Debates of Oct. 19th, 1999

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, before I commence speaking I would like to take this opportunity, as a newly appointed parliamentary secretary, to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to engage in this level of our government.

We on the government side oppose the motions in Group No. 1. These motions, tabled by the Bloc, strike at the heart of Bill C-6 and indeed undermine the government's ability to introduce a national law that will protect the privacy rights of all Canadians, and I stress, all Canadians. These motions attack the government's competence to deal with federal laws that impede electronic government and electronic services delivered to all Canadians.

In our consultations at the industry committee, consumer groups and industry expressed the view that the government has achieved the right balance in Bill C-6 between the right of individuals to have some control over their personal information and to have access to avenues for effective redress, and the need of industry to collect and use personal information as a vital component of success in the information economy.

For these reasons, consumer groups like the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Consumers' Association of Canada, and industry groups like the Information Technology Association of Canada, the Canadian Marketing Association and the cable and telephone companies have all called for rapid passage of Bill C-6.

Swift passage of Bill C-6 will help build the consumer trust and market certainty needed to ensure that Canada is a world leader in electronic commerce and the global information economy.

The motions tabled by the Bloc are unacceptable and must be rejected. With the passage of Bill C-6 Quebec citizens will benefit from the best data protection in the country. Bill C-6 will provide all Canadians, and I stress, all Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec, complete and comprehensive privacy coverage across our country.

Quite frankly, I would have expected better of the Bloc than to table amendments which deprive all Canadians, who have no privacy protection in the private sector, of getting the benefits of this national law.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this bill, not so much because it is back on the agenda but because I get a chance to clarify the situation once again.

Bill C-6 is the resurrection of Bill C-54. The purpose of this bill is to implement legislation to protect personal information at the federal level, when similar legislation already exists in Quebec. This bill will enable the federal government to interfere in a provincial jurisdiction in spite of the fact that Quebec already has a legislation protecting all personal information. This seems to me to be a rather absurd situation.

I would like to quote from a letter to industry minister John Manley and signed by Denis Marsolais, the president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, copy of which was sent to us by this organization. It reads as follows:

We submit that overlapping systems will cause undue misunderstandings and complications both for consumers and organizations subjected to two sets of regulations dealing with a single matter.

This is not a separatist speaking, but the president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. I point this out to the previous speaker, who said that it is not surprising to see the Bloc Quebecois take this standpoint. The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to take this standpoint; there is a consensus throughout Quebec.

The president of the Chambre des notaires also stated:

Even more disturbing is part 2 of the bill. Clause 38 recognizes the validity of electronic versions of notarial acts in Quebec which are referred to in a federal law, not only if they are recognized as such under the laws of the province of Quebec but also if they are listed in one of the schedules of the legislation. These schedules would be maintained by the minister, an agency or anyone given the authority to modify them. For all these reasons and many more—

This implies that not all the reasons were listed.

—we believe—

This is the president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec speaking, not a separatist member of Parliament, as my colleague opposite would have you believed. The president of the Chambre des notaires du Québec represents all the notaries in Quebec. This point of view is shared by all Quebecers, all interested parties, not only the sovereignists, not only the separatists, but even the federalists in Quebec. Everyone in Quebec knows that, for five years now, we have had an act to protect personal information, not only in the government but also in the private sector.

The amendments we have put forward only try to ensure that the federal government will respect the situation in Quebec. So, I was somewhat offended when I heard the previous speaker say “Of course, the Bloc members are always asking for something, because they do not want Canada to work”. This is utterly false. It is a matter of how things are supposed to work.

There is already legislation under Quebec's jurisdiction. Out of respect for Quebecers, the government should not have reintroduced this bill or should have amended it to ensure that Quebec's legislation would apply in that province while the federal legislation would apply elsewhere if this were what people wanted. But precedence should be given to Quebec's legislation so that our province can give personal information the protection it feels it deserves.

We live in a distinct society. The House recognized it in a motion on distinct society that was moved by the government, but ever since the motion was agreed to, the government just paid lip service to it. It is not mentioned in any legislation and whenever Quebec's distinct character, society and people have to be recognized in a bill, there is no mention of it.

Liberal members say that this is the position promoted by the Bloc, by the separatists, but I invite all Canadians to assess the situation.

