Debates of Oct. 20th, 1999

Motions For Papers

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

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

moved:

That in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 6

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 19, 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 (with amendement) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, fisheries.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 and the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-6 will have exemptions for private sector activities regulated by provinces that have already adopted legislation essentially similar to the federal act protecting personal information.

What does this mean? Let us talk about Quebec. I am from Quebec. The province of Quebec has already adopted legislation that is essentially similar to the act proposed by the federal government. Therefore, the organizations affected by Quebec's act will be excluded from the application of Bill C-6 with regard to transactions that are entirely conducted within the province.

The federal act, when it applies to Quebec and the other provinces, will affect federally regulated businesses—notably telephone companies, banks, airlines and interprovincial carriers—as well as all interprovincial and international personal data exchanges for business purposes.

This is very important, because Quebec's act does not protect personal information about me when I do business with a company outside the province of Quebec, or with a company that transfers personal information about me outside Quebec for business purposes.

The federal act will complete the protection given by Quebec's act to consumers of that province, and I am one of them. These acts will apply to different activities, and the federal act will fill the gaps still existing in the coverage of the Quebec act.

In Quebec, the federal act will affect situations where the activities of an organization are not regulated by the access to information commission. That relates among others to federal businesses not regulated by the Quebec act, and to the privacy protection problems experienced by Quebecers dealing with businesses outside their province.

Bill C-6 resolves problems and situations that simply cannot be handled by provincial legislation, regardless of how carefully it was drafted.

For example, given that data moves easily across the borders of the 13 provinces and territories, the privacy commissioner is in the best position to investigate transborder problems and resolve them.

A second example will be that of a business with its head office in Alberta, which gathers information on consumers in Quebec. Neither province is subject to the authority of the other, a federal system is necessary. Quebec businesses transferring personal information within the province and from one province to another will have no difficulty complying with the both sets of laws.

We could identify a number of situations in which a company in one province must act comply with two legal systems. Bill C-6 and Quebec's Bill 68 are perhaps drafted differently, but their spirit and their effect are quite similar.

The two laws require the companies to obtain the approval of the individual before gathering, using or disclosing personal information on him. Both give the individual access to personal information on him when it is kept by organizations in the private sector.

Both laws contain provisions concerning surveillance as ensured by the privacy commissioner and mechanisms of recourse for individuals who have been adversely affected or believe they have been adversely affected. But, most importantly, the rights and obligations set out in the two laws are essentially the same, because they have the same starting point, namely the guidelines established by the OECD in 1980.

Naturally, there are differences, but only because of the fact that the two laws achieve similar ends by different means. If I want to go to the Ottawa from Montreal, I can take a number of routes. What counts is: do I reach my destination?

Once Bill C-6 has been passed, Quebecers will have the best protected private life in Canada, since they live in the only province that has passed legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.

My esteemed colleagues on the other side of the House go on and on ad infinitum about how Bill C-6 is such a terrible bill and about how Quebec's Bill 68 is such a great bill. I am a Quebecer and I am quite pleased the federal government has decided to adopt legislation that will protect my private life and my personal information when it leaves the province. Right now I do not have that protection under Bill 68.

Yes, Bill 68 has a disposition concerning the transfer of information, but if I attempt to sue a company outside of Quebec that received my personal information, I will be thrown out of court. The first thing that will be said is that the provincial legislation does not apply to a company that exercises its activities outside the province. As a Quebecer I am very pleased that my government has decided to protect the personal lives and the private information of Quebecers, all Quebecers regardless of their political stripe.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-6, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Bill C-6, which was introduced by the industry minister on October 15, is nothing new. It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the federal Minister of Industry, on October 1, 1998. It fits in perfectly with the recent throne speech. This bill, therefore, was part of the recycled material found in the throne speech.

The government is trying two years later to make new things out of its old 1997 stuff. Once again, the government lacks imagination. However, it certainly is not short on imagination when it wants to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Last spring and also for the last few days, the Bloc Quebecois has expressed its opposition to Bill C-6.

