Debates of Oct. 20th, 1999

Division No. 6

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved:

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-6, in Clause 17, be amended

(a) by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:

“17. (1) An application made under section 14 or 15”

(b) by adding after line 19 on page 13 the following:

“(2) In any proceedings arising from an application made under section 14 or 15, the Court shall take every reasonable precaution, including, when appropriate, receiving representations ex parte and conducting hearings in camera, to avoid the disclosure by the Court or any person of any information or other material that the organization would be authorized to refuse to disclose if it were requested under clause 4.9 of Schedule 1.”

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved:

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-6, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 41 on page 17 with the following:

“(a) specifying, by name or by class, what is a government institution or part of a government institution for the purposes of any provision of this Part;

(a.01) specifying, by name or by class, what is an investigative body for the purposes of paragraph 7(3)(d) or (h.2);”

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-6, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15 on page 18 with the following:

“(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, provide that this Part is binding on any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada to which the Privacy Act does not apply.”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-6, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 19 with the following:

“House of Commons that may be designated or established by that House for that purpose.”

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to Group No. 2 of motions in amendments to Bill C-6, which replaces former Bill C-54.

First, I would like to say how sorry I am that the government has imposed closure on this extremely important bill. As we were about to embark on very important discussions on the group of amendments before us, the government decided it had had enough. It did not want to hear about it any more.

Even though the bill is full of holes, duplicates jurisdictions and creates huge application problems in Quebec, the government decided yesterday, by means of a time allocation motion, which we voted on earlier, that there would be essentially no debate on it and that it would not be debated here any more in the coming days.

However, this bill is of great concern. Some of the motions we are currently debating come from the government. Specifically, they are Motions Nos. 15 and 16, which refer to a very large elastic to permit the government to be excluded from the application of the bill.

I will explain. Originally, the bill provided that there could be exceptions to the protection of personal information, for bodies investigating offences, for example. These people would not be required to comply with the law on personal privacy.

During consideration in committee, this became much broader, going from exempting the people doing the investigations to exempting people investigating activities suspected of posing a threat to Canada's security.

At this stage, the committee decided on a much broader definition of possible exemptions with respect to personal information. Yet this is a bill that should promote the protection of personal information. Now, the government is starting to broaden the definition of possible exceptions.

After consideration in committee, and after the witnesses had been heard from, the government came up with other amendments. It is important that this be understood. These are amendments which witnesses who appeared before the committee were not given an opportunity to comment on.

The exemptions to the application of this legislation are still being extended. As if by chance, the exemption is being further stretched to take in federal institutions or subdivisions thereof. This would mean that now they could be exempted from protecting personal information when they request it for three reasons: national defence, the conduct of foreign affairs, and national security.

When there is a suspicion, not when there is an infraction, but when there is a suspicion. Who is going to define suspicion? Who is going to get up one fine morning and say that they suspect sovereignists in Quebec of threatening national security and that they therefore want particular information about them?

So, federally regulated companies governed by this legislation, such as a communications company, or CSIS, or just anybody can announce one day that they want information.

They request this information from one of these businesses, and it should provide information on e-mail sent, for example that relating to other businesses in the transportation field such as private shipping companies. The federal government could require a private company to provide a list of deliveries made, where they were made, and what kind of item was sent.

Who is going to define what suspicion is? Who is going to define what national security is?

This bill had a definition that was very restrictive to begin with, and has now become too broad. Just as we happen to be about to begin discussing these provisions, here comes another gag order to stop us from doing so, to limit the time we will have for discussion, to ensure that the bill is pushed through, while there are still very legitimate concerns on the table which the government ought to respond to.

It is all very fine to say that there was a parliamentary committee, but the last series of amendments came along after the committee hearing stage. The witnesses did not, therefore, have access to these amendments when they came to testify. >I am convinced that a number of groups have reservations, and a number of individuals have fears as well.

I listened to the Liberal member who said a while ago that now she would feel better protected. Not me. I do not feel better protected. In Quebec, I lived under legislation that was already in place on the protection of personal information. Now there is duplicate federal legislation, except that it is full of loopholes and flaws, which might tempt the government to try some political manoeuvring with the provisions in its legislation. That is extremely worrisome.

As well, the government is using different concepts in its amendments. At one point it speaks of reasonable grounds to believe, while at other points, such as the one I have just referred to, it refers merely to suspicion. For infractions, reasonable grounds are required, while for national security a mere suspicion would suffice.

CSIS tried to infiltrate the Reform Party because it was deemed a threat to national security. Where is that going to stop? I would think Quebec sovereignists have good reasons to believe this bill could lead to considerable abuse.

For example, if my riding association transfers information to the national headquarters of our party and sends the membership list through a company like Bell or Sympatico e-mail, this information could become available. If they want to get it, they will have access to it. The organization or individual concerned would not even know. They would not be informed.

But that is not all. If an individual thinks some federal organization is looking for information on him or her and asks a private company whether it has transferred personal information to that organization, the authorization of the person who has requested the information from the company before giving an answer to that individual.

Let me go back to my example. CSIS makes a request to get information on what I send by e-mail through Bell or Vidéotron. I then ask the company whether it has given any information to CSIS. The answer I would get is that they have to get an authorization from CSIS before they can give me that information. That is quite something when one realizes this is a bill that should protect personal information.

The door is wide open. Someone might say “The risk of abuse is real. We should take another look at this”. Well, now is the time to do it, not once the bill is in effect.

This does not change anything to the rest of our complaints about the fact that there already exists appropriate legislation in Quebec. The Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Conseil du patronat and the CSN, which came to testify before the committee, all said “Do not create a duplicate jurisdiction in Quebec, but recognize instead the primacy of Quebec's law”.

Several of the Bloc Quebecois amendments included in the group that we are debating seek to confirm the primacy of the Quebec law in that area. The federal government could easily decide that in a province—namely Quebec—where legislation protecting personal information already exists, it applies and even federally regulated businesses are subject to it.

