sector businesses operating in Quebec and regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The legislation is overseen by the Commission on Access to Information which is responsible for conducting investigations and settling disputes.

I also want to point out that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which came into force in 1975 enshrines the right to privacy for residents of Quebec. Amendments to the civil code providing extensive rights of privacy were enacted in 1991.

Because it has legislation which is substantially similar to the proposed personal information protection and electronic documents act, Quebec in fact will be exempted from its application. That is important to note.

Like the Quebec legislation, the federal legislation will have two basic components: a set of fair information principles and a mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the law. The federal bill is based on the Canadian Standards Association code which, like the Quebec law, is based on the 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development “Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data”.

Let us be clear here because it is important. First of all, Quebec will not lose any type of protection as a result of our legislation. Moreover, our legislation will not force Quebec to do anything or to not do anything. Finally, Bill C-54 will complement Quebec's legislation. To suggest otherwise is misleading, false and quite frankly, incorrect. It is important that Quebecers and all Canadians know this.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today I cannot help but think about the importance of this bill's title: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, etc.

What we have to remember is that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Industry, who is being asked to fulfill a twofold mandate, namely to protect the industry and consumers at the same time. We know that both the industry and consumers have powerful lobbies.

It should then come as no surprise that, in the dilemma that the minister is facing, having to choose between protecting the industry or protecting consumers, the Minister of Industry, who has been holding this position in the Liberal government since 1993, has so far always favoured the industry to the detriment of consumers.

There is a long list of projects he has pushed aside under pressure from lobby groups. I am thinking in particular of the Ginn Publishing case, in which consumers got the short end of the stick. I will give more examples later.

At the outset, when the Department of Industry was created, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government not to give the same minister two mandates that were so different from each other.

Section 4 of the Act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts states:

4.(1) The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to:

(a) industry and technology in Canada;

(b) trade and commerce in Canada;

(c) science in Canada;

(d) consumer affairs;

(e) corporations and corporate securities;

(f) competition and restraint of trade, including mergers and monopolies;

The Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the same minister defending the interests of consumers and those of industry since it is clear, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and most of all a mind to think, that the interests of business, represented by lobbies and large cash contributions to the campaign coffers of federal political parties, would prevail over those of consumers.

The bill proposed by Industry Canada is tailor made for this. The Bloc Quebecois has already seen the opposition between the interests of consumers and those of the industry. It has also seen the Minister of Industry's clear preference for industry rather than consumers.

I would like to remind the House of an interesting case, direct broadcasting satellites, better known as DBS. The government did not take the necessary steps to inform consumers that technological changes were occurring and it allowed consumers to acquire analog parabolic antenna systems, while the industry was converting to digital transmission.

The Minister of Industry intervened on behalf of the Prime Minister's relatives to make sure that the Canadian policy on DBS would suit their interests. The Minister of Industry waited a long time before warning consumers against buying parabolic antennae connected to the American broadcasting system and he asked the industry to circulate the warning.

However, the Bloc Quebecois intervened and asked the minister to launch a broad information campaign on this issue. On December 19, we wrote the Minister of Industry a letter along these lines:

As you are aware, almost half a million Canadians and Quebeckers now own satellite dishes that will soon be obsolete, because digital mode will soon be the only method used for broadcasting radio signals.

What is more, the Department of Industry is also responsible for technological development in Canada. You therefore played a role in developing the unregulated grey market of satellite dishes. You were aware that there would soon be a major technological change in satellite signal transmission methods but you did not inform consumers of these changes on the horizon.

I feel you were remiss in your responsibilities towards consumers who bought satellite dishes during the past year. Had you truly been interested in protecting their interests, you would have launched a full-scale information campaign to inform them about the technological changes just around the corner.

I therefore call on you, Mr. Minister, to take the necessary action to have your department immediately inform consumers and retailers, among others, by placing announcements in newspapers pointing out that satellite dishes are becoming obsolete as a means of capturing analog signals, so that sales of this kind of equipment cease; to launch an information campaign regarding DTH broadcasting so that consumers, whose interests it is your responsibility to defend, know exactly where they stand: the incompatibility of technologies, subscription required for basic service, the risks of purchase, given that the CRTC does not use the viability of businesses as a criterion for issuing licences to businesses, DTH—

On February 22, Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications wrote the federal Minister of Industry on the same subject. She said: “There are two ways around this problem: require applicants to offer consumers mutually compatible technologies, or have them rent the antenna, the decoder and the remote control from a DTH satellite service or from one of its accredited retailers until the technology is ready for market.”

