Pierre Brien

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to clarify what I asked the NDP member previously.

I want him to understand one thing clearly. I fully share his concern that there must be a legislative framework, that Canada wants to take a leadership role and fulfil its own obligations. I have no objection to that.

However, the problem we have is that, in order to meet a need in other parts of Canada, in the nine provinces of Canada, the government is significantly changing a balance that was in the making because of a very progressive law in Quebec. In fact, the problem is not only with this bill. He mentioned the bill on young offenders. The same thing applies.

Is the New Democratic Party open to the idea that some asymmetry could be allowed occasionally, or does it feel that there should be a national objective at all cost, and too bad if Quebec already has its own legislation? Their point of view is: “We Canadians need a law, therefore we will impose it to Quebecers too, because we need that law and we want to play a role”.

Is there not room for recognition, in the federal legislation, of the Quebec legislation, and should it not simply say that, where legislation on the protection of personal information already exists, that legislation will be allowed to apply?

This especially true in the case of Quebec—I know it could be different in the case of the other provinces—as Quebec has a civil law system, while the other provinces have a common law system that is different in its approach and philosophy. They are not different for nothing. In speeches, Quebec is recognized as distinct, among other things, because of its civil law, but in reality, this bill does not recognize that fact.

Consequently, I would like to know if the member would be willing to go as far as to support the bill's recognizing, because of civil law, that in the objective of regulating electronic commerce and protecting personal information, where there is a civil law system, civil law and its legislation should apply, because these provisions are even in the Quebec civil code, and to give precedence to those provisions.

Governments could then hold discussions to ensure harmonization for businesses involved in interprovincial trade. Does the hon. member believe that the federal legislation should apply in Quebec and prevent the Quebec government from making regulations under civil law? This is what I am asking the hon. member.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this issue, the government's position or rather its insensitivity in setting up a system that contradicts or even impacts on the whole concept of civil law, is of course well known.

I would like to know how the NDP member would have reacted. He is obviously arguing in favour of an act like the bill before us. Is he at least more sensitive with respect to the complaints made to the government? On that, I would like to quote the Quebec bar association, which said that the protection of personal information is under provincial jurisdiction because it concerns property and civil law.

We all know that the Quebec system is based on civil law and not common law and that important practical problems are to be expected. We wonder if the government is the only one to think along those lines and we also wonder what the other parties' position is on the fact that the Government of Quebec, the Quebec bar association, the Chambre des notaires du Quebec, the Conseil du patronat du Quebec and Quebec unions have all said that it would have been better to recognize Quebec's legislation.

The bar association even went further and said that Quebec's legislation must apply in areas under federal jurisdiction areas to ensure that the law is the same everywhere and that it is understood by everybody, particularly as Quebec's legislation contains flexible mechanisms for consumers who feel that the protection of their personal information is being interfered with. There is a simple appeal mechanism, not too complicated, that does not involve the traditional courts, where things are complicated and intimidating.

Would the NDP member and his party have the same approach as the government or would they be a bit more flexible?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of our viewers, I would like to point out that today we are debating Bill C-6 at third reading stage.

Today is the one and only day of debate on this bill at third reading, because the government has decided to gag all those of us who would have liked to give their point of view on this bill after today's debate.

Those who are familiar with House procedure know that Friday is the sitting day that has the shortest period for government orders. The gag order has been imposed, and we will not be able to continue this debate after today.

But there is something else. It is rather curious in our system, and it is part and parcel of the problems of the Canadian federation. Two ministers of the Quebec government have asked for a meeting with a federal minister in order to discuss the terrible problems this bill will create in Quebec. These two ministers have asked for a meeting. That is not a big deal. But they got a rather cool reception: the federal government is not in the least bit interested.

A week ago, in a long speech called the throne speech, this same government was extolling the virtues of the Canadian way, the co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. Two elected ministers representing the people of Quebec asked for a meeting and got no other answer than the one given here during Oral Question Period, namely that the federal government was not interested in meeting them, that it was not interested in their point of view, that it had decided to go ahead because it believed it was in the public's best interest to do so.

