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.