Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1999

Points Of Order

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I do get a little excited by some of the so-called answers, and I completely withdraw any comments that the hon. member finds offensive.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member.

Order In Council Appointments

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of standing committees, and I move that the report be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give the hon. parliamentary secretary unanimous consent to proceed with this motion at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of 163 voters in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan concerning the high level of taxation in this country. They feel that it is time for, and that they deserve, a tax break and they so indicate by these petitions.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding, as well as throughout Canada, who wish to see the Senate abolished. They recognize that it is an unelected house and Canadians do not need people looking over their shoulders who are not elected representatives. Therefore they would like the unelected house to be abolished.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition put forth by the African Refugee and Immigration Aid Services which calls upon the government and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to deal with the urgent resettlement needs of refugees in Sierra Leone, including tortured victims, women, children at risk and internally displaced persons with family ties in Canada. They ask the Canadian government to act on this immediately. I fully support this petition.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Saskatchewan, in particular Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Weyburn, and parts of my constituency as well, communities such as Duval, Strasburg, Davidson, Craik, Tugaske, Eyebrow and other places.

The petition calls upon the House of Commons to take a very important measure. The petitioners are unhappy with the fact that the Senate is undemocratic, is unelected and is unaccountable to the people of this country. They are really, really unhappy with the fact that two senators who have been charged and found guilty of fraudulent matters are continuing to receive huge paycheques from taxpayers through the Senate. The petitioners ask that the House of Commons abolish the Senate immediately.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of our viewers, I would like to point out that today we are debating Bill C-6 at third reading stage.

Today is the one and only day of debate on this bill at third reading, because the government has decided to gag all those of us who would have liked to give their point of view on this bill after today's debate.

Those who are familiar with House procedure know that Friday is the sitting day that has the shortest period for government orders. The gag order has been imposed, and we will not be able to continue this debate after today.

But there is something else. It is rather curious in our system, and it is part and parcel of the problems of the Canadian federation. Two ministers of the Quebec government have asked for a meeting with a federal minister in order to discuss the terrible problems this bill will create in Quebec. These two ministers have asked for a meeting. That is not a big deal. But they got a rather cool reception: the federal government is not in the least bit interested.

A week ago, in a long speech called the throne speech, this same government was extolling the virtues of the Canadian way, the co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Two elected ministers representing the people of Quebec asked for a meeting and got no other answer than the one given here during Oral Question Period, namely that the federal government was not interested in meeting them, that it was not interested in their point of view, that it had decided to go ahead because it believed it was in the public's best interest to do so.

Last week, this same government delivered lengthy speeches, claiming to be co-operating in what it called the Canadian approach. But there is the rhetoric, and then there is the reality. Today, we are talking about the reality, and the reality is that there is no co-operation. And then the federal government wonders why, year after year, for the past 35 or 40 years, more and more people in Quebec want out of this political system.

Getting back to Bill C-6, a number of government amendments were made after the committee discussions. As a result, none of the witnesses were able to comment on them when they appeared before the committee. I will mention two in particular, which are extremely worrying.

In Division 1 of the bill, which deals with the protection of personal information, clause 7 says, and I quote:

1. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if—

We are talking about exceptions whereby the government could, without the knowledge of the individual—what is meant by that is explained further on—collect information without the consent of this individual. And then comes the list of exceptions.

The government bill provides for an exception for investigative bodies in specific instances. That exception, for investigative bodies, applies to circumstances where the government believes or has reasonable grounds to believe that offences have been committed. Therefore, it is possible, under such circumstances, not to comply with the act.

This started out as a rather limited definition or exception. Already, in committee, that definition began to be broadened a little. What the exception says is that it is possible not to comply, without the knowledge or consent of the individual, only if the disclosure is d ) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body and the information relates to an offence under the laws of Canada or a province that has been or is about to be committed—

And then this has been added:

—or to activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada;

In the committee hearings, this concept of exception began to be broadened. The federal government felt that it was a good idea to have that exception for threats to security, and now, after the committee stage, it is adding, in what is becoming subclause c .1), what is suggested in the government's Motion No. 15: c .1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that

(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,

So, there is now reference not to “reasonable grounds” but to suspicions and three categories are defined: “national security”, “defence of Canada” and “conduct of international affairs”.

Knowing how paranoid the government gets when sovereignist members of parliament go overseas and do a good job of expressing Quebec's point of view, we also must ask how far the government will go in its suspicions about international affairs and national security.

The government will now be able to ignore its own legislation if it thinks that the information it is seeking—I am sorry, I guess I should say if it suspects that the information it is seeking, and some wise guy could get up one morning and say that he suspects—concerns these things. The federal government, a government agency or a subdivision of such an agency, if it has suspicions, will be able to ignore this act, which should guarantee the protection of personal information.

If this is not enough to worry you, it certainly is enough to worry me and I am convinced that it also worries a lot of Canadians. I hope that the Privacy Commissioner will also be worried.

I am looking forward to hearing his comments on the proposed amendments, as the minister quoted him earlier as speaking highly of this act. I am convinced that the commissioner will not approve of this initiative and of these last minute amendments.

As if by chance, and I have a hard time believing that the government did not mean to do this from the beginning, these amendments were tabled after the committee hearings. It is as if the government had not wanted to hear people's comments on this particular part of the act.

The government has presented another motion dealing with investigative bodies. I will attempt a comparison here. For the investigative bodies who believe that there was a violation, the exception will apply if they have reasonable cause to believe that the violation occurred.

