Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1999

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to speak on Bill C-6. I want to indicate that I will be using the whole 20 minutes that I am entitled to.

Bill C-6 is very important to me. As our NDP colleague pointed out, the protection of personal information in the private sector, what with the technological progress being made, must be regulated if we are to protect our fellow citizens from coast to coast.

What is the purpose of Bill C-6? First, part 1 of the bill will ensure the protection of personal information collected, used and disclosed by the private sector.

Many Canadians and Quebecers know that Canada already has a law that ensures the protection of personal information collected and used by the federal government, as have all of the provinces except Prince Edward Island. However, these laws do not affect the private sector. Up until now, Quebec was the only province to have a law protecting personal information, which applied and still applies to the private sector.

First, I want to talk about this bill and the protection it will afford all Canadians, and then I will address the concerns raised by my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.

How will this bill protect personal information? First of all, “personal information” means information about an identifiable individual. This includes but is not limited to the following information: race, ethnic origin, colour, age, marital status, religion, level of education, medical record, criminal, financial or employment information, address, telephone number, numerical identification codes such as social insurance number, fingerprints, blood type, tissue or other biological samples, personal opinions or viewpoints.

This is a broad list, and I did not cover all personal information that could identify a person.

This bill is designed to protect this type of information by requiring organizations to respect the obligations set out in the model code for the protection of personal information prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA.

The code is entrenched in the bill, which I hope will be passed. This means that it will have force of law as schedule 1 of the law.

So where and when will this bill apply? Once it is passed, this bill will apply to any organization which collects, uses or discloses personal information in the course of commercial activities. Commercial activity means any activity that is of a commercial nature, which includes selling and buying as well as other activities such as barter and exchange transactions.

What is an organization? An organization can be a business, an association, a partnership, a person or a trade union, for example.

However, there are organizations to which this bill will not apply, for example organizations that do not conduct commercial activities, such as a hospital, a public health clinic or a doctor who provides public health services. It will not apply to organizations that use personal information for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes only, nor will it apply to the use of personal information for personal or domestic purposes, such as Christmas card lists.

To facilitate the harmonization of provincial and federal legislation on the protection of personal information, the coming into force of this bill will take place gradually.

After a one-year transition period, the bill will apply to private sector fields, and I repeat to private sector fields, subjected to federal regulatory control. But what are the private sector fields that are subjected to federal regulatory control? That is described in the Canadian Constitution.

Some areas are strictly of provincial jurisdiction whereas others are strictly of federal jurisdiction. Others yet are mixed. Those fields that are subjected to federal regulatory control are: telecommunications, radiobroadcasting, banks and interprovincial transports, as far as the protection of personal information from clients and employees is concerned.

This bill will also apply to agencies that share personal information outside the provincial or national borders. I will say it again because I want to make sure that my colleagues from the other side of the House fully understand this notion. This bill will also apply to the agencies that share personal information outside the provincial or national borders, for example credit assessment officers and some insurance companies.

After tree years, the act will be extended to include all personal information collected, used or disclosed within any commercial activity, whether it is subject to federal regulatory control or not. However, if a province pass a legislation that is essentially similar to the federal bill, the agencies or activities falling within the provincial act will be exempt from the federal act. As all of us in the House today know, and as many Canadians and Quebecers know, Quebec has had such legislation since 1994.

I would like to address a few concerns raised by Bloc Quebecois members. First, the fact that, in their view, there is no need for this bill in Quebec. We have been told several times that the Barreau du Québec, of which I am a member, the Chambre des notaires, and other professional bodies and societies made their positions known on Bill C-6.

I am sure that the Barreau du Québec did not claim that the personal information of a non-resident of Quebec that is disclosed or exchanged outside the borders of Quebec would be protected by the provincial law. The provincial law is clear: its purpose is to protect the personal information of Quebecers when this information leaves Quebec's borders. The law is silent about the personal information of non-residents of Quebec that is collected in Quebec and disclosed or transferred outside Quebec.

The need exists. I am speaking to Quebecers throughout the province, whether they live in Sept-Îles, Chicoutimi, Ville-Marie, Shawville, Bedford, Montreal, Lachine, Saint-Lambert, Châteauguay, Charny, Lévis, Charlesbourg or Sillery.

I was very proud when the Government of Quebec adopted the protection of personal information act in 1994. As a Quebecer, I was very proud. It is a wonderful piece of legislation, but it is not perfect. Furthermore, representatives of professional bodies who appeared before the committee said so. They even pointed out safeguards in Bill C-6 that do not appear in Quebec's legislation. I could mention whistle blowing. I will get back later to this form of safeguard, which exists in Bill C-6 and not in Quebec's legislation.