Last week, this same government delivered lengthy speeches, claiming to be co-operating in what it called the Canadian approach. But there is the rhetoric, and then there is the reality. Today, we are talking about the reality, and the reality is that there is no co-operation. And then the federal government wonders why, year after year, for the past 35 or 40 years, more and more people in Quebec want out of this political system.

Getting back to Bill C-6, a number of government amendments were made after the committee discussions. As a result, none of the witnesses were able to comment on them when they appeared before the committee. I will mention two in particular, which are extremely worrying.

In Division 1 of the bill, which deals with the protection of personal information, clause 7 says, and I quote:

1. (1) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if—

We are talking about exceptions whereby the government could, without the knowledge of the individual—what is meant by that is explained further on—collect information without the consent of this individual. And then comes the list of exceptions.

The government bill provides for an exception for investigative bodies in specific instances. That exception, for investigative bodies, applies to circumstances where the government believes or has reasonable grounds to believe that offences have been committed. Therefore, it is possible, under such circumstances, not to comply with the act.

This started out as a rather limited definition or exception. Already, in committee, that definition began to be broadened a little. What the exception says is that it is possible not to comply, without the knowledge or consent of the individual, only if the disclosure is d ) made on the initiative of the organization to an investigative body and the information relates to an offence under the laws of Canada or a province that has been or is about to be committed—

And then this has been added:

—or to activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada;

In the committee hearings, this concept of exception began to be broadened. The federal government felt that it was a good idea to have that exception for threats to security, and now, after the committee stage, it is adding, in what is becoming subclause c .1), what is suggested in the government's Motion No. 15: c .1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that

(i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,

So, there is now reference not to “reasonable grounds” but to suspicions and three categories are defined: “national security”, “defence of Canada” and “conduct of international affairs”.

Knowing how paranoid the government gets when sovereignist members of parliament go overseas and do a good job of expressing Quebec's point of view, we also must ask how far the government will go in its suspicions about international affairs and national security.

The government will now be able to ignore its own legislation if it thinks that the information it is seeking—I am sorry, I guess I should say if it suspects that the information it is seeking, and some wise guy could get up one morning and say that he suspects—concerns these things. The federal government, a government agency or a subdivision of such an agency, if it has suspicions, will be able to ignore this act, which should guarantee the protection of personal information.

If this is not enough to worry you, it certainly is enough to worry me and I am convinced that it also worries a lot of Canadians. I hope that the Privacy Commissioner will also be worried.

I am looking forward to hearing his comments on the proposed amendments, as the minister quoted him earlier as speaking highly of this act. I am convinced that the commissioner will not approve of this initiative and of these last minute amendments.

As if by chance, and I have a hard time believing that the government did not mean to do this from the beginning, these amendments were tabled after the committee hearings. It is as if the government had not wanted to hear people's comments on this particular part of the act.

The government has presented another motion dealing with investigative bodies. I will attempt a comparison here. For the investigative bodies who believe that there was a violation, the exception will apply if they have reasonable cause to believe that the violation occurred.

For the investigative bodies, the words are “reasonable cause to believe”. However, where national security or the conduct of international affairs arre involved, suspicion is enough. The same act, on the same page, uses two different concepts. It will be enough for the government to suspect, whereas the investigative bodies will need a reasonable cause to believe. It is in fact a lot more reasonable to require a reasonable cause than only a suspicion. But then again, this does not mean that there was no recourse in the past.

It is possible to swear out a warrant to obtain information. To obtain such a warrant, one must explain why the information is needed. The system offers some protection, since the warrant is issued by a judge who must ensure that the information required will be obtained by appropriate means.

However, there is much cause for concern. I said so earlier this week in a press conference. We do not know how the government will use the information and what it really has in mind. It is the Big Brother syndrome. The government wants to control all kinds of information and is setting up the legislative framework it needs to do whatever it wants.

The provisions of this bill give rise to many very serious concerns. Let me repeat our objections.

First, we are against the bill because Quebec has already passed legislation on this and because the federal act will only create duplication and cause many problems.

