Debates of Oct. 19th, 1999

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, child care; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, fisheries.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always with sadness that we rise in this House when we feel it is the last time the government will allow us to speak on a given bill. First of all, let me say that I too feel it is an outrage.

I believe the protection of personal and private information in a bill regarding electronic commerce is something that obviously concerns us all because it very deeply affects all Quebecers and Canadians. One might wonder whether the government has something to hide.

I will remind this House that the difficulty in developing a legislation is to identify the problem and to propose a bill that is so clear that it can also be implemented easily.

First of all, the minister is trying to create dissension because he disregards this first principle. Some of my colleagues just mentioned that, in the summer of 1998 or at a meeting held in the spring of 1998, the minister discussed this issue with his colleagues. However, he presented them with a draft of the bill in September and, if my memory serves me right, he introduced his bill in this House on October 1, 1998. So much for the discussions.

Just like a game or electronic commerce that the minister is getting ready to do, he is making things appearing or wandering at his will. This could instil fears into people.

The second point I wish to raise—and members will say that I am a member of the Bloc and that I am always sensitive to this question—is the issue of jurisdiction.

Of course, when the British North America Act was first enacted, the issue of the protection of personal or private information in electronic commerce was surely not a concern in the legislators' mind. However, we must say that Quebec's Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector is a good one. It is applied in its jurisdiction. It is fully in force.

What I do not understand is that the federal government, by the back door, through its Minister of Industry, wants to pass an act on electronic commerce. By saying in clause 4 that the act applies everywhere in Canada, he is looking for trouble.

I said in my speech that the most difficult task was to find a justification for the enactment of a law and then to define so clearly the issue that the act can be very easily applied.

Because the minister is looking for trouble, I must say, if the bill is passed and if he continues to reject all amendments suggested by the Bloc, we will have two different jurisdictions regulating the same thing.

Since everybody knows that electronic data travels very fast, merchants will have to ask themselves if the data they received or collected on a given day on their customers must be dealt with according to the Quebec act or the federal act.

If they have to transfer data to another province or elsewhere, they will have to clarify the situation before sending it.

The other issue I want to raise relates to the good faith of the Minister of Industry. In the speech he gave when he introduced the bill—I do not remember the date—he said that “Where a province adopts substantially similar legislation, the organizations covered by the provincial legislation will be exempted from the application of the federal law within that jurisdiction. Quebec already has privacy legislation similar to the bill entitled Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, so the province will be exempted from the application of the federal Bill”. That is what he said at the beginning of the debate, but I do not see anything in his bill that would confirm such a statement.

The government will have to amend the bill because the present wording does not allow for such an exemption. The only provision concerning exemptions is found in paragraph 27(2)(d). That provision allows the exemption of an organization, an activity or a category from the application of the part of the bill concerning the collection, use or disclosure of personal data inside a particular province.

In that definition of the power conferred to the governor in council, organizations and activities are mentioned, but it cannot be used to exempt everything that is done in a particular province. We already know that the legislation will have to be changed or amended accordingly.

In light of the bill's flaws, considering that electronic commerce is just beginning and will become much more prevalent in the future, and that this is a sensitive issue for Quebecers and Canadians, why did the minister not accept the Bloc Quebecois' proposal to withdraw the bill and to go back to the drawing board to harmonize this legislation with the Quebec act while also taking into account the need for legislation in the rest of Canada?

It would have been easy for the minister to do that, particularly since the government postponed the beginning of the session. In the process, former Bill C-54 died on the order paper. In the new parliament, it has now become Bill C-6. It moved up in terms of its number, but not much has moved in the minister's head or, I should say, in the department.

Why rush things now? Could it be that after this thundering and daring throne speech, the legislative agenda is such that the government must reintroduce old bills that are flawed and must rush them through parliament? I find it hard to understand. Perhaps this is what the throne speech was all about: do nothing, introduce old bills as new ones, come up with bills that we did not have time to finish debating during the last parliament. One wonders what kind of government we are dealing with.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is almost up. This is unfortunate, because I would have liked to continue. I would like all parliamentarians who are here to understand—and I must point out the number of members opposite who are here on a Tuesday evening. It is remarkable to see the government benches full—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to tell him that we cannot refer to presence or absence of members.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not refer to anyone's absence, at least I do not believe I did. But you will excuse me for being so enthusiastic on a Tuesday night. I want to be sure the government is responsible enough to consider the amendments since it refused to take the opportunity it was offered to redraft the bill from scratch. The government must stop interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and everything will be fine.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish us good luck in this new session.

Like my colleagues, I am pleased, following the excellent work done by the member for Mercier on Bill C-54 in the previous session, to support the work of my colleague from Témiscamingue, which I am sure will be just as excellent, on this new bill now referred to as Bill C-6.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches, and a particular remark made by one of my colleagues led me to slightly change my introduction to talk to you about a motion.

I had forgotten to mention it in my speech. I think the motion has been adopted in early 1996 by the government party. It said that the government in its politics and decisions, should take into account the fact that Quebec is a society distinct from other Canadian provinces, motion we opposed to, need I remind you.

At the time, we opposed the motion not because of non recognition but because of the pathetic aspect of the motion or its role.

We have an outright proof of the unfounded grounds and the lack of seriousness of a parliamentary motion when such a serious subject is discussed. And the government does not take into account this same motion in the application or analysis of the bill before us.

My voters were saying “Why did the Bloc Quebecois vote against this motion, since you were being recognized.” I gave them an example and please allow me to give you the example I used with my fellow citizens, who, by the way, were laughing a lot, to illustrate the role or importance of a motion. I expressed it in the following way: When we entered the House of Commons in 1993, several members had little or no experience. We passed two bills. In 1994 or 1995, legislation was passed recognizing hockey as Canada's national sport. I myself had always thought that was the case, but they had just found it out, so we voted hockey to be the national sport.

Then somebody realized that a group had been left out, and everyone must always be thought of. The aboriginal people had been forgotten, so a national sport had to be found that included them. The motion was therefore changed to read that hockey was the national winter sport, and that a summer one would be determined later.

