Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate at report stage with some emotion. I say so without hesitation, because for Quebec this bill is an attack on the fundamental right of Quebecers under civil law to have privacy legislation.
In 1994, under a Liberal government in Quebec, and with the unanimous support of the Parti Quebecois, Quebec passed legislation to protect personal information in the private sector. It was the first state in North America to have the courage to pass such legislation.
After much consultation, the bill became law. It aroused some concerns, and in some instances anger, among representatives of employer organizations who feared its effects. However, five years later, after a review, again unanimously supported, what we discovered during the consultation phase of Bill C-54 was that in 1993-94 it was organizations and companies that were concerned about the effects of the act respecting the privacy of information in the private sector.
They told us “We were concerned. We held discussions with the representatives of the Commission d'accès à l'information, and now we are here to ask you why the federal government has not made use of the experience acquired in Quebec, the experience of Quebec businesses and the experience of the Commission”.
The Quebec legislation has been in place for five years. It is a piece of legislation many describe as a model, because it is simple and readily understood. People are aware of their rights. Businesses know their obligations. The legislation provides effective and free recourse which really helps people in Quebec in their dealings with organizations in the private sector.
Under such circumstances, how can we let the federal government, when it decides finally to legislate in this area, use an entirely different model, that of a voluntary code of behaviour for businesses, rather than draw on the experience of Quebec, businesses, individuals, consumer organizations, the government and the access to information commission?
This voluntary code, a positive initiative in which Quebecers have been considerably involved, is full of conditions and language which permits recognition of neither rights nor obligations. It is vague.
When the essence of a bill is appended and is not written in legal terminology, it is very likely that it will be extremely difficult to apply, not to mention that legal recourse is time consuming, may be very costly and is ineffective, according to the witnesses we heard.
Quebec cannot prevent Canada and the other provinces from establishing legislation, but it, its government and many, many witnesses asked “Why not create legislation that is effective because it is harmonized?”
The principle underlying such legislation, if personal information is to be effectively protected, presupposes harmonization. In addition to the constitutional problem raised by Bill C-54, we are faced with a bill that will weaken the meaning of the Quebec legislation and will make businesses subject to two levels of law and regulation. They will not know which way to turn. For the public, it will be a terrible mess. They will not know whether to complain under one law or the other.
The issue of personal information is abstract until people have experienced a specific case themselves. In the present situation one law applies. If a person has problems, he goes to the access to information commission, which investigates. If the problem is resolved at the first level, it is all well and good. If not, the commission reviews the matter and gives a decision. This is at no cost to the individual. If it is a matter of record, the remedy will follow quickly.
However, this is not the case under the federal legislation. Information gathered in Quebec, with all the consent guarantees, does not require the same guarantee across the border.
What will the ordinary citizen do? Does he know if the information collected will cross the border or not? No, he does not.
When a business collects information, does it know whether this particular information will cross the border or not? Does it know whether it will be used both within and outside the province? In such a case it would have to apply to both systems at the same time.
This is absurd from a harmonization point of view. The testimonies heard on this issue were unanimous. Business people asked repeatedly that the government stop this process and harmonize the bill with Quebec and the other provinces.
From a constitutional point of view, as constitutional expert Jacques Frémont pointed out, there is also a show of force. If the Minister of Industry had read the whole testimony he would have read this, and I am quoting Mr. Frémont:
In my opinion, Bill C-54 is based on a false hypothesis, the hypothesis that electronic trade is a federal area of jurisdiction. Nothing could be further from the truth; in my opinion, this is a shared area of jurisdiction, where both the provinces and Ottawa should have a say. Since I am from Quebec, I think that we would be quite right to be very concerned if ever the common law applicable to electronic commerce were to become a federal area of jurisdiction. If that were to happen, we would be out and out supplanting the Code civil as the basis of Quebec's legal system, a characteristic that is recognized by this parliament. If we were to keep the approach of this bill, we could out and out strip the provinces of authority to regulate in the areas of trade and commerce as soon as they include some aspects of electronic commerce. This would be a power grab, a full-fledged attack on provincial jurisdiction over economic matters.
Those are the words of Jacques Frémont, a well known constitutional expert and, I insist, a free man.
From a constitutional point of view, the government says that it has complete jurisdiction in the area of personal information and electronic commerce. It claims to have jurisdiction over all personal information collected in the private sector.
Then it decides that, if satisfied that a province has legislation that is substantially similar, the governor in council may exempt from the application of its own legislation organizations or classes of activities—provinces are never specifically mentioned—that come under the purview of the province.
It is indeed a power grab. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has asked that this bill be withdrawn at all stages. It is not that we do not want legislation in that area, but we want legislation that truly and equally protects all Canadians and Quebecers.
We did not simply ask that provisions of the bill be deleted. To save whatever could be saved, we also prepared amendments in consultation with many witnesses from Quebec. What we want above all is to ensure that Quebecers are protected. That is what we are here for.