Second, a harmonization and discussion process was started with the provinces to establish a common framework. However, the federal government pulled out of this process and decided that it would decide on its own what is good and in the interest of the people.

Why? For reasons of international visibility, because Canada wants to show leadership and boast that it passed legislation. Yet, the bill is riddled with loopholes. Even if in some parts of the bill the government is proposing measures that are both flawed and vague, it can still say that is does have legislation. There is more to it than just passing a law. There has to be some real impact to it.

This gives us another reason to oppose this bill, since the protection of personal information under this bill is subject to many conditions.

It will be hard to enforce this bill. The people who want to do e-commerce have a lot to gain by using personnel information, but the citizens would have liked better protection. Here again, we have another reason to oppose this bill.

It is easy to play with rhetoric. I listened earlier to those who are in favour of the bill. They were defending some fundamental principles, as if they were speaking on a motion to protect personal information. This is not what we are doing here: we are considering a bill with real provisions in it.

I have to say that I am very surprised to see the Reform Party supporting this bill; in fact, I am stunned. But they will have to defend their stance, it is their problem. I am also very surprised to see that federal Liberal members from Quebec are not interested in this issue and come to the House only to reiterate what has been said by the industry minister, who does not seem to care much about what is going on in Quebec in this area as in many others.

There was not a peep out of these Liberal members. We did not hear from them, we did not see them. It is as if they simply did not care. I am convinced that some of them do not even know that there is a personal information protection act for the private sector in Quebec. Where are the people who defend this bill? Who are they defending? Are they defending their government in Quebec, or are they defending their Quebec voters in Ottawa?

The answer is the first option. These people are strictly propaganda agents in Quebec, nothing else. This is very regretful. Next week, and this is my prediction, we will see another example of this with the Young Offenders Act. These Liberal “carpet MPs” from Quebec will do the same thing.

Not one of them will rise. Yet, there is a great deal of opposition in Quebec regarding the legislation on young offenders, as there is regarding the bill now before us. And this opposition is not just from the Bloc Quebecois or the Quebec government.

The Commission d'accès à l'information presented a very detailed submission to the committee. The Barreau du Québec also came and said the same things. The Chambre des notaires du Québec told us about the problems that this bill would create. The Conseil du patronat and the CSN did the same. So, representatives of the management, unions, lawyers and notaries, in other words all those who will have to live with this legislation, are telling the government, if only it is willing to listen, that what it is doing does not make sense.

But this is not important to the Minister of Industry. It does not bother him at all. He does not even want to take the time to discuss his bill with the Quebec government, is spite of repeated requests to that effect. This all began in November 1998. It continued in January, in April, and recently through letters. The government never agreed to meet the expectations and requests of the Quebec government.

To conclude, this is my last intervention on this bill. My colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, will use up the time left. I will conclude by saying that even if the bill is passed by next week, the government will continue to hear about it because, as far as we are concerned, the fight will not be over.

There will be a lot of practical issues and we will be here day after day to remind the Minister of Industry of the negative impact that his bill will have in Quebec. The minister will still hear from us. I hope that some Liberal MPs from Quebec will soon wake up and remember, when the time comes to vote next week, who elected them and whom they should represent in this House.

[Bill C-6, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue stated that his colleague, the Minister of Industry, had already responded to numerous requests from the Government of Quebec to avoid any form of duplication following passage of Bill C-6 on electronic commerce. However, contrary to that statement, the Minister of Industry did not propose any amendment of satisfaction to Quebec.

Why is the government refusing to meet Quebec ministers concerning an issue as important as the protection of personal information before ramming through the House a bill that could easily have been put on hold until after such a meeting?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, here we are at third reading of Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, whereby the federal government intends, as far as we are concerned in Quebec, to become king and master of what the protection of personal information should be.

In spite of all the attempts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois and all those who came before the parliamentary committee to show how bad this bill would be for Quebec, we are not debating it at third reading.

Before going any further, I want to salute the excellent job done by my colleague from Mercier who single-handedly carried this matter for a year to bring government members to realize the impact this bill would have in Quebec and how flawed it is even for those Canadians it purports to protect.