If people do not know, the summer sport of Canadians is lacrosse. That is what the motion passed in this House states. A motion is something very important.

The following year, I was the critic for amateur sport, and I got a call from the national lacrosse team, informing me that their budget had been cut to zero.

The government had just passed a motion that this was our country's national sport. They came up with that in 1994 or 1995. I am not familiar with the statistics on participation to this sport, but in my riding I know they are relatively low. The people that play this sport are not percentages. There are few people practicing this sport. The very same year, the budget of the national team was reduced to zero.

If you want to know what a motion is worth, I have two examples: that of national sport and that of Bill C-6. In both instances, a motion was passed. I think that the Prime Minister does not perhaps recall having voted on it. However, we can see the consideration that is accorded a motion when it is time for decisions to be made.

That said, I return to Bill C-6. Often, in cavalier fashion, the government thinks, when a bill is analyzed, that we are wicked separatists and do so from a separatist standpoint. As a result, it covers its ears and does not bother to listen. It prefers to read other things, like “Awake”, perhaps.

So, in this presentation, I will draw not on a Bloc Quebecois document, but on a document by the Quebec Access to Information Commission. Even though the word “Quebec” is part of its name, the commission is not dangerous. It analyzed Bill C-54—now, Bill C-6.

I know that my colleagues have used a lot of documents and committee briefs to present another vision, another aspect of Quebec's unanimous objection to this bill.

I remind members that the title and the intent of the bill are based on the constitutional power of the federal government to establish a climate of trust among Canadians in the way industry gathers, uses and transmits personal information to allow e-commerce to flourish. This sector is indeed growing vigorously and must be protected.

However, a little further along—and I will repeat the name of the group—the Quebec Access to Information Commission has said, and I quote, even if it is a bit long, but I have to quote it: “For nearly five years now, the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector affords all Quebecers a means of protecting personal information, has proven its mettle and its usefulness”.

I read on:

Based on Quebec's constitutional powers in the area of property and civil rights, Quebec's act is meant to complement Quebec's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its Civil Code. Quebec's legislation, which includes an act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information, shows how important privacy is to the lawmaker.

Further it says:

The Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector Act does not apply only to commercial activities, but also to personal information likely to be gathered, used or disclosed through electronic means.

What the Commission d'accès à l'information explained in its brief was that, on the basis of Quebec's constitutional powers, its Civil Code, its values and customs, and also, as my colleagues explained earlier, Quebec's experience with an act which has been working well for five years, it was saying no, as we are doing now, to Bill C-54, the current Bill C-6.

Why? Because clauses 4 and 27(2) of the bill define the scope of the future federal legislation and provide that organizations or activities might be exempted from federal rules regarding the protection of personal information.

As the commission understands it, the federal legislation will apply to businesses based in Quebec or to part of their activities, unless an exemption is granted by the governor in council, which is not very likely.

Even if an order was made for a Quebec business operating outside of Quebec, the federal legislation would automatically apply to 28% of Quebec businesses involved in electronic commerce with other Canadian provinces.

Further on in its submission, the Commission d'accès à l'information said:

Moreover, several Quebec businesses will certainly be forced to apply both the federal and the provincial legislation at the same time, unless they have no commercial activities or none of the personal information they have is collected, used or disclosed outside Quebec.

This would limit many Quebec businesses which are open to electronic commerce but would have no contact with businesses outside Quebec.

It clearly states:

We have to oppose this proposal because every business in Quebec will have to deal with two jurisdictions, while the Quebec jurisdiction that has been existing for five years is in keeping with the standards of the OECD that were put forward by industrialized countries experimenting with electronic commerce means, even though Quebec has been demonstrating and applying them well for the past five years.

All witnesses who came before the committee, on which the hon. member for Mercier, who has now been replaced by the member for Témiscamingue, sat, have been able to show this.

In conclusion, in its submission, the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information said:

To avoid any confusion and to ensure that Quebecers can still enjoy a comprehensive protection of personal information system, the commission submits that Bill C-54—

This is actually Bill C-6, which was designated as C-54 at the time.

—should be amended to explicitly provide that the federal act will not apply to businesses subject to the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector.

I was made to understand, while following the debate on this issue, that this amendment was rejected by the Minister of Industry and by the government.

That is why we are simply asking for the withdrawal of Bill C-6, so we can go back to square one and put in place a more credible legislation.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues, I want to condemn the attitude of the government for two reasons.

First, the government tabled the bill hastily, without even bothering to consult the provinces, to the detriment of the most sacred rights that can exist in Quebec. Second, having tabled the bill, the government does not even want it to be debated.

My colleague the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve expressed our dismay and disapproval well when he spoke after the government House leader's announcement of the gag order. He basically said “Speak for a while and then the legislation will be passed, regardless of how well-articulated or useful your arguments may be to improve the bill”.

I have been sitting in this House for more than 15 years now and, after this government took office, I have noticed a loss of what I would call the democratic tradition of this House. In fact, I am reading these days a document on the history of the House of Commons, the first debates held in this place and how well, in the early days, the members of the different parties were listening to each other.

I can say that, when I arrived here in 1984, the tradition had been upheld. Amendments proposed by the opposition were often adopted by the government and consensus was often achieved, not always in the House but following a committee process.

I also remember that the government House leader who imposed the guillotine was part of a threesome called the “rat pack”. These people were hysterics who tore their shirts. They even had their acronym stamped on t-shirts that they distributed to people on the street to denounce the then conservative government for having imposed the guillotine on one or two occasions. It was unbelievable to see the force and the wisdom with which they defended the principle of the democratic debate in the House.

These people who were then the guardians of democracy are today its embalmers. These members have now become like sheep whereas they were roaring like lions a few years ago.

The heritage minister also, who was by his side, was proclaiming her indignation. There was also a third member, who kept his principles. He is sitting today as the independent member for York South—Weston. He roared, but when his principles were betrayed, what did he do? He left his party, and voters in his riding re-elected him. He is a principled man.

I do not share entirely his views on everything, but I say that at that time he was shouting on that side, and later on he did not bow down like a sheep, he stood up and crossed the floor.

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

He did not knuckle under.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

He did not knuckle under, as my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is suggesting to me very wisely and accurately.

