Mr. Speaker, we are again debating Bill C-6 or rather the amendments by the Senate. This bill is important to the government, which promised it in its throne speech.
The government decided to speed up the process and hurry the bill through in the fall. It has decided now to adopt the Senate's amendments. Bill C-6, it must be remembered, is legislation to protect personal information, but its primary intent is consumer or individual protection. In fact, in nine provinces in Canada, with a few exceptions, there was no legislation where the parties could be covered.
In the case of Quebec, there is a consumer protection act. The federal government decided to bring in a personal information bill, which is a bit misleading. The intent behind it all is to promote, particularly, from what we have seen in the definitions, to promote the development of e-commerce, even if it means at times rounding off corners and not properly protecting personal information that an individual might provide in the course of such transactions.
Initially, the situation was examined in the bill. The debate began over two or three years ago—at the time my colleague from Mercier was shepherding the matter within the Bloc Quebecois—and many groups told the federal government they were not in favour of its meddling in this area. Why? For a variety of reasons.
As I said earlier, as far as Quebec is concerned, we have to understand that a consumer protection legislation is in place, which has been regulating for a number of years the whole issue of protecting personal information, among other things, in the context of e-commerce. Naturally, this area is evolving fast, but there are definitions, including those of consent and signature. A signature on a traditional document is no problem, but consent in the context of electronic transactions is something else. We have our own definitions, based on the tradition of civil law. Our approach is clearly different from that of the federal government, which is based on the common law.
In its legislation, the federal government has to define these concepts. What is a consent? What is a signature? There are many terms to define.
The first difficulty arises from the definitions being different. Our approaches are different. It is important to know that, in Quebec, every business and person was covered by the consumer protection legislation. Even businesses and institutions under federal jurisdiction complied with that legislation.
Some will say “Look, it is clear to everyone that federal legislation applies to everyone”. What is not clear is, in the absence of a federal legislation, do they legally have to comply with the Quebec one? They did not take a chance and they did so. Of course, they did not take the risk of going to the courts, being turned down and being told that Quebec had jurisdiction in this area and that, because the federal government did not take up this jurisdiction, the Quebec government had been able to do so.
There are different supreme court decisions, and I do not want to get into the whole technical debate on this, but some people say it is possible they were legally subjected to the legislation; others say no, the courts should decide on the issue.
This would have been a good opportunity for the federal government members, these great champions of flexibility, such as the intergovernmental affairs minister and those in front of us here, who are telling us they have an extremely flexible regime. If that is the case, why then does the federal legislation not say that, in the case of provinces, such as Quebec, that have consumer protection legislation, such legislation applies? It would then take precedence. It was becoming clear for everyone in Quebec tthat it was the Quebec legislation that applied, including for federal institutions.
What must be understood is, it is very rare that businesses are not engaged in commerce elsewhere: in the Canadian market, in the American market and everywhere else in the world. Most of a company's activities can be subject to provincial jurisdiction in some cases, and to federal jurisdiction in others as a result of this bill, because there are some aspects that deal with foreign trade.
In practical terms, we will have many problems because businesses will sometimes be subject to one jurisdiction and sometimes to another. If the government wants to protect the consumer, surely it is not by making things more confusing that it will provide better protection. People will have great difficulty understanding their options; when someone feels he has been wronged, he must understand what remedies are available to him. And things are much clearer and simpler in Quebec's legislation than they will be in the federal act.
Therefore, depending on the type of information involved and on the legislation to which it is subject, people will have a particular recourse against a business, a different type of remedy or another organisation to turn to defend them.
Again, we will have a concrete example of the problems we face when two jurisdictions are involved in one area. There are many problems. First of all, for the consumers we want to protect, but also for businesses that have to abide by the legislation.
Business people tell us constantly “Look, let us do our work. We are entrepreneurs. Stop bothering us with all this paperwork”. But now, in Quebec, this bill will add a second level of jurisdiction regarding personal information protection. And businesses will have to deal with both.
Basically, the Liberals want to push Quebec aside. They want sole jurisdiction, as they will have outside Quebec. They want to legislate for Canada as a whole. The fact that Quebec already has legislation is the least of their worries. Indeed, none of the Liberal members on the other side has risen to remind this House that Quebec already has a solid jurisdiction that deserves to be recognised. They probably did not know about it. They did not say anything.
And these are the people who speak of flexibility, who tell us that things must be clear. These people, who are also apostles of clarity, are the ones who give us legislation that will make the protection of personal information very confusing. One need only read the minutes of the most recent hearings of the Senate committee, to see that the experts do not agree on jurisdiction, on the scope of the legislation and of the definitions. It is a real jumble.
This is what the so-called experts were saying, those lawyers from whom we will be seeking advice. Businesses that need advice go to legal firms. The people we heard all had different versions of what that meant in practice. But we should not worry about that. The federal government did not wait long to go all over the world claiming that it had an act protecting privacy and electronic documents. That was the objective. Then, they can say “Look at how good Canada is”. They will go and brag all over the place.
We are not supposed to worry if the system does not work in practice. This is the least of their concerns. All they want is to be able to say that there is something in place.
People from the health sector in Ontario have been critical of the bill from the beginning. They were very worried about the transfer of personal medical files, and they ought to be since the objective of the bill is to promote electronic commerce. They were saying that the commercial approach does not exist in the medical field and that the bill would not have any application in their sector.
The government that said no will support the Senate amendments and exempt the health sector for one more year. This decision is a direct consequence of the lobbying by the Ontario health sector. We will wait one more year. Finally, that will give the health sector almost two years to think of ways to better define consent in the context of the electronic transfer of personal medical data. The amendments exclude the sector.
From the very beginning, we said that there were a lot of problems with this act. The government was in a rush. It wanted to act fast. We have known that since the beginning. These groups from Ontario who have won their battle in the Senate had come to the committee to say so. They had written to all the members sitting on the committee. They had repeatedly phoned our offices to tell us that it did not make sense.
The government was in a great hurry. It did not want to talk about such amendments here in the House, or as little as possible. It wanted things to move quickly. It wanted the whole thing submitted rapidly to the Senate where they have a bunch of friends controlling the situation. There are not too many problems on that side. They wanted to allow them to give the impression that they do work from time to time. So they suggested amendments.
I am very curious to know who wrote those amendments. Let us presume that they were done in the Senate, although they could very well have been inspired by the Department of Health or the Department of Industry.
So we have the Senate amendments. We cannot support those amendments, even if they represent an improvement over the present act, because this act makes absolutely no sense.
There were all sorts of things. Later, I will quote the Minister of Industry. It is true that, in theor, the act could allow the minister to exempt certain sectors or areas of activities. It is not in the act. The minister is keeping some leeway to do so—