During the fight led by my hon. colleague from Mercier, I had the opportunity to speak two times. All Quebecers had asked that Bill C-54 not apply in their province. The Parti Quebecois government, along with the Conseil du Patronat, the Quebec Bar Association, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires, and Option Consommateurs, had asked that the bill be withdrawn. Quebecers unanimously requested that the bill not apply in Quebec to avoid confusion and to promote the development of electronic commerce.

It is not complicated. If the government really wanted what is best for Quebecers, it would withdraw the bill. I will give a few reasons.

First of all—and this is the federal Liberals' trademark—the Minister of Industry introduced it without consulting the provinces. This bill encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, it is a step backwards for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal information, and its application in Quebec will create confusion. It is legally flawed, and it uses electronic commerce as an excuse to make an incursion into civil law. These six major arguments that should convince the federal Minister of Industry to withdraw this bill.

Before my colleagues even had a chance to express their opposition, before several of my colleagues even had the opportunity to present their arguments, the government House leader, true to form, with the support of his colleagues, decided once again to bring forward a time allocation motion to curtail debate. Where is democracy going in this parliament? The Liberals use this kind of motion on a regular basis to prevent democratically elected members from speaking freely on important issues, such as the protection of personal information.

However, many Liberal members who chair committees have systematically leaked information to the media. Confidential reports have been disclosed in the newspapers even before being tabled in the House of Commons. The federal government has no respect for democracy. It is high time parliamentarians from all parties addressed this problem.

What are the Liberal members opposite doing to defend Quebec with regard to Bill C-6? Nothing. They are silent on this issue, as they are on the Onex proposal, even though 5,000 jobs are threatened. They have nothing to say on the issue of hepatitis C victims, on the issue of employment insurance and on the issue of pay equity.

In 1980, Quebec had 73 Liberal members in Ottawa, 73 out of 75, and they were also said nothing when the federal government patriated the Constitution in 1982.

When the very illustrious Pierre Elliott Trudeau occupied 24 Sussex, he must have said “Way to go, Jean. You are doing a great job. The members from Quebec are keeping their mouths shut. You can go on centralizing and doing what you want. You can keep on walking all over Quebec. Your gang of members has realized that your way was best”. All this is revolting. It is revolting to realize that, generation after generation, throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the federal Liberal government has kept to the same party line.

Between 1968 and 1984, with the exception of the brief reign of the Progressive Conservatives under Joe Clark, and from 1993 to the present, Liberal members have never broken the silence imposed on them, particularly when it comes to defending Quebec's interests.

Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is there to defend those interests. That is the Bloc Quebecois' raison d'être, and I am proud to be a member of this team of men and women who are fighting for Quebec.

So, as a good Liberal member, and a good minister from Ontario, the federal Minister of Industry therefore acted unilaterally and tabled his bill on personal information and electronic commerce without waiting for the results of the consultation he himself initiated.

I give you two examples. On June 12, 1998, at a meeting in Fredericton, the ministers responsible for the information highway agreed, and I quote from the press release given out after the meeting:

—to consult with each other, when appropriate, when considering the advisability of legislating the protection of personal information in the private sector.

On September 21, 1998 the federal Minister of Industry forwarded a copy of proposed legislation to his provincial counterparts, asking for their comments on a bill the government was getting ready to table. But there was no follow-up.

I repeat that this government is doing everything it can to interfere in areas that are Quebec's jurisdiction alone. The bill introduced by the Minister of Industry to protect personal information and electronic commerce was obviously long awaited, but the result was a big disappointment.

In conclusion, on behalf of Quebecers and all stakeholders in Quebec who have in turn spoken out against Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, we are again asking the federal government to show, just once in this legislation, just once in this Parliament, that it is listening to Quebec and to Quebecers, and to withdraw Bill C-6.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.