Debates of Oct. 30th, 1998

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 Revisions 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc Quebecois makes the statement that the minister has dropped consumer interests over industry interests with this legislation.

I remind the House that the Bloc voted against government legislation like that of Bill C-20, amendments to the Competition Act intended to fight deceptive telemarketers. This legislation was intended to protect Canadians from coast to coast. Our seniors are a particularly vulnerable population who are targeted by telemarketers and consumers in general. The Bloc voted against that legislation.

On Bill C-54 I remind the House and the hon. member from across the way, and the divide is pretty big on this legislation between the two sides of the House, that without consumer confidence in electronic commerce industry that industry cannot grow. Canada has an interest in seeing that it is one of the players in the electronic commerce industry nationally, across North America and internationally.

The government understands that the key to successful electronic commerce is to establish trust with consumers. That is one of the main objectives of this piece of legislation. It will do it.

This legislation will create the condition so that there will be consumer confidence in this budding electronic commerce industry in Canada and will then allow us to become a major player internationally. We have to put the person back into personal information, and this legislation does that.

Let me inform the hon. member from that wide divide across the other side of the House that there are quite a number of organizations that promote consumer interest.

Those consumer organizations, to name a few, are the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, La Fédération nationale des associations des consommateurs de Québec, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Option consommateurs from Quebec, my native province.

When it comes to the use, collection and disclosure of personal information this bill represents concrete action, something this government is known for doing. We take concrete action. We deal with issues one at a time but we deal with them. We do not let them live on, destroy confidence of investors, of Canadians, of Quebecers like the PQ government does in Quebec with the referendum issue. But I digress. Let me come back to the main point.

I am a Quebecer. Quebecers already have good legislation in Quebec on this issue. This legislation is not impeding on that legislation. It complements that legislation.

The opposition, particularly the Bloc, does not want to say that because, as the PQ, it wants to muddy the waters in order to push its agenda forward, whether or not that agenda is in the best interests of the people of Quebec and the people of Canada. We see it again here. It is muddying the waters, distorting information. If I were a journalist and those members were journalists we would call it yellow journalism. But they are not journalists.

These amendments will create consumer confidence in Canada in our budding electronic commerce industry. This legislation complements the legislation which exists already in the province of Quebec, my home province, my place of birth.

This legislation will also complement the actions which are already being taken by community organizations and public interest groups. This legislation will allow them to do their job better. This is concrete action to ensure Canada has the real opportunity of becoming a leader in the electronic commerce industry today and tomorrow.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the Liberal member. I would have given her even more time to speak, as it is such a source of pleasure on this side of the House every time she speaks.

I am also pleased, and it is an honour as usual, to speak while you are in the Chair. Unfortunately, I do not get to do so often.

This is the second time I have risen in this House to debate this matter, which, I would say, is fundamental to a democracy such as ours.

The protection of personal information is a fundamental issue, which warrants our constant attention. This attention must be increasingly sharp, as our society is becoming more and more electronic.

A few years ago, my colleague from Lotbinière talked about the upcoming invention of fax machines. We had phones, now we have fax machines, cell phones, which are easy to tap into, and the Internet. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Therefore this House should take into account what the future has in store, even if we cannot know what that might be. This is why the bill that will eventually be passed must protect personal information as much as possible.

We have a curious government opposite, with its Prime Minister, who makes jokes about the respective merits of baseball bats and pepper spray. The listeners of the radio station 93 FM in the Quebec City region awarded him the “bolo” prize. I mention this, because with the bill before us, the government should get a second “bolo” award.

The bill totally ignores what is happening in Quebec. Contrary to what my Liberal colleague was saying before me, the proposed bill does not complement the legislation in Quebec. It is a step backwards from it. The legislation in Quebec, known as the act respecting the protection of personal information, has been widely praised.

As far as protecting personal information is concerned, Quebec sets an example. Quebec is the only government in North America to have such an act. Unfortunately, the federal bill does not seem to have be sufficiently inspired by the Quebec law.

Instead of talking nonsense, like members opposite, I would like to quote three independent, impartial and non political authorities, who are very clear on this issue.

First, there is the MacKay report tabled not so long ago. The MacKay report, and in particular the Owens report on the protection of personal information carried out for the MacKay committee, that said that a literal interpretation of the Quebec legislation shows that it applies to banks as well as other financial institutions.

Mr. Owens also indicated and I quote:

The Quebec legislation includes a whole list of duties that are stricter than what is stipulated in the codes. In particular, the standard concerning consumer consent is more severe than the standard found in voluntary codes. A file must be opened to record the information and only the necessary information can be collected; finally, the legislation specifies a process to be followed to transfer to a third party lists containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of individuals.

However, Bill C-54 is based only on the CSA code. So, we would be backtracking compared to what is being done in Quebec.