For the investigative bodies, the words are “reasonable cause to believe”. However, where national security or the conduct of international affairs arre involved, suspicion is enough. The same act, on the same page, uses two different concepts. It will be enough for the government to suspect, whereas the investigative bodies will need a reasonable cause to believe. It is in fact a lot more reasonable to require a reasonable cause than only a suspicion. But then again, this does not mean that there was no recourse in the past.

It is possible to swear out a warrant to obtain information. To obtain such a warrant, one must explain why the information is needed. The system offers some protection, since the warrant is issued by a judge who must ensure that the information required will be obtained by appropriate means.

However, there is much cause for concern. I said so earlier this week in a press conference. We do not know how the government will use the information and what it really has in mind. It is the Big Brother syndrome. The government wants to control all kinds of information and is setting up the legislative framework it needs to do whatever it wants.

The provisions of this bill give rise to many very serious concerns. Let me repeat our objections.

First, we are against the bill because Quebec has already passed legislation on this and because the federal act will only create duplication and cause many problems.

Second, a harmonization and discussion process was started with the provinces to establish a common framework. However, the federal government pulled out of this process and decided that it would decide on its own what is good and in the interest of the people.

Why? For reasons of international visibility, because Canada wants to show leadership and boast that it passed legislation. Yet, the bill is riddled with loopholes. Even if in some parts of the bill the government is proposing measures that are both flawed and vague, it can still say that is does have legislation. There is more to it than just passing a law. There has to be some real impact to it.

This gives us another reason to oppose this bill, since the protection of personal information under this bill is subject to many conditions.

It will be hard to enforce this bill. The people who want to do e-commerce have a lot to gain by using personnel information, but the citizens would have liked better protection. Here again, we have another reason to oppose this bill.

It is easy to play with rhetoric. I listened earlier to those who are in favour of the bill. They were defending some fundamental principles, as if they were speaking on a motion to protect personal information. This is not what we are doing here: we are considering a bill with real provisions in it.

I have to say that I am very surprised to see the Reform Party supporting this bill; in fact, I am stunned. But they will have to defend their stance, it is their problem. I am also very surprised to see that federal Liberal members from Quebec are not interested in this issue and come to the House only to reiterate what has been said by the industry minister, who does not seem to care much about what is going on in Quebec in this area as in many others.

There was not a peep out of these Liberal members. We did not hear from them, we did not see them. It is as if they simply did not care. I am convinced that some of them do not even know that there is a personal information protection act for the private sector in Quebec. Where are the people who defend this bill? Who are they defending? Are they defending their government in Quebec, or are they defending their Quebec voters in Ottawa?

The answer is the first option. These people are strictly propaganda agents in Quebec, nothing else. This is very regretful. Next week, and this is my prediction, we will see another example of this with the Young Offenders Act. These Liberal “carpet MPs” from Quebec will do the same thing.

Not one of them will rise. Yet, there is a great deal of opposition in Quebec regarding the legislation on young offenders, as there is regarding the bill now before us. And this opposition is not just from the Bloc Quebecois or the Quebec government.

The Commission d'accès à l'information presented a very detailed submission to the committee. The Barreau du Québec also came and said the same things. The Chambre des notaires du Québec told us about the problems that this bill would create. The Conseil du patronat and the CSN did the same. So, representatives of the management, unions, lawyers and notaries, in other words all those who will have to live with this legislation, are telling the government, if only it is willing to listen, that what it is doing does not make sense.

But this is not important to the Minister of Industry. It does not bother him at all. He does not even want to take the time to discuss his bill with the Quebec government, is spite of repeated requests to that effect. This all began in November 1998. It continued in January, in April, and recently through letters. The government never agreed to meet the expectations and requests of the Quebec government.

To conclude, this is my last intervention on this bill. My colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, will use up the time left. I will conclude by saying that even if the bill is passed by next week, the government will continue to hear about it because, as far as we are concerned, the fight will not be over.

There will be a lot of practical issues and we will be here day after day to remind the Minister of Industry of the negative impact that his bill will have in Quebec. The minister will still hear from us. I hope that some Liberal MPs from Quebec will soon wake up and remember, when the time comes to vote next week, who elected them and whom they should represent in this House.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Témiscamingue for sharing his speaking time with me. He knows how much the fight against this legislation is close to my heart, and I think that he is carrying the torch beautifully, as usual. I know he will continue to fight in this House against this legislation that cannot be allowed to go unchanged.

Having followed this legislation through all the stages since its tabling in early September, last year, effectively suspending the long-standing consultation process between the provinces and the federal government, it is clear to me that the minister of Industry could have used the time available to him to try to harmonize his bill with the Quebec legislation. But he obviously did not even try to do so.

And yet, this minister is an intelligent man. Why has he not tried to make stock of the Quebec experience? I should point out that Quebec is the first North American state to have passed, in 1994, a legislation for the protection of personal information. Quebec's five-year experience made it possible to confirm with businesses that the law was starting to be enforced seriously.

There is no personal information protection culture. Neither is there sufficient training for the public. In Quebec however the law was starting to be seriously applied.

Instead of building on this experience, the minister has developed an altogether new logic based on a national standard originally designed as a voluntary measure by businesses. That is what he would rather have.

He decided to change this proposal, which was not as stringent as a legislative proposal would be. He made it into a legislative proposal and an appendix to the bill.

Based on the opinion of several legal counsels and according to witnesses who appeared before the committee, this is the worst legislation ever developed. But this act is not just any act. It does not respect the spirit of the Speech from the Throne and is not some kind of government provision. No, it is an act similar to the Labour Code.

This act is one people will actually have to work with. Citizens who want their personal information to be protected will depend on it. The situation will be extremely confusing for Quebecers. Why? Precisely because the minister decided to ignore Quebec's experience and did not even try to accommodate Quebec's act. He chose to use a completely different logic.

