Pierre Brien

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To make your life a bit easier, if there is unanimous consent, we could proceed on the assumption that all motions in Group No. 1 have been deemed votable and the vote deferred until tonight, as we just did for the first motion.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will now start where I left off earlier. I will remind members who are joining us just now that we are debating Bill C-6 promoting electronic commerce and the protection of personal information. I was explaining that Quebec already has legislation to protect that field of activity and that a new federal law will only make things more complicated for the organizations that will have to abide by it, in view of the double jurisdiction that will exist because the federal government did not recognize the precedence of the Quebec act in this field.

In fact, in its March 1999 brief, the Conseil du Patronat stated “However, since subsection 92(13) of the British North America Act clearly gives the provinces jurisdiction in the area of protection of personal information and privacy and since Quebec has already enacted legislation within its jurisdiction and its borders, many jurisdictional disputes can be expected”.

Of course, when the Conseil made that statement, it expected the federal legislation as it stands today to be passed. The Conseil further stated “As for Quebec consumers, they would constantly be forced to try and determine which legislation applies and choose between two types of remedies, depending on whether their information is protected by one statute or the other”.

It is important to really understand the situation because consumers will have some recourse if they feel their personal information has not been protected. However, they will have to know if it was the federal legislation or the Quebec legislation that was supposed to protect them.

Also, the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information appeared before the committee to explain about all the problems the implementation of both these acts would cause in the field and to stress that, in the end, Quebecers have a lot to lose given the complexity of this legal issue and the fact that they are the most protected consumers in the country. If passed, this bill aimed at protecting consumers in the rest of Canada, in other words the nine provinces that do not have such legislation, will penalize Quebec consumers because the federal government has not recognized in its bill the existence of Quebec's act and the fact that the province has jurisdiction over this area.

Other groups made their voices heard. I am thinking for instance of the Barreau du Québec, whose brief also stressed the complexity of such an act. It said “This means that from now on a huge number of Quebec based businesses will be subject to the federal act rather than Quebec's, which will not make it any easier for citizens trying to know what their rights are in this context of legislative changes. Moreover, businesses based in Quebec will have to master a new personal information protection system slightly different from Quebec's”.

Obviously, there are many differences since, as I explained earlier, Quebec is governed by civil law while the federal government follows a totally different approach, the common law. The Barreau further stated that it supports the recommendation made by the Access to Information Commission, which reads “In order to avoid any confusion and insure that Quebecers continue to enjoy the benefits of a full personal information protection system, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended in order to provide that the act will not apply to businesses already subject to the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector Act”.

Accordingly, businesses would be subject to the existing act. The federal government could reach its goal of having an act in force across Canada, but which could be different in the case of Quebec. Businesses are already familiar with it and comply with it. The Barreau goes further still, saying “In our view, the bill should incorporate Quebec's act, even with respect to federal areas of jurisdiction, so as to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication of legislation in Quebec”.

This is a very interesting point of view. Normally, the federal government's approach is always the opposite. The federal government is the one interfering in provincial jurisdictions. The Barreau du Québec is saying that there is already an act so, to avoid any confusion, it should apply even where the federal act normally would. This is an interesting approach that was supported by various groups which appeared before the committee, but all of which met with the insensitivity of the federal government, the same government that, one week ago, brought us a lovely throne speech full of lofty goals on paper. We can see that, when this government says, for instance, that it wants to work with the provinces to improve the quality of life of Canadians, in practice that is not what interests it.

What interests it is to extend its authority, to acquire greater and greater control, to be the government that plans our economic and social development and controls the protection of personal information, and so on.

Day after day, in one issue after another, this government bulldozes ahead, taking over one jurisdiction after another. And, if no amendments are made, this is what is going to happen again.

We are at report stage. There is still time for the government to amend the bill. It could include provisions acknowledging the existence of Quebec's act and providing the legal framework necessary for the development of e-commerce—we are not just talking about personal information in the electronic domain in this bill; its scope is much broader—as well as ensuring the protection of personal information under the legislation that already exists in Quebec.

In this way, a reasonable balance and a workable solution could be found. I hope that there are still some sensible people left across the way and that their beautiful speeches will translate into something concrete. That is something we will see in the course of the debate and there will be an opportunity to hear what a number of my colleagues have to say about the bill this afternoon.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54, an act to support electronic commerce and protect personal information.

I will start by saying that we have many problems with this bill for several reasons. This explains why we are proposing so many amendments asking for the withdrawal of the bill or, at the very least, the suspension of its implementation in Quebec.

When we deal with the second group of amendments, we will have an opportunity to discuss more specifically one particular amendment that would make this possible, should the government have the will to do so.