I wonder what those members came to do here if not only to vote when they are told to do so. A little while ago I saw many of them, and I still see some of them, bowing their head. They have been forbidden to speak to this bill. They are ashamed, and I understand why they are looking down. I understand why they are hiding behind the curtains. I understand as well why they made signs to their leader when he came in to put the gag on us.

It is difficult to belong to a party that calls itself democratic and to be told: “Shut up. You are not here to think, you are here to vote when you are told to do so. We are four or five here to think for you”.

However, when they make speeches in their ridings, this is not what I hear. They say that they will defend firmly the rights of the individuals, associations, businesses, industries and citizens of their ridings. We are speaking of the rights of citizens and what do they do? They do not react. They accept to remain silent about a bill that is so important that it impacts on everyone in Quebec and in Canada.

I appeal to these members. I remember some speeches that the hon. member for Beauce made in his riding when he said “I will do the same as Mr. Bernier did before me”, but Mr. Bernier would have reacted to a bill like this one.

The hon. member for Beauce should be ashamed of what he said that time. If Mr. Bernier were here, he would rise and say “I do not accept that the rights of Quebecers are being trampled on in this way by this bill”.

Where is the member from Laval-Ouest? During the last electoral campaign, she engaged in debates and spoke constantly about human rights. She has not said a word about this bill.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is always lecturing us about human rights in Quebec. But what is she doing today? She remains silent on a bill we are unanimously opposed to in Quebec.

And what is the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, a former Minister of the Environment in Quebec and a great human rights advocate doing? He also is keeping silent.

I call on the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. He is a physician. He must know what human rights are, what privacy means. But he also is saying nothing.

I call on the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, a former unionist and president of the CEQ. How many times has he talked about human rights in his speeches? I was expecting him to rise and say “No, this bill does not meet the expectations of the citizens of Quebec at all. It contradicts everything that was said by all the Quebec agencies who spoke on the subject”. But no, this public defender, this former great unionist now goes along, as his leader is doing, toeing the party line.

And what of the member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, who was saying the same thing during the election campaign?

Worst still, where is the member for Brome—Missisquoi, a former president of the Quebec bar association? What does the bar association have to say? It says all that. However, when he was the president of the bar association, what did he do? He said “Vote for me, I will go and defend the interests of Quebec. I know that the Quebec legal system is different from what exists elsewhere in Canada, first of all because of our Civil Code”.

The organization that he was heading has told us, and the member for Terrebonne quoted it earlier, that this bill was utterly useless, and that if we really wanted to pass it, it would have to be drastically amended. This organization sent a four-page letter to every member of parliament. Where is the former president of the bar association, now the member for Brome—Missisquoi? He also is remaining silent on this bill.

Then there is the member for Brossard—LaPrairie. I heard him in Shawinigan, during the 1993 election campaign, and during the 1992 referendum campaign. Together, we took part in debates. He was a great champion of rights and freedoms. Today, he is being silenced by his leader.

I urge all members from Quebec to rise and uphold the rights of Quebec. I appeal particularly to the famous minister, the member for Outremont, who said “I will speak out for the rights of Quebec within the Confederation”. The time has come for him to prove he can respect Quebec. Not only Quebec, because other provinces are opposed to this, but Quebec in particular. Five years ago, it was the first region in the western world to introduce such a bill and to enact it.

I appeal to all the ministers from Quebec, the Minister of Public Works, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. If he is now off his diet, is he now free to deal with human rights?

In concluding, I hope that in the last moments of this debate, all members from Quebec, no matter their political allegiance, will rise to tell the minister “Withdraw your bill”.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his excellent speech. He has reminded us that government members have remained quite silent on an issue related to the protection of personal information.

It is quite something to see that they respect a self-imposed gag order to let a bill be passed, one wonders why, when it has been condemned by just about everybody in Canada and in Quebec, because it will be detrimental to the protection of personal information. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope the people who are watching us will take good note of that.

Why do we disagree with this bill? This bill, which will support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information in certain circumstances, was introduced by the industry minister just last week.

It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced on October 1, 1998. This bill has already been debated. We were hoping for some amendments when the minister introduced it again as Bill C-6, because it had been so heavily criticized. But the minister is coming back with exactly the same bill as Bill C-54.

Why do we disagree? Because the industry minister has introduced this piece of legislation without any consultation with the provinces or anybody else. This bill is an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. It will mean less protection for personal information in Quebec. Its implementation in Quebec will be a cause for confusion. If passed, this bill will be the worse administrative nightmare ever. Moreover, this bill is legally flawed.

This bill is not clear enough. All those who have examined it and appeared as witnesses before the standing committee have said so. And the list of those witnesses is impressive. We had members of the Canadian Bar Association, the CSA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, UQAM professors and one independent expert, Ian Lawson.

I want to quote the Canadian Bar Association. “The standard was not drafted in strong enough words to make for a set of legislative rules. It does not really help to define the right to privacy or to tell the organizations to which the legislation applies how they should be protecting the people's rights”.

The Life and Health Insurance Association stated that “other provisions of the legislation are hard to interpret, especially the ones dealing with key issues such as the application and enforcement of the act”.

Professors from l'Université du Québec à Montréal stated “If one wishes to truly protect the consumer in an area as formidable as personal information, one must adopt some strict rules and not rules written in the conditional tense that, for all useful purposes, do not obligate a company to show anything more than good faith. You cannot expect this to produce that result”.

I do not think one can be any clearer than that.

In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that was proclaimed in 1975. Also, the Quebec government has passed the only act in America to protect personal information in the private sector. This act was enacted in 1994. As I said earlier, this act is considered a model throughout the world and should be used to draft the federal bill.

God knows why the government is disregarding it. It is trying to give its bill precedence over Quebec's legislation, which is considered as a model all over the world. Why is the minister ignoring Quebec's legislation is a model all over the world? Can anyone explain why?

The Minister of Industry acted unilaterally despite his promise to consult all the stakeholders before introducing his bill. He may have done some minor consulting to make things look good, but he did not take anything said into account and proceeded to introduce his bill.