Let me say this: I know that those who worked to have a Canadian standard, a voluntary standard for businesses, developed—and we have nothing against that, on the contrary—are for the most part from Quebec. The Civil Liberties Union was one of them. But some of the individuals who participated in this process told me that they would never have done it had they known that their work might be used as the foundation for a piece of legislation, because it was not designed for legislative purposes. It does not specifically provide citizens with rights.

We are now reviewing a legislation that will soon be enacted. On the pretext of dealing with electronic commerce, this federal act would infringe upon a jurisdiction that comes under the provinces, and Quebec in particular.

I noticed that the other provinces, after reacting strongly, through their justice ministers, when they looked into the federal government's bill, decided to put up with this, with the exception of Ontario with regard to health information, and maybe a number of other provinces in western Canada. The fact is that they did not have any legislation in that area. This bill, which will soon become law, means that Quebec will have to enforce a federal act in an area under provincial jurisdiction.

One must know that, prior to the federal government legislating in that area, personal information enjoyed complete protection under Quebec's legislation. According to the legal interpretations we have seen, only the adoption of a federal act could challenge the application of the provincial act. Again, I do not know what decisions will be made but, for the time being, Quebec's legislation continues to provide complete protection with regard to personal information.

What does the federal act do? It says—actually, it is the minister who introduced it and the government that supported it who had the nerve to say this—that, in an area that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, it will be up to the federal government to decide in which circumstances the provincial act will apply, in what area and to which organizations.

What a mess. Will this mess promote better enforcement of the law? It will, and for a long time, not provide greater protection but, on the contrary, slow down the process that gave Quebec a system that was working more and more smoothly.

Let me say briefly that, contrary the federal legislation, Quebec's legislation is clear. People can see what their rights are. It is easy to apply because any citizen can go to the Human Rights Commission where, after an inquiry, a decision is rendered. The Commission can make a ruling and exercise this right so all citizens can obtain justice.

For most people, the issue of personal information protection is about changing some incorrect information contained in a person's file.

The federal legislation provides that that person must try to agree with the company, and when this is not possible, he or she must file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. After reviewing the case, the commissioner makes a recommendation which is forwarded to the complainant. A report is produced within a year and if the complainant is not satisfied, he or she may take the case before the federal court.

Of course, the Privacy Commissioner can also decide, in exceptional cases, to take the case himself before the federal court. Otherwise, after the long process provided in the bill, the complainant is back at square one and still has to pay if he wants the recommendation to become a ruling.

I heard the minister say that Canadians want their personal information protected. Yes, they do and they should not have to wait. But when he says, however, that the bill will ensure the protection of personal information, I respectfully submit that the minister has maybe relied too much on his counsellors and, above all, that he has not looked at Quebec's legislation. He has not considered that there could be more efficient and clearer ways to protect the rights of citizens.

There is more. Not only the federal legislation will be enforced, but it will also state in what fields the provincial legislation can be applied. But does the citizen who has a problem with a business know if it is federally or provincially regulated according to this legislation? What will he do? He will either not file a complaint at all or file one with the wrong government, in which case the legal time limit could expire. This legislation will create more confusion.

It is for good reason then that, on five occasions, Quebec's ministers wrote to the industry minister and requested a meeting with him, and asked him to postpone the process in order to harmonize it. We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, have repeatedly tried to convince the industry committee and the minister to take advantage of the delays during the session of Parliament, or even of the summer recess, to make an attempt at harmonization. Why did the government not try to do it?

I attended the Forum of Federations, where I heard what I already know: Federalism—and I am not talking about Canadian federalism—is a system that is theoretically flexible. It is a system that, in theory, allows different cultures and languages to coexist. I say theoretically because the process of legislation on personal information in which I have been involved for more than a year is not the least bit flexible.

According to the theoreticians, including those working for the Forum of Federations, federations work best in homogeneous countries. That is the problem. The problem is that Quebec is a people and a nation. Its privacy legislation is governed by civil law, with its origins in France. But it is civil law. The rest of Canada is governed by common law—this is not a defect, just a difference. In fact, in the western world there are two major traditions, civil law and common law. Now, instead of trying to take the difference into consideration, the federal government has chosen to eliminate it.

This is one more lesson. Any student of law, politics or anyone else wanting to know the status of Canadian federalism has only to trace the process of passage of this legislation. It is a significant piece of legislation, since it goes to the very heart of Quebec civil law.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to accompany the minister to the G-8 summit, where one of the issues addressed was e-commerce security.

As I discovered, and the minister ought to have before me, when there are international negotiations on harmonization—as there will have to be, because a degree of harmonization on personal information based on existing legislation will be necessary—he will find that Quebec is not alone.

The European countries with their differences and their civil law will do as Quebec has done, use a definition of a positive right for citizens. He may also, of course, find there are other countries with a common law tradition that will settle for standards—I will withdraw that expression—will prefer protection related to standards to which businesses agree to comply. Someday, negotiations will have to take place, and Canada could have benefited from the fact that it still has a province, Quebec, which has a civil law tradition, instead of trying to bury this tradition and replace it by something else.

Instead of making good use of the time it had on its hands to harmonize both legislations, it has steadfastly refused to do it. Instead of using to its advantage the Quebec experience to deal with an issue that is quite difficult, as it will find out, it preferred to go about it in a completely different way, with a totally different logic, by relying almost totally on businesses' co-operation. Quite well. Everything is fine when businesses do co-operate, but what happens when they do not? What should we do? Should we let private citizens fend for themselves? Of course not. That is the problem.