Second, I would like to quote from the 1997-98 annual report of the Quebec commission on access to information, an independent, non partisan organization that has a lot of credibility in Quebec. The annual report says:

The commission has examined the consequences of introducing Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the Canadian Standards Association.

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 marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on privacy.

However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the personal information protection system established under the two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an impartial and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may arise with regard to the protection of this most important aspect of one's privacy.

The report says also:

Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the Commission the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.

This needs to be stressed, for the benefit of my hon. colleague who had her head in the sand. In the commission's view, the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.

This is not the PQ or Bloc members, or even separatist, speaking, but the Commission de la protection des renseignements personnels, an independent organization. Once again, we see that the government does not listen to what anyone says in Quebec, except the sheep in the Liberal government. Even completely independent organizations do not have that ear of this government that could not care less about the situation in Quebec.

Let me quote for the benefit of my colleagues another person, one who is not a Quebecker this time. The government is more likely to be sensitive to these arguments. The federal privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, said, and I quote:

“Building Canada's Information Economy and Society” is revealing in that it lends priority to economic issues over social issues. As such, the focus on electronic commerce precedes the goal of protecting personal information; the paper also indicates that the federal government wants to engage Canadians in a variety of network activities first and then develop protection of privacy later.

When this government's own creatures recognize that Bill C-54 does not protect personal information at all, not at all, perhaps an alarm bell should sound in the heads of our leaders.

I would like to conclude by saying that the purpose of this bill is to promote electronic commerce, not to protect privacy. This is a fundamental flaw in the legislation, and we look forward to this government taking into account the general consensus reached in Quebec, and even outside Quebec, on this issue. The government should reconsider and amend the bill to ensure that it provides real protection of privacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise following the excellent speech made by my colleague from Charlesbourg, who has two great qualities. He is a lawyer and a humanist, and I think being a humanist makes him prouder than being a lawyer.

I would like to dedicate my speech to the charming member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, but first, I want to wish all the best to the Bouchard government. As we all know, that government is headed for an election and will be re-elected with an overwhelming majority, although we are not taking anything for granted.

That government will be re-elected because it has done a good job. Spontaneously, when reflecting on the outgoing government, one obviously thinks of how it defended Quebec's interests at every turn, but one also thinks of a whole series of very important measures.

There is the $5 day care program. I think many people in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine benefited from that program. There is also the work the CLDs are doing on employment.

I could provide numerous examples of a dynamic government that has protected Quebec's interests and paved the way to sovereignty, always keeping in mind the need to implement a social democratic project.

I am taking it upon myself to prepare the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who, as we know, is a sensitive woman, to the inevitable fact that, if we all do our part, it will be re-elected, because it was a good government. I invite my colleagues to take part in a show of exuberance.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Today, we must deal with the bill before us. Members can imagine the paradox. This started as an ordinary Friday, like any other. However, the Bloc Quebecois—under the great leadership of the hon. member for Mercier, and since there is far too little leadership from the government across the way—changed everything and will do its utmost to block this bill, when it could have passed very easily.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Let us talk about this bill. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine should pay attention, to the extent of course that she can.

We are dealing with a bill that goes against one of our human rights, namely personal information.

Anyone with a bit of common sense would have thought that the Minister of Justice would be the one to rise in this House, since we are dealing with human rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the human rights declaration, the Canadian charter of rights which is, in many respects, mediocre, but which nevertheless has the merit of providing some protection for one's privacy.

Because this government is warped, because its thinking is muddled, it is attempting and proposing to deal with the whole issue of the protection of privacy, an area which is of paramount importance, as pointed out by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. Today, with computers, new technologies and electronic data processing, there is a considerable flow of information in the private sector.

The very title of the bill is unbelievable. Any law student at UQAM, Université Laval, University of Ottawa or wherever who handed in a draft with a title as convoluted as the one I am about to read would be immediately and roundly criticized by the professor.

I ask members to brace themselves—again, I urge the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to listen—and take a look at the title. They will understand the Bloc Quebecois' objections. Had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, this government of sheep, this blind and insensitive government, would once again have tried to pull a fast one on Quebec.

The title says it all. It goes like this:

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.

Talk about confused. What blatant dishonesty—I think the word is parliamentary—telling us that the bill we are debating today is an attempt to respect people's privacy.

I hope that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has a law degree, if I am not mistaken, will remember her introductory course—

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

With high marks on the bar exam.

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

What do they say in introductory law? They say that the best legislative texts are the shortest ones.

If the law maker is unable, in one sentence—subject, verb, object—to express an idea, the public is in trouble.

I want to point out, and we can never do so often enough, that what we are seeing today is not a desire to protect personal information originating with private organizations, but a basely mercenary attempt to make it easier for business to access private information.