As a matter of fact, on June 12, the ministers responsible for the electronic highway met in Fredericton and decided to consult each other, if necessary, on the advisability of passing legislation protecting personal information in the private sector.

On September 21, the federal Minister of Industry sent his provincial counterparts a draft bill and asked for their comments on wanted the federal government wanted to introduce.

But the minister did not wait for the comments; he introduced his bill immediately, on October 1, 1998. His provincial counterparts received the draft bill on September 21, 1998, but the minister did not wait for their comments and introduced, on October 1, 1998, his legislation which was then called Bill C-54.

The Minister of Industry is also responsible for creating a constitutional dispute that could have been avoided had he agreed to work in co-operation with his counterparts.

The provinces have jurisdiction in the area of personal information under the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives them powers with regard to property and civil law. Every expert consulted by the Bloc Quebecois recognizes that it is first and foremost a provincial jurisdiction.

However, Bill C-6 says that it will apply to organizations under federal jurisdiction in their commercial activities, to organizations that transfer personal information from one province to another or from one country to another, and to employees whose personal information is collected by an organization under federal jurisdiction.

Moreover, clause 30(1) says that federal legislation will apply to private organizations, even though they are under provincial jurisdiction, if the federal government does not recognize the existence of similar legislation at the provincial level.

If that is not interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction, I do not know what words to use to make members understand.

Bill C-6 will be a big step backwards for Quebecers with regard to the protection of personal information.

Quebec's legislation says, in section 14, that consent to the disclosure or use of personal information must be evident, free, enlightened and given for a specific purpose.

With regard to consent, Bill C-6 puts the consumer at a disadvantage by stating, in various clauses, vague principles that open the door to interpretation.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to give a thorough explanation of what is wrong with this bill. In closing, I would like to remind members that this bill was introduced without any consultations with the provinces, that it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions and that it represents a step backwards for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal information.

The enforcement of this legally deficient bill in Quebec will create confusion. This bill is impossible to enforce, it is vague, it causes undue difficulties for Quebec businesses and considerably weakens the right of Quebecers to the protection of personal information.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was going to say that I am rising on Bill C-54, but since the House was prorogued by the government leader, we have to redo our homework today. We also have to rename this legislation Bill C-6.

In spite of the three and a half months the government had to prepare an appalling Speech from the Throne, it begged for three more weeks, and this of course led to all the bills dying on the order paper; this is unfortunate since the consideration of these bills was, for the most part, quite advanced in the House.

Bill C-6 is sponsored by the Minister of Industry, the good member for Ottawa South in the federal capital region. When we watch this minister act, we sometimes ask ourselves if his judgment is failing him.

This is the same minister who, a few weeks ago, said of Quebec's minister Bernard Landry that it was stupid of him to have met the mayor of Boisbriand, where GM's plant is located. He said “Since there is a good dialogue between us, I will help you keep GM's plant”, when everyone knows full well that 95% of Canadian automobile plants are in Ontario.

Quebec only has 5% of them, one out of 15, and the minister would like to close it down. The Minister of Industry would not even help us keep our plant and he has the nerve to introduce Bill C-6, which will violate Quebecers' intimacy and confidentiality.

The title of Bill C-6 reads in part “an act to support and promote electronic commerce”—everything is fine so far—“by protecting personal information that is collected, used”, etc.

Members can see how twisted and dishonest the government is. They changed the name of unemployment insurance for employment insurance. It means that you pay insurance policy and if your house burns down, the insurance company indemnifies you. In the same way, workers pay part of their wages to have protection against unemployment or lay off. The name of the plan was changed. Employment insurance was so much nicer!

The hon. member for Drummond knows perfectly well that only 42% of people who pay employment insurance premiums qualify for benefits when they lose their job. Why? Because eligibility criteria were hardened.

The minister of Industry tells us that he will protect the privacy of Canadians. If he treats the confidentiality of personal data the same way he treats Canadian workers, there are reasons to worry. The way he treated Bernard Landry, the vice premier of Quebec, shows that the man does not have an ounce of judgement.

The minister is so deprived of judgement that he acted unilaterally when he introduced his bill on personal data protection without waiting for the report of the very consultation committee he had created. I wonder how a man like him can be member of the cabinet. He created a consultation committee, but one week later, he went ahead without even waiting for the report of that committee. Isn't that bright?

There is even worse. On September 21st 1998, 13 months ago, he consulted the provincial ministers. A few days later, on October 1, he went ahead and introduced his bill, Bill C-54.

I am not the only one, and the Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to object to the way the minister is behaving. In Quebec, his critics are unanimous.

There is the government of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires, Options consommateurs, the Barreau du Québec-of which the member for Brome—Missisquoi was president. There was a by-election after Mr. Peloquin, who represented this riding, died. The member who has replaced him said: “I will go to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebecers.” He was then president of the Quebec Bar. Five years later, his former association says: “Bill C-6 is garbage, it should be thrown out.”

Worse yet, a group of constitutional experts said that Bill C-6 was in violation of the constitution. A little while ago, the member for Drummond said that in 1994 Quebec had passed a bill protecting personal information. In Quebec, we already have an act. A few years later, the federal government is getting ready to destroy, ruin, put the axe to something which is working well in Quebec.

We saw the same thing in the throne speech we heard two weeks ago. In Quebec we have a drug plan which is working well. The federal government now wants to create it own. Once again it is going to cause trouble in Quebec.

The Minister of Industry knows full well that in Quebec we have what we call civil law and in the rest of Canada they have common law. I would like to read section 3 of the Civil Code. It is very short:

“Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life

Everyone agrees

, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation

That is, not saying anything against someone

and privacy”.

This is section 3 of the Civil Code and it is from the latest volume that was just published.

Bill C-6 should be put in file 13, shelved and simply be cancelled. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, want that Bill-6 be simply withdrawn for a number of reasons.

First of all, the Minister of Industry has tabled it without consulting the provinces. The bill would interfere with provincial jurisdictions. It would force Quebec to go backwards with respect to the protection of personal information, as the hon. member for Drummond argued so well earlier, because its enforcement in Quebec would produce confusion and because it is lacking on the legal level.