This is what the Quebec bar association proposed in its brief. It said that, rather than do the opposite and come up with its own legislation to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, the federal government should recognize what already exists in Quebec and ensure that the provincial legislation also applies to federally regulated businesses. That would solve the problem.

But instead, the government is driven by a desire to be more involved, to have more control, to have its own legislation, always for noble reasons, such as the fact that no such legislation exists outside Quebec.

This is not Quebecers' fault. Our legislation is one of the few, in fact the only one in North America, currently in effect. If the other provinces take five years to react, it certainly is not our fault and we do not have to pay for it. This provincial jurisdiction was already being exercised by one government that had decided to legislate. As far as I know, the government of Quebec also plans to improve its law soon. It is already very good, but it has to be amended to take the fast evolution of electronic commerce into account.

In closing, I really wonder what the motives of the government were, when it cut discussion of this bill short. I am convinced that the government will not respond to what has just been said on possible abuse and failure to abide by the rules governing protection of personal information for reasons of national security or other reasons. I am convinced that the members will not deal with all those important issues, which deserve a response. The government must seek further advice from the stakeholders. It should do its work properly, not push the bill through by Friday, thereby preventing in-depth discussion of its provisions.

I am extremely concerned when I see a government that wants to be seen as protecting personal information but leaves the bill riddled with loopholes, particularly for its own ends.

If the law is good for everybody, how is it that the government is trying to be exempt from its provisions or to exempt some of its components or activities from them? I think there is reason to be worried.

We will obviously oppose some of the government's amendments in this group. We urge the House to support our own amendments, whose purpose is to have the primacy of the Quebec law recognized and to solve at least this part of the problem raised by Bill C-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to discussing time, let me point out that plenty of time was allocated to discuss the bill in the last session.

With respect to discussing the second group of motions, I am puzzled about how the Bloc can deny all Canadians the opportunity to provide this privacy protection which they need, have been asking for and of course deserve. That is why Motion No. 3 must be rejected.

Motion No. 4 clarifies that even non-profit and charitable sectors of our economy, when engaged in commercial activities such as the barter and sale of membership and donor lists, are covered by the bill. This is a very good motion and one which we should support. I congratulate my colleague the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his creativity and insight in bringing forward this motion.

With Motion No. 6 the Bloc again would have us deny Canadians the personal information protection they have been calling for. Therefore we must reject this motion.

Motions Nos. 7 and 46 will undermine the protection that is given to Canadians by Bill C-6. We will not ignore the needs and expectations of all Canadians to have their information and privacy protected with an effective law.

Motion No. 8 will clarify that part 1 of the bill will prevail over subsequent legislation only unless the subsequent legislation specifically provides otherwise. It also clarifies that part 1 prevails over amendments to existing legislation unless the amending act provides otherwise. I urge members to support this motion also.

Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18 and 19 introduce a subclass of personal information. Bill C-6 affords the same level of protection to all personal information and we must therefore reject these motions.

Motion No. 12 is clearly a delaying tactic on behalf of the Bloc and cannot be accepted.

There are five motions to amend clause 7 of Bill C-6 which are closely related, Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20. These amendments make changes to three existing provisions and introduce two new provisions in order to ensure that Canadian law enforcement and other investigatory bodies continue to carry out their mandate in the manner they currently do.

Motion No. 13 to amend clause 7(2)(a) broadens the type of offences that organizations can investigate using personal information without consent where they believe there has been a contravention of the law.

Motion No. 15 will add new paragraph (c.1) to clause 7(3) to allow disclosure of personal information without consent to government institutions which require the information in order to undertake investigations or enforce or administer laws at the discretion of organizations. This new paragraph clarifies for organizations the circumstances under which they may accede at their discretion to the legitimate requests of government institutions for personal information, for national security, law enforcement and administrative purposes where they have lawful authority. This amendment allows the status quo to continue.

The intent of the bill is to regulate the commercial use of personal information. For instance, in the case of the publicly funded health care system, the bill is not intended to impede the flow of information necessary for the protection of patients' health and the improvement of the administration of health care. To clarify this, the minister tabled this amendment on October 15 which specifically addresses the need to share information without consent when it is necessary for the administration of a law or a program.

The information highway offers opportunities to improve the efficiency and accountability of our health care system. Organizations like the Canadian Institute for Health Information assists in this endeavour.

Bill C-6 is intended to facilitate these initiatives as it provides a basic set of fair information practices around which all stakeholders can harmonize. In the pursuit of a harmonized privacy protection regime for Canada, we encourage all the provinces and territories to move swiftly to legislate broadly in their own jurisdictions.

Motion No. 16 to amend clause 7(3)(d) reflects the previous two amendments in Motions Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of consistency. It will continue to allow disclosures by organizations on their own initiative to national security and law enforcement agencies where the organization has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a contravention of a law or a breach of an agreement. This amendment requires a consequential amendment to clause 7(5) which is contained in Motion No. 20.

I urge members to support Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 which merely codify the status quo and allow businesses to continue to co-operate with law enforcement agencies where appropriate. These amendments do not grant new powers to government institutions nor do they create additional burdens on businesses. I urge members to vote in support of Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20.

Motion No. 21 must be rejected because Bill C-6 gives all personal information the same protection. We will not treat one class differently from another. Motion No. 22 attempts the same thing and must also be rejected.

With Motions Nos. 23 and 25 the Bloc is continuing with its delay tactics. Therefore I recommend that these motions be rejected. Motion No. 24 must also be rejected because Bill C-6 already deals with this specific issue.

Motion No. 26 would amend the bill by detailing the particular circumstances in which a company would not reveal information to an individual, following his or her request for access to his or her personal information, the fact that a national security or law enforcement agency had contacted the company and the procedures that must be followed in such instances.