We will not let that happen. Clearly, it is not too late. If the government, which as members know belatedly included the new elements, wants to co-operate with the opposition, we can have the bill withdrawn. We could ask pages immediately to go from desk to desk to collect the copies of the bill.

No, that will not happen, because the government is stubborn. As my grandmother used to say it is “hardheaded”. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is here and we will not allow the government to move unchallenged toward dictatorial powers. That should be made clear.

I hasten to say, to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine in particular, that there is a Quebec model in the area of co-operation and respect for human rights, a model enacted by the Parti Quebecois which, as we all know, will be re-elected.

That model has been endorsed by the people of Quebec. A few years ago, Quebec passed a bill that protects privacy in the public sector, which goes without saying, and another bill passed in 1994 by the National Assembly, the only assembly in North America controlled by francophones and other Quebec residents. In 1994, the National Assembly extended the protection of the act to personal information in the private sector.

I challenge the government members to name one organisation in Quebec that did not applaud this excellent measure, that not only did not applaud it, but that also did not wish it applied throughout North America?

Would it not have been wiser for the government to learn from this and to propose a bill including principles similar to those found in the Quebec legislation.

I see that my time is almost up. However, in the spirit of true co-operation that exists on both sides, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would be so kind as to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend my allotted time by 10 minutes or so, to share with the information I have with the House.

I would appreciate this extension and I would ask the hon. members to be co-operative in this regard, because I worked really hard to prepare this speech, and I have things I wish to share with the House. The responsibility of the opposition is to ensure that the government always improves itself. As everyone knows, it is a full time job. It is also an exhausting job.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee)]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is surely no doubt that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring increased confidence in this process is without question a good idea, but is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have the same opportunity to this new technology?

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time allotted to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I think that you do have to ask the House whether it agrees or not.

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to ask the House whether it gives its consent, and I am sure that you will do it with class.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee)]

I would be happy to put the request of the hon. member to the House. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering why the government would refuse the hon. member a bit of extra time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lee)]

The hon. member realizes that unanimous consent was not accorded at that time.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is surely no doubt that electronic commerce is here. Ensuring increased confidence in this process is, without question, a good idea.

However, is it not of equal importance that all Canadians have the same opportunity to this wonderful new technology? The government is forever talking about advancement in technology and computer training, how we will not keep up with the rest of the world if we do not support these efforts. I agree.

I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party believe that all Canadians should have that opportunity. Seventy per cent of Canadians are without Internet access. One of the greatest barriers is cost to the individual.

My colleague from Churchill River during question period today raised the concern that in northern communities we do not even have adequate road access.

In my riding there are communities that are just now getting single line phone access. There is one community where there are three phone lines: one in the school, one in the council office and one in the health centre. There was one pay phone which was removed when those three phone lines went in.

I have spoken before of the town of Lynn Lake which lost banking services and had to fight for an ATM. I know this same situation will apply in rural as well as northern remote communities.

As a former school trustee I recognize that districts, with the huge cuts that governments have made in education and transfer payments, are fighting to keep technology within the schools. Tech costs and the Internet on-line costs are very prohibitive.

When we had a publicly owned telephone service in Manitoba, I at least felt that we all had relatively equal access. Of course, that is no longer the case.

Larger centres may benefit, but rural remote areas are paying the price. Smaller businesses will be hard pressed to survive because of the prohibitive cost.

I was just in Chile and I can say that the majority of its citizens cannot afford what should be a basic service, let alone electronic commercial banking. Is this what we want in Canada?

If government is not willing to ensure that access is available to the majority of Canadians, it is not acceptable. What it is doing is putting in place the foundation for greater disparity between the rich and the poor.

Another aspect, of course, is job loss. There must be consideration given to alternative training, job opportunity and support for affected workers.

I do not think there are very many Canadian workers or businesses who trust the employment insurance and human resources department to be there on their behalf. Most believe it is only the finance minister who controls those dollars. Do we need more unemployed in Canada?

The privacy of health information is, without question, another concern to many Canadians.

As we hear of computer hacks breaking into all types of programs, it is not unreasonable to worry about other personal information being made available to outside interests: banks, insurance companies, employers or the man or woman down the street.

This bill fails to protect the privacy of Canadians and it fails to ensure equal opportunity for all Canadians. I will not be supporting it.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe taking the floor after my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who spoke eloquently, will not be an easy task.

I will say it once more, this bill reflects Canada's two solitudes, as the saying goes, two different visions.

Indeed, Bill C-54's thrust is quite different from the thrust of Quebec's legislation. The titles of both laws give us an important clue. Quebec's legislation is entitled an act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, and the federal legislation is entitled an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.

While Quebec's law provides for the protection of privacy and applies to all organizations, the federal law applies only to commercial transactions.