On February 26, the minister answered my letter of December 19. He said that he understood my disappointment and the disappointment of the consumers.

I agree with you that it is unacceptable for some retailers to still be selling parabolic antennas to receive signals in analog mode without warning their clients that, soon, these signals will no longer be sent out.

In short, the minister sympathizes with the public, but he is doing nothing to protect them. The hon. member who spoke before me said that there was no risk for people in Quebec. I would like to quote here, in full, a comment on this bill made by the Commission québécoise de l'accès à l'information.

It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.

This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This is a sensible breakthrough which results from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines relating to personal information protection. However, the CSA code does not begin to respond to the objectives of personal information protection systems established by both Quebec laws, that is, ensuring citizens an objective and equitable settlement of problems and disputes that can arise in the growing area of the respect of this dimension of private life.

Thus, the Commission suggested to the minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts in other governments that a legal system had been put in place by Quebec. The Quebec system is, in the eyes of the Commission, the only answer that respects citizen's rights, considering the challenges of the information highway.

The draft bill the Minister of Industry and the federal government are proposing for personal information protection really is another reason for Quebeckers to achieve sovereignty.

Every day, we discover something about this government. When the session is over, the record will be full and Quebeckers will know what choice to make.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must be really ashamed of its bill on personal information protection in the commercial sector to have decided late yesterday afternoon, in spite of parliamentary tradition, to put it on the order of the day for second reading today.

The government thus hoped to avoid a real public debate on its bill. For those who do not know about parliamentary conventions, I recall that on Mondays and Fridays half the members are not in the House so that they can have a little time to meet with their constituents. That is why parties usually agree on the coming business so that the members interested in the matters on the order of the day can be here to discuss them. But yesterday, the government unilaterally changed the order of the day.

I partly understand it. If I were in the industry minister's place, I would be ashamed of the tricks he pulled to make us believe that personal information will be protected in this country. Before introducing this bill, the government should have recalled that a parliamentary committee had looked into the issue of personal information in a technologically changing world.

I quote from the committee report:

We do not believe that Canadians want ground rules to protect only their informational privacy—

As is the case in the bill under consideration, which only protects personal information inasmuch as it is collected, used or disclosed in the context of a commercial transaction.

I resume the quotation:

—leaving the rest of their privacy rights to languish in a lawless frontier.

In its report entitled “Privacy: Where do we draw the line?”, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities also wrote, and I quote:

Privacy is one of the most comprehensive of all human rights—broad, ambitious and valued around the world.

Traditionally understood as the “right to be left alone” in this technological age, privacy has taken on new dimensions. To experts, privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. To the average Canadian, privacy is a question of power—the ability to control one's personal information and to remain anonymous by choice.

It goes on:

As a human right, privacy belongs to everyone. The Members of this Committee have listened to as many voices across this country as possible. Canadians have never approved of peeping Toms or unauthorized wire-tapping, and our criminal laws reflect this. We know now that this same disapproval extends, for example, to hidden video cameras in the workplace, genetic testing for insurance purposes—

Under the subtitle “Privacy as a Commodity”, the committee writes on page 10:

—the use of technology not only affects individuals; it also has an impact on the commercial activity of the community as a whole. Many townhall participants feared that privacy has become a commodity that people are prepared to trade off for either a better level of service or product or the minimization of penalties.

Paul-André Comeau, the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec, warned against a debate about privacy that focused solely on the commercial value of information. This was, he said, “the slippery slope we are lured onto by the new technologies in their attempt at putting a dollar figure to each piece of information.”

It is onto this very slope that the Minister of Industry is luring us with his bill aimed at protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in the course of commercial activities.

The committee then quotes Darrell Evans, on page 21 of its report. I will do the same, as a bit of philosophy will not hurt this government, which has focused exclusively on trade and its own visibility:

I think the vanishing of privacy would be a victory of materialism over the human spirit. I find it very hard to picture what kind of room there would be for creativity on the part of human beings in such a world. I feel the virtual bars closing in faster and faster in a world like that.

We are constantly told it is a more secure world, of course, a more efficient world, a world that catches fraud much better, but to me, that is the victory of bureaucracy over human creativity. An old phrase comes to mind here, that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing—

What is our goal in all this? What do we seek for individuals in this? We want to put individuals in a place of causation rather than being a complete effect of technologies and of a gradual erosion of their privacy. If we are to maintain human freedom, I think that's what we have to do.