We could talk about the real efficiency of this bill which is more about promoting electronic commerce than protecting personal information. This week, the government decided to ram through this bill by the end of business today and to defer the division at third reading until the beginning of next week.

The bill contains some amendments coming from the government. It is important to know that, half way through, the government saw the holes in its bills and started improvizing, trying to improve certain areas, tabling amendments of its own after witnesses were heard in committee. Thus, the government, realizing its bill was flawed, brought in new amendments, but did not allow any debate on them to give people a chance to be heard. Groups who appeared before the committee never saw them, which creates a very dangerous situation.

Strangely enough, some of the last-minute amendments exempt the government from the application of its own act in a number of cases. Is it not strange that the government should come to this realization only after the committee hearing stage, and that it thought appropriate to give itself and its components some manoeuvering room in order not to abide by its own law? This is a bit surprising coming from a government that says it wants to protect people but is looking for ways to avoid doing so itself whenever possible.

This brings me to the case of Quebec. For five years now, Quebec has had an act for the protection of personal information in the private sector. This act serves as a model, because there are very few others like it; in fact, it is the only one of its kind in North America. Now the federal government has decided to take a page from our book.

It is a desirable thing that all Canadians be protected with respect to the distribution of their personal information. But, seeing how slow the other provinces have been to act, the federal government decided to introduce legislation. I would point out, however, that the provinces, in conjunction with the federal government, had already embarked on a process of harmonizing legislation. But, last year, the federal government decided unilaterally to withdraw from the process and come up with its own legislation.

It withdrew from the joint effort it had embarked on with the provinces, an exercise in which Quebec had pointed out that it had its own legislation. By the way, there are two relevant instruments in Quebec: the act, and the Civil Code, which also governs the protection of personal information. If memory serves, the applicable articles of the Civil Code are 35 to 40. The act is thoroughly steeped in Quebec's civil law tradition, as opposed to the common law tradition on which the federal government's approach is based.

Enforcement will be extremely difficult. It is no accident that the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires, the Conseil du patronat, and a union body such as the CSN told the government that what it was proposing for Quebec was ridiculous, that it would be unworkable and complicated for businesses, a complete disaster.

There was legislation protecting personal information and not focussed on encouraging e-commerce. E-commerce will grow despite the federal government. It does not need any legislation to encourage it. It is developing at a phenomenal rate and will continue to do so.

What is needed is assurance of the protection of distribution, disclosure and transmission of personal information.

The federal government has seen fit to provide for this in a schedule to its legislation, not in the legislation itself, and in a conditional mode. I will give hon. members an example of the very fuzzy concepts its contains. In the Government of Quebec's legislation, the consent for release of specific information must be very clear. The individual must have consented to the transfer of his personal information.

At the federal level, the approach is far more vague, so things are not as clear. Explicit consent is not necessarily required. Once again, it can be seen that the two governments are guided by two very different mindsets.

I will continue by quoting from the testimony of some of those who appeared before the committee. In fact, I intend to quote two.

When I was preparing my speech for this morning, a comment I heard came to mind. A man spoke of his fear that the organizations with the greatest interest in invading our privacy were the ones setting the legislative agenda. He said “Now it is clear that Bill C-54”—now Bill C-6—“is an initiative on e-commerce. I believe it is useful to note that the words consumers',businesses', and industry' appear 78 times, whilecitizen' appears only ten times”.

So said Valerie Steve, a professor at the human rights research and education centre. This then is a very different approach from what the government was boasting about this morning, saying that it wants is simply to protect personal information.

I will now quote from the remarks made by the former president of the Quebec bar association, who also has interesting things to say. He said “From a very careful reading of Bill C-54, in my opinion, this would mean a significant step backwards for Quebec”. I repeat “in my own opinion, this would mean a very significant step backwards for Quebec”. He added “These regulations, in fact, this sort of voluntary standard, are given the status of law by making them a schedule. They are not stringent enough to protect consumers. They are full of loopholes for commerce. It is based in large part on a completely outmoded approach to consumer protection with virtually non existent rights of recourse”.