Where a government institution objects to disclosure because an investigation or national security would be compromised and the organization denies access of this information to an individual because an investigation or national security could be compromised, the organization must notify the privacy commissioner in writing and without delay of refusal.

These amendments do not provide law enforcement with additional powers. Moreover, the amendments do not restrict the individual's access to his or her personal information collected by the company. These amendments simply safeguard investigations. For these reasons, these amendments must be supported by all members.

We must reject Motion No. 34. As I have said before, the Bloc does not want to give all Canadians the privacy protection they have called for.

Motion No. 35 will amend clause 17 and will provide that federal court hearings under part 1 of Bill C-6 be conducted with every reasonable precaution to avoid disclosure of any information that an organization could refuse to disclose to an individual. It clarifies that the court can receive representation ex parte and conduct hearings in camera in these circumstances. We must support the motion.

The Bloc is using delay tactics with Motion No. 44 and I recommend that we reject the motion.

Motion No. 45 to amend clause 26 allows the governor in council to make regulations specifying, by name or by class, what is a government institution or part of a government institution for the purpose of part 1. It also clarifies that the specification of an investigative body for the purpose of part 1 can also be done by name or by class.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the hon. parliamentary secretary's time is up.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today on part 2 amendments to Bill C-6 which was formerly Bill C-54.

This is a fairly new area for me. I just became the industry critic for the official opposition about a week ago. The former critic, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, has done some excellent work in this area. I know he has the support of a lot of advocacy groups that would like to see some changes made to the bill. I will talk about them in a few moments.

When I was following the bill in my capacity as a trade critic for our party, I thought it would deal essentially with the e-commerce aspect. If there was to be a privacy bill, I thought that it would be a stand alone bill. I would have preferred if that had been the case. We know there is a need to update Canada's law with regard to electronic commerce. Technology has passed a lot of things by. There is product moving around the world on aircraft these days, such as UPS which wants to have electronic signatures which will speed up the whole area of getting paid faster and so on.

The bill is essentially divided into two areas, privacy and electronic commerce. I will deal specifically with the part 2 amendments. We will be supporting the government amendments because they will clarify the bill, make it easier to understand and make sure the privacy aspect is respected.

We will not be supporting the Bloc on its amendments because we see them as a delaying tactic. However, I do have some sympathy for the Bloc members' concerns about the federal government again muscling its way into provincial jurisdiction and not using a co-operative approach. It is deplorable that it would rather use the stick than the carrot to achieve its goals. I suggest the government should learn that we can get a lot further with the carrot approach.

I have concerns regarding what I would see as provincial jurisdictions in a few areas that the federal government is moving into. The federal government has moved, with its jurisdictional levers in using the hammer approach on the trade and commerce aspect, by saying that if it cannot get co-operation it will do it on its own and if they do not put in legislation within a three year timeframe, federal legislation will to apply. That is a pretty crude instrument to use.

I am concerned that the provinces will need to introduce privacy information and legislation in the area of health care and all the social areas that the public is so concerned about. We need privacy surrounding medical records and records in terms of who is on social welfare. Those kind of things need to be introduced quickly by the provinces to protect that area.

We know the federal government has moved in the area of health care that is within its jurisdiction. It is nibbling at the edges, but if the provinces do not put in their own legislation, it is not clear what will happen in the area of health care privacy as introduced in the bill.

Quite frankly, a lot of people have good reason to not trust the government as to what its intentions are. We saw it muscle into provincial jurisdiction over the years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 70 years this century. We have seen the amount of workload and the number of bureaucrats increase. It is partly because it has muscled into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

The old BNA of 1867 was pretty clear on what that jurisdiction was and that needs to be respected. I think we would have a lot stronger country for it. However, because it is not clear, it is important that the provinces act on their own to protect those interests.

I am concerned about the use of time allocation again. I know there is a bit of a filibuster going on by the Bloc members. I think they have some reason to do that because of this idea of getting into the area of provincial jurisdiction. However, we have to remind the Liberal government that it is soon going to be approaching the Brian Mulroney record of 65 time allocations. I think this is the 55th time in six years that this Liberal government has restricted parliament by the use of time allocation. Mulroney took nine years to get to 65. The Liberals are going to beat him to it. They sat on this side of the House when they were in opposition and deplored it, as well they should, but they are now using the same blunt tactics again.

I want to get to the point about the amendments that my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has introduced which will help clarify some of the social areas regarding health and health information. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. I will take a moment to outline the general thrust of those motions.

Those proposed amendments would require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and expressed consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose which the information which was originally collected. The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to make sure that it exists. We think these amendments move to strengthen that, in particular with respect to health information.

The proposed amendments will also require that any non-consensual of disclosure of personal health information for research and scholarly purposes be approved in advance by the privacy commissioner. This would provide the necessary balance between the need for available research data and the right to privacy. The Liberals may again argue that they do not want to give the privacy commissioner binding powers.

The proposed amendments would prohibit the outright disclosure of personal health information to financial institutions. This is a very strong proposal that would ensure that banks do not attempt to collect health information that could be used to refuse mortgages and other financial services. We think that those amendments will strengthen the legislation.

In principle, we support Bill C-6 and we are going to be supporting those portions of it that we think are helpful.

There is a fine balance as we move to the new technologies. Information technology is advancing very quickly, for example the Internet. I know that it is a fine balance to try to strike that there should be open and free discussion, free speech. We do believe that the government has an obligation to protect the privacy of our citizens and therefore support the broad thrust of Bill C-6.

I want to just point out in the time I have left that my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona has had pretty broad support for his amendments. I would urge the government to take that into account and vote for them this afternoon.

I want to read two endorsements I picked out of several. They are still referring to the previous title of the bill, Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6. Philipa Lawson, a consumer advocate with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who has been closely following the progress of Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6, writes to me saying that the Reform Party deserves to be congratulated for its important new amendments. He states that our personal health information is among the most sensitive and private information about us. It is highly vulnerable to abuse and therefore deserves special legal protection.