But, when Human Resources Development and Canada Customs match their records to check the forms completed by all travellers entering Canada to make sure no EI claimant has left the country while receiving benefits, the federal government itself violates human rights and privacy by wrongly placing under suspicion all Canadians and Quebeckers who have left the country until they have proven their innocence.

The Bloc Quebecois will follow closely the proceedings currently before the Federal Court in the matter of the Canadian government vs the privacy commissioner.

The House committee also suggested some fundamental principles that should guide the government in its bill on personal information protection:

Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy: physical privacy; privacy of personal information; freedom from surveillance; privacy of personal communications; privacy of personal space.

Everyone is guaranteed that: these privacy rights will be respected by others adopting whatever protective measures are most appropriate to do so; violations of these privacy rights, unless justifiable according to the exceptions principle—will be subject to proper redress.

Among the basic duties owed to others to ensure their privacy rights, the committee included:

The duty to secure meaningful consent; the duty to take all the steps necessary to adequately respect others' privacy rights—the duty to be accountable; the duty to be transparent; the duty to use and provide access to privacy enhancing technologies.

Finally, the committee recognized the following rights for citizens:

Everyone is the rightful owner of their personal information, no matter where it is held, and this right is inalienable. Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy anonymity, unless the need to identify individuals is reasonably justified.

To fully understand the scope of the problem, I would now like to quote Justice Gérald La Forest, of the supreme court:

We can only be sure of being free from surveillance today if we retire to our basements, cloak our windows, turn out the lights and remain absolutely quiet.

The legislation that the Minister for Industry is proposing today for the protection of personal information that is collected for the purpose of commercial transactions is not a legislation aimed at protecting the privacy of Canadians.

The Quebec government passed similar legislation in 1994 to uphold the right to privacy of Quebecers guaranteed by the Quebec charter of rights.

All of the Canadian privacy commissioners and consumers associations have pointed out to the minister how important it is to have strong national legislation on the protection of privacy, as this legislation will serve as a model for English speaking provinces that do not yet have a law for the protection of privacy in the private sector.

By being so permissive, the Minister for Industry has shown how sensitive he is to the business lobby which, in any case, finances the Liberal Party's election fund.

I will conclude by reading the following extract of the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec's access to information commissioner:

The Commission examined the consequences of the adoption in the Canadian federation as a whole of legal standards and principles to regulate the protection of personal information on the information highway. Under the terms of a project that were conveyed to the ministers responsible for the implementation of the information highway, protection would be provided within the framework of the voluntary code developed by the Canadian Standards Association.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-54, 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.

This long awaited bill introduced by the minister does not meet the objective stated at the outset, namely to protect privacy in a technological world that challenges this fundamental right.

What we have before us is a bill whose content is to be found in a schedule, a bill that gives no real powers to the commissioner. This is a bill whose form and content will both create confusion.

It is a bill whose wording lends itself to broad interpretation, a bill that includes a provision allowing the governor in council to amend the act without any parliamentary debate and democratic consultation.

It is not likely, therefore, that the bill will meet the public's expectations, because it is too flawed.

First, most of the provisions governing protection of personal information are to be found in a schedule of the bill. Such a structure—which is unusual, to say the least—could result in a number of problems, since the schedule will have to be read in conjunction with the rest of the bill. This will only make it harder for businesses to figure out their obligations and consumers' rights.

Moreover, the schedule is merely a model code for the protection of personal information drafted by the private sector and by consumers, as a framework to protect personal information, but strictly on a voluntary basis.

The minister did not follow through on the recommendations made by consumers and the privacy commissioners, who stated that the code provides a good starting point, but needs to be reviewed and amended if it is to be included in the legislation.

This shows how anxious the minister is to see electronic commerce develop in Canada, and it also shows the priority given to economic values, rather than to social values and the right to privacy.

Second, the legislation is muddled.

The conditional is frequently used in Schedule 1, for example, “should be specified”.

We may well wonder whether the use of the conditional in Bill C-54 means that the legislation is simply making recommendations without imposing obligations, particularly since the answer is not obvious. In clause 5(2), the bill provides:

(2) The word “should”, when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.

11.(1) An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.

Clearly this confusion and these contradictions will make for happy lawyers and unhappy consumers.

Clause 4.3.2 in Schedule 1, which sets out the CSA code, provides:

Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.

