Madam Speaker, it strikes me has a bit odd that a bill dealing with the protection of personal information has already been put under gag order, as we are just beginning.
Here we are in the high forum of debate and democracy, and as soon as we begin it, because our electors have asked for it—301 members have been elected to this House to speak on behalf of the voters—the Liberal government has the annoying habit of trotting out a gag order immediately, a time allocation order, and put an end to debate.
We must look very seriously at this strategy. The Liberal government has become the champion of the guillotine. Some of my colleagues in the Reform Party have raised this point. This concerns us very much. There a lot of things that concern us about parliamentary democracy.
Without revealing caucus secrets, I can say that we wondered about this type of expeditious and often time wasting measure, in which the government says “Into the closet with this debate. We have decided to put an end to it at a certain point”.
So we ask ourselves: is this where we are to express the views of the voters, yes or no? I would point out that the right to speak is not just allowing someone to speak for ten minutes. It is also how long the debate will last.
In fact, I recall the Liberals criticizing such proceedings with the Progressive Conservatives, when they were in power. Today, they are in power and are applying the same principle, if not doing worse.
There are a lot of other things that bother us too, debates without votes for example. I realize that there are what is now called exploratory debates. Members have a fundamental right, the right to vote. Instead of asking members to speak and to vote, the government will say “You can speak now for three or four hours, for two days, but there will be no vote following”.
The government members ought to support us and criticize these strategies as well. Without revealing what was said in caucus, I do hope they also had such a discussion. It is a fundamental right.
It is often said that power is entirely centred in the Prime Minister's Office. Here, people learn of the government positions. These are fundamental democratic issues. Today, once again, we saw how the fundamental democratic values of parliamentarians can be violated.
This is totally disgraceful. Strange to say, it happened in connection with a bill dealing with the protection of personal information. This is a fundamental issue in society. People are a bit fed up with their personal information being used and disclosed all over the place.
This is a major concern of our constituents, and today we have just been told to “Make do with a limited debate on the subject”. This is totally disgraceful. I just had to start by condemning this measure by the government.
I looked at the title. The last time, when we debated old Bill C-54, there were basic differences between it and the title of the Quebec legislation.
I remind the House that the Quebec legislation is entitled an “Act on the protection of personal information in the private sector”. Obviously, the Quebec government aimed mainly at protecting personal information. This is slightly different, and I would even call it the antithesis of the title of the federal bill being debated today. The title is quite long, but it is also quite revealing.
Here are the first few words of the title of this bill:“an act to support and promote electronic commerce”. Right from the beginning, it is clear that the main issue is the promotion of electronic commerce. Let me read on: “by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed”—
I will not read the whole title because it is quite long, but we can readily understand that the purpose of the government is always the same, that is looking after the interests of business. Personal information and human rights are an afterthought. They are not important. We have very often criticized these priorities.
If we look at campaign contributions, it is easy to understand why the federal government would want to protect its friends. Furthermore, it is intruding into Quebec's jurisdictions. Once more, those who make big contributions to campaign funds will get special treatment.
I remind the House that our hands are not tied, because our party is financed through the small contributions of ordinary voters. We do everything we can to keep it like that. We go everywhere in the countryside and in the towns and cities to collect $5 or $10 contributions. That way, we are free to speak our mind, as we are doing today.
We are also free to disagree sometimes with the federal government. Most of the time, actually. We have a perfect example of that today.
In Quebec, many people have made their position clear on this issue. My colleagues have said a few words about that. The Quebec bar association, through its president, has taken a very interesting and significant stance. It goes like this:
Quebec's system has been in place for almost five years; it is well known and businesses have made the adjustment. Accordingly, the Quebec Bar Association supports the basic thrust of this recommendation by the access to information commission.
Here is what the commission says:
In order to avoid any confusion and so as to ensure that Quebecers continue to enjoy a comprehensive system for the protection of personal information, we submit that bill [—]
Today, it is Bill C-6, previously 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.
They go further still:
Furthermore, in our view, the bill should include a reference to Quebec's act, even in federal areas of jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication of legislation in Quebec.
Of course, for the minister and for the federal government, which is just as centralizing and paternalistic as ever, what is happening is exactly the opposite, given the sequence of events. On June 12, 1998, there was a meeting in Fredericton of ministers responsible for the information highway. At this meeting, ministers from all provinces agreed that they wanted to be advised about any protection of personal information issues.
I will explain what the federal minister understands by advising the provinces. On September 21, two or three months after the meeting, the minister sent the bill in essentially the same form as it is today to the ministers concerned. On October 1, a few days later, he tabled his bill, thus bypassing completely the jurisdiction of each of these provinces, as well as the very explicit jurisdiction of Quebec, where the law has obviously proven its worth.
The president of Quebec's bar association was not the only one opposed. Other organizations spoke out as well. There was the Commission d'accès à l'information, which made a very positive assessment of the Quebec legislation five years after its enactment.
When a province passes legislation in one of its own areas of jurisdiction, Ottawa always tries to interfere and impose a federal policy coast to coast. Several members even add the third coast.
This is another thing that is working fine in Quebec, just like the millennium scholarship fund. We have implemented some remarkable practices in Quebec. The federal minister now wants to go over Quebec's head and do things his own way.
We are getting a bit tired of the way this government's approach, and our critic in this matter is right to say that the federal minister needs to step back and withdraw this bill.
But once again, we have seen how the government operates. Not only does it not intend to withdraw the bill, but it wants to limit debate on a bill that concerns directly all voters.
The way the government is dealing not only with Bill C-54 but with all the issues I mentioned earlier is most disgraceful.
This is why I join with my colleagues to ask the government to withdraw this bill and let the provinces handle the protection of personal information.
We are doing just fine in Quebec. The federal government should act in good faith and withdraw from this area. We will deal later with the government's attempts to undermine democracy and muzzle the opposition, which we cannot tolerate.