Madam Speaker, we are now debating Motion No. 19, which I will read to the House. It reads as follows:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)( b ), to remedy the weaknesses of the Privacy Act, including providing relief or compensation for persons who suffer as a result of improper disclosure of their private information and imposing penalties for those who wilfully violate the provisions of the Privacy Act.
We just finished a lengthy study of the Privacy Act. It started after the last general election and went on for some time. Then, last fall it was put, somewhat hastily, on the government agenda again. Since it was among the commitments made in the throne speech, Canada wanted a privacy act.
I remind the House that we were opposed to this legislation not because of its purpose per se, which was to give Canadians an act that would protect the transmission of personal information, but rather because of the fact that, in most cases, particularly in the case of Quebec where such legislation already exists, several areas were already covered, in fact all areas were already covered.
Some areas are covered by federal legislation and others by provincial legislation. There will be a difficult adjustment for companies whose activities come, for one part, under federal jurisdiction and, for another part, under provincial legislation. But that is nothing new. We see that in so many areas and that will happen now with the protection of private information.
We have a great deal of difficulty accepting the principle that, because no other province was taking action, Quebec was pushed out of a jurisdiction it was exercising.
The federal government could very well have recognized in this legislation the precedence of the Quebec consumer protection legislation. Especially since the federal government bragged that its legislation was very similar to the Quebec legislation, with a few adjustments, and that it had borrowed big chunks from it. If both legislation are similar, all the more reason to give precedence to the provincial legislation. Companies, even those under federal jurisdiction, and federal institutions in the province could then be told to abide by the provincial consumer protection legislation.
A whole bunch of overlapping would have been avoided because the current legislation provides for a transition period. For a few years, the act will be only partially in force, but in time its scope will increase and problems will arise along the way. As a matter of fact part of the act is in force now while the rest will be later, in three years.
We strongly opposed it. My colleague from Mercier initially led the charge on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Several groups from Quebec came to testify on this bill. I am thinking about—and the intergovernmental affairs minister is going to accuse us once again of bringing out mothballs groups, but I will list a few of those who supported us—the chamber of notaries, the bar, people who cannot necessarily be accused of being part of any political family, let alone the sovereignist family.
The Conseil du patronat cautioned against it. Quite a few groups, including trade unions, the CSN in particular, submitted briefs. The Quebec access to information commission highlighted all the potential problems and difficulties associated with its implementation.
In practice, some definitions are different, for example, what is a signature. When we talk about e-commerce, some notions which were defined in the civil code can now be found in the federal act. Their meaning is different because these two approaches—the one based on the civil code and the one based on the Criminal Code or the federal privacy legislation—are very different.
We are not trying to artificially create a problem where there is none. There are technical problems, and the groups themselves will have to live with that: the lawyers of the Bar, the business people represented by employers and the workers represented by central labour bodies.
Of course, not everyone in this group necessarily has a monopoly on the truth. How did it happen, however, that we found ourselves in the situation—in the case of Quebec—where only the representatives of the Liberal Party were in favour? Perhaps two or three individuals whose motives and often whose links to this government are questionable and who pay lip service to this bill.
There was therefore very little support for this legislation in Quebec. However, we understand the aim of it: that Canada be governed by a law since there was none outside Quebec. However, I am told some provisions existed in Ontario and perhaps in some other provinces, which were not as extensive as the consumer protection act. It is understandable for Canada to want to be proactive and have a law. That said, if the other provinces do not want to exercise jurisdiction, that is not our problem. And if the federal government thinks that it should exercise it instead, it should have entered into an agreement.
The ministers of the Government of Quebec have requested meetings and, to my knowledge, they never even received an acknowledgement of receipt or nothing was done to have highly technical and specific discussions to see how to deal with the situation.
Now we have a Reform Party member who, no sooner is the debate over, already wants to amend the act. To my knowledge—and I may be wrong—this legislation was supported by the Reform Party. They could have promoted it more when the bill was being reviewed. There is, among other things, this idea of compensating those who suffer prejudice.
Would this not—I am not an expert on this issue mind you—open the door to compensation whenever there is prejudice? When this happens between parties in a civil case, there are recourses for individuals. Now, must we systematically set out in the act that there will be prejudice and that compensation will be paid to those who suffer prejudice?
As for the second part of the motion, dealing with applicable penalties, this is already covered. Whether we like it or not, legislation already exists, and there is a penalty for failing to comply with its provisions. In fact, there is whole series of offences.
What does this motion mean with regard to penalties? How far are they willing to go? What does it mean in practical terms?
The motion is relatively precise in that regard. The notion of prejudice is new. It can be understood that it is only a matter of principle. The notion of sanctions or penalties already exists. Why is it not explained more clearly in the motion? It becomes difficult to support a motion the second part of which is vague, and probably deliberately so.
In any case, it is very difficult for us to support a motion aimed at amending a piece of legislation that is hard for us to live with. The fact that this piece of legislation has been adopted does not mean that the problems I alluded to earlier will not arise with regard to the different definitions in the federal legislation. I used signatures as an example earlier, how an electronic signature is defined, and so on.
Of course, there will eventually be some degree of harmonization, but in the meantime, it may very well be that consumers will not enjoy the same protection as they did before. When only one act applied in Quebec, businesses under federal jurisdiction—and I am thinking specifically about the telecommunications sector—complied with this act. Everybody came under the same legislation and it was known. Now there are two acts.
Consumers will see businesses using the excuse that there is a transitional period, that the federal legislation will be fully in force in a few years, that there are two definitions, that things are complicated, and so on. And there will be consumers who will find it all very confusing and will wonder which of the two pieces of legislation applies, and which protects them and how.
This is a very complex issue in a sector that is already complex and is evolving very rapidly.
Some of these principles were defended during the committee proceedings, but it might have been better to debate them or to make amendments back then, rather than support the bill, as the Reform Party did when it came time to vote. To my knowledge, we were almost the only ones to oppose the bill. Today, some members are voicing opposition, but they had much less to say when it might have done the most good.
I will conclude by saying that it is very hard for us to support this motion, which is not votable in any event, but had it been votable, it would have been very hard for us to support it.