On the one hand, the federal government wants to introduce a bill on electronic commerce that also covers the area of personal information, while, on the other hand, Quebec has already passed a groundbreaking bill whose value was recognized by people around the world. But the federal government is now stepping in, clumsily, several years after Quebec has passed and implemented its own legislation. All of a sudden, Quebec should step aside, because it is only a province. It would appear to be saying to Quebec “You people think in a different way”.

The hon. member used the term “national legislation”. It reminds me of all the fuss about the national capital. The federal government claims to be the national government. I am sorry but, under the constitution, it is merely the federal government and should act as such, respecting the jurisdictions of other governments. Quebec has jurisdiction over personal information, and it has exercised that jurisdiction quite well for 15 or 20 years, because it has legislation in place and has enforced it.

In Quebec, we passed a first version of this legislation, and then a second one in which the protection of personal information was included.

When we look at the whole situation, it must be understood that the position the Bloc Quebecois is fighting for is the result of a consensus in Quebec. It is supported by all kinds of organizations. For example, we have a letter from the Chambre des notaires to Mr. Manley, dated April 7, 1999, that reads—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member knows very well that he cannot name a minister or a member.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It is an unfortunate oversight on my part, and I apologize.

The Minister of Industry of Canada received that letter on April 7, 1999. In his letter, the president of the Chambre des notaires—he is not a member of parliament so that I can name him—,Denis Marsolais, said “For all these reasons, among others, we believe that an amendment is necessary in order to exclude professionals, notaries as well as any other person or organization otherwise subject to Quebec's legislation from its application”.

Can it be any clearer? And it is the president of the Chambre des notaires who is speaking. He represents people who deal every day with this act. These people draft contracts; they are in regular contact with governments and private corporations when they sign contracts. They know Quebec's law also applies to the private sector, and the president of Quebec's Chambre des notaires says that this bill cannot be adopted without an amendment excluding Quebec from its application on its territory.

When Liberal members present this bill in the House, I agree they can defend its validity. I have nothing against the fact that they are saying it could be good legislation. They have the right to say those things, but they do not have the right to say that we are against it just because we are always against everything the federal government does.

As far as reasonable and interesting measures are concerned, we have a support rate very similar to that of all other opposition parties. However, we withhold support when Quebec's interests are at stake and must be defended, when we must ensure that all Quebecers are covered by legislation. This also means that this coverage must not be too extensive, because we have seen many instances of both governments legislating in the same areas of jurisdiction.

Members need only think of the administrative nightmare and the extra operating costs incurred by an insurance company that has its headquarters in Quebec but does business in other provinces, when two acts based on different sets of basic principles apply. The costs could be prohibitive.

It will also create problems for people affected by these two acts. All this because the federal government is determined to pass what it considers national legislation. It seems that the government cannot recognize that there can be solutions that are not all inclusive. It must always include all of Canada. For the government, all problems must be addressed the same way, be it in Vancouver, St. John's or Quebec City.

But that, however, is not the reality. In Quebec we have a particular civil code. The Liberal members should know that. Especially those from outside Quebec. I hope that those from Quebec have known this for a very long time. However, I do not see why they cannot be here in the House to say that it makes no sense to vote in favour of this bill.

Why do they not rise and say “As members for Quebec, we are federalists, but in this instance, Quebec legislation must be respected”. I simply cannot understand why party discipline is involved in it.

I will conclude on this point. The federal government has been trying to have us swallow a bill on the protection of personal information for over a year. We are defending here all the interests of Quebecers with respect to the matter of personal information. We will defend them to the end. We will insist on our point until we get satisfaction from the government. Should the House pass this bill, it will be like all the other measures taken by the federal government that constitute the main reasons we want to leave this country, which does not understand us, and most importantly, which does not want to understand us, because of its invasive action.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill, now called Bill C-6. In our last session before we rose for the summer this bill was Bill C-54.

As the previous industry critic, I spent a lot of time on this bill in committee and also talking to industry and other members of the public especially involved in privacy issues. I am happy to be able to speak to it today.

I also want to note that my colleague from Peace River, who is now the industry critic and I think well deservedly, will do an excellent job of representing the Reform Party on industry issues. I want to congratulate him on all the hard work he did in his prior post of international trade. I look forward to working closely with him as we continue down the road of creating a legal framework around electronic commerce.

I had many concerns, as does the Bloc, on this issue, especially on the issue of jurisdiction and how privacy specifically falls under the provincial jurisdiction of powers. Through my discussions in committee and with people in Alberta, I have come to realize that maybe there is not the conflict that the Bloc identifies on these issues.

