Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the use of the conditional, for the benefit of the many people who are following this debate. The use of the conditional points to a recommendation rather than an obligation.
Those who still had a doubt about the good faith of the minister are now forced to recognize that the provisions of schedule 1, which provides for the repeal of provisions relating to the protection of privacy, have no imperative or mandatory character.
While reading the bill, I stumbled onto clause 11 relating to complaints. It floored me. I suggest that members listen carefully to my reading of this clause and hold on to their seat, because it could a rough ride. This clause reads as follows:
An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision—
—of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.
This is a major problem. How can recommendations that are not real obligations be binding? I am at a loss to interpret these provisions, but I would like the minister to explain this masterpiece of ambiguity and confusion to me. This does not augur well for citizens' rights.
There is more. Paragraph 4.3.2 of schedule 1 stipulates:
—Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.
The words “shall make a reasonable effort” can be interpreted many ways. It would have been clearer to say that organizations shall ensure that the individual is advised. Obviously, this government is not very good at creating obligations to protect real people.
Schedule 1 says “Organizations are encouraged to indicate the source of this information”.
If I were to accept as an obligation every invitation extended to me, my life would be very unhappy indeed. The provisions in this bill show to what extent this legislation is inadequate and does absolutely nothing to protect personal information.
However with the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, more than ever it is of the utmost importance to protect personal information collected by the private sector. This bill meets the expectations of neither Quebeckers nor Canadians.
Protecting personal information is all the more important as the right to privacy is a fundamental right just like the right to freedom and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 50 years ago, states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
In Quebec the right to privacy is protected under section 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which says clearly “Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.”
The right to privacy is also recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”. Section 35 provides, and I quote:
Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
Section 35 goes even further:
Every person who establishes a file on another person shall have a serious and legitimate reason for doing so. He may only gather information which is relevant to the stated objective of the file, and may not, without the consent of the person concerned or authorization by law, communicate such information to a third person or use it for purposes that are inconsistent with the purposes for which the file was established. In addition, he may not, when establishing or using the file, otherwise invade the privacy or damage the reputation of the person concerned.
It is with pride that I point out that the Government of Quebec is the only government in North America to have passed legislation, as early as 1982, governing the protection of personal information in the public sector. As for the private sector, it was dealt with in 1994.
With respect to privacy, Quebec clearly has all the tools it needs to ensure that personal information concerning Quebeckers is protected.
At the federal level, there is legislation respecting the protection of personal information in the public sector, but one concerning the private sector was long overdue. In 1982, then communications minister Francis Fox announced his intention to legislate on privacy in the federally regulated private sector. In 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General endorsed this recommendation in a report.
In his 1996-97 annual report, the privacy commissioner saluted as a fundamental and highly significant event the undertaking by then justice minister Allan Rock to enact before the year 2000 a bill protecting privacy in the private sector in a real and effective fashion.
The government has recognized that technology makes it impossible to provide adequate privacy if the legislation does not apply to both the private and the public sector. Bill C-54 does not meet the requirements, because its topic is indeed electronic commerce, with privacy as a side issue.
It is quite clear that the minister is focusing on the expansion of electronic commerce at the expense of privacy. But what matters to the privacy commissioner and to all our fellow citizens is that the fundamental right to privacy be protected. In fact, it is about protecting democracy.