I would remind you as well that Quebec is a unique model in North America for its legislation regarding the protection of personal information. It has had this legislation for four years. Like the charter of human rights, Quebec's laws consider the protection of personal information a basic right. Article 5 of the 1975 Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides that every person has a right to the respect of his or her private life.

Clearly, Bill C-54 has as its sole objective to promote electronic trade while the right to protection of privacy in the private sector is relegated to the background. Its title alone makes this clear.

Worse yet, this bill will reduce, in some cases, the rights of Quebeckers acquired under Quebec law.

Let us consider an example. Under section 17 of the Quebec legislation, an employee in a department store would be entitled to see his personal file, even if kept outside Quebec.

With Bill C-54, he would not necessarily be able to view his file, because his request would be subject to legislation that ignores the right to privacy when the access to information request is made under labour relations provisions and is not of a commercial nature.

Moreover, as I said earlier, Bill C-54 is based on a voluntary model code prepared by the CSA. Let us see what the access to information commissioners of Quebec and British Columbia think of that.

On page 15 of his Annual Report for 1997-98, the Quebec access to information commissioner says “going along with this proposal, the CSA standard, would be a step backward from the current situation in Quebec as far as protection of personal information is concerned”.

The British Columbia commissioner, David H. Flaherty, compared the BC legislation, the European Union legislation and the CSA code which is the foundation of Bill C-54. He came to the conclusion that the purpose of the CSA code is not to protect the right to privacy; that the concept of personal information is most poorly defined; that there is no reference to data banks; and that the definition of consent is evasive compared to what can be found in other legislation.

Also, the tools provided in Bill C-54 are ineffective, since the commissioner cannot issue orders. In fact, Canadians will have to go to the federal court to solve disputes, but only once the commissioner has issued his opinion.

I could go on and on about this bill, but I am running out of time. However, I support the request of my hon. colleague, our industry critic, and urge the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce and personal information protection in the private sector.

The bill as it now stands will not provide consumers with the level of confidence they need to ensure the development of electronic commerce.

There are three facts that surface when one reads this bill: the bill allows the federal government to subject huge sections of the economy currently under Quebec jurisdiction to federal legislation; the bill is so confused that it could be interpreted any which way; and last, it is extremely weak, since it does not grant the federal privacy commissioner the power to issue orders.

When we think about it, we once again wonder why the federal government did not rely on the four years of positive experience Quebec has in this area.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the title of Bill C-54 once again because it is important to remember what the government is trying to do with this bill. This bill is designed to support and promote electronic commerce. We are in an era of expansion, an era of constant electronic evolution, and developments in this field are faster than in any other field.

I will quote the title of the bill:

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

What are the issues related to this bill? The issues are different, of course, for the various stakeholders. For the Minister of Industry, the issue is clear: making sure that Canada participate fully in the global economy, more specifically, as I said earlier, in the extremely rapid growth awaiting electronic commerce. The figures, which are just astronomical, speak for themselves.

It is estimated that the global electronic market could reach $200 billion by the year 2000, compared to an estimated $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.

Yet, at the last OECD conference, which was held in Ottawa, the minister acknowledged that the main barrier to the development of electronic commerce is consumer confidence. Everything must be based on the confidence of those on whom this technology will be used or who will be using this technology, namely, the consumers.

We must first establish confidence in the digital economy. Here, in North America, less than one netsurfer out of five is prepared to buy products on-line. This reflects their crucial concerns about the safety of transactions, the respect for privacy and the remedies offered to consumers.

We must reinforce throughout the world confidence in the electronic market by guaranteeing the security as well as the protection of consumers and personal information.

This is the challenge for the industry minister. But for consumers' rights advocacy groups, for consumers themselves and for the people's right to privacy, what is the challenge?

For these people, the challenge is also quite clear. It is to provide an international agreement and national legislation that will effectively protect privacy and consumers' rights. We cannot accept any technological change, whether it is economically desirable or not, that leads to systematic and uncontrollable intrusion into people's privacy. We must thus ensure that consumers will be protected in their daily private lives.

There are other people who will be involved in this, for example, the privacy commissioners in all the provinces. They have to protect a human right, the right to privacy and thereby protect democracy.

In testimony before the human rights standing committee on November 21, 1996, Bruce Phillips gave the following examples. A direct marketing firm sells the list of about 80 million American households organized by ethnic origin. Let us suppose that a marketing firm sells such a list and says: “Out of the 80 million names that I am providing you, there are x million people from Germany, x million from Romania, x million from Israel”, and so on.