When the citizens' rights are not clearly and precisely spelled out, when the means to have them respected are not free and efficient, we can have all the legislation we want, it is of no use to them. Instead of using the Quebec experience, in which companies will have to abide by a certain set of rules, it will force companies in Quebec to follow two set of rules, never knowing for sure which one applies.

The government has refused to even try to harmonize its legislation with the one in Quebec. Instead of taking this advantage it will soon need in international negotiation, that is the experience of harmonizing two great traditions, the civil law and the common law, the government chose to set one of these traditions aside, the French one, to bury it, and forget about it.

The Chambre des notaires is extremely concerned about the definitions of signature. The Chambre des notaires can only accept a document if the signature meets the conditions set out in the Quebec Civil Code. This is a whole aspect of French live, Quebec tradition and culture which is at stake, and the minister, instead of understanding the intensity of the responses triggered by this, and the depth of the problems created, prefers to ignore the whole thing.

I believe this bill, when it becomes law, will come back to haunt the government because it is not true that it will promote the development of electronic commerce. Everybody has been saying that people must feel safer before they engage in more electronic commerce. This bill will certainly not achieve this goal in Quebec, on the contrary. It creates—as if on purpose, but let us assume it is not on purpose—additional problems for every Quebec company and for all the companies that do business in Quebec.

At the international level also, this bill will come back to haunt the government. For my part, I came to the full realization, once again, that when it comes to the legislative process, Canadian federalism is not consistent with the main characteristics of federalism.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the last presentation and I agree with some of the points that the hon. member made.

I am delighted to participate in today's debate. This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in the House for some time dealing with the future of the country.

I know it must be difficult after lunch to have so many members in the Chamber trying to stay awake to listen to my presentation.

I remember giving a speech once and there was a young man in the back of the crowd. He kept saying, “Yea, yea”. I thought it was very nice and very encouraging. At the end of my speech I was commenting to one of my friends about this young man's enthusiasm. My friend said “Did you not notice that he had his headphone on and was actually listening to the hockey game”. In any event, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will be listening to my presentation today.

I feel very enthusiastic about speaking to Bill C-6 today. The bill aims to support and promote electronic commerce by increasing Canadians' confidence in online transactions, providing protection for personal information that is collected, adjusting the legal framework for the electronic environment and providing an alternative means for the federal government to provide services to Canadians.

I direct my comments in particular to the people in the gallery who I think sometimes get the wrong impression that we are here in the Chamber fist-fighting, arguing and yelling at each other all the time when in fact most of the time it is fairly boring here. I mean boring in a sense that it is very straightforward. I am probably not going to change that mode this afternoon as I make my presentation on Bill C-6.

I normally like to be a bit more flamboyant in my presentations but this is a very detailed piece of legislation. It is very specific and very integrate in terms of dealing with protecting Canadians' privacy. I will quote from the privacy commissioner's annual report of 1998-99 when he refers to this specific legislation and states:

—the bill will take the most important step in defence of individual privacy since passage of the Privacy Act bound the federal government in 1982.

In terms of our concern here in this place for people's security and the security of their personal information, whether it is medical records, financial records or whatever, this piece of legislation takes us further than any other piece of legislation, bar none, with the exception perhaps of the Privacy Act itself.

The privacy commissioner goes on to say that the bill is a major leap forward by providing a mechanism for independent oversight, mandating the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate complaints, issue reports and conduct audits. As a last resort, it provides recourse to the federal court and empowers the court to award damages when it feels the penalty is justified.

I could go on and on, but the privacy commissioner basically states that this is really important and significant legislation. It recognizes that the world of commerce, in which all of us participate either in our roles as businesses or as consumers, is more different today than it ever has been. It has taken on a speed and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is not a nine to five operation any more as it used to be just a handful of years ago. There is indeed a business-industry revolution taking place before our eyes. The transactions are so horrendous in both scope and speed that something has to be done in order to protect Canadians' private information.

When we make a call to purchase some goods over the telephone and are asked for our VISA number, I suspect we are hesitant to give it. However, that is the way it is. We have to give it. Goodness knows where the heck it is going and who is going to be using it. Hopefully, the person at the other end of the line is not an unscrupulous type. In terms of the need for privacy, this is a simplistic version of what I am talking about, but I think we have all been there and are concerned about it.

Since we will be talking a lot today about the Internet and electronic commerce, I want to share with my colleagues a funny little quote that I read somewhere which describes the Internet as “A worldwide network of university, government, business and private computer systems all run by a 13 year old kid named Jason”. We all smile because we know that children are very comfortable with these new technologies. In fact, I suspect that most adult learn their skills from their children when it comes to learning how to work our computers.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to emphasize the importance that I feel the entire House of Commons, without regard to political affiliation, should attach to this matter. We are really debating something that is very important to our children and their children's future. When we talk about implementing legislation in the public interest, we have to acknowledge the entire public, and clearly that includes the young people of the country who are probably a whole lot more tuned in to what I am talking about today than most people.

The federal government has been at this experiment for many years. We started with the constitution and the charter of rights rooted in certain basic values. The people who drafted our constitution and the charter of rights understood that times would change. Indeed, they understood that definitions of fundamental things like privacy would also change. They also understood that circumstances would require people to rise to the challenges of each new era by applying the old values but in very practical ways.

In the past, this change occurred when we went from an agriculture economy to an industrial economy. This change is now occurring with the move toward a new modern digital economy. It is our responsibility to fight to adapt our institutions to new economies and markets and to update and modernize our citizens' rights to uphold their right to privacy in the midst of these vast economic transformations occurring before us. In the past, leaders recognized and lived up to this responsibility. Now it is our opportunity and our responsibility to do the same once again.