As I speak on the motions in Group No. 1, I want to clarify that we are opposed to the Bloc motions in this group. We do in fact support the direction of the government on this legislation. My colleague from Peace River will reiterate that as we move to Group No. 2.

To summarize specifically what this bill is trying to accomplish, Bill C-6 creates a legal and regulatory framework that will be applied to the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all areas of business. Reform supports this initiative to protect privacy. Reform supports limited government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic climate in Canada with fair and transparent rules that protect both consumers and businesses.

This is also exactly where my second concern came up during the course of dealing with this legislation, especially in committee. Is the government in creating this legal framework and formulating this legislation going to be too heavy handed on the businesses that are engaging in electronic commerce and respecting privacy currently, thereby actually putting a disincentive on industry to continue with the work it has done to allow electronic commerce to flourish in this country?

This is where we have to separate the two areas of privacy and electronic commerce. Often that gets confusing because both are very important. They have to be treated as equally important, but there are distinct differences between electronic commerce and privacy.

One of things brought to my attention while sitting on the committee was that if one looks at how electronic commerce has developed and begun to flourish, a lot of this has been done with relatively no government intervention until now. Over $1 billion of trade is being done through electronic commerce, whether it is through the Internet or other forms of electronic commerce. This consumer confidence in electronic commerce has begun with almost entirely no government intervention, which is quite phenomenal if one thinks about it.

That is one of the reasons we have to be very concerned, as I mentioned, about being too heavy handed on industries as we develop legislation that tries to encourage electronic commerce to continue. This was one of the points I tried to bring up in committee.

As I said, one of the things we cannot take lightly is the issue of privacy. Some of the companies that have been doing business on the Internet have taken privacy very seriously. That is why customers, consumers who are currently engaging in trade on the Internet, feel confident enough to disclose information on the Internet and purchase services and goods. That is a positive thing because obviously industry is doing its part.

Privacy extends far beyond the provincial jurisdiction, particularly when one starts to use mechanisms of trade that go beyond the national scope and into a global scope. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of legal framework in place which shows that Canada has certain standards when it comes to privacy that the rest of the world has to take seriously.

This is why I would like to share with my dear colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois my opinions and those of my party with respect personal information.

The provincial and federal governments should work together in this area and share responsibilities, because e-commerce is not limited to the provinces, it goes beyond provincial and national borders. It is truly a global matter.

That is the reason I wanted to bring it up specifically in my meetings with the privacy commissioner in Alberta. The Bloc had concerns with how this federal legislation would combine its resources provincially.

The privacy commissioner in Alberta stated that this fall the government is going to be coming up with legislation that is going to deal specifically with strengthening privacy legislation in Alberta. It feels that in doing so it is going to be complementary with the scope of the federal government. The federal government has outlined that once this legislation passes, it will allow a window of three years for provinces that currently do not have privacy legislation to put privacy legislation in place and make it as strong as the provinces wish. The federal government will work with the provinces to respect that.

Even if there is provincial legislation that is stronger in certain aspects of privacy than the federal legislation, it will take precedence over the federal legislation. This is actually encouraged by the federal government which often does not respect much provincial jurisdiction, but in this case there is a bigger scope and I commend the minister on this.

That is where we have to try to focus specifically on this issue. I encourage my colleagues from the Bloc to look at this because if there are strong privacy laws, and I know Quebec is very proud of its current privacy legislation, it will be complementary to the federal legislation. This is one of the big reasons that the Reform Party supports this. Even in Alberta we have the privacy commissioner and others involved with this particular legislation who say it is going in the right direction and we should support it in its current form.

When I spoke about other groups that are looking at this legislation, whether it is industry groups or privacy groups, the general consensus is that there has been a balance reached so far, especially through our deliberations in committee and through the amendments that have been proposed in the House here today. There is balance so far in taking seriously privacy concerns and those of electronic commerce. The focus has to be not so heavy handed. The Reform Party will support this legislation, until we see that the government is turning its tide and becoming too heavy handed in the process.

I will not speak to the Group No. 2 motions yet but we hope at this report stage the government will consider some of the things the Reform Party has put forward when it comes to amending the privacy area especially in the areas of health services and health information. I think most Canadians agree that is very important information and should be treated as such.

I am hoping the amendments I have put forward on behalf of the Reform caucus will be taken seriously. Now that I will be working with my colleague from Peace River we hope we will be taken seriously because we would like to see that area of privacy strengthened.

