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Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill C-54 be withdrawn,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