Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I deplore the attitude of this government, which is imposing today, in only the second week of a new session, a double gag order regarding the bill on electronic commerce and personal information protection.
I must say that I had some hopes following the representations made by the Bloc Quebecois during the previous session, in the spring, and during the sittings of the industry committee, which reviewed this bill or, rather, its predecessor, Bill C-54. I had hopes that, following our representations and those of the witnesses heard by the committee, the Minister of Industry would reconsider his decision to impose this bill on Quebec and would withdraw it, or would at least conduct an in-depth review of this legislation.
I was wrong. It was not enough for the industry minister to see that Quebec as a whole stands united in its rejection of this bill, he is now denying us the opportunity to explain again what we thought he had not understood correctly. We were hoping to have a few more days to re-iterate the arguments we had already presented, perhaps stating them more simply this time so that he could understand them. We had hoped we could change the course of this bill, but today, with this gag order being imposed on us barely two weeks into the new session, I must face the fact that the industry minister is giving the shaft to Quebecers.
I am not mincing my words because I am totally outraged by the way the industry minister is treating Quebec. I recall that in the last session, in this very House, the minister gave us the assurance that Quebec would not be subject to the application of this act since Quebec already has its own act, and has had it for several years now.
The minister's words were just that, words; nowhere in the bill can we find the assurance he gave us verbally to the effect that the act would not apply to Quebec. Obviously, once again, the minister has decided to ram down the throats of Quebecers a piece of legislation they do not need.
I must point out that, last Saturday evening, while I was on an open-line show with listeners in the Vancouver area, one caller said that it might prove beneficial, in a number of issues, if other provinces joined Quebec in its protest against the involvement of the federal government in fields under provincial jurisdiction.
I told the caller that this had been tried on numerous occasions and that, unfortunately, we had always been disappointed. I must say that today is one more example of the insensitivity, lack of concern, and arrogance of the federal Liberal government when it comes to Quebecers.
Already in the early 1990s, Quebec had put the necessary money into researching, seeking input about and drafting a bill that is held up throughout the world as a model of what legislation to protect personal information in the private sector should look like.
But, rather than turning to Quebec's act for inspiration, the minister decided to put together a new one completely from scratch. This bill in no way meets personal information protection requirements.
As proof, because time is running out very quickly, I will recall to the House a number of eloquent statements we heard in committee that should have caught the attention of the minister, who is obviously either poorly informed by his officials or not listening to what we have to say, or perhaps both.
In committee, we looked at the constitutional aspect of the bill, and basically we can see that the federal government, the minister, is using e-commerce as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
One of the people we heard from was Derril McLeod, Saskatchewan's privacy commissioner. He said:
It is a surprising attempt by the feds to enact legislation in an area where it is highly unlikely that they have jurisdiction. The federal government can enact legislation on matters of federal jurisdiction, but not on matters of provincial jurisdiction.
That was Saskatchewan's Privacy Commissioner McLeod speaking.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec also made similar comments on constitutionality. To quote what they said to us at one of the sessions of the industry committee:
Given the constitutional jurisdiction assigned to the provinces by section 92.13 of the British North America Act relating to the protection of personal information and privacy, and the fact that the Quebec legislator has already passed legislation in this area, there is no doubt that a large number of jurisdiction conflicts will arise.
In other words, the Conseil du patronat is very much aware that the lawyers will be putting a lot of overtime into trying to get to the bottom of it, now that the federal government is trying to get into an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction.
In the end, the odds are pretty good that Quebec will win out over the federal government, unless for some reason the supreme court does not come out on the same side once again.
The area of application of the legislation was also the subject of a number of concerns expressed by the committee. We should point out that no federal company has challenged the Quebec legislation, but if the bill we have before us is passed in its present form, that will change. The Canadian Bankers Association confirmed, in fact, in its appearance before the Industry Committee, that the banks would in future come under the federal legislation alone.
What will be the reaction of Quebec consumers when such legislation takes effect? There will then be two systems in place in Quebec, one that protects people properly, and one that protects them far less well. The banks will be among the groups of companies covered by the second regime, and will protect individuals' information less well.
This bill does not make any sense, and I will show you a fundamental difference between the act currently in effect in Quebec and the legislation proposed by the Minister of Industry. The Quebec act states that consent must be expressed clearly and freely, and must be given for a specific purpose. Consent that is not given in accordance with the first paragraph is null and void.
The proposed federal act states that “Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used”. What does “reasonable effort” mean? This is a joke.
It also states that “The form of the consent sought by the organization my vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information”. I submit that one better not to say anything than say such platitudes. It states further that “In obtaining consent, the reasonable expectations of the individual are also relevant”. This is all Chinese to me. Finally, it says that “An organization should generally seek express consent when the information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent would generally be appropriate when the information is less sensitive”.
That is enough. The minister is making fun of Quebecers, and I will just not put up with it.