I have another endorsement from Thomas B. Riley, the chair of the Canada's Coalition for Public Information. He states, “I am writing to express our support for the amendments to Bill C-54 that Rahim Jaffer, the member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona, is proposing to table in the House of Commons. We believe in the importance of Bill C-54 and the importance of adding amendments related to health information”.

I would suggest that there is a number of groups that believe it is important to strengthen the legislation to make absolutely sure that health care, health information and the social area information is not being abused. I believe these amendments would strengthen it. I would therefore ask that the government put its support behind these important amendments to strengthen the legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would simply advise hon. members, and I know the hon. member for Peace River will be particularly interested, that I myself ran into difficulty when quoting works with members names in the works. Members cannot quote something and thereby use a members name when they are not permitted to do it directly. I would urge hon. members to refrain from mentioning one another by name and stick with the constituency name or title as required under the rules.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the debate. I am speaking to Motion No. 4, an amendment which I put to the legislation.

I am confident that this amendment will have the support of all sides of the House. I look forward to the report stage vote to see whether indeed all members support Motion No. 4, if I may advertise it.

I believe my amendment addresses one of the nastier problems in society, the problem of fundraising and donor lists being sold and bartered across various organizations leading to immense quantities of junk mail that we all receive and everyone is inflicted with.

I live in a village in central Canada. Just a few weeks ago I received an unsolicited phone call. It was from a woman asking me to donate to I think it was the wheelchair handicap society. I asked her where she was calling from and she said that she was calling from Halifax. We exchanged a few pleasantries about the weather, then I asked her how she got my name, seeing that I was in central Canada, and she said that I was on her list.

My amendment addresses the issue of how I came to be on that list and how people, how relatives and how senior citizens come to be on lists where they receive unwanted solicitations, unsought solicitations and solicitations that often cost them a great deal of money.

Now for the evidence, and I have evidence. For instance, I have here before me an Internet bulletin that was directed toward the Canadian Direct Marketing Association. It quotes a broker for direct market lists. This person says that some of the best lists to get hold of if one wants to sell a product by direct marketing or telemarketing are for example The Economist , The Financial Post , Scientific American or Télémédia, or the Wellness Letter .

We can say fine, the legislation as it exists does cover organizations such as those because they are commercial organizations and consequently they will be required to obey the provisions in this privacy act. However, this individual is advising fundraising organizations, primarily charities. He went on to say that he feels that organizations should also consider renting their donor lists because it is already happening in the U.S.A. He cites the American Lung Association, Greenpeace and the March of Dimes.

That article appeared on the Internet in 1995. I can imagine that a great deal of progress has been made in Canada toward organizations, charities and non-profit organizations, selling their lists without, I would point out, the consent of the people who have contributed to those organizations.

Indeed by coincidence, I have a proposal from a direct marketing firm in Maryland, U.S.A. to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is a Canadian charity. This is a proposal on how the organization, if it can get the donor list of MADD Canada, can sell to that list with various advantages to MADD Canada. In fact MADD Canada does not have to put up any money. There is a procedure whereby the telemarketer covers its costs before the charity receives the benefit of the telemarketing campaign.

There is an interesting clause. This is a letter of intent. This organization called Creative Direct Response Inc. of Maryland is proposing to MADD that ownership of a client's donor file, that is the list of donors, shall be vested exclusively in MADD Canada at all times. That sounds good. Then it goes on to say that MADD Canada agrees that while the file is theirs at all times, CDR has a lien against MADD Canada's donor file until all mailing lists outlined above are paid up in full. What is a lien? A lien is possession. It is a payment. It is obtaining something for pay, for barter. Barter.

I also happen to have a list of some of the Canadian organizations that have dealt with Creative Direct Response Inc. of the United States. We have to assume that these organizations have come to some sort of agreement similar to what was offered to MADD Canada. It is called the Canadian exchange list summary.

Of course, when we are talking about exchange, we are not necessarily talking about the exchange of money. We are talking about the exchange of lists for the purposes of making money. I think the term that would cover that is barter. They are bartering something.

Here is an example of some of the organizations that have bought into this arrangement with Creative Direct Response Inc. of the United States. We have here the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Canadian Blind Sports Association, the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Corporate Donors. I wonder how they got that list and I wonder if the corporate donors know they are on the list. There is also the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and so on.

And what do we have here? We have the B.C. NDP as well, and if I turn the page, we have the Ontario NDP. Those are two political parties. I have to be fair here because we can also find the Ontario Liberals. We have to be careful that we do not throw stones around here, because I think if one examined the donor lists, the exchange lists of other telemarketing organizations, one would find pretty well all the political parties.

The point of all this is that these names are appearing on these lists without the knowledge of the people who are actually contributing to the organizations. The situation is that one may give money or take out a membership in a union or a political party or some other type of organization and that organization may be selling that list to other organizations. Indeed they may be selling that list abroad to the United States.

I must hasten to add incidentally that MADD Canada did not go through with the deal. That is very praiseworthy of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I would only wish that the many organizations on this list I was citing had shown the same type of prudence, shall we say, and responsibility as MADD Canada and not gotten into this type of arrangement.

At any rate with the bill itself, I am going to explain briefly how my amendment works. If we look through the bill we will find that clause 16 gives the penalties that exist in the bill. Basically, it says the court has the option of awarding damages to whoever complains under the conditions of the bill, including damages for humiliation the complainant has suffered. That may be very important when it comes to unwanted solicitations.

We are working backward. The next section that is relevant is schedule 1 in the bill. It describes principally what the bill does. It states what the terms of privacy are that must be fulfilled by the various organizations covered by the bill. I think the most important principle in this bill that is covered in schedule 1 is the idea that when organizations use personal information, they must get the consent of the people they are getting that information from. That is very clearly spelled out in schedule 1, section 4.3.1.

