Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill. In light of the notice of motion for time allocation, I even consider it a privilege to be allowed to speak at the report stage of Bill C-6, also known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
This bill is identical to Bill C-54 brought forward in the last session of Parliament.
I am adamantly opposed to this bill that the industry minister introduced without any consultation with the provinces and which constitutes an unacceptable intrusion in provincial areas of responsibility with respect to civil law.
Incidentally, the provincial and territorial governments met on October 29 and 30 of last year and exposed the extraordinary intrusion in the provincial and territorial jurisdictions created by Bill C-54. The government is somehow attempting to recycle it as Bill C-6.
The motion in amendment before us today would delete a number of sections in this bill, which, if adopted, would mark a backward shift in the matter of protection of personal information in Quebec. This bill is very weak from a legal point of view and, without any harmonization with Quebec's legislation, its enforcement would cause confusion.
As it now stands, the bill much too flawed, from a constitutional, democratic and legal point of view. Far from improving the protection of personal information, it in fact threatens it.
This is why we are asking, and have asked already numerous times, that the federal government withdraw its bill and resume consultation with the provinces in order to table a bill that respects provincial jurisdictions.
I would take advantage of this debate to remind the Minister of Industry and the hon. members on the government side that my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques had made a motion during the 35th Parliament calling for the government to make Crown agencies subject to the Privacy Act. This motion was passed unanimously with the support of all of the Liberal members, including the ministers.
Unfortunately, the government did not follow up on it. Yet now we have that same government wanting to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction while incapable of first putting its own house in order.
In light of the federal government's refusal to withdraw its bill, the Bloc Quebecois called for modifications in order to have it not apply in Quebec, where personal information is already adequately protected.
In 1982, the Government of Quebec passed legislation protecting privacy in the public sector, and Quebec is the only state in North America to have legislation protecting personal information, which it has had since 1994.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms, which dates from 1975, stipulates that everyone is entitled to the protection of his or her privacy. The Quebec Civil Code also addresses the protection of privacy, placing it within a framework that addresses the fundamental principles governing the gathering, retaining and use of information relating to an individual.
The two acts to which I just referred complete the Quebec legislative framework by stating the rights, obligations and rules of public and private organizations in the matter of privacy.
Quebec is obviously a leader regarding the protection of personal information, but this bill could reduce the protection provided to Quebecers. Indeed, contrary to what one might have expected, Bill C-6 does not even extend to the private sector the principles governing the protection of personal information in the federal public sector. The bill does not go nearly that far. Let us look at a few flaws in this legislation.
Under the existing act, federal institutions are required to inform individuals that they collect personal information that concern them, and they must also specify how that information will be used. Under Bill C-6, this is merely a recommendation, not a requirement. The Quebec act is much more specific and strict, since it provides that any agreement relating to such disclosure or use of personal information must be expressed clearly and freely, and must be given in an informed manner and for a specific purpose.
Bill C-6 relies on the voluntary CSA code, whose purpose is not to protect privacy. Also, the notion of personal information is not as well defined in that code, and the definition of consent is vague. Thus, it seems that the bill primarily seeks to promote electronic commerce, at the expense of privacy protection in the private sector. This is not surprising, since the Minister of Industry has always ignored the part of his mandate that concerns consumer protection.
Moreover, the remedies provided in the bill are time-consuming, costly and ineffective because the federal commissioner cannot issue orders, but can only write reports. Canadians will have to go to the federal court to settle disputes, but only after the privacy commissioner will have issued a non-binding opinion, and only after all other recourses will have been exhausted. Finally, unlike the Quebec act, the bill does not provide for criminal penalties when the principles governing the protection of personal information are breached.
Given all the flaws of Bill C-6 and the step backward it represents for Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has presented several amendments aimed at limiting the damage that may result from its overlapping the existing legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois has presented several amendments which aim to limiting the damage that may cause its superimposition on the existing legislation. One of these amendments aims to explicitly exclude of the application of the bill the provinces that already have a legislation that protects personal information in the private sector.
Another amendment that we tabled will eliminate the power of the governor in council to unilaterally decide to whom the federal law applies.
Another amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois aims at maintaining the right to privacy insured to Quebecers by the provincial legislation in their relations with federal businesses operating in Quebec.
Finally, an amendment presented by our party aims at avoiding the establishment of new rules concerning the legal definition of signature and rights to a contract for the electronic sector because these questions fall under the provincial jurisdiction in matters of property and civil rights.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government are far from being the only ones in Quebec to oppose the passing of Bill C-6. They have the support of the Quebec Bar which wrote on February 4th on the then Bill C-54:
The Quebec legislator's approach seems preferable because it specifies even more the rights and duties in a legislative text that is relatively clear and simple to apply. We believe the Quebec plan to protect the personal information in the private sector is better than the one which is provided by Bill C-54.
As for the Chambre des notaires, on April 7, they wrote this:
We submit that overlapping systems will, in our opinion, cause undue misunderstandings and complications both for consumers and for organizations subjected— We believe an amendment is needed in order to exclude from its application professionals, notaries as well as any person or organization otherwise subjected to Quebec legislation.
Finally, on last March 23, the Quebec Interprofessional Council, which regroups all 43 professional corporations in Quebec and some 260,000 members, wrote this:
We believe that Bill C-54 and the system it is proposing are highly inappropriate within the Quebec context, and we ask you to amend it in order to specify that it does not apply to persons or organizations already subjected to Quebec legislation in that regard.
In the wake of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister presented his motion on distinct society and said that he would take this notion into account when bills were passed. On June 2, the Minister of International Trade stated in an article published in La Presse that:
Canada decided not to eliminate differences, but to base its future on a system of accommodation between majorities and minorities.
The minister added that Canada did not want a single legal system for everybody.
Therefore I ask the Prime Minister to respect Quebec society and withdraw this bill, which, in its present form, is not acceptable to Quebec.