There is a need in Quebec and not just in the other provinces. It was suggested today in the House that the need exists in the other provinces because they did not give themselves a law to protect personal information within their boundaries and that only Quebec did—that there would be no need in Quebec for such a federal law, but that need could exist in the other provinces. I am sorry, but the need exists from sea to sea in Canada, including in Quebec.

As I said previously in the House, in the case of a Quebecer living in Quebec and dealing with a company outside Quebec, if that company collects personal information about that individual and discloses that information to some other companies, associations or organizations and if that Quebecer tries to complain or to sue that company which is not carrying on its commercial activities in Quebec but in some other province, he will be ruled out of court. The first thing the court will say is that the Quebec law does not apply to that company.

Bill C-6 is needed to ensure the protection of personal information about all the Quebecers and all the people who are not necessarily Quebec residents but who were in Quebec at the time the information disclosed outside Quebec was collected.

It was suggested that provincial areas of jurisdiction are invaded. I invite my colleagues to go attend a course on constitutional law. That is a well known subject. Here we have a federal system and our constitution has set some areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Some other areas are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and a third category of areas is under joint jurisdiction. When dealing with the commercial sector, I regret to have to tell my honourable colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that commerce is an area coming under federal jurisdiction also. When a company carries on commercial activities outside Quebec, that is interprovincial or international, we are getting into an area of federal jurisdiction. You can laugh—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that she must address the Chair and not the other members.

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

You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I must always address you, and I must never address the people across the way.

I was talking about infringement of provincial jurisdictions. I again invite our colleagues seated to your left and my right to perhaps take constitutional law 101 to find out about federal jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions and joint jurisdictions.

They should read the charter and the British North America Act carefully. Banks, telecommunications companies, broadcasters and cross border transport companies, if I may call them that, otherwise I have invented a new term.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

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

On the other side of the House they are saying that I did not invent the term.

The activities of the organizations I just mentioned come under federal jurisdiction.

They also say there was no consultation. I am quite surprised to hear it claimed in the House today that there was no consultation with the provinces and with those interested in the whole issue of protecting privacy and personal information.

The very members claiming there was no consultation are saying that the Barreau du Québec was consulted along with the Chambre des notaires. There is some confusion in their minds, to say the least.

There were consultations between governments, which led to one excellent thing: almost all the governments, if not all the governments in Canada, recognized the need for legislation to protect personal information.

However, not all these provincial governments had time enough to pass legislation. British Columbia is preparing to pass legislation. But, Bill C-6 addresses this problem, and as I mentioned at the start of my remarks, it is precisely in order to permit the provinces to pass legislation that may be implemented progressively.

At the end of three years, if some provincial or territorial governments have yet to pass legislation to protect personal information, the federal law will continue to apply in all areas of commercial activity in the private sector.

However, in the case of governments passing legislation that is essentially the same, the organizations covered by provincial legislation will be exempted from the application of the federal legislation.

I will close on this. About the claim that Quebec is best protected, I must tell you that, if—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but the 20 minutes are up.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to have an exchange of views with the Liberal member on this.

First of all, she spoke of law 101. Well, we are also going to tell her about politics 101, because she said that the Government of Quebec had been consulted. The fact that the Quebec bar association or the Conseil du Patronat spoke out in committee does not mean that the Government of Quebec was consulted. There is a difference between the Quebec bar association, the Conseil du Patronat, the CSN and the government.

The government is a different institution, one elected democratically by the people and representing Quebecers. That is my first point.

Second, she says we were wrong when we said that this was a provincial jurisdiction. I have here a letter from the Quebec bar association to the Minister of Industry, who is with us today, and will read something from the end of its third paragraph. She can discuss it with the bar association, since she is a member. The letter reads:

But the protection of personal information is based on provincial jurisdiction over property, under the civil code.

I would imagine that a nice little discussion between bar association colleagues will ensue, since it is the association's opinion that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

The letter is fairly recent, February 4, 1999. I imagine they took into consideration the British North America Act, which has been around for more than a hundred years.

Continuing with this letter, because it is most interesting, they go on to speak of practical application of the legislation. I quote:

This means that a considerable number of companies established in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal legislation rather than the Quebec legislation, and this is not likely to make it any easier for members of the public seeking to find out what their rights are in this context of changing legislation. As well, Quebec-based businesses will be required to master a new system for the protection of personal information, one which differs considerably from the one in place in Quebec.

Returning to the phrase “a considerable number of companies established in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal legislation rather than the Quebec legislation”, this means that they were previously subject to the Quebec legislation. Does the hon. member realize that there was no legal vacuum, as she seems to be implying, that it is not like everyone was urging the federal government to get involved and set up different rules?

I now come to the recommendation made by the Quebec bar, which supports that of the access to information commission and which provides that:

To avoid any confusion and ensure that Quebecers can continue to benefit from a comprehensive personal information protection program, we submit that Bill C-54—now Bill C-6—should be amended to provide expressly that the federal legislation will not apply to businesses governed by the Privacy Act in the private sector.