The section just above that also stresses in the case of mailing lists, which is what I was just talking about, organizations providing the list should be expected to obtain consent before disclosing the list of personal information to other organizations.

Then we come to my amendment. It amends in clause 2 the definition “commercial activity” which means any particular transaction, act or conduct that is of a commercial character and adds the words “including the selling, bartering or leasing of donor, membership or other fundraising lists”. Checkmate.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak this afternoon to this group of motions.

I want to say from the very start that the New Democrats actually applaud the efforts of the Reform members of parliament to strengthen Bill C-6 to protect medical privacy. We believe these motions are extremely important because medical records contain the most intimate, personal, potentially embarrassing and stigmatizing information that is ever collected about us, Mr. Speaker. You know that situation from your own experience. It affects all of us since at some point in our lives we all seek medical care of one kind or another.

These motions are extremely important because medical information is very vulnerable to abuse, which I suppose is the quiet theme throughout Bill C-6. We must remember that the primary purpose for collecting personal medical information from the patient is for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of that patient. This is the reason we confide information to our physician in the first place. If we cannot trust our physicians or medical clinics to keep highly sensitive and personal facts confidential, a crucial foundation of the relationship between the patient and the doctor is undermined. If that happens, patients will be less willing to divulge personal information and this could affect the diagnosis and treatment.

These motions before us underline exactly what is at stake for patients in this debate. The decisions we take on these motions as policymakers could have a profound impact on the delivery and quality of health care in our country. We New Democrats believe that there can be no trade-offs in this debate. There can be no balancing of medical privacy with other competing interests. Trade-offs do not serve the patients or the medical establishment at all. Patients are owed the right of confidentiality and we must ensure that this is enforced.

We support the Reform motions that seek to guarantee each patient in the country the right to medical privacy.

We strongly support Motion No. 18 which prohibits financial institutions from obtaining the personal medical information of citizens. They do not need this information and can only very weakly attempt to argue that they need access to this type of personal information about Canadian individuals.

New Democrats believe that simply because of changes in technology, in other words the computerization of medical records, patient privacy or values should not be compromised.

We will support the Reform motions that make a significant effort toward strengthening the provisions of Bill C-6 in respect of medical privacy.

I now refer to some of the Liberal motions. I know you study the motions carefully, Mr. Speaker. These motions respond to a concern raised by government and law enforcement agencies in respect to investigations. We support these motions because they are needed in order to maintain the status quo when it comes to government and law enforcement investigative procedures.

Earlier today we expressed concern about this because we have heard that the funding for the RCMP investigation branch in British Columbia is woefully short of money. It is to the point where a spokesperson for RCMP Division E on the west coast of Canada said they would have to call off police investigations because they simply did not have the financial resources to proceed.

This sends a very inappropriate signal to those in society who we consider to be unscrupulous people, people who are con artists or swindlers of one kind or another. Basically it says that in British Columbia if people who are participating in some illegal or fraudulent activity, stock market manipulations or swindling get caught, which is highly unlikely, even then probably nothing will happen to them because the RCMP simply does not have the resources to proceed with an investigation.

As members of parliament we have to listen to this RCMP spokesperson. We all know RCMP officers or members of their families. They are reluctant to complain publicly about anything to do with their effectiveness as police officers or their ability to enforce the law. Therefore when a spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police writes a letter and makes it public to say that he is sorry that they cannot uphold the law in that part of Canada, then there is something terribly wrong. That is an RCMP officer's way of screaming to the public. We would think that writing a letter is still pretty quiet but for the RCMP this is a major statement that they are in serious financial trouble.

I know you are deeply concerned, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are often troubled about these sorts of issues, but let us face it. It is something that we have to take a lot more seriously. I urge the solicitor general to give this more thought.

Going back to the Liberal motions before us, I want to make it very clear that the New Democrats will support these motions. They are needed in order to maintain the situation now when it comes to investigative police work. These motions basically mean that private groups must disclose, without consent, personal information on citizens to government and law enforcement agencies when they are requested to do so for investigative purposes in the interest of national security.

Ideally, to be fair, New Democrats would prefer that if law enforcement agencies ask for personal information on citizens that they be required to obtain a search warrant and establish reasonable grounds for both the need and the purpose of obtaining the personal information. However, in this case we believe it is more important that Bill C-6 be passed now and that consumers be given the privacy protection they deserve which in our judgment is what this bill does. We would like to see it a lot tougher but it is not a perfect world.

We will certainly not be an obstacle to law enforcement agencies carrying out their responsibilities. I want to make it clear that while we support the Reform and Liberal motions, we would like to see the bill strengthened in a number of areas to ensure greater privacy protection on behalf of Canadians. However, it is a significant step in the right direction.

We are dealing here with what can only be described as the modern day version of the industrial revolution. We are changing the way Canadians do business. We are changing the way we as individuals conduct our business affairs.

When it comes to electronic commerce, where on a daily basis we are seeing seven people signing every second of the day on to the Internet, there is a small but very significant revolution taking place before us. I suppose like most revolutions we often do not know they are taking place until they are kind of over and we realize there has been a major revolution or a major change in the way things have occurred.

We are in one of these processes. As we attempt to become one of or perhaps the most electronically connected country in the world, providing leadership to other countries in terms of what to do, Bill C-6 is a major step in that direction. It indicates as a priority the need to protect the privacy of information and to ensure people feel secure that when they provide information electronically they will not be revealing anything they are not intending to reveal.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information and electronic documents act.

Before I comment on this group of motions, I would like to welcome the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valley as the new NDP member, the member for Peace River as the Reform member and the member for Témiscamingue as the new Bloc member of the industry committee. I know we share many political views. In a lot of ways we do not agree, but I look forward to their active involvement and participation in the committee.