Finally, it uses electronic commerce as an excuse to invade the civil right of Quebecers and of all Canadians.

In conclusion, I wished that the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, would try to make the minister see reason, although I sometimes question his intellectual abilities, as he demonstrated about a week and a half ago. If he is not able to do so, he should get rid of him as Minister of Industry and kick him out of the cabinet.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise after my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic. I hope to be as eloquent as he was on the subject.

Like my other colleagues in the Bloc, I am somewhat perplexed and concerned by Bill C-6. It concerns me because, as we all know very well—and my colleagues have mentioned this amply today—we already have in Quebec a law governing personal information, a law that has been enacted, works very well and covers the entire field, to the full extent of the law and the powers of the national assembly.

So, the law covers all areas of personal information, and now we have the federal government with another law, Bill C-6, which, in legal terms, is inadequate as it fails to cover all it should. In addition, it causes serious confusion in business and does not even protect individuals.

My colleagues have spoken at length of various aspects of the bill. I would like to focus for a few minutes only on the presentation made by the Quebec Conseil du patronat in March.

It is not a sovereignist organization. It in fact is known to represent primarily big business in Quebec and has traditionally been federalist in its political views.

However, in the case of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, they came up with a very detailed report to show that this bill was totally unacceptable for Quebec businesses because, once again, it creates confusion.

Bill C-6 does not at all take into account the Quebec act, with the result that Quebec businesses will be subjected to two different legal systems.

In its presentation, the Conseil du patronat says that for information collected, used and transmitted in the province, the personal information protection act that will apply in the private sector will be the Quebec act, while the federal legislation will apply to information transmitted outside the province. This is only one of many factors that will generate confusion among businesses.

The Conseil du patronat provides a few examples. For instance, Quebec companies that come under federal jurisdiction and that do business outside Quebec, or that are governed by a Canadian act, will not know which legislation applies. Indeed, there will be two acts that will put contradictory demands on them and, moreover, that will not adequately protect people.

There is a jurisdictional conflict, with the result that Quebec consumers will not be properly protected, while businesses will have two types of remedy. This is a total contradiction. And these are only two examples provided by the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

Consent is extremely important when we are dealing with personal information. However, the provisions in bill C-6, which is the federal legislation, and in the Quebec act are different.

Under the Quebec legislation, consent must be express, specific and clear. On the other hand, according to the principle set out in section 4, schedule 1 of Bill C-6, consent is required. There is one contradiction.

There are others, for instance the one concerning the collection of information. The Quebec legislation states that the collection of information from a third party cannot be done without the consent of the individual, except in certain very specific exceptional circumstances. Bill C-6 on the other hand states that an organization may collect information without the knowledge and consent of the individual.

How can anyone see his way clear through two pieces of contradictory legislation that are complete opposites in their vision and their application? It is certain that this does not protect the Quebec consumer but, worse still, it places Quebec businesses in an extremely unfortunate position, because they are incapable of knowing whether they should be treating their customers according to federal or provincial legislation. Things will be even more complicated for companies carrying on business with out-of-province companies or those coming under federal legislation.

There are many examples of these. However, I would conclude with a quote from the submission by the Conseil du patronat du Québec:

These are all questions for which we find no answers at this time, and if Bill C-6 is passed as is, they will mean huge problems for businesses.

This is one of the conclusions by a council that, I would remind you, is not a sovereignist organization. It is one that defends the interests of Quebec business people and often comes across as federalist.

There are so many questions raised by Bill C-6. That is, moreover, the reason I am so concerned. If the Conseil du patronat raises so many questions on Bill C-6, one may well wonder, given the potential conflicts and obvious contradictions, whether this bill is just an unplanned accident or a deliberate act by the federal government.

Does the federal government have the deliberate intention of adversely affecting Quebec with Bill C-6, not only in its law-making powers, but also by harming Quebec businesses? Is this a possibility? I ask you. Does the government deliberately wish to harm Quebec?

In the case of Bill C-6, we are justified to ask this question because it is big and obvious and because the contradiction is also obvious. I wonder if, basically, it could be deliberate. There is no lack of recent examples regarding the federal government and its actions against Quebec, whether against the social union or the provincial powers. We have seen it in the health sector; we have also seen it recently in the education sector with the creation of the millennium fund. What an insult for Quebec. The only thing that could be worst could probably be Bill C-6.

The federal government directly addresses the students on the issue of the millennium fund and even they are outraged to see how it shamelessly holds them hostage.

It does not try to harm Quebec in a hypocrite and hidden way. No, it does it in broad daylight. Once again, Bill C-6 is an example.

Bill C-6 is a good example of this attempt which is probably part of plan B, which is to despise everything that maintains the distinct character of Quebec, that is the privacy legislation for example.

In conclusion, as all my colleagues, I wish that the minister will finally wake up and have the good sense to withdraw this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, you can understand how happy I am to take part in this debate, first of all because we are back and I missed you a little, assuming that the reverse might somewhat be true. I want also to wish a good session to all the pages who are joining us for the year ahead.

However it is also with some sadness that we have to join in the debate today. Who in this House could have imagined that the government, whose end of the regime we can already scent, would have the gall to re-introduce a bill that nobody wants?

This bill was unanimously rejected in Quebec. Through you, Madam Speaker, I challenge, not the agriculture minister for at this time he might not be awake, but any other minister to tell us who in Quebec supports a bill like this.

Do you think it has any support in the union community?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Do you think it has any support in the human rights community?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Do you think it has any support in the legal community?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Do you think it has any support in the Quebec government?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

And that government is one of the best that has ever graced the national assembly, as everybody knows.

Everyone who saw the bill rejected, and I would even say thoroughly disliked, it. But today the government, whose singlemindedness is second to none, presents us with a bill like this.

At this time, I think it would be appropriate to express just how much we enjoyed the excellent and absolutely eloquent speech by the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Madam Speaker, he reminded us that Quebec has had a law since 1994, in addition to the Civil Code, which you have certainly had occasion to look through in your spare time. The member for Berthier—Montcalm, a lawyer himself, who studied in this city not far from the Hill, made the same point. He also told me, in confidence, that he has wonderful memories of the years he spent studying law.