The pace of change, not just the nature of change, is very different. Once again it is our responsibility to respond to this change applying the oldest basic values and principles in practical ways that will allow them to not only be preserved but enhanced by our modern technologies during these modern times.

We all recognize that technology has revolutionized the way we live and the way we do business. I suspect that we have only seen the beginning of this. I am sure that many of us, in different ways, have experienced how new technology, such as the Internet, can be a valuable tool and a valuable resource. However, it is only valuable when placed at the service of humanity.

Technology, by its very nature, requires unconditional respect for the fundamental interests of society. On this theme there are only two direct topics that I would like to focus my remarks on today. First, Internet technology must be at the service of humanity and of unalienable rights. It must respect the prerogatives of a civil society, among which is the protection of our privacy.

Second, guiding principles and values cannot be inferred from mere technological efficiencies of from the usefulness occurring to some at the expense of others. New technologies must promote our integral development for the benefit of all citizens of our country.

Today I am going to concentrate my remarks about Bill C-6 on these two topics. We have all made presentations in the House over the last little while about some of the very specifics of the legislation as well as its overall thrust. I want to focus simply on two topics, the first one being the protection of our basic rights.

It is obvious that new technology and the amazing advances that have been made in telecommunications have changed the way we all communicate with each other. There is no question that we are living through a revolution in the telecommunications industry with cheaper, easier to use and faster ways to communicate and do business with people within our homes, communities and around the globe.

I believe that on the whole the Internet and electronic commerce do present outstanding possibilities for the advancement of our basic rights and values and, on the whole, are very beneficial tools to the citizens of Canada. No doubt things such as education and commerce will be improved in the next few years because of the Internet. Generally speaking, our daily lives will likely be improved.

The other day I was visiting an elementary school. I asked some rhetorical questions to I think a grade 4 or 5 class. The students looked awfully little. One young boy said “I will run out and find out. I will get on the Internet and I will come back”. I did not quite know what he was talking about, but he came back with a long printout of all the answers to the questions that I had been asking. In other words, this little boy knew he could run out, get on the Internet and find out information that would probably take me a good day of searching in some library to find out. I realize I have a long way to go to catch up to this young person who, in this case, was probably in grade five.

A byproduct of this technological revolution is that supervising our rights takes on a new dimension of responsibility. New Democrats realize that when the world changes so do our responsibilities. Just because new technologies are developed does not mean that our basic rights and responsibilities no longer apply. At the present time there is very little protection or, More precisely, there is no legislative protection or legal deterrent of our privacy rights in cyberspace. There are mostly voluntary codes for businesses to follow.

Whatever exists, it does not loom large in cyberspace. For example, a website posts a privacy policy. Does that mean our privacy is protected? Not really. I do not think so, nor do most Canadians.

The task before us is to make our laws and principles apply to changing technology. The old laws may require some redefinition but the same old general principles around protecting our privacy rights must stand very firm. We must find the means to protect our personal information in modern times. We cannot be neutral in the development of or application of these new technologies.

It is not acceptable that these new technologies be endorsed simply because of their efficiency. In the interest of advancing human rights, we all have a responsibility to make sure that new technologies respect the values of a civil society, among which is the protection of our privacy rights. That is where legislation like Bill C-6 comes into play.

We know that Bill C-6 partly grew out of a public concern about personal privacy in the face of this rapidly changing technology. We have all become data subjects. All sorts of organizations and companies have personal details about us in their computer databases. While growing up our mothers may have told us that a person's mail is private, but in today's digital world I am not so sure that is the case any more, at least our name and address certainly are not.

The chances are very good that most of us have had, at some point or another, our mailboxes stuffed and overflowing with catalogues, sales ads, prize offers which we never requested and probably do not want. How many times have one of us been notified that we have won a huge benefit or something and all we have to do is phone up, pay a couple of thousand dollars and they will send it to us? There are all kinds of legitimate initiatives but there are also a lot of scams out there. The point is that somebody somewhere gets hold of our personal addresses and of information about us personally.

We now know that companies have sold or traded mailing lists containing our personal information time and time again. The public concern is that if the information is entirely wrong, is out of date, is confused with someone else's, or, in the worst scenario, the information is abused, it can actually cause serious problems. People could be unfairly treated, denied jobs, housing, benefits, insurance, credit or even a spot in a university.

Today information is becoming increasingly valuable. Information is a valuable commodity and New Democrats believe we have to be leaders in developing these new ways of doing business through protecting individual's privacy.

We obviously have to protect our privacy rights. We also have to ensure that we solve the problem that we set out to fix and that the solution is in the best interest of our society. The essential questions are: Is Bill C-6 a strong law; and, if enacted, does it demonstrate that we have lived up to our responsibility of protecting privacy rights in the face of these new technologies? On the whole, I think the answer to that question is yes. That is why New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-6 at this particular reading.

I want to address one other theme before I close and that is ensuring that new technologies benefit all of us.

I want to begin discussing this second theme, which is the need to ensure that we all have opportunity to benefit from the new technologies, by saying a variety of all commentators from all sorts of disciplines have commented on the increasingly important role that electronic commerce is playing in the lives of everyday people.

I do not often quote the chairman and CEO of Bell Canada, but I guess we try everything once in our lives. Mr. Jean Monty told delegates at the Ottawa OECD conference last fall that “What we are witnessing today is the birth of a new economy, a new economic order that is based on networks and chips.”