In organizing the list by ethnic origin, let us say that among the 35 groups identified, we find Armenians and Jews. The information provided gives both the number of children and the age ranges. It is easy to imagine how glad a terrorist organization would be if it could get its hands on this kind of information and use it for its own violent purposes.

Here is another example. In Canada, the Department of Human Resources Development and Customs Canada are currently matching their data bases in order to track cheaters—people who are supposed to be available for work and who travel to Florida during the winter because they cannot find a job. The human resources development minister matches his data with those of Customs Canada to spot people who may be cheating the EI.

Despite the ruling of the privacy commissioner condemning this procedure, this information is being used. Under the system implemented by the government, all travellers are presumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise. This is computer technology at work. This kind of operation would not be possible without the power of communication and data processing technology.

Here is another case. In BC, Pharmanet has a register containing all prescriptions being given out in the province. The purpose of this system is to avoid the prescription of incompatible drugs, but the content of this data bank can be made available to law enforcement organizations. It is far from certain the privacy of people is being protected.

Still another example. The number of hidden cameras is on the rise. In 1996, there were 200,000 hidden cameras in the U.K. alone. We are told daily how wonderful it would be to have cameras on street corners, near red lights or just about anywhere.

As invasion of privacy becomes increasingly commonplace, it is extremely important to find ways to protect privacy.

Basically those are the issues raised by the various stakeholders who made representations about this bill.

What about the bill? Does it meet the expectations it created? Does it meet the expectations of consumers and privacy commissioners, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? The answer is far from clear.

The ethics in Bill C-54 are quite different from those in the Quebec law as revealed by their respective titles. The Quebec legislation is entitled An Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, whereas the title of the federal legislation starts with “An Act to support and promote electronic commerce” and then goes on to say “by protecting personal information”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has only one minute left.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House for unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have leave to complete his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I was asking is: Does this bill meet our expectations? As I said, the answer is far from clear.

First, the legislation has different titles at the federal and provincial levels. The provincial legislation's main goal is to protect personal information and privacy whereas the thrust of the federal bill is to support and promote electronic commerce. The protection of personal information comes second.

Whereas the Quebec legislation is aimed at protecting privacy and applies to every organization, the federal legislation only applies to commercial transactions. Electronic commerce is the main object of the bill. Personal information also means businesses' trade information.

The federal act should not hamper the very same trade activities it seeks to promote. English newspapers talk about this bill in terms of a “lightheaded government approach to cyberspace”. One can reasonably state that the Quebec bill is stricter and more encompassing both in its form and its definitions, its clear wording and the power to issue orders it gives the commissioner.

I will immediately move on to my conclusions, because I will not have enough time for all my remarks in the five minutes at my disposal.

What impression do we get from a more careful examination of Bill C-54? First of all, this is a jumbled and shaky bill, full of ifs and whens, whose central feature is a schedule that includes without any changes the voluntary code of the Canadian Standard Association.

When a bill says that an organization should do this or that, we cannot be sure it will do it, because it is not necessarily required to do so.

Second, this legislation will make federal-provincial linkage extremely complex, at least in Quebec. Our legislation being stricter and more specific than the federal bill, we will end up once more with legal wrangling over the interpretation of both pieces of legislation, and lawyers will make a fortune out of this.

Third, this bill grants new discretionary powers to the governor in council. Indeed, he will be able to amend schedule 1, the core of this legislation, simply by passing regulations. He can amend it as he sees fit to take any change to the CSA standard into account. As a result, the industries normally subject to the legislation will be in a position to amend the legislation without parliamentary debate and with the minister's consent.

We know the pressures that some companies can exert on the governing party through their contributions to campaign funds.

Finally, I would like to underline the fact that this bill is mainly concerned about electronic commerce, relegating people's fundamental right to privacy to second place.

Democracy is under constant siege, as we have seen in other countries. Some of the people visiting Canada tell us that, in their countries, democracy is trampled on a daily basis. Because Canada is a democratic country, as Quebec will be when it becomes independent, it is important that we do everything we can to protect people's privacy and not let any legislation weaken the mechanisms in place to protect this privacy.

No matter how important new technologies are, they should never take precedence over the protection of privacy, which is the very foundation of the democratic society we all value.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Discussions have taken place between the parties and the member for Calgary West concerning the taking of the division on P-22 scheduled for Monday, November 2 at the conclusion of Private Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That if a recorded division is requested on P-22 Monday, November 2, 1998, the said recorded division shall be deemed deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Tuesday, November 3, 1998.

(Motion agreed to)