Anyone looking through the Civil Code will notice article 2, as the member for Frontenac—Mégantic mentioned, and articles 35 to 41. I should perhaps omit article 41, which talks about respect for the body after death, because this might give those who really want to do this bill justice some ideas. We will stop at article 40.

In my view, article 35 is the most important article in the Civil Code when it comes to respect for privacy. I will read it, because it captures the essence of what the legislator was trying to say about privacy. I will dedicate it to the government members.

The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of the privacy of a person: one, entering or taking anything in his dwelling; two, intentionally intercepting or using his private communications; three, appropriating or using his image or voice while he is in private premises; four, keeping his private life under observation by any means; five, using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public; six, using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.

The Civil Code is not a meaningless document. It is not the Liberals' red book. It is the very foundation of our legal system. We are, and I have learned this myself in my law courses, a province, a country—soon, let us hope—with a civil law tradition.

What is the difference between civil law and common law. Let us say that, in common law, judges can make the law, although this could be harshly debated. In our system, legislators and parliamentarians give some direction in a legal system where everything is codified or pass specific legislation.

We have already passed a specific piece of legislation concerning the right of privacy. We led the way, as several of my hon. colleagues pointed out, and we cannot understand why the government is so eager to legislate in this area. Some people might find it easy to believe that I am too partisan, even though I can ensure everyone today as I have in the past that it is not the case.

I think I have always been perfectly impartial and completely objective in this House, and to show my hon. colleagues that the point of view being supported by the Bloc members is not partisan, is not part of the Bloc agenda, I could share with the House the opinion of an authority that has always stayed clear of political partisanship.

I am talking, of course, about the Quebec Bar Association. Has there been a more respectable institution in our society, a more neutral one, up until the day the former president of the bar decided to join the Liberal Party? But we like to think this is the exception to the rule.

On February 4, 1999, not that long ago,the Barreau du Québec, with its recognized legal expertise through its president, Mr Jacques Fournier, not only condemned the lack of vision of this bill, and questioned its rationale, but also pleaded for the Quebec legislation to be extended to areas of federal jurisdiction.

I would like to read you something from Page 2 of the document:

“To avoid any confusion and to ensure that Quebecers continue to enjoy a comprehensive system for the protection of personal information, we submit that bill C-54 should be amended so as to specifically exclude the federal act from applying to businesses subject to the Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé, which is a Quebec law. We go further still, saying that, in our view, the bill should incorporate Quebec's act, even with respect to federal areas of jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication of legislation in Quebec.”

I do not know if I should table the document so that it will be available to all parliamentarians. I am prepared to do so. But one thing remains: authorized people of the legal community, the main spokespersons of the lawyers, the president of the bar greatly wished that the Quebec legislation be extended. This is a paradox of this government.

When we read the Speech from the Throne, we expected the government to budge in a number of sectors. I could give you the example of the air transportation sector. We expected the government to do something.

Remember, there has been a cabinet reshuffle. The Prime Minister has recognized that there were quite a few jacks in this government and that he needed some queens. He then has called to the cabinet a number of women and we expected the government to do something. Even you, Madam Speaker, somewhat wished it deep down inside.

We expected the government to budge in the air transportation sector. We expected it to do something in the area of organized crime, on the issue of money laundering, for example. So many other areas should have retained the attention of the government!

Instead of doing something in areas it was mandated to do something, the government intervenes in an area of pure civil rights tradition, thus compromising, as you can understand, the integrity of the powers of the national assembly.

Then, we have no other choice but to oppose this legislation. All my colleagues will do so with as much determination as our critic for industry and we will fight this bill until it is withdrawn.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54.

There are some in the Quebec society and elsewhere who are questioning the role of the Bloc Quebecois here in the House. Madam Speaker, as a representative of a Quebec riding, this is the perfect demonstration of the role played by the Bloc Quebecois in this House, which is, in addition to promoting sovereignty, to speak up for Quebec's interests.

Where are the other members from Quebec? Where are they? Let us imagine what would happen if we were still in the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to whom people are still paying homage today. If out of 75 members in this House we had 74 sheep, as was the case for Quebec in those days, what would they be doing faced with a bill on personal information such as Bill C-6?

It is an obvious intrusion, undue and unbridled, on the part of a minister who is displaying a self-serving attitude we did not think he was capable of. As we will recall, he introduced this bill on October 1st 1998, only days before the opening of the OECD meeting on electronic commerce in Ottawa. The then industry minister, who is the same as today, was hosting the meeting.

He probably wanted to look good to his international counterparts, pretending he was concerned about the real issues in his area, probably to raise his profile although this was going against public interest.

There is a consensus in Quebec according to which the federal government should not intervene in the field of personal information, since this issue is quite well covered by Quebec's law. As my colleagues already mentioned it, it is the bar and the Quebec council of employers, among others, and not only us, who are saying it. These organizations asked the Government of Canada where it was heading with its project.

The bar, through its president, Me Jacques Fournier, wrote on February 14, to my colleague of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and said:

“First, we are puzzled by the lack of correlation between the title of the act and its contents”.

This is what the president of the bar said. It is normally embarrassing for the government.

Indeed, the bill has more to do with the protection of personal information in the private sector than with the promotion of electronic commerce.

Yet, the subject of the meeting was electronic commerce. But the government wanted to show itself in the best light. The same thing happens when terms are changed, as my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic said earlier. “Unemployment insurance” was changed by “employment insurance”. They are changing words to show themselves in a better light in front of the people.

The president of the bar continues to denounce the federal project by saying:

Quebec's policy has been applied in Quebec for close to five years now. This policy is well known and businesses are accustomed to it”. Consequently, Quebec's bar essentially subscribes to the recommendation made by the information access commission, and I quote: “In order to prevent all confusion and to ensure that all Quebecers can continue to benefit from a complete policy in matters of personal information protection, we propose that Bill C-54 be amended by providing explicitly that the federal act will not apply to businesses already subjected to the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector”.