I see that we will soon be proceeding to Statements by Members and Oral Question Period. I will continue afterward. I will return to the notion of recourse for consumers.

I want to ask for unanimous consent to have my speaking time of 40 minutes split into two 20 minute periods, since I will be sharing my time with the member for Mercier. I have used about ten minutes so far and, after my second ten minute period, the member for Mercier will finish the 40 minute period, if there is unanimous consent.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, today, during question period, I asked a question to the Minister of Industry but it was answered by the Minister of Revenue, who is also responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada.

It concerned the request made by two Quebec ministers to meet with the Minister of Industry to discuss Bill C-6, which will be superimposed on what already exists in Quebec for the protection of personal information.

There is a law in Quebec that protects personal information, and the Quebec government wants to be heard by the federal government on this issue and express all the fears and objections it has concerning this bill.

By the way, this position is not without support. Several witnesses defended it before the committee. The Quebec access to information commission, the Quebec bar association, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires and the Conseil du patronat all said the same thing, that is, they are very concerned about the impact of this duplication, the problems it will create, when Quebec consumers are probably the best protected of all. After passage of this bill, these people will find themselves in a very muddy situation.

Some things have to be said, and the House should not be misled. The minister has alluded to the fact that there had been discussions between governments and that the federal government had responded to the fears and concerns of the Quebec government.

I have here the correspondence between the Quebec government and the federal government. First, on November 11, 1998, the minister received a letter explaining why there were differences and enforcement problems.

The minister replied. The Quebec government wrote another letter on January 25. This time, two ministers of the Quebec government signed the letter. I do not have time to read it in full, but I will quote at least one part of it.

With respect to clarity and fairness, as we were saying in our preceding letter, because of the overlap in standards and procedures that Bill C-54, if passed, would give rise to in Quebec, the bill is a step backward. It complicates the life of members of the justice system, it causes uncertainty about the rules and, thus, it penalizes both Quebec businesses and consumers.

Consequently, the minister cannot tell the House that there were satisfactory discussions with the Quebec government, that everything is fine, that we are talking to each other and harmonizing. There is no willingness to harmonize on the part of the federal government.

In its brief to the federal government, the Quebec bar association, in support of the recommendation of the access to information commission, said the following:

To avoid all confusion and make sure that Quebecers can continue to benefit from a comprehensive system of personal information protection, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended to say clearly that the federal act will not apply to businesses covered by the Act respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector.

That is the Quebec act. The Barreau went even further. It added, and I quote:

We would go further. To avoid confusion and legislative overlaps and duplications in Quebec, we believe that the bill should include a specific reference to the Quebec act to establish that it applies to areas of federal jurisdiction.

We favoured the reverse approach, that is that the Quebec act should apply to all federal institutions and all federally regulated organizations.

Why does the government want to railroad the bill this week? There is very serious opposition to it in Quebec and also in Ontario. I know that the Ontario Ministry of Health has problems with the bill. Why refuse the meeting? Why not wait before passing the bill?

[Bill C-6, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterdaty two Quebec ministers wrote the Minister of Industry to ask for a meeting on the legislative duplication the minister is preparing to create with passage of his Bill C-6 on the protection of personal information.

Does the minister intend to agree to meet with the Quebec ministers, and consequently to suspend consideration of the bill in this House until such time as that meeting has taken place?

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 21 the following new clause:

“32.1 Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between this Part or the provisions of the other Parts of this Act that relate to this Part and other applicable laws of a province, particularly with respect to

(a) a signature, the law of contracts or other non-contractual forms not requiring a signature, formal requirements for entering into a contract or rules determining the place where the contract was entered into;

(b) proof of a document, the determination of whether it is an original or a copy, the retention of a document or the establishment of its legal significance; or

(c) proof and admissibility in evidence of any matter and the administration of those laws, the laws of the province prevail over this Part and those provisions to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.”

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-6, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 20 with the following:

“tion that is collected, used or”

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 30.