The purpose of the bill is, in a rapidly evolving technological context, to foster the development of electronic commerce while respecting the confidentiality of the information we supply or agree to supply, or the use that could be made of personal information provided without knowing how it is going to be used.

It should be noted that, for the past five years already, Quebec has had a law protecting personal information. The introduction or implementation of a federal act will create administrative chaos, making life very difficult for businesses. One can understand the will displayed by the federal government in this respect. In the other nine provinces, there is no law protecting personal information. Therefore the federal government has decided to go ahead and legislate. Too bad for the other provinces if they do not want their own law and are willing to withdraw from a field of jurisdiction that could be theirs. This is not the case in Quebec.

Quebec has already clearly stated, through a law, its intent to protect personal information. Moreover, the civil code contains provisions making specific reference to it. Quebec businesses have to abide by the civil code provisions as well as the law.

This is why many groups appeared before the Committee during the hearings and told the government “You are placing Quebec in a very bad position, when we already have a provincial act that protects both privacy and access to information. With this new act, businesses will not always know which act to enforce and which definition to use in specific cases. Some organizations will have to abide by the federal act, others by the provincial act and others yet by both or part of one and part of the other”.

Of course, the government will say “Listen, this will only take effect in three years because, in the first three years, the new act will not apply to all fields, data or businesses”. But, in three years, it will get much more extensive and will apply to everybody.

The Cabinet could make an order to withhold a particular field of activities or ensure that some sectors get under another act. But this will have to be decided by the federal government after careful consideration of its objectives and criteria. Since we all know that the Civil Code and the common law do not always have the same approach on certain issues, there will undoubtedly be differences of opinions and policies as well as differences between mechanisms adopted.

I can quote a number of people who addressed this issue at the committee's hearings. I will start with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, which came to say “Inasmuch as the constitutional jurisdiction over the protection of privacy and personal information given to the provinces by section 92.13 of the British North America Act, it is obvious that the legislator”

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-6, in the title, be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 10

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

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 27.1.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.1.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.2.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 4.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.7 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.3.8 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.4.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.5.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.6.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.7.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.8.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.5 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.9.6 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 4.10 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.1 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.2 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.3 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.10.4 of Schedule 1.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Schedule 3.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification on what you have just said.

Did I understand correctly that for this one time only you will allow Motions Nos. 100 to 157 to stand individually but that in the future you want them in a single group, which in any case does not alter the present situation since these motions are all in Group No. 1, which will be debated starting today?

[Gm Plant In Boisbriand, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in its throne speech, the government mentions partnership a lot. We did not think there would be an example so soon. I would like the Prime Minister to say whether he does not consider the example and the attitude of his minister with regard Boisbriand do not reveal the essence of the word partnership. Is that what partnership means?

[Gm Plant In Boisbriand, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, whatever the Minister of Industry may say or do, he is not helping matters with his attitude and his remarks.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. Given his attitude, are we not totally justified in asking whether he does not intend to sacrifice the Boisbriand plant in favour of plants in Ontario, his home province?

[Quebec's Political Future, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said he was going to introduce a bill on the rules governing Quebec's accession to sovereignty.

On June 22, 1990, Robert Bourassa stated “Whatever is said and done, Quebec is a distinct society responsible for its own destiny today and forever”.

Does the minister seriously think he can bypass the law and Quebec's National Assembly and impose his Canadian rules in the debate on Quebec's political future?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a preliminary comment in order to set things straight after the speech by the member for Bourassa.

A number of my colleagues have risen to speak, and one of the very concrete things suggested to this government was to put more money into the various federations. Some are not getting a cent at the present time. That was even one of the recommendations of the subcommittee. If the member for Bourassa has amnesia, that is not our problem.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the greater Quebec City region.

How did they make the choice of candidate cities for the Olympics when some ministers in the Liberal government openly supported Vancouver and the supposed staunch defenders of Quebec in cabinet remained totally silent? How did this lack of support go over in the Quebec City region?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but smile at the hon. member's grandstanding.

First of all, we have all heard about the Canada Games. We were not talking about the Canada Games, but about Quebec having its own delegation. Of course, our athletes are in a difficult situation and I am not asking them their point of view. However, when athletes start wondering if they will have to wear their sponsors' trademarks at the next Olympic Games, there is indeed a problem with the level of funding for amateur sport and our athletes do not feel they are getting the support they need from the federal government that is sending them to compete at the international level.

Private corporations are making up for the lack of funding and commitment from the government and soon enough they will have our athletes covered with their trademarks from head to toe and defending their interests instead of those of the country these athletes should be representing.

The hon. member should reflect upon this and go after his own colleagues, who choose to close their eyes or to worry only about professional teams, without lifting a finger to help amateur sport. They have not done a single thing to help the people in amateur sport.