Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Party of Canada, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act.
I would like to thank the many witnesses who took the time to make submissions either in person or in writing to the Standing Committee on Industry. Their representations were extremely helpful with respect to bringing new issues to light.
I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the industry committee for their vigorous discussion of the contents of the bill, in particular my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Regardless of our political differences, we are all trying to ensure that parliament acts appropriately on legislative matters. Moreover I would like to note the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry for his credible defence of the government's position. I would also like to commend the member for Durham for bringing forward an amendment at committee to clause 18 of the bill which was identical to an amendment I sponsored.
We in the PC Party believe in the need for personal privacy legislation but we do not feel the government has adequately taken into account the views and concerns of the Ontario and Quebec governments. We do not feel it has adequately considered the cost impact of Bill C-54's new regulatory regime on the private sector.
We do not see the need in rushing to pass a law to meet a European Union directive when our number one e-commerce and overall trading partner has adopted a diametrically different approach.
I will now speak to the specific amendments in Group No. 1, all of which were sponsored by the member for Mercier. I especially salute the work of the member. While I certainly find myself at the opposite end of her separatist convictions, I do admire her dedication in opposing the bill.
To be fair to the member for Mercier, I would like to note for the record that at the industry committee, the member presented the following motion:
Whereas witnesses were recently heard by the Standing Committee on Industry, on Bill C-54, concerning the major problems in implementing this legislation; and took into account the big application difficulties of this bill,
Whereas the Quebec government has repeated its demand that Bill C-54 be withdrawn,
That the committee suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-54 and ask the industry minister to undertake negotiations with all the provinces, to forestall any constitutional challenge that might impair the attainment of its objectives.
This motion was defeated seven to four by the Liberal majority. Support for the Bloc amendment crossed party lines with all the opposition members voting in support, namely my Reform colleague from North Vancouver, my Bloc colleague from Lévis, the member for Mercier and me as the Conservative member.
Having heard so many concerns from witnesses, the Liberals had a choice to take their time and consider meaningful changes to Bill C-54. The Bloc, Reform and the Conservatives were ready to work together to draft a better bill.
To their credit the Liberals allowed for some minor tinkering to Bill C-54. For example they supported two of the 16 amendments I brought forward. But on the major question of over-regulation in the form of excessive powers granted to the privacy commissioner and provoking battles with the Ontario and Quebec governments, they refused to budge. They refused to co-operate; they refused to compromise.
On behalf of the PC Party, I refuse to blindly support Bill C-54 for the sake of getting a law, any law, on personal privacy and e-commerce.
One glaring example of the defects in this legislation is clause 18(1) which would give the privacy commissioner the right to audit a company based on disputes regarding recommended business practices which are listed under schedule 1 of the bill. Recommended business practices are just that, recommendations. They are not laws and should therefore not be enforced as such.
The privacy commissioner should be allowed to conduct an audit only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the law has been violated. Audits are intrusive and place a heavy administrative burden on the business operations of Canadian companies. The audit power under Bill C-54 should only be used to cover alleged violations of mandatory obligations set out in the bill.
The privacy commissioner should not be permitted to micromanage whether or not a company complies with recommended business practices, such as what types of passwords or encryptions are being used by a company.
Furthermore, clause 18(1) as presently drafted is not necessary since Bill C-54 already provides the privacy commissioner with the tools needed to ensure the compliance of schedule 1. For example, clause 11 allows an individual to file a complaint if he or she feels that an organization is contravening the legislation or not following a recommended business practice. Furthermore, clause 12 gives the privacy commissioner the power to investigate all complaints, including complaints that an organization is not following a recommended business practice.
I must also reiterate the longstanding objections of a variety of witnesses to the far-ranging powers granted to the privacy commissioner under clauses 12 and 18. While I do not object to extending search and seizure power to the privacy commissioner under Bill C-54, it is in the best interests of all concerned that that office be required to obtain prior judicial authorization.
The lack of any obligation for the privacy commissioner to obtain the approval of our courts before exercising search and seizure powers is deeply troubling. Clauses 12 and 18 of Bill C-54 create a fundamental conflict by allowing the privacy commissioner to determine whether or not to exercise search and seizure powers and to execute those same powers. The authorization should be granted by a neutral third party, as is the case for criminal investigations.
Bill C-54 already provides the privacy commissioner with broad investigation and audit powers. The commissioner may summon and enforce appearance of persons under oath, converse with any person, compel the production of documents and receive and accept any evidence in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court.
It is for these reasons that additional safeguards are needed in Bill C-54 as it relates to the privacy commissioner or his delegate actually entering the premises of a private organization and seizing records.
These are not just the concerns of allegedly self-interested companies. Indeed, Blair MacKenzie from the Canadian Newspapers Association told the industry committee that these provisions within Bill C-54 are “frightening”. Other witnesses have alluded to these provisions of the bill prompting challenges under the charter of rights and freedoms if the privacy commissioner acted upon clauses 12 or 18.
I am also troubled that the government did not bring forward any study or reports on the cost impact of Bill C-54. From a legal, constitutional and economic standpoint, these unfettered audit powers constitute a tremendous defect in the legislation.
Sadly, the Liberal majority decided to ignore the fears of free speech advocates, ignore the pleas of the private sector and chose to defeat my amendments to oblige the privacy commissioner to obtain a court order before exercising search and seizure.
If there is any reluctance I have in supporting the Group No. 1 amendments, it is due to Motion No. 56 and up which deal with part 2 through part 5. Most of these objections pertain to part 1 of Bill C-54.
Unfortunately the familiar double dose of Liberal arrogance and heavy handedness has left me, on behalf of the Conservative caucus, with no choice but to support the Group No. 1 amendments. The Liberals had their chance to co-operate at committee to make a substantially better bill and they chose not to.