I can already see the hon. member getting ready to say “Yes, but what about those for whom that act would not apply?” Her friends from the bar added:

“We go even further. In our opinion, the bill should incorporate by reference the Quebec legislation, even in areas of federal jurisdiction, to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication in the legislation applied in Quebec”.

It comes from the Quebec bar, which represents lawyers. These are experts who looked at this legislation and told us that it will create chaos and make things extremely complicated. To avoid that, they propose a simple solution. But this government will never recognize the primacy of the Quebec law, even if it concerns the civil code, which makes us so distinct in the eyes of the federal government.

When the federal government defines Quebec's distinctive character, it usually points to two or three elements. The government includes as few elements as possible, but it usually mentions the civil code. Yet, with this legislation, it is not even prepared to recognize the civil code.

So, what does the member have to say to the Barreau? Not to us on this side, to the members across the way to her right and to your left, Mr. Speaker. What does she have to say to the Barreau du Québec, which is suggesting this should be the solution?

And, before concluding, I would like to come back to one point. She says: “Yes, but we will not be able to regulate out-of-province companies doing business in Quebec”. If that logic applied, how is the Government of Canada going to be able to regulate an American company doing business in Canada?

Using her logic, it could not, because she is saying that Quebec's legislation does not apply to a company holding information obtained in Quebec, if the company is based outside Quebec. So what is she going to do about an American company that obtains information here and holds it in the United States? If the Government of Canada can do it, why would Quebec not be able to do it for Canada?

There is something a bit illogical about what she is saying and I would like her to explain to me why she thinks Quebec cannot fully legislate this situation when, if this were true, the same logic would apply to Canada, which would be able to legislate in respect of American companies.

I would like her to explain this and to respond to the brief from the Barreau that I have just cited and which is very specific. If she wishes, I can give her a copy of the document.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. The federal bill will be completing the protection afforded consumers in Quebec by the legislation of that province.

Both laws deal with different activities, and the federal legislation will be filling the gaps in the protection given by the Quebec law. In Quebec, the federal legislation will target situations where the activities of an organization are not regulated by the Commission d'accès à l'information. I can think for example of companies under federal jurisdiction, and of the problems Quebecers can encounter in their dealings with companies outside their province.

Bill C-6 settles problems that cannot be handled through provincial laws, even when these laws have been prepared with great care.

When data are transferred across the borders of 13 provinces or territories, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is in a better position to investigate and settle cross border problems.

A second example would be the case of a company headquartered in Alberta collecting information on Quebec consumers. Since Alberta and Quebec are not bound by each other's legislation, there is a need for federal legislation.

Quebec businesses that transfer personal information within Quebec and between provinces will have no problem complying with both laws. When the Barreau du Quebec, of which I am a member, or the hon. member opposite submit that this will cause confusion, they are saying in fact that our Quebec businesses are not capable of coping with situations where two laws are applicable. They are already familiar with that kind of situations. They are obeying industrial safety legislation as well as legislation governing their commercial activities.

Quebec businesses have already had to organise their commercial activities in compliance with different laws, federal as well as provincial. It is a shame to claim that our businesses are not capable of doing that.

Bill C-6 and Quebec Law-68 may be drafted differently but their intent and impact are rather similar. Both pieces of legislation require businesses to obtain the consent of a person before collecting, using or disclosing his or her personal information.

Both pieces of legislation give people access to their personal information that is maintained by private sector organisations. Both provide for monitoring by a privacy commissioner and allow redress mechanisms for people whose rights are affected. Above all, both provide for rights and obligations which are basically similar, since both have the same starting point.

What is that starting point? It all started with the guidelines established by the OCDE in 1980. Sure, there are differences, but Canada can manage them. Canada may be the only country in the whole world which provides in its charter of rights and freedoms that it shall promote its diversity.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act aimed at promoting electronic commerce at the expense of privacy.

Since the beginning of the week, I have noticed that the Liberal government opposite, with Bill C-6 and Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons, has been speaking from both sides of its mouth. The government tells Quebec and the rest of Canada: “We are going to talk with the provinces, we will come to an agreement before introducing new bills.”

I am really disillusioned with this government's double talk. I believe Quebecers and Canadians must realize that this government ignores everything that moves both in Quebec and the rest of Canada. This is the general image we have had of this government for the two years we have been sitting in the Parliament of Canada.

Do not tell me it is because I am a sovereignist, an independentist or a separatist that I talk this way. I am defending the interests of a francophone riding in Quebec, the riding of Jonquière. When I travel through my riding, my constituents tell me this about the current government: “What is wrong with them, why do they want to re-invent the wheel, redo what has already been done, and why do they not take the best in other laws to improve the justice system and health care system in Canada?” No, what they want is to re-invent the wheel.