A quick glance at the current electronic commerce situation in this country reveals that not all Canadians are being given the same opportunity to participate in this new economic order. If we assume, and I believe this is a safe assumption, that 30% of Canadians have some sort of access to the Internet, and this may just be the fact that they have a connected computer at their school, we must acknowledge that about three-quarters of Canadians remain in the dark.

Even worse, many Canadians in rural areas have begun to voice concerns that they may see exorbitant increases in the cost of local phone services in the near future. Traditionally, phone companies were able to subsidize local phone rates in rural areas with money taken from long distance funds and urban areas. However, with the increased competition in the long distance market through deregulation, these subsidies are drying up. If future governments cannot ensure reasonable local phone rates for rural Canadians, I wonder then how they can expect the farmer in rural Saskatchewan for example to invest in a second phone line for Internet purposes.

It is the government's responsibility and indeed our responsibility to make sure that all Canadians have the necessary opportunities to participate in the new economy. All Canadians must be given an opportunity to get on board this new economy. Otherwise, we risk creating a future society of electronic haves and electronic have nots.

In the case of businesses, we have heard small and medium size businesses complain that the costs of participating in electronic commerce are often simply prohibitive from their point of view. Ideally e-commerce would provide an excellent means for small businesses to expand their market reach. Unfortunately, many cannot afford the fees charged by banks for setting up the necessary security and privacy protection services. The costs are keeping electronic commerce in the big leagues and small businesses could be put at a competitive disadvantage as a result.

I know that Industry Canada has implemented a community storefronts program which helps small businesses become online merchants, but we need an expansion of this program if Canada is to have a thriving small business presence on the Internet.

On another issue, it is impossible to deny that when electronic commerce becomes the way of doing business, thousands of Canadians will risk losing their jobs. Many commentators, including American expert Jeremy Rifkin, have warned of the adverse effects electronic technology will have on society.

There is a potential danger that as e-commerce takes off, whole types of workers could easily be displaced. Those at risk are a diverse group, everyone from stockbrokers to call centre operators, to shipping clerks in warehouses. A society in which there is a large pool of labourers with displaced skills and no work and a group of information elites is not what New Democrats want.

At the Ottawa OECD conference, Mr. Bill Conner, the general secretary of Britain's largest union for retail employees, expressed disappointment that “the meeting did not consider in any detail e-commerce's potentially devastating effects on traditional low and middle income workers”. He added that the euphoria over the potential for exponential growth of e-commerce overshadowed concerns about what may be left in its wake.

This is certainly not a good thing to see. It demonstrates a lack of vision and a lack of ability to see the big picture. It is not working toward our goal of ensuring the majority of Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the new economy.

We New Democrats agree that Canada must be a world leader in e-commerce technology. However, we also believe that true leadership requires attention to all of the implications of this issue. That is essentially the difference between our party and some of the others that have spoken to this legislation.

I know my time is limited and I have much more I would like to say, but I am not going to have a chance. I will simply say that in terms of protecting privacy, as the privacy commissioner has indicated, this is a major step forward. However, in terms of those people who will clearly be displaced by the introduction and the expansion of e-commerce, this is something that all of us must take much more seriously unless we are going to have an increasing society of those who have and those who have not.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys gave us an excellent speech dealing with the opportunities and the challenges of e-commerce.

I would suggest that all members of the House read that very thoughtful speech and take to heart many of the points the member made.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague. I have known him for a long time and respect the work he has done in the House of Commons.

I will use this opportunity to add one further point which I did not have time to make in my original presentation and that is about the need for proper education and training.

I know the government has introduced the possibility of implementing Internet sites across the country that would be serviced by 10,000 young people with Internet skills and presumably other computer skills. That is obviously a major step in the right direction, but let us not lose sight of the ongoing need to properly educate and train people.

It is fair to say we all agree that one of the impediments to the process is the tremendously high tuition fees students face at our universities, colleges and technical schools. The economic burden is sometimes prohibitive and a lot of people who ought to be improving their educational training skills are unable to do so.

We should take the bold step and acknowledge that if we are moving into the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, we should ensure that everyone has equal access to our colleges and universities. We should consider joining the other 16 OECD countries that have tuition free colleges and universities. The cost would be $2.6 billion. We have a contingency fund in this year's budget of $3 billion. If we had the will to do that today, we have the finances that would ensure that every young person and not so young person in the country had access to university and college education without paying any tuition fees.

Can anyone imagine a better millennium project for the government and parliament than to implement such a program.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this issue, the government's position or rather its insensitivity in setting up a system that contradicts or even impacts on the whole concept of civil law, is of course well known.

I would like to know how the NDP member would have reacted. He is obviously arguing in favour of an act like the bill before us. Is he at least more sensitive with respect to the complaints made to the government? On that, I would like to quote the Quebec bar association, which said that the protection of personal information is under provincial jurisdiction because it concerns property and civil law.

We all know that the Quebec system is based on civil law and not common law and that important practical problems are to be expected. We wonder if the government is the only one to think along those lines and we also wonder what the other parties' position is on the fact that the Government of Quebec, the Quebec bar association, the Chambre des notaires du Quebec, the Conseil du patronat du Quebec and Quebec unions have all said that it would have been better to recognize Quebec's legislation.

The bar association even went further and said that Quebec's legislation must apply in areas under federal jurisdiction areas to ensure that the law is the same everywhere and that it is understood by everybody, particularly as Quebec's legislation contains flexible mechanisms for consumers who feel that the protection of their personal information is being interfered with. There is a simple appeal mechanism, not too complicated, that does not involve the traditional courts, where things are complicated and intimidating.

Would the NDP member and his party have the same approach as the government or would they be a bit more flexible?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the interventions made by the groups during the hearings into this legislation that my hon. friend referred to. I acknowledge that he has a point. The situation in Quebec is significantly different than in most other parts of the country.