Unlike the Group No. 1 motions which consisted exclusively of amendments of my Bloc colleague, Group No. 2 motions comprise amendments of a variety of members both from the government and the opposition. I will try to address as many of the amendments as possible during my 10 minutes.

I should like to differentiate from the Bloc on one of its amendments. Motion No. 51 would amend clause 29 which deals with a mandatory review of the act every five years. On a side note, I find it interesting that the Liberal government would support this clause when the government House leader recently expressed his discomfort with mandatory statutory reviews.

Motion No. 51 from the member for Témiscamingue would delete the reference to a statutory review by a committee of both houses of parliament, opting instead for a committee exclusively of the House of Commons. This is just the latest example of needless Senate bashing.

Senators have made valuable contributions to joint committees, the latest example being the joint committee on child custody and access. Were it not for the battle waged by Conservative senators and courageous Liberal senators like Senator Anne Cools during the last parliament, we would not have had the review of the Divorce Act as it relates to child custody and access.

I therefore do not feel that we should tie the hands of future members of parliament and future governments by not allowing them to review their statutes with their colleagues in the upper house.

Nobody disagrees that the Senate as currently constituted needs to be changed, but until that happens let us not prevent senators from making meaningful contributions to our system of government. For example, the House Standing Committee on Industry heard from three noted constitutional law experts: Roger Tassé, Jacques Frémont, and Claude Massé. With all due respect to my committee colleagues, we would have benefited from having a noted constitutional law expert like Conservative Senator Gérald Beaudoin asking questions of these benefits. Let us oppose Motion No. 51 to keep the door open for Senate expertise on statutory review.

I commend my Reform colleague from Peace River for the amendments he brought forward under Group No. 2. They reflect a concern expressed by several health care organizations, several of which I had the pleasure of meeting prior to their appearance before the industry committee. The amendments clarify the definition of personal information and disclosure as they relate to the health care field.

I recognize that the Ontario government would prefer this definition to be left with provincial governments. I agree, but I worry what will happen to medical practitioners if this law passes without some guidance as to their use of personal information.

The PC Party of Canada will offer guarded support to Motions Nos. 11, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. This position is not my first choice. The federal government should have sat down with the provinces and territories to negotiate a harmonized definition of personal information as it relates to health care, but by and large the Liberals refuse to compromise or co-operate. As I did during my remarks on Group No. 1, I will give credit where credit is due to the government on its amendments in Group No. 2.

Many in the insurance and law enforcement community objected to the overrestrictive provisions on the disclosure and use of personal information. They were concerned this would seriously hamper efforts to fight crime or cases of insurance fraud. I was pleased to reinforce the concerns expressed by organizations such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada. With this in mind I trust with these amendments we have struck a better balance for all concerned parties.

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 of Bill C-6 on the private sector.

In many ways this is a frustrating process for the simple reason that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus support the aims and principles of what Bill C-6 is trying to accomplish. However it cannot be lost to even the casual observer that the Liberal government is zealously attempting to buck the reality of our economy. The reality is that our neighbour to the south is our biggest trading partner. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of xenophobic colleagues across the way will change that. Our tax regime is oppressive when compared to that of the United States. Thus foreign investment dollars end up south of the 49th parallel.

On the brain drain which the government has ridiculed as being a figment of our imagination, it was refreshing to see that it woke up long enough to address it in the throne speech last week. Brain drain is another natural consequence of Canadian politics being out of step with that of our American colleagues. It is simple cause and effect. That is why I have tried in vain to convince my Liberal colleagues on the industry committee that by pushing through the electronic commerce bill, a bill modelled on the European approach and in direct opposition to the American approach, we are headed for a competitive headache.

Foolishly I had hoped that the long summer break and extended delay caused by the prorogation of the House would have motivated the minister to take the time to try to improve Bill C-6. Unfortunately we still have a bill that deliberately antagonizes Quebec, Ontario and the United States as well as scores of associations whose well-intentioned submissions to our committee were ignored. Arrogance remains the order of the day.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 proposed amendments to Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic documents act. The majority of the Standing Committee on Industry of which I was chair in the last session strongly supported Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6.

In the last session from December 1, 1998 to March 18, 1999 the committee held 28 hearings and heard from more than 70 organizations, producing over 45 hours of testimony outlining the merits and deficiencies of the bill. Bill C-54, as it was referred to in the last session, was then deliberated in committee on three separate occasions for more than eight hours. The committee put forth more than 50 improvements to the bill and passed these amendments on March 25, 1999. I had the privilege to report the bill back to the House as amended on Tuesday, April 13, 1999,

The privacy commissioner was one of many witnesses who told us why the bill was so important. In his first appearance at committee he noted:

I support and my office supports this bill. It is in my opinion, long overdue. If fills a necessary gap in the protection of data in the Canadian community. It recognizes the necessity to establish legal privacy rights for citizens of this country, no matter where they live or in what particular activity they are engaged. It puts Canada close to the same level of privacy recognition and data protection that now exists in almost all of western industrialized Europe and various other jurisdictions. It puts us ahead of the game with the United States.

Bill C-6 is intended to protect personal information in the private sector and to give electronic signatures a basis in law. It provides clear ground rules for business and helps improve consumer confidence, resulting in an environment that will foster the growth of electronic commerce in Canada.

The purpose of the bill is to establish rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of all individuals and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for a reasonable purpose. This is necessary in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and exchange of information.

As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the committee's hearings was to listen to expert witnesses from various sectors of industry to determine how the bill could be improved to ensure the individual's right to protective privacy and industry's ability to make an honest living.

Consequently many changes and suggestions were made. To begin the committee added the definition of commercial activity to subclause 2(1). The committee heard from Anne Cavoukian, the privacy commissioner of Ontario, that the definition was necessary to distinguish commercial activities from non-commercial activities.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated that such a definition was necessary. As the Public Interest Advocacy Centre indicated in its submission, some activities by private sector enterprises may or may not be considered commercial, for example data processing within the organization for administrative purposes, data sharing among businesses for the purpose of detecting bad credit risks, collection and use of personal data by professional bodies.