Bill C-6 includes a two year phase-in timetable after which those provinces that do not have comparable legislation would fall under the federal legislation. Currently only Quebec has this kind of comprehensive privacy protection. Alberta will be coming on board this fall. Other provinces have determined that they neither have the resources nor the inclination to create their own provincial privacy protection legislation and prefer that this be included under the broad federal legislation. The Bloc would like total exemption for any province that has or creates privacy legislation. Under this legislation that concern is taken care of.

The difficulty with provincial privacy protection legislation is that for international and interprovincial trade purposes there should be a national standard for privacy protection. Canadian businesses have asked for this in order to simplify trade rules.

Those are the most important points to mention during this debate on the Group No. 1 motions. We are not really opposed to the fact that there needs to be a balance. This legislation is achieving that. But we need to keep our minds open to look at electronic commerce in a global perspective and see how legislation can be created that works positively with the provinces. This legislation does this and I would encourage my colleagues from the Bloc to consider that and look at ways to strengthen that relationship, especially when it comes to electronic commerce.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada, I am pleased to speak on the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

Before I begin my comments I would like to thank the many witnesses who took time to make submissions either in person or in writing to the Standing Committee on Industry. Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to bringing new issues to light.

I pay tribute to all my colleagues who were on the industry committee and the new colleagues who are coming on board because this is definitely a very important area. I compliment the government for bringing forth in committee an amendment to clause 18 of the bill which was identical to the one I had sponsored.

We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy legislation, but we do not feel the government has adequately taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and Quebec governments.

We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of the new regulatory regime in Bill C-6 on the private sector. We do not see the need to pass a law to meet a European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted a diametrically different approach. Ninety per cent of all the e-commerce traffic in this country is in trade with the U.S. Therefore I cannot see the need to rush to beat the Americans in this regard because down the road they could adopt a different standard and we would have to change.

I will speak to the specific amendments tabled in Group No. 1, all of which were sponsored by the member for Témiscamingue. To be fair to the member I note for the record that the industry committee and a Bloc member at the time presented the following motion:

Whereas witnesses were recently heard by the Standing Committee on Industry, on Bill C-54 concerning the major problems in implementing this legislation; and took into account the big application difficulties of this bill,

Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill C-54 be withdrawn,

That the Committee suspend Clause by Clause consideration of Bill C-54 and ask the Industry Minister to undertake negotiations with all the provinces, to forestall any constitutional challenge that might impair the attainment of its objectives.

This motion was defeated by seven to four. It was basically the Liberal majority that won the day and it was supported by all opposition members of the committee.

Having heard many concerns from witnesses the Liberals had the choice to take their time to consider meaningful changes to Bill C-6. The Bloc, the Reform and the Conservatives were ready to work together to draft a better bill. To their credit the Liberals allowed some minor tinkering to Bill C-54 which is now Bill C-6. For example, they supported two of the sixteen amendments I brought forward, but on the major question of overall regulation in the form of excessive power granted to the privacy commissioner and provoking battles with the Ontario and Quebec governments, they refused to budge. They refused to co-operate. They refused to compromise.

On behalf of the PC Party I refuse to blindly support Bill C-6 for the sake of getting a law, any law, on personal privacy and e-commerce. One glaring example of the defects in the legislation is subclause 18(1) which would give the privacy commissioner the right to audit a company based on disputes regarding recommended business practices listed under schedule 1 of the bill.

Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations. They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such. The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit only when there are reasonable grounds to believe the law has been violated. Audits are intrusive and place a heavy administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian companies. The audit power under Bill C-6 should only be used to cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the bill.

The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage whether a company complies with recommended business practices such as what types of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company. Therefore subclause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary since Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For example, section 11 allows an individual to file a complaint if he or she feels an organization is contravening the legislation or not following a recommended business practice.

Further, clause 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all complaints including a complaint that an organization is not following a recommended business practice.

I reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to extending search and seizure power to the privacy commissioner under Bill C-6, it is in the best interest of all concerned that his office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization.

The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain the approval of our courts before exercising search and seizure power is deeply troubling.

Clauses 18 and 12 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy commissioner both to determine whether to exercise search and seizure powers and execute those same powers. The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party as in the case of criminal investigations.

Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad investigative and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and enforce appearances of persons under oath, converse with any person, comply with the production of documents, and receive and accept any evidence in the same manner and to the same extent as the superior court.

It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in Bill C-6 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or to his delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization and seizing records.

These are not just the concerns of allegedly self-interest companies. Indeed, Blair Mackenzie from the Canadian Newspaper Association told the industry committee that the provisions within Bill C-6 are “frightening”.

Other witnesses have alluded to the provisions in the bill prompting challenges under the charter of rights and freedom if the privacy commissioner acted upon clause 12 or 18.

I am also troubled the government did not bring forward any study or reports on the cost impact of Bill C-6. From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint these unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.

Sadly the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free speech advocates, to ignore the pleas of the private sector and to chose to defeat my amendments to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising search and seizure.

If there is any reluctance I have in supporting the Group No. 1 amendments, it is due to Motions Nos. 56 and up which deal with parts 2 through 5. Most of my objections pertain to part 1 of Bill C-6.

Unfortunately the familiar double dose of Liberal arrogance and heavy-handedness has left me with no choice but to support the Group No. 1 amendments on behalf of the Conservative caucus.

The Liberals had their chance to co-operate at committee to make a substantially better bill and they chose not to do so.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

The bill that we are debating today at report stage is the old Bill C-54 which, in spite of being the most significant step taken by the federal government since 1983 to protect personal information, does not fulfil its primary objective of protecting citizens. It falls short of our expectations.

The minister has failed to put forward a bill whose real objective would be to protect people's private lives in the private sector. In a technological world where this basic right is threatened, the Minister of Industry is proposing a fragile and confusing act whose core element is a schedule that repeats verbatim the principles set out in the code of the Canadian Standards Association.

The minister's bill is one that gives huge discretionary powers to the governor in council, while not giving any authority to the privacy commissioner. This is a bill that puts the emphasis on electronic commerce at the expense of the basic concept of the right to privacy, that ignores Quebec's unique experience in the area of personal information protection in the private sector and which, ultimately, could create problems for Quebec's current legislation.

Before dealing specifically with some of the major flaws of this bill before us, I want to say a few words about the concept of privacy, which is at the core of this bill, in the context of the Canadian and Quebec legislation.

The right to privacy is a human right along with the right to equality and justice. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is celebrating this year its fiftieth anniversary and of which Canada is a member, clearly states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. The declaration also states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation”.

In Canada, this protection is provided under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, in 1983, the Canadian government passed legislation respecting the protection of personal information that applies to over one hundred government agencies under its jurisdiction.

Since then, the federal government has promised an umbrella act to force the private sector to protect personal information. Bill C-6 is the sad outcome of all this.

In Quebec, the right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and in the Quebec Civil Code.

Furthermore, the Quebec government is the only government in North America to have passed laws to govern the protection of privacy in the public sectors in 1982 and in the private sectors in 1994. Experts agree that Quebec's act governing the private sector is probably one of the best in the world.

The federal government is once again causing confusion, and this act will give a different meaning to the Privacy Act, just as Bill C-68 will with respect to the young offenders legislation. This is contrary to what Quebec has put in place. This bill has many flaws, it is a weak bill whose essence is in its schedule, a small one at that. Most of the provisions that will govern the protection of personal information are set out in the schedule to the bill.

Moreover, this schedule is nothing more than the model code for the protection of personal information developed by the private sector and consumers as a framework to protect personal information on a voluntary basis.

By not going beyond this text, the minister endorsed neither the consumers' recommendations nor those of the privacy commissioners, who recognized that the model code proposed by the Canadian Standard Association was a good basis for reflection, but that it should be reviewed and improved if it ever were to be incorporated in the act.

This shows beyond any doubt that the minister gave precedence to economic values over social values, at a time when this fundamental right is so threatened by the expansion of electronic commerce.

This bill gives huge discretion to the governor in council. Under paragraph 27(2)b), the federal government gives itself the right to amend the act through a simple order in council, without consulting parliament.

We know that the Liberal government has mastered the art of not being accountable to parliament. Therefore, it will be possible to amend the act under the pressure of lobbying efforts on behalf of the large companies that fund traditional political parties in Canada. The Liberal Party knows what I mean.

This bill gives no power to the Privacy Commissioner. Although the other Canadian provinces followed Quebec's model, giving the commissioner the power to issue orders, the federal act does the exact opposite. Thus the commissioner will not be able to issue orders, which will make access to the act difficult for consumers and cause it to have no effect on business.