Instead of presenting a real bill that would be aimed at protecting privacy in the private sector, the Minister of Industry is promoting electronic commerce, as his good friend at the OECD, Donald Johnston, is asking him to do, and he is again challenging the fundamental right to privacy.

Broadly speaking, the Minister of Industry is proposing a weak bill; the body of the law is to be found in its schedules and it does not give the commissioner any real power. Moreover, its form as well as its content will cause confusion; its wording will be wide open to interpretation; it will have a Henry VIII type clause, whereby the governor in council can amend the law without parliamentary debate and without democratic consultation.

This last point is crucial because its deprives us of a large part of our sovereignty as parliamentarians. One could talk a lot about all the changes made to parliamentary structures during the last few years. Let us mention, for example, the millennium scholarships that will be managed by a private foundation, as well as all the other organizations and foundations that are being created by the government and which, ultimately, with transfer political power to private institutions.

What is the use, I wonder. of electing people if those who form the government keep giving away powers to institutions that will manage certain programs without be accountable to the public. This really concerns me. Once again, that is what we will see with this bill.

Clause 27 says that:

The Governor in Council may make regulations to amend Schedule 1 to reflect revisions to the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information.

This clause fully gives the federal government the right to amend the bill by order in council without having to come back to parliament. It will thus be able to amend the legislation as a result of pressure from large Canadian corporations, since we know that neither consumers nor citizens organizations contribute to campaign funds of Canadian political parties.

The nationwide harmonization of legislation on this issue seems to be a major criterion for ensuring some consistency in the protection of personal information, but we were entitled to expect that the federal government would build on the four years of experience in Quebec in the protection of personal information. This is not what happened.

The Bloc Quebecois deplores that the government decided not to give the privacy commissioner the power to issue orders. This power, which is sadly missing from his capacity to carry out his responsibilities in the public sector, should have been formally provided for in the bill before us today. The absence of this provision will affect the credibility of this bill.

Moreover, we fear that, with these weaknesses in the bill, the minister will never be able to reach his primary objective, which is to promote consumers' confidence in the development of electronic commerce.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has no confidence whatsoever that the government will provide the privacy commissioner with the resources he needs to do the additional work that has been given to him in the bill.

We know, for example, that the Copyright Board, an organization that makes quasi judiciary decisions, did not get additional resources after passage of Bill C-32, that doubled its duties. Today, the industry minister is forcing it to consider cost recovery.

Earlier I mentioned that the federal government did not seem to have been inspired by the Quebec government's experience. What about that Quebec legislation?

In Quebec, 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:

Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.

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 quote the following sections:

1. 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.

2. The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of privacy of a person:

(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;

(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other that the legitimate information of the public;

(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.

1. Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may gather only information which is relevant to the stated objective of the file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information to third persons or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.

2. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person may, free of charge, examine and cause the rectification of a file kept on him by another person with a view to making a decision in his regard or to informing a third person; he may also cause a copy of it to be made at a reasonable cost. The information contained in the file shall be made accessible in an intelligible transcript.

3. A person keeping a file on a person may not deny him access to the information contained therein unless he has a serious and legitimate reason for doing so or unless the information is of a nature that may seriously prejudice a third person.

Moreover, the Quebec government is the only government in North America which legislated personal information protection in the public and private sectors. Experts state that the Quebec legislation governing the private sector is among the best in the world.

To have a better idea of the benefits of the Quebec law, here are a few of the provisions that could have been used as a model for the federal legislation.

First, the objectives of the law are better defined in the Quebec law, since privacy has to be protected regardless of any commercial concern.

Second, the Quebec law clearly covers all businesses, either profit-making or non-profit-making, while the federal legislation provides for personal information protection only within the framework of commercial transactions.

Third, the Quebec commissioner has the power to issue orders while the federal commissioner has no power whatsoever, as has been already demonstrated.

Section 45 of the Quebec law provides that a group of persons may appoint someone to represent them in a class action suit. There is no such clause in the federal legislation.

For the Minister of Industry, the stakes are clear: to ensure that Canada fully contributes to the global economy, particularly to the spectacular growth awaiting electronic commerce. The figures are astronomical: it is estimated that the global electronic market could skyrocket to $200 billion by the year 2000 from $2.6 billion U.S. in 1996.

Yet, the minister recognized at the last OECD conference in Ottawa that the main stumbling block to the development of electronic commerce was consumer confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a few minutes left and I deplore having to conclude my speech in what seems to be a very empty House. Is there not a provision in the Standing Orders of this House that requires a quorum?

Mr. Speaker, I call for a quorum count.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is a quorum.

[An hon. member]

Where?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I just counted them. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean's time has expired.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to check your mathematical skills, you would find that there were only 18 members present, including yourself, when you said that we had a quorum.