It reminds me of the debate yesterday when we were talking about the replacement of the Young Offenders Act. The same case was made that the Quebec experience in terms of dealing with young offenders is much more advanced than in some of the other parts of Canada, is much more effective and that we have much to learn.

While I acknowledge my friend's point, we now have an opportunity as a country to be on the leading edge of technological change in terms of electronic commerce. It will benefit business and consumers. I acknowledge that the government has taken some steps in this direction. We have much to learn from the Quebec experience particularly in terms of the appeals process my friend has referred to. I am not an expert in this field but perhaps there are other areas we could learn from.

The important thing is to acknowledge as a country that we are poised on the edge of revolutionary change in the way society operates as a result of these new technologies. We are in a position to take global leadership on this issue. If this legislation takes us one more step toward that, Canada can lead the way in the development of new technologies. Canada can show other countries ways of approaching these issues by implementing policies both in terms of privacy and in terms of acknowledging and not forgetting the people who will be replaced by technology. We have a great contribution to make not only to future generations of Canadians but indeed to the world itself.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to clarify what I asked the NDP member previously.

I want him to understand one thing clearly. I fully share his concern that there must be a legislative framework, that Canada wants to take a leadership role and fulfil its own obligations. I have no objection to that.

However, the problem we have is that, in order to meet a need in other parts of Canada, in the nine provinces of Canada, the government is significantly changing a balance that was in the making because of a very progressive law in Quebec. In fact, the problem is not only with this bill. He mentioned the bill on young offenders. The same thing applies.

Is the New Democratic Party open to the idea that some asymmetry could be allowed occasionally, or does it feel that there should be a national objective at all cost, and too bad if Quebec already has its own legislation? Their point of view is: “We Canadians need a law, therefore we will impose it to Quebecers too, because we need that law and we want to play a role”.

Is there not room for recognition, in the federal legislation, of the Quebec legislation, and should it not simply say that, where legislation on the protection of personal information already exists, that legislation will be allowed to apply?

This especially true in the case of Quebec—I know it could be different in the case of the other provinces—as Quebec has a civil law system, while the other provinces have a common law system that is different in its approach and philosophy. They are not different for nothing. In speeches, Quebec is recognized as distinct, among other things, because of its civil law, but in reality, this bill does not recognize that fact.

Consequently, I would like to know if the member would be willing to go as far as to support the bill's recognizing, because of civil law, that in the objective of regulating electronic commerce and protecting personal information, where there is a civil law system, civil law and its legislation should apply, because these provisions are even in the Quebec civil code, and to give precedence to those provisions.

Governments could then hold discussions to ensure harmonization for businesses involved in interprovincial trade. Does the hon. member believe that the federal legislation should apply in Quebec and prevent the Quebec government from making regulations under civil law? This is what I am asking the hon. member.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting question.

This perhaps is one of the ongoing dilemmas we often face when we are trying to introduce a pan-Canadian approach to a problem. We recognize that one province abides by a civil code and therefore has different approaches from the rest of the country.

I would be open to further discussions on this. The need to integrate the systems is critical. We must recognize and take into consideration that a different legal system exists in the province of Quebec. It is something that is certainly open for consideration.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

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

Before I begin I would like to thank many witnesses who took the time to make submissions, either in person or in writing, to the Standing Committee on Industry. Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to bringing new issues to light. I would also like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the industry committee for their vigorous discussion of the contents of the bill, in particular my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Regardless of our political differences we are all trying to ensure that parliament acts appropriately on legislative matters.

Moreover, I would like to note the efforts of the member for St. Catharines, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, in terms of his credible defence of the government position. I would also like to commend the member for Durham for bringing forward an amendment at committee to section 18 of the bill which was identical to an amendment I had sponsored.

It is always a rare pleasure to see Liberals deviate from the government line. Perhaps we will see a day when the chair of the industry committee shows similar courage, but I digress from the subject at hand, Bill C-6.

The intent of Bill C-6 is a positive one. The bill unfortunately has become known as the e-commerce bill, which is a bit of a misnomer. Part 1 of Bill C-6 deals with the protection of personal information irrespective of whether it is in an e-commerce environment or whatever. Meanwhile parts 2, 3 and 4 of Bill C-6 pertain specifically to electronic documents.

It is unfortunate that the industry committee spent most of its time on part l of the bill at the expense of the other parts. We really did not delve into the technological feasibility of the bill's clauses related to electronic signatures. For a so-called e-commerce bill, the committee should really have devoted more time to sections pertaining to electronic documents.

That being said, let us never forget that this is as much a personal privacy law as an e-commerce law. The two distinct issues have become intertwined. It is the growth of e-commerce that is driving initiatives such as Bill C-6.

As I noted during my remarks on second reading the increase of electronic commerce in Canada and throughout the world, more appropriately North America, is growing exponentially. We require a law to carefully examine the extent of government regulations in this domain.

The European Union has before its member countries a hard hitting directive to require companies to take exhaustive measures to protect the privacy of their customers. Meanwhile the United States has chosen the route of self-regulation. In essence, it is letting companies prove their worth in protecting the personal information of their customers. As someone who has spent 28 years working for one of Canada's largest high tech companies, with many of those years spent in sales and marketing, I understand the logic of the U.S. approach.

The private sector has a strong stake in protecting its customers, especially as it relates to the still unrelated realm of e-commerce. If customers do not trust a company with their information they will find another company that will. Competition is therefore a strong motivator for companies to take meaningful measures to protect the information of their customers. While I understand the U.S. approach, and I do believe it is the right answer for Canada, I also understand that the U.S. is now beginning the process to develop a privacy and e-commerce act.