Let me continue quoting from the president of the bar:

We would go even further. We think the bill should be incorporated by reference in the Quebec legislation, even in federal areas of jurisdiction, in order to prevent confusion, overlap, and duplication of legislation in Quebec.

We have been condemning for 40 years this duplication between federal and provincial legislation that makes such a mess in our institutions. That is why we are trying to convince more and more people in Quebec that sovereignty is the solution to all these problems. We should get out in order to be in a better position to deal with the rest of Canada as equal partners.

The president said further:

We believe the Quebec plan for the protection of personal information in the private sector is better than the one in Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, particularly as concerns rights of appeal and efficiency.

The merits of the bill cannot withstand the serious examination made by the president of the bar or the Commission d'accès à l'information, which has a mandate to speak out, because we are dealing here with personal information.

However, I have been particularly impressed by what I read from the testimony of the Conseil du patronat. This organization is a legitimate advocate for business interests. It certainly has more ties with the Council for Canadian Unity than it does with the Parti québécois executive, for example.

This organization has written a chapter that is as good as many sovereignist speeches. I will read it to you since I still have a little time left; it is absolutely beautiful because it shows, once again, the Canadian mess which becomes more and more institutionalized.

In the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry, the Conseil du patronat is critical of the communication of information.

I quote the brief on page 5:

Because of the double jurisdiction, the companies falling under provincial jurisdiction will wonder whether the personal information which is collected from them and consequently protected by Quebec's legislation and which is transmitted to a company falling under federal jurisdiction and carrying business in Quebec will be governed by Quebec's rules or Canada's rules. In addition, within a single file, some information could be subject to both statutes.

It is easy to manage for someone who is in the private sector, who has to do business, who has to deal with a union, who has orders to fill and deadlines to meet—we know how complicated it is—and who is confronted with such legislation that clearly shows the existence of two solitudes.

The fact that nobody on that side of the House nor over there seems to be interested in this bill, with the exception of the Quebec's members, clearly illustrates the Canadian drama, the two solitudes, the fact that something is going wrong.

So, along the lines of Reed Scowen, the government is also addressing Canadians. Maybe the time has come for our country to reflect on where we are all going together. It might be better for each to proceed along its own solidly built road running in the same direction, rather than crashing head on and trying to gain the right of way in an area already governed perfectly well by provinces, and Quebec in particular with an entire culture behind it that is suited to this type of problem.

Now to go on with the disclosure of information, again quoting from the brief submitted by the Conseil du patronat:

What about the organizations whose activities are connected to federal jurisdiction, for instance loan companies and airports? One could even conceive of different rules applying to one and the same file, depending on whether the information collected, used or held is covered by Quebec or federal law.

This is a constant muddle.

Moreover, any Quebec business with a branch in another province—such as an insurance company—that is required to send it information gathered in Quebec would have to know whether to refer to the Quebec or the federal legislation on protection of that information. Similarly, if the information in question is stored in a computerized data bank in Quebec but accessible by another company outside Quebec, which legislation would apply?”

Now, coming to the conclusion of this chapter:

These are all questions for which we find no answers at this time, and ones that will pose huge problems to businesses if the bill is passed in its present form.

This then, is what the business people have to say, the language they use, and these are the ones responsible for added value in our society.

We ought to ask ourselves some questions when people like this speak up so courageously to government. Normally, they are on the same side. It is no secret that these are natural allies. But they are telling the government: “Stop, do not continue with this bill.” This is, moreover, the position of the Bloc Quebecois. It is an indefensible bill.

Instead of spending his time on such a bill, the minister should be focussing more attention on the GM affair. He should quit behaving to the Quebec ministers as if he were an Ontario minister and abandon the scornful tone he uses with Quebec's deputy premier and minister of industry and commerce.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rare for me not to be pleased to be part of a debate on a bill, as is the case today.

This bill, formerly Bill C-54, which was criticized by most of my colleagues, remains a bill that should be treated as the Bloc Quebecois proposes, that is, it should be set aside. The Minister of Industry should be sent to do his homework so that everyone is satisfied. To this point, one party is totally dissatisfied—Quebec.

It is unanimous in Quebec. Everyone opposes this bill on e-commerce and personal information. Why is everyone opposed?

First, it is as a matter of principle. The federal government has an almost legendary propensity to meddle in jurisdictions other than its own. Every lead taken by Quebec in areas of its jurisdiction is penalized by the federal government with its wall to wall bills.

Over the years, there have been fairly remarkable examples of this. In 1994, for example, we were all newly elected to our first term, and the Minister of Finance started talking about the appropriateness of establishing a Canadian securities commission. Securities are under Quebec's jurisdiction exclusively, and Quebec has worked very hard for the past 30 years to create an effective system with highly interesting areas of jurisdiction that are in fact higher than what is found in most provinces in Canada.

Because Quebec took the lead in the area of securities, in a field the Canadian Constitution recognizes as its own, the federal government decided, because the other provinces were not as well organized as Quebec, to establish a Canadian securities commission, wall to wall, with duplications, overlap and total confusion in this sector so vulnerable to uncertainty. The Minister of Finance paid no attention to the problems this might cause Quebec.

There are other examples, such as that involving provincially chartered insurance companies. Quebec had an inspector general of financial institutions, a Commission des valeurs mobilières to monitor transactions and minimize the risk for shareholders and insured persons. However, that did not stop the Minister of Finance from deciding a few years ago to prevent a provincially chartered insurance company from Quebec, L'Entraide assurances, from acquiring a block of insurance from a federally chartered company. The reason given was that it would create a precedent and other provinces would want to follow suit, although they were not prepared to do so.

Once again, with the levels of protection Quebec has introduced in the financial sector generally, and particularly in the insurance sector, we were penalized because the other Canadian provinces did not show the leadership that Quebec did in this area.

If we go back a little further, we will recall that Bill S-31, in the early 1980s, prevented the Caisse de dépôt et de placement from acquiring a large block of shares in Canadian Pacific. Once again, because Quebec had established an institution like the Caisse de dépôt et de placement starting in the 1960s, which was already a force to be reckoned with in the early 1980s, because Quebec had taken the lead, had opted for modern methods of managing the pension funds of Quebecers, it was penalized. The federal government wanted to stop Quebec from getting ahead, from modernizing.

