Mr. Speaker, to understand today's debate, one must understand why the Senate sent this bill back to us.
The minister introduced Bill C-6 and it was rammed through the House. It was rushed through for all sorts of reasons, some of them undoubtedly having to do with the political agenda of the Liberal members opposite. But the bill raised many questions in Quebec.
Many people came right out and said that the bill was not only ineffective but ill-timed, given what was being done in Quebec.
I do not wish to repeat what my Bloc Quebecois colleagues said, but they have raised the important point of the bill's constitutionality. If I can put it this way in the House, we all but pleaded the case. Had the senators wanted to do something useful, they perhaps should have spent a bit longer on the bill and tried to bring the Liberal members opposite around to their way of thinking, since they also hold a majority in the Senate. They could have woken the House up. It is often the Senate that is asleep at the switch, but this time it is probably the government members across the way, or perhaps they know what they are doing and once again have it in for Quebec.
Witnesses who appeared before the committee raised an important constitutional point. I will read a passage from the testimony of Jacques Frémont, a constitutional expert at the Université de Montréal. This is what he said:
In my view, Bill C-54 violates the spirit and the letter of the division of powers, as it must be understood in this country. It takes an arrogant and ill-timed approach to provincial jurisdiction.
I think that this is fairly clear. These are the words of an emeritus professor, a recognized constitutional expert, not something that came out of the mouth of a member of the Bloc Quebecois or a nasty sovereignist.
He went on to say:
Privacy is basically a provincial jurisdiction in theory. In Quebec, for instance, property and civil rights, the Civil Code, and Quebec law apply, in addition to the Canadian and Quebec charters.
This is not from someone who is directly involved in the issue. This is a professor who studied the bill and who, based on his experience, came to that conclusion.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec told the committee more or less the same thing, albeit in different terms. It said: doc.
Because the constitutional power given to the provinces by section 92(13) of the British North America Act regarding the protection of personal information and privacy is not at issue, the Quebec lawmaker has already passed its own legislation in this area. It is to be expected that many jurisdictional conflicts will surface.
The representatives of the Conseil du patronat told the government opposite not to legislate in this area, because it is not one of its jurisdictions. However, the government did so, as it always does, sometimes for suspicious reasons. In this case, it is rather striking.
One would have thought that the senators would have examined this issue. If they did, it is not reflected in their amendments today.
In Quebec, as we mentioned several times, but it is worth repeating, we already have similar legislation, which has proven effective over the past five or six years, which is extremely effective and which protects all personal information relating to Quebecers within the province's territory. This legislation is recognized and used as a model all over the world.
When I checked with the National Assembly, I was told that several other assemblies and parliaments have asked for copies of the act. They have asked about the philosophy behind it and how it works. I think the legislation we have in Quebec is an example.
Had the federal government done things the same way as Quebec, it would not have been so bad, but this bill is an intrusion and creates interpretation problems in this particular case.
Let us be clear. The federal act intrudes into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us take a concrete example. Which act is going to apply to a business in Quebec that has information pertaining to individuals? Will it be the federal act or the provincial act? Will both acts apply?
That is more or less what witnesses came to say, that the way the two acts will be enforced makes no sense.
I will give examples of duplication that may lead to serious conflicts. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will end up footing the bill.
I will give an example with regard to individual consent. Whereas the Quebec act says that such consent must be given obviously, freely, in an informed manner and for specific purposes—it is pretty well defined—Bill C-6 says that it can vary depending on the circumstances. The wording is quite different. It can vary from one situation to the next and it should be explicit when dealing with personal information that can be considered sensitive. There is a big difference just on this important part of the act regarding consent for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.
It is a lengthy bill. I will not go through all of its clauses because we have had ample opportunity to discuss all that already. But how will the courts interpret it? This is always my main concern, especially as justice critic. I think it is not going to be clear.
The Senate has examined this bill and returned it to us with amendments that, overall, change nothing, nothing at all. What is added on? A year longer before it comes into effect, just as far as health is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to let me know if I do indeed have 20 minutes, because I am being given the two-minute sign, when I thought I had 20.
There are several amendments proposed by the Senate. It is unanimous in its opposition to Bill C-6 in its present form, sometimes for reasons that are totally contradictory, and one might wonder why.
It also feels this bill is poorly drafted. This is not surprising; we said so on numerous occasions. It also finds that medical information, which it considers more sensitive than other information, is not being sufficiently protected. This too we have said on numerous occasions.