Where provinces fail to act there will be an incentive for data users to characterize their activities as non-commercial so as to avoid application of the legislation. It would therefore be helpful to define the term commercial activity so as to provide more certainty for both data users such as academics, researchers and non-profits and data subjects.

Several witnesses including the Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Bar Association asked for or provided suggested wording to define commercial activity, and commercial activity is now defined in terms of the nature of the transaction itself rather than the activity of the organization per se.

Therefore commercial activity means any particular transaction, act or conduct, or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character. The definition of personal information was modified in subclause 2(1). Several witnesses such as the Association of Canadian Archivists, the Writers' Union, the Western Forum of Credit & Financial Executives and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters criticized the definition as being too broad. Others such as Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Valerie Steeves, the Ontario privacy commissioner, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Medical Association wanted it to be more specific with reference to data elements such as health records, anonymized records and biological tissue samples. The proposed definition will therefore capture all personal information about an identifiable individual, except business addresses and phone numbers.

The committee also heard strong arguments as to why the definition of use should be deleted from the bill. In recommending this change Telus and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce testified that they wanted to ensure companies would be able to transfer information from one division to another within an organization. The committee listened and acted on this request. Principle 5 of the schedule will however ensure that information transferred within an organization is used only for the purposes for which it was collected.

The purpose clause of the bill was also amended, clause 3. The original purpose clause attributed the right to privacy to Canadians. It was felt that this was too restrictive since we wish to assure our trading partners that their information is protected. It was important to recognize this international aspect and afford the bill's protection to all personal data coming into Canada. It will also assist in meeting the adequacy test found in the EU directive on protection of personal data.

It also avoids complications regarding non-Canadian residents, tourists and landed immigrants. As the privacy commissioner commented, Bill C-54 represents a significant step toward filling in the gaps in the patchwork of laws and policies that offer data protection in Canada. It promises to bring Canada into line with international data protection norms. This advance is long overdue. Most European countries and many other jurisdictions around the world long ago extended the right to the protection of personal information held by the private sector.

Today we are also talking about changes to clause 7. Several changes were made to clause 7 at committee stage. Several groups came to us and talked about other changes that should be made. Regrettably at committee stage we did not have everything in front of us.

Because of the complex issues we are now able to make an amendment and Motion No. 17 would allow organizations to disclose information to the private sector investigative bodies which are listed in the regulations in order to investigate breaches of agreements or contravention of laws.

This addresses a number of the concerns of witnesses, particularly in the insurance industry. This new section will allow these listed investigative bodies to share information. The amendment completes the exception that was provided for in clause 7(1)(b) for collection without consent for fraud detection by extending it to disclosure.

There are many things to talk about today with respect to this bill and how important it is as we move forward. I would like to let members know that the committee felt that because of the importance of the privacy provisions of the bill, and the need to assess the impact and workability of the provisions, Part 1 of the bill should be reviewed every five years. That is good news.

In her second appearance before the committee the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Anne Cavoukian, welcomed this change. She stated:

I am pleased that the bill calls for a mandatory five year review as a means of judging the overall effectiveness of the legislation in practice. This review, to analyse the working of the law in practice, both on a national level and a provincial level would note which provinces, aside from Quebec, have adopted corresponding legislation where any gaps or omissions may appear in the country's privacy coverage.

I would like to thank all members of the committee for their hard work on this bill. I believe that the amendments put forth both at committee and in the motions presented today by the government forge a stronger bill for all Canadians.

As the Privacy Commissioner said in his first appearance at the committee:

It is not a perfect bill. I cannot recall in my own experience, in one capacity or another, ever seeing what could be described as a perfect bill. But it goes a long way toward doing what has to be done.

With that the Privacy Commissioner predicted that various suggestions would occur during the hearings for the bill's improvement. They did and the bill was improved. Today there are further motions which improve the bill even more.

Regardless, though, I think Mr. Phillips' opening comments as Privacy Commissioner speak to the significance of this bill. He stated:

I want to make it clear now that I would be very sorry to see this bill fail because of what I consider to be minor deficiencies. It recognizes the basic principle that people have a right to some control over their personal information no matter where it is being used in the Canadian community. That is the first and most important principle of good privacy protection. It embodies the notion of consent for usage. It embodies the notion of transparency in its usage. It embodies the notion of knowledge of things that are being done with people's personal information. It is a good bill in that respect.

I hope that all members of the House support the government's motions and amendments today and will support Bill C-6.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like, following the remarks by our colleague from the Liberal Party, to say “The Bloc Quebecois will support this bill”. But you know that the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill, not because it would not provide good services to our Canadian friends, but because it, unfortunately, is being forced on Quebec by the Minister of Industry, and Quebec has already had, for many years, a law in effect, which is effective and meets our needs.

I am perhaps in a somewhat special position, because, if I go back to 1992, before I became a member, I was the president of the Association de sécurité informatique de la région de Québec. As such, I had the opportunity to submit a brief from our association to a parliamentary committee of the National Assembly on the subject of the establishment of a law to protect personal information in private enterprise, a Quebec law.

The Liberal government in office at that point, that of Mr. Bourassa, introduced the legislation. It was passed, it took effect and it is recognized worldwide as one of the best laws to protect personal information in private enterprise.

When we see the bill that is before us today, we are pleased that, seven years after Quebec, Canada has finally decided to provide personal information protection for Canadians. However, as an expert on these issues, I dare say that the bill proposed by the minister is rather weak compared to the law that has been in effect in Quebec for quite a few years now.

The Minister of Industry could have used the Quebec experience as a model. Instead, as is unfortunately too often the case, he chose to ignore it and, worse still, he wants to impose his legislation on Quebecers.

