Madam Speaker, here we are at third reading of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, whereby the federal government intends, as far as we are concerned in Quebec, to become king and master of what the protection of personal information should be.
In spite of all the attempts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois and all those who came before the parliamentary committee to show how bad this bill would be for Quebec, we are not debating it at third reading.
Before going any further, I want to salute the excellent job done by my colleague from Mercier who single-handedly carried this matter for a year to bring government members to realize the impact this bill would have in Quebec and how flawed it is even for those Canadians it purports to protect.
We could talk about the real efficiency of this bill which is more about promoting electronic commerce than protecting personal information. This week, the government decided to ram through this bill by the end of business today and to defer the division at third reading until the beginning of next week.
The bill contains some amendments coming from the government. It is important to know that, half way through, the government saw the holes in its bills and started improvizing, trying to improve certain areas, tabling amendments of its own after witnesses were heard in committee. Thus, the government, realizing its bill was flawed, brought in new amendments, but did not allow any debate on them to give people a chance to be heard. Groups who appeared before the committee never saw them, which creates a very dangerous situation.
Strangely enough, some of the last-minute amendments exempt the government from the application of its own act in a number of cases. Is it not strange that the government should come to this realization only after the committee hearing stage, and that it thought appropriate to give itself and its components some manoeuvering room in order not to abide by its own law? This is a bit surprising coming from a government that says it wants to protect people but is looking for ways to avoid doing so itself whenever possible.
This brings me to the case of Quebec. For five years now, Quebec has had an act for the protection of personal information in the private sector. This act serves as a model, because there are very few others like it; in fact, it is the only one of its kind in North America. Now the federal government has decided to take a page from our book.
It is a desirable thing that all Canadians be protected with respect to the distribution of their personal information. But, seeing how slow the other provinces have been to act, the federal government decided to introduce legislation. I would point out, however, that the provinces, in conjunction with the federal government, had already embarked on a process of harmonizing legislation. But, last year, the federal government decided unilaterally to withdraw from the process and come up with its own legislation.
It withdrew from the joint effort it had embarked on with the provinces, an exercise in which Quebec had pointed out that it had its own legislation. By the way, there are two relevant instruments in Quebec: the act, and the Civil Code, which also governs the protection of personal information. If memory serves, the applicable articles of the Civil Code are 35 to 40. The act is thoroughly steeped in Quebec's civil law tradition, as opposed to the common law tradition on which the federal government's approach is based.
Enforcement will be extremely difficult. It is no accident that the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires, the Conseil du patronat, and a union body such as the CSN told the government that what it was proposing for Quebec was ridiculous, that it would be unworkable and complicated for businesses, a complete disaster.
There was legislation protecting personal information and not focussed on encouraging e-commerce. E-commerce will grow despite the federal government. It does not need any legislation to encourage it. It is developing at a phenomenal rate and will continue to do so.
What is needed is assurance of the protection of distribution, disclosure and transmission of personal information.
The federal government has seen fit to provide for this in a schedule to its legislation, not in the legislation itself, and in a conditional mode. I will give hon. members an example of the very fuzzy concepts its contains. In the Government of Quebec's legislation, the consent for release of specific information must be very clear. The individual must have consented to the transfer of his personal information.
At the federal level, the approach is far more vague, so things are not as clear. Explicit consent is not necessarily required. Once again, it can be seen that the two governments are guided by two very different mindsets.
I will continue by quoting from the testimony of some of those who appeared before the committee. In fact, I intend to quote two.
When I was preparing my speech for this morning, a comment I heard came to mind. A man spoke of his fear that the organizations with the greatest interest in invading our privacy were the ones setting the legislative agenda. He said “Now it is clear that Bill C-54”—now Bill C-6—“is an initiative on e-commerce. I believe it is useful to note that the words consumers',businesses', and industry' appear 78 times, whilecitizen' appears only ten times”.
So said Valerie Steve, a professor at the human rights research and education centre. This then is a very different approach from what the government was boasting about this morning, saying that it wants is simply to protect personal information.
I will now quote from the remarks made by the former president of the Quebec bar association, who also has interesting things to say. He said “From a very careful reading of Bill C-54, in my opinion, this would mean a significant step backwards for Quebec”. I repeat “in my own opinion, this would mean a very significant step backwards for Quebec”. He added “These regulations, in fact, this sort of voluntary standard, are given the status of law by making them a schedule. They are not stringent enough to protect consumers. They are full of loopholes for commerce. It is based in large part on a completely outmoded approach to consumer protection with virtually non existent rights of recourse”.
I see that we will soon be proceeding to Statements by Members and Oral Question Period. I will continue afterward. I will return to the notion of recourse for consumers.
I want to ask for unanimous consent to have my speaking time of 40 minutes split into two 20 minute periods, since I will be sharing my time with the member for Mercier. I have used about ten minutes so far and, after my second ten minute period, the member for Mercier will finish the 40 minute period, if there is unanimous consent.