This bill ignores Quebec's unique experience. It ignores its unique experience in the protection of personal information in the private sector.

Here are some examples: the objectives of the act are better defined in the Quebec legislation because the purpose is to protect privacy independently of any commercial consideration; the Quebec legislation clearly covers all undertakings, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, whereas the federal calls for the protection of personal information only for commercial transactions; Quebec's act allows a group of individuals to appoint a representative in a class action case. There is no such provision in the federal bill.

It is therefore obvious that this is a bill with the potential to make life difficult in Quebec. In addition to all the flaws that have been pointed out, there is one still greater area of concern. The only guarantee Quebec has that it will be exempted from this legislation is a timid statement by the Minister of Industry. Its mistrust is in large part motivated by Quebec's past experience with certain formal commitments made to it, about which the federal government has too often kept mum or which it has denied.

For example, I will remind this government if I may of the present Prime Minister's promises made within days of the 1995 referendum in the Verdun auditorium.

The stakes are clear, then. For the Minister of Industry, it is a question of ensuring that Canada participates fully in the rapidly expanding e-commerce without inordinate concern about peoples' worries about their privacy. Nor does the Minister of Industry hesitate to adopt a centralizing position that runs counter in a number of respects to what should be done in the provinces of Canada, and could have served as a model to Quebec in particular.

As the Deputy Premier of Quebec so aptly put it, “If Quebec were to participate fully in the concert of nations, its culture and the protection of its policy on the privacy of personal information, as concretized in its charter, its Civil Code and its two pieces of privacy legislation, would have been advanced by its government at the Ottawa OECD meeting in Ottawa”.

The Bloc Quebecois calls for immediate withdrawal of Bill C-6.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber to the following motion dealing with the televised hearings of the transport committee. I move:

That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize the Standing Committee on Transport to televise the meetings between October 20, 1999 and December 19, 1999 during its study on the future of the airline industry in Canada, in accordance with the guidelines pertaining to televising committee proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, reported from the committee (with amendment), and of motions in Group No. 1.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-6, which affects a fundamental value in our society, privacy protection.

The debate goes beyond these walls. On November 2, 1998, parliamentarians, as well as Quebecers, had the opportunity to read in Le Devoir an article entitled “Pressure is mounting for consumers' privacy protection”.

The article talked about threats against our privacy and the need for citizens to be well informed of their rights. It also talked about the bill and some aspects of it that we are discussing today in the House. This article clearly specified that provinces that will not pass legislation in this area will have to comply with federal legislation within three years.

Yet, the need for legislation protecting personal information and privacy is not new.

Most provinces already have such legislation. In this instance, the federal government has long been delaying taking its responsibilities by introducing a bill that would apply only to corporations under its jurisdiction.

In fact, we were expecting something from this government, that it take its cue from provincial laws already in place to introduce a consistent, efficient and clear bill, one that is in keeping with those provinces' jurisdictions. Unfortunately for all Quebecers and Canadians, this bill fails miserably.

Instead of protecting privacy, the bill limits itself to protecting the right of big business to make profits with as few restrictions as possible. This is totally unacceptable. The federal government must get the bill back to the drawing board as quickly as possible. It must introduce a bill really aimed at protecting privacy.

If the government is not yet convinced that it is urgent to act, that the situation is urgent, it should get in touch with the president of the Quebec access to information commission. The Minister of Industry would soon find that every month the Quebec government receives 2,000 calls from people concerned about the protection of their privacy.

The Liberal Party fuels the public's cynical attitude toward politicians by using this empty and confused measure to try to convince our fellow citizens that it is concerned about the protection of privacy. The government does not say, however, that it has introduced a bill that only favours commerce, one that is predicated on voluntary compliance by businesses with its provisions to protect privacy.

What the minister responsible is not saying is that the bill is riddled with loopholes and leaves many sectors without any protection. Those sectors that are covered by this bill are conditionally covered. This means that businesses are told to take care, if possible, of their clients' privacy. This is totally unacceptable.

I want first to stress the fundamental nature of the right to privacy. It has been said before, but it is important to remind this House that the Liberal Party is putting the right to make profits before the right to privacy.

Experts consider the right to privacy as a human right, the same as the right to equality and the right to justice. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—as cited by several colleagues before me—which was adopted 50 years ago by the United Nations and which Canada adhered to, specifies that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and provides that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

In Canada, the charter of rights and freedoms also protects privacy, although not in so many words.