The Standing Committee on Industry heard a number of witnesses state their concerns. I want to mention one such concern expressed by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the CSN, which is a well-known central labour body.

The CSN said:

This bill is likely to create a problem by establishing two systems, depending on whether the information is used outside Quebec or not. Indeed, a business could be subject to the Quebec law but, as soon as the information was transferred outside the province, the federal legislation would come into effect. And it would not be easy for an ordinary citizen to know where his information is gone.

As members can see, the Minister of Industry's bill creates a problem because the minister wants to impose his legislation on Quebec. This means that Quebec businesses, which already invested money in 1993 and 1994 to comply with the requirements of the Quebec law, will have to spend money again to comply with the federal law, whose requirements are different, sometimes significantly. In any case, the federal law will provide less protection than the Quebec law.

This is a major problem. Quebec businesses have already taken measures to ensure the protection of personal information. Now, they will have to comply with a new law, and this means additional costs. Worse yet, some Quebec businesses that have until now been subject to the Quebec legislation will be able to withdraw from the Quebec legislation because they come under federal jurisdiction—I have the banks in particular in mind. The Quebec legislation is stringent, but it treats people fairly. Instead, they will be covered by the federal legislation, which is less stringent, and less protective of the individual.

In such a context, the effect in Quebec of Bill C-54—or Bill C-6 now, since its number change—will be the opposite of what was intended. The bill we have before us is intended to inspire consumer confidence in e-commerce, yet the perception in Quebec is likely to be very different.

In Quebec we know that legislation has been in place for seven years, legislation that inspires trust. Now certain sectors of activity which make considerable use of e-commerce, such as the banks, an important sector, a strategic sector, will be covered by legislation that is not as good as the Quebec legislation.

In such a context, what are the consumers going to do? They are going to exercise more caution, they will be more hesitant to use electronic resources. This is the exact opposite of what the bill is intended to do.

What would the elegant solution have been? The Minister of Industry referred to it when he stated that Quebec, and any other province that would like to have its own similar legislation, would be exempted from application of the federal act. That was a noble intention; it would have allowed the Bloc Quebecois to support with pleasure the fact that Canadians are acquiring legislation to protect personal information.

Under the circumstances, however, we cannot in any way accept this duplication of legislation. While I am at it, I will quote Ian Lawson, an independent expert who testified before the Standing Committee on Industry precisely on this issue.

He said “In order to resolve this problem of double legislation, the people of Quebec and the lawyers of Quebec will have a lot of work to do”.

Why will lawyers in Quebec have so much work? Because businesses will have trouble knowing where they stand. Things will be very difficult to sort out.

The Standing Committee on Industry had every possible opportunity to inform the minister about the impact on Quebec of this legislation, although it is good news in the rest of Canada. The Minister of Industry chose to ignore that advice.

But there is worse, even for the rest of Canada. The bill exempts from the authority of parliament entire, important sections explaining how this legislation will apply to Canadians and Quebecers.

In fact, the very terms that will be used in the related regulations are contained in a schedule which can be amended at will by the present or any future minister.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told the Standing Committee on Industry “I have a problem with the fact that the code of the CSA”, which is a standardizing body, “is simply attached as a schedule. The principles of the code should have been incorporated into the legislation itself. I fail to understand why it was not felt advisable to try to use them as a point of departure for drafting legislation that meets the needs of Canadians in several respects where the Code, which, as you know is a compromise, might not be up to the task”.

Here we have a university professor telling us that the bill, despite its good intentions, has a entire section on which the regulations will be based that will not come under the authority of Parliament.

The Canadian legislation, the bill proposed by the minister, is weak. Quebec has much tougher legislation that is a far better response to the needs of consumers. The Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a bill, because it is nothing less than interference in Quebec's jurisdiction, and I am therefore glad indeed that sovereignty is on the horizon. That will exempt us from all these kinds of problems.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is very limited, given that we have pulled time allocation on this particular debate, but I want to address the bill very quickly.

The official opposition is supporting the bill, as was mentioned by my colleague from Peace River. My colleague from Essex earlier stood to talk about the merits of the bill. However, she did say that the bill was far from perfect, although a number of amendments put forward by the government would bring it closer. I would argue that if the government chose to support the amendments put forward by the official opposition, the bill would be even closer to being perfect.

I encourage my colleagues opposite to support the motions. I will read them into the record. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21 and 22.

Sitting through the industry committee hearings during the last session I had the time to hear from many different witnesses, a number of whom were from the health care profession. Some of them were health care service providers who had a lot of concern about privacy when it comes to the transfer of documents, especially documents of a personal nature pertaining to health care.

Because I do not have time to expand on the motions, I want to read a quick summary of what the motions deal with, especially in the case of pertinent health care documentation.

The proposed amendments should require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and express consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose for which the information was originally collected.

The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to strengthen the legislation, with respect to health information in particular.

This is not to come into conflict with the fact that health care is a provincial domain, but just to set the tone in order to strengthen information pertaining to health care and the privacy issues surrounding that particular information.

The proposed amendments would also require that any—

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to order made earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to speed up the process, I believe that, should you ask, you would find unanimous consent to say that the questions on all the votable motions before us are deemed to have been put and the recorded division deferred until tonight.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to deem that all motions in Group No. 2, now before the House, have been put and the recorded division deferred?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motions in Group No. 2 stands deferred.

We will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 3. Shall I read them now or is there consent to consider them as read?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find there is unanimous consent to deem the motions in Group No. 3 to have been moved, the questions put and the recorded division deferred until tonight.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent to proceed this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-6, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 12 on page 20 with the following:

“organization in respect of personal information that it collects, uses or discloses within a province whose legislature has the power to regulate the collection, use or disclosure of the information, unless the organization does it in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business or the organization discloses the information outside the province for consideration.”

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-6, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 20 with the following:

“tion that is collected, used or”

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 31.