The millennium scholarships are the same thing all over again. Every time Quebec moves ahead, shows leadership, as we saw with the millennium scholarships, because the other provinces have not put together a system like Quebec's—once again, a coast-to-coast policy—with the millennium scholarships, the federal government is ignoring the consensus in Quebec opposing this project.

In the case before us, it is the same thing. Quebec has had a personal information protection act for five years. That act works well, and everyone is familiar with it now, both the consumers, who can invoke its provisions, and businesses.

Quebec's act protects not only personal information in the province, but also personal information that is sent by a Quebec business, for example, in other Canadian provinces, or personal information that is received in Quebec from other Canadian provinces.

This is such a good act that it enjoys unanimous support in Quebec. It is not perfect. All laws are, in a sense, imperfect. Legislation must adjust to evolving situations. But the Quebec act enjoys the unanimous support of Quebecers. It is a good act with a good middle of the road approach that pleases everyone and that includes provisions to prevent any leak of personal information.

This is so true that, as others have said before me, even the Conseil du patronat finds that it is a good act with which businesses can work, and with which they are now familiar, because it has been in effect for five years. Should Bill C-6 come into effect, it would create total confusion among Quebec businesses.

In fact, the Conseil du patronat refers to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec government in the area of personal information protection, as provided by section 92.13 of the British North America Act. The Conseil recognizes that Quebec has jurisdiction to legislate in that area.

It also feels that this bill will create confusion not only among businesses, but also among consumers, who will not know who to turn to, or to which legislation to refer to protect their rights and the information that concerns them.

In its brief, the Conseil du patronat said “As for Quebec consumers, they would always have to identify which act applies and to choose between two remedies, depending on whether the information is protected under one act or the other”.

This bill would create total confusion. It has been criticized since it was first introduced as Bill C-54. It has been criticized by everyone in Quebec and particularly by those who take an interest in personal information protection and in the civil code.

As others have mentioned before me, even the Barreau du Québec said that the best way to handle the situation—and one must think that nine Canadian provinces do not have personal information protection legislation—the only way to respect Quebec's choice and to avoid any harm to consumers and businesses who have been operating for five years under Quebec's act would be to enshrine in the bill a reference to that act confirming that it replaces the federal act on Quebec's territory and when personal information is exchanged between a Quebec company and a company from another Canadian province.

This proposal was made by the Barreau du Québec. It may be worth considering. As others have said, it is not that we hate the bill. We consider that it could very well be implemented in the nine other provinces but that, in Quebec, the choice made five years ago should be respected. This could be one of the flexibilities that people across the way like so much to boast about, particularly after the Speech from the Throne read by the Governor General.

It seems to me that that could be a good way to prove that the government wants to improve a little bit the functioning of the system. It may also be advisable for the government, after six years in office, to show that it can respect the choices made by Quebec and recognize that it was a pioneer.

Since our first day here, we have been asking the federal government to take action in its own jurisdictions. For example, it was asked to take action in the transportation industry during the debate on Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Onex. Just recently, we saw another example of the federal government refusing to co-operate in the transportation industry with the way Quebec's finance minister was treated by the Minister of Industry with regard to the restructuring proposal for the GM plant in Boisbriand.

It is being asked to take action in the area of public safety, an area under federal jurisdiction. It is being asked to fight organized crime, reform our tax system, and give middle income Canadians a substantial tax break as early as this year and this fiscal year. But it refuses to take action in these areas.

It always finds a way to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It creates conflicts, and the opposition always finds itself in an awkward position when it would have been so easy for the federal government to say that this bill will apply to the other provinces, with a reference to the Quebec legislation regarding the protection of personal information for that particular province.

Therefore, for all these reasons, we will vote against this bill.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, everybody will understand that it is on a somewhat humble tone that I am speaking today to an issue of such a vital importance, after the many eloquent speeches from my colleagues. I am making reference, among others, to the members from St. Hyacinthe—Bagot, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Rosemont, Trois-Rivières and Frontenac—Megantic. All those who rose before me are only adding, if you will, to my nervousness while I am speaking.

Your attention to this debate and your nods of agreement while we speak are only adding to the determination with which I am expressing myself here today.

On October 19, 1999—a few days before the birth of the first child of a couple that are friends of mine and to whom I wish to say hello—we can talk about an obsession of the federal government, the obsession of uniformity.

We can only go back to the origins of this country, Canada, namely the Constitution Act, 1867. This document—until the fast approaching day when Quebecers will decide to leave democratically, and we are working passionately to that end every day—represents the rules we have to follow.

The Constitution, although plagued with defects was nevertheless sometimes reflecting a certain wisdom. All the colleagues who spoke before me mentioned that section 92.13 of The British North America Act gave the provinces exclusive power on property and civil rights.

But another paragraph which remained almost unnoticed until now in the Constitution is section 94. Section 94 allowed the federal government to ensure the uniformity of legislation in the common law provinces at a time when there were four provinces in Confederation, that is Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This allowed the federal government to standardize legislation in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but not in Quebec, because it was recognized explicitly, not only in section 92.13 but in section 94 as well, that the legal system in Quebec was distinct, based on a totally different tradition, a civil tradition.

The recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec's legal tradition is not upheld by those who want to be the heirs of the Fathers of Confederation, the current government.

Any observer from another country, or even one landing here from another planet, would say “My goodness, this does not make any sense. The ones defending respect of the Constitution of 1867 are the sovereignists, the ones who want to ensure that Quebec is no longer bound by that document”.

Where are the defenders of federalism? Where are the defenders of the Constitution? They sit opposite, but say nothing. Even those who come from Quebec did not stand up to say “Wait a minute, we will not allow the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec to be flouted, put aside, forgotten, and even, as one my hon. colleagues put it so eloquently, scorned”.

It is of course the Bloc Quebecois' position that I just mentioned, but it is widely shared by numerous stakeholders throughout Quebec.

Once again, the Bloc Quebecois is the voice of Quebec in the federal arena, to the great displeasure of my colleague from Chicoutimi, whose speech I did not hear. I do not know if he rose to speak on this subject.