Today I listened to the industry minister in the House when he said that we must do something and that people were saying we must do it now. I am not saying that the privacy and e-commerce act is not important, but when I look at privacy, at e-commerce and at the consumer or the customer, I think we should have been a lot more transparent. We should have had a comprehensive e-commerce privacy act that incorporated all the provinces, more importantly, and made sure that we were in step with our biggest trading partner, the U.S.

The PC Party and I believe in the need for legislation to protect personal privacy.

There are many flaws in Bill C-6 that I have attempted to address at committees, flaws which many witnesses have asked parliament to correct, flaws which the government continues to leave in the bill.

For example, subclause 18(1) gives the privacy commissioner the right to audit a company based on a dispute regarding recommended business practices which are listed under schedule 1 of the bill. Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations. They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such. The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been violated.

Audits are intrusive and place a heavy administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian companies. The audit power under Bill C-6 should only be used to cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the bill. The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage whether a company complies with recommended business practices such as what type of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company.

Subclause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary since Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For example, section 11 allows an individual to file a complaint if he or she feels that an organization is contravening the legislation or not following a recommended business practice. Furthermore, section 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all complaints including complaints that an organization is not following recommended business practices.

I must also reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to extending search and seizure powers to the privacy commissioner under Bill C-6, it is in the best interest of all concerned that his office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization. The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain the approval of our courts before exercising certain seizure powers is deeply troubling.

Clauses 12 and 18 of Bill C-6 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy commissioner to determine whether to exercise search and seizure powers and execute those same powers. The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party as in the case of criminal investigations.

Bill C-6 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad investigative and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and enforce appearance of persons under oath, converse with any person, compel the production of documents and receive and accept any evidence in the same manner as the superior court. It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in Bill C-6 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or his delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization and seizing records.

Indeed, Blair Mackenzie of the Canadian Newspaper Association told the industry committee that the provisions within Bill C-6 are “frightening”. Other witnesses have alluded to a challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms if the privacy commissioner acts on clause 12 or 18.

Furthermore, I am also troubled that the government did not bring forward any study or report on the cost impact of Bill C-6. From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint these unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.

Sadly the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free speech advocates and the pleas of the private sector and chose to defeat my amendment to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising certain seizure.

However there are many other problems with the bill which the Liberals chose to ignore. As Bill C-6 is currently drafted there is no provision to facilitate the sharing of personal employee data between management and the union pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Again the Liberal majority defeated my amendments before the industry committee to remove these potential obstacles to the employee-employer relationship. Moreover, I do not feel that the amendment brought forward by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to clause 27 adequately addresses this problem with the bill.

The Liberal majority also defeated my amendments to limit the costs charged by an organization for those seeking personal information to the same level of fees charged by government organizations. Despite the great rhetoric from the Liberals regarding personal privacy, Bill C-6 leaves the door open to the application of high fees for someone's personal information which if not properly regulated could become a barrier to access.

Bill C-6 also raised the spectre of a new round of federal-provincial battles. The governments of Canada's two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have spoken loudly and strongly in opposition to Bill C-6.

The industry committee heard from distinguished constitutional lawyers including a former deputy minister of justice. They disagreed passionately on whether or not Bill C-6 intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. I found it quite troubling that one of these distinguished experts mentioned the possibility of Bill C-6 as presently drafted becoming another referendum issue.

The Liberals had a chance to suspend clause by clause consideration at committee to allow the industry minister to negotiate a possible solution to prevent a constitutional challenge but the Liberals said no. They refused to co-operate.

The Ontario ministry of health also expressed its concern that health information falls clearly under provincial legislation. It was better prepared than the federal government to bring in such legislation. Regrettably the federal Liberals did nothing to address these concerns. They seem more interested in provoking fights than finding real solutions. Anybody who witnessed the partisan Liberal attacks against the Ontario ministry of health bureaucrat would attest to the poor attitude of the Liberals.

I will give credit where it is due. For example, the government supported my amendments to subparagraph 7(3)(h)(i) which would protect personal information for the shorter of 100 years after the record's creation or 20 years after the individual's death. Bill C-6 previously would have allowed for the disclosure only after the shorter of 110 years after the record's creation or 20 years after the individual's death.

As amended, this provision of the bill is now a more reasonable balance between protecting the personal information of the living and allowing the use of such information for historical, research or literary purposes. This is still a relatively small aspect of Bill C-6. I thank the government for helping me to get this part of the legislation right.

I also thank the government for supporting my amendments to remove a clause from the original version of Bill C-6 which would have allowed the government through order in council to change schedule 1 of the bill.

Regardless of these minor improvements the bill remains fundamentally flawed. The PC Party supported Bill C-6 with the hope that the government would allow the industry committee to correct many of these errors and omissions. Sadly not enough of these flaws were corrected.

The bill opens the door to legal battles due to the unfettered power given to the privacy commissioner. It unduly restricts the legitimate activities of small and medium size businesses. It causes a new restrictive, regulatory framework without a cost impact study. It aggravates the delicate relationship between the federal government and the Ontario and Quebec governments.

It rushes headlong into meeting an European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted a position with the directly opposite approach.

I have tried to be constructive and I have tried to improve the bill at committee, but by and large the Liberals have refused to co-operate. They have refused to compromise. Without concrete evidence they ask us to trust them that all the problems will sort themselves out.

On behalf of the PC Party I oppose Bill C-6 and urge the government to respect and act upon the differing points of view raised by so many in opposition to the bill as it is currently written.