In this connection, I would mention that, in Quebec, as members are undoubtedly aware, this right to privacy is recognized explicitly in Quebec's 1975 charter of rights and freedoms. Article 5 is unambiguous where privacy is concerned:

Every person is entitled to privacy.

This right is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”. I draw particular attention to article 35. This is not just something the Bloc Quebecois is pushing. I remind members that last April 7 the Chambre des notaires du Quebec wrote a letter to the minister responsible, mentioning this provision in Quebec's Civil Code.

Article 35 is clear. It says:

Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.

That seems clear to me. Respect of privacy is a fundamental right, which is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada and in Quebec. It is ridiculous for the federal government to be introducing a bill that does not protect this fundamental right.

Earlier, I mentioned a Devoir article I tabled. I see I have the House leader's attention. That article clearly said that the Government of Quebec was the only government in North America to have passed legislation protecting personal information in the public and private sectors. In addition, many experts say that Quebec's act regarding the private sector is one of the best in the world. This is a far cry from the federal act, which covers only the public sector.

It is not so surprising that the federal government did not draw upon the Quebec legislation. That would have been killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it would have ensured consumers of the exemplary protection of personal information, and, on the other hand, it would have avoided the loopholes and violations which are inescapable when enforcing federal and provincial laws which have not been harmonized.

This leads us to believe that the real object of this bill is not protection of privacy, but a pitiful public relations exercise. The government would like to use this legislation to show that it is finally taking heed of people's concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does not meet the expectations of those who wish for privacy. It simply serves the interests of big business.

Even Canada's privacy commissioner observed that the discussion paper proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of Justice focuses mainly on commerce, not on privacy.

That is why we categorically oppose Bill C-6. The federal government refused to draw from Quebec's legislation, even if it is recognized as exemplary in this respect. This is not surprising, as the Quebec legislation focuses mainly on the protection of personal information, while the federal bill aims essentially at pleasing big business.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at these stages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for guidance. Are we to understand—and that is what we would like Canadians to realize—that the government is trying to do something that will certainly gag the opposition?

Please give us guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is that what is happening and do you think that this procedure is democratically acceptable?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is not for the Chair to decide whether something is democratic or not, but only to determine whether it is in order or not.

Obviously, what the leader of the government has indicated is perfectly in order as far as procedure is concerned. This is a notice of motion. Maybe the motion will be moved, and maybe not. One never knows. The debate could be concluded this afternoon. One never knows.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House leader to clarify if this is the 65th or 66th time that they have used closure since coming to power in 1993.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure the hon. member has a point of order. It may be a matter of great interest that I am sure could be determined by someone.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to make sure we understand fully what is going on, could you confirm for the benefit of the members and the viewers that, as parliamentarians, we will be denied our right to speak on a important bill dealing with privacy?

Could you tell us whether eventually parliamentarians could be denied that right? Could you tell us under which Standing Order the government can do this, and do you think as our Speaker who should uphold our rights that this is acceptable in a democracy?

I would like to receive some guidance from you on this, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve knows full well that it is almost impossible to deny members of Parliament the right to express their point of view. However, under the Standing Orders, the government can put an end to a debate after a certain time.

As a servant of the House, the Speaker has to ensure that the Standing Orders are respected and that the procedure applied by the government or the opposition is in accordance with the Standing Orders. That is all the Speaker can do and is asked to do.

Maybe we could proceed with the debate to avoid wasting time and ensure that the hon. members keep their right to speak and address this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Point of order. Would you be kind enough to remind the House that, when the House leader sat in opposition on this side of the House and was part of the so-called “rat pack”, he would never have accepted such a tactic? Well, today, we want to let him know that we do not accept it either.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This may be an argument, but it is not a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, as reported from the committee (with amendments), and of motions in Group No. 1.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with what the leader of government has done to us today, namely gagging us, it is with sadness that I am taking part in the debate on report stage of Bill C-6, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

This bill is nothing more that a reincarnation of the bill presented by the Minister of Industry as Bill C-54 during the first session of this Parliament, and which was unanimously rejected in Quebec.

Since the federal government refuses to withdraw its bill, the Bloc Quebecois and its representative on this issue, the Member for Témiscamingue, are presenting today an amendment motion whose intent is to suppress clauses of the bill which would represent a setback in the field of personal information protection in Quebec. Let us not forget that the Minister of Industry tabled his bill on personal information without waiting for the results of a consultation that he had himself launched.

