Mr. Speaker, after the failure of the Meech Lake accord in 1990, the federalist premier of Quebec said, and I quote from memory: “No matter what, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society”.
Bill C-54 gives the opportunity to reaffirm this loud and clear. When it comes to protecting personal information, Quebec's laws is unique in North America.
Quebec has had a law protecting privacy in the public sector since 1982. The federal government and every province enacted similar legislation. In 1994, the Quebec law extended the protection of personal information to the private sector.
And to conclude my preliminary remarks, Quebec is the only government in North America to have a law protecting personal information in the private sector. It has had it for over four years.
It is quite acceptable for the federal government to once again copy things we get right and do well in Quebec. We have no objection to that. What we do object to is the wording of this bill.
Our party's position is very clear, namely this half-baked piece of legislation is basically poorly drafted. I will get back to our position in my conclusion.
We know the goal of Bill C-54 is to promote electronic commerce; the right to privacy in the private sector is a minor consideration.
Had the minister wanted to show leadership, as he claims, he should have adopted these principles, not because they are our principles or because Quebec is involved, but because this is the sort of protection the people of Quebec and of Canada are entitled to expect.
Instead, Quebeckers' rights are being diminshed.
We think this bill does not provide adequate protection for Canadians. A number of its provisions fall short, but one involves the reduction of Quebec's rights and that is the one concerning all the provincial provisions.
Under Quebec law at the moment an individual working in Quebec can access his record, wherever it is, or a person having a medical examination can see his records, wherever they are. From now on, it will no longer be the case, since all the provisions that go beyond provincial jurisdiction will be subject to federal legislation.
One might wonder whether federal legislation will provide the same protection. The answer is no. When it comes to information that is not of a commercial nature, the act is vague, to say the very least. It is worse than that. The core of Bill C-54 is a standard, a CSA national standard that bears a number and that was approved in a totally different legislative context by the standards association in consultation with the telemarketing board and another body, as well as with consumer representatives.
While this self-regulating project is commendable, particularly since it originated with the private sector, it is also full of conditionals. This is what I was saying earlier when I spoke of the wording of the bill. A could or a should essentially means perhaps instead of shall.
My lawyer colleagues in this House will recall that, in law, there is a significant difference between may and shall, and I consider this essential.
In the bill—