Too much is too much, or not enough is not enough, but I think the government has time to waste, because it has no vision for the next millennium that is fast approaching. I think the government doe not know hoe to go forward. It wants to relive the past, to return to the time where it was not in power, to give itself good conscience. We have a concrete example of that with this Bill C-6.

I would have liked to ask the Minister of Industry if he is familiar with the Quebec privacy act that was passed in 1994. I would have liked to know if he is aware of the Quebec legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector, which is unique in North America. Quebec is the only state in North America that has a legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.

I hope the minister noticed that we have a legislation in Quebec. Of course, nothing is perfect, and I think we can rewrite a legislation to improve it, because time goes by and society is evolving. He could have looked at this legislation and say: “Quebec did this, why not do the same for the other provinces of Canada, and also cover other areas that the Quebec legislation does not cover?”

What did the Minister of Industry do? He told us he had consulted with the provinces. I could give you some evidence that the Minister of Industry did not consult with the provinces, because on September 21, 1998, the federal minister sent a legislation proposal to his provincial counterparts. He asked for their comments. On October 1, 1998, he said: “I do not need the views of my counterparts, I will act unilaterally, I will table a bill in the House”.

On October 30, the 12 provincial and territorial justice ministers unanimously called—I am not sure if the word “unanimously” has the same meaning in English as in French, but this word means that everyone was in agreement—on the federal Minister of Industry to withdraw Bill C-54, because it was “a major intrusion into provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction”. This can be found in a press release that followed that federal-provincial-territorial meeting of the justice ministers, held on October 30, 1998, in Regina, Saskatchewan.

These are the facts. The government brags about consulting the provinces. Is this the meaning they give to the word “consultation”? I am curious as to what dictionary they might be using. To consult people is to sit down with them, to submit your projects and to ask them for their opinion. That is what consulting is all about.

If you hear about some legislation somewhere that is protecting privacy and working just fine, you sit down, negotiate and take the best of this legislation to try and make a society, a country like Canada a leader in that field to ensure the best protection for its citizens.

This morning, my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue made an eloquent speech in which he gave a clear explanation of privacy. Personally, I would not like for someone, anyone, to scrutinize my every move and say: “Maybe she should have done this instead of that. We should investigate the matter.”

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you would like that, but I certainly would not. I rise up against this tactic that the government of Canada wants to use against me and my fellow citizens who live in my riding of Jonquière and in Quebec. Enough is enough!

Did the Minister of Industry understand? The Minister of Industry created a whole constitutional litigation that could have been avoided had he agreed to work in co-operation with its counterparts.

If Bill C-6 is implemented in Quebec, the rights of Quebecers regarding personal information protection will suffer significant setbacks regarding consent and remedies.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says she is a legal expert. There are several legal experts in my family. We see more and more shortfalls in the legislation passed in the House of Commons. I think there are many shortfalls in Bill C-6. We must not let these legal experts implement legislation as they like. In all conscience, we must ensure that these bills help our fellow citizens, not the legal experts.

There is also a setback regarding the collection of information from a third party. Moreover, the Bill will be confusing for companies and individuals in Quebec.

The implementation of Bill C-6 in Quebec will require the setting up of two systems for the protection of personal information and it will be confusing for companies and individuals.

Today is October 22. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that the Bill he introduced in this House is a source of confusion.

When there is confusion there is a need for interpretation. I call upon the minister of Industry to exclude Quebec from his bill.

We, in Quebec—and I believe that some people in the House will laugh—are pioneers in privacy protection. The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms allowed our legislators to be at the forefront of privacy protection.

Far from me the idea of pretending that we are perfect, but I can say that we have always been listening to our fellow citizens to be able to take care of their wellbeing and to answer their needs through our charter of rights and freedoms. We are constantly listening to people to improve our legislation.

Bill C-6 does not improve on Quebec legislation, it will diminish it. We have a civil code in Quebec. Contrary to Ontario and the other provinces of Canada, we are not in a system of Common Law. We reviewed our civil code three years ago because we thought that it needed to be improved and adapted for the next century. We did it and the privacy protection act we passed is based on our civil code. If the minister does not know that code, I would recommend him to read it because it is a little gem as far as the protection of civil rights of Quebecers is concerned.

I will not repeat everything that was said by my colleagues, the member for Témiscamingue and the member for Mercier, but through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Industry—it is never too late to recognize one's mistake—to change his mind before it is too late.

I urge the Minister of Industry to wait, to meet both Quebec ministers as they requested and allow them to explain their position. This would make sure that the Liberal government in Canada is listening to the people and does not pass laws that duplicate or undo what has been done in the provinces. I am waiting for an answer from the Minister of Industry and I am putting a lot of energy into this to make sure that my request gets to him through you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 2.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Is it agreed to call it 2.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.14 p.m.)