The minister tabled his bill in October 1998 without waiting for the comments of his provincial counterparts to whom he had just sent a proposal of bill. However, at a meeting held in Fredericton in June of 1998, the ministers in charge of information highway agreed to consult each other on the opportunity to adopt a legislation concerning personal information protection in the private sector.

Once again, the federal government adopted a unilateral and paternalistic approach and imposed its point of view to the provinces. That is not very surprising.

The Bloc asked that the bill be withdrawn for reasons of principles, including the fact that it had been introduced without consultations and that the bill is an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction over civil law. The Bloc also asks for the withdrawal of the bill because it would represent a major weakening of the legal provisions concerning personal information protection in Quebec. The bill contains many legal deficiencies and its implementation in Quebec would cause many duplications and a lot of confusion. This is not the first time the liberal government duplicates legislation since I have been elected in this House.

Quebec's legislation is based on the charter of human rights where the protection of personal information is declared a basic right. As a matter of fact, section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms says that: “Every person has a right to respect for his private life.” This right is also defined and framed in the Quebec Civil Code, which states the basic principles governing the collection, retention and use of personal information.

The personal information of Quebecers is also very well protected under two laws. The first one, adopted in 1982, deals with the protection of privacy in the public sector, and the second one, adopted in 1994, extends that protection to the private sector.

It seems the federal government cannot accept the fact that Quebec has the best system in Canada and is adamant about imposing its legislation even if it means reducing the protection now enjoyed by Quebecers.

And yet, we heard the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say in one of his speeches in May 1998 that we had to, and I quote:

—stop using the easy way out by claiming that a government initiative responds to too much of a pressing need to be stifled by jurisdictional issues—jurisdictional conflicts create confusion that diminishes the quality of public policies.

Obviously, the minister does not do as he says or he does not talk often enough to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, who says it is urgent to legislate to protect the rights of Canadians and uses that as an excuse to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction and to impose a system that is criticized by Quebec's society as a whole.

When the committee held public hearings regarding this bill, every professional, business, labour and consumer organization in Quebec expressed its preference for the system already in place in that province. This is why these organizations unanimously requested that Quebec be excluded from the application of the bill we are debating today so that the federal government does not impose upon them, with regard to the protection of personal information, a system that is different from the one that has been in place in Quebec for five years.

In a letter to the industry minister dated February 4, the Barreau du Quebec wrote:

Privacy falls under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights—Generally, we believe that the federal access to information and privacy system is not efficient enough—the bill—should be amended in order to provide explicitly that the federal act does not apply to private sector businesses subjected to the Privacy Act.

For its part, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, which represents over 3 000 legal professionals, wrote to the industry minister on April 7 to denounce the duplications that would result from this bill being imposed on Quebec, and ask that it be amended to avoid such a situation. I will quote from its letter:

We believe the overlapping of systems will result in undue complications and misunderstandings both for consumers and organizations subject to two different sets of rules in the same area—we believe an amendment is necessary to exclude from its application professionals, notaries, and any individual or organization subject to the Quebec legislation.

Finally, the Conseil interprofessionnel du Québec, with 260,000 members from 43 Quebec professional organizations, also wrote to the Minister of Industry on March 23 to tell him the following:

Quebec professionals are already governed by a specific and structured set of acts and regulations tailored to the values of the Quebec people—We believe that superimposing several systems with the same intent can only cause confusion and uncertainty about citizens' rights—The emergence of another comprehensive system might unduly complicate citizens' life.

Also of concern is the fact that the second part of the bill, which deals with electronic documents, could deprive the provinces from their right to define concepts such as signature, contracts and other procedures that are now covered under civil law.

Given all the deficiencies in Bill C-6 and the threat it poses to the system now in place in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment to limit damages that this bill, if passed, could cause by explicitly excluding from its scope provinces that already have legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector.

Another amendment is designed to maintain the privacy protection afforded to Quebecers by provincial legislation when dealing with federal companies doing business in Quebec.

I am afraid that, once again, the federal government is not listening to Quebec's will and putting it in a yoke. I condemn the domineering attitude of the federal government, which wants to dictate its will to all the provinces by imposing, from sea to sea, measures that are “made in Ottawa”, without any concern for effectiveness and without taking into consideration their negative impact on citizens' rights.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.