Marlene Jennings

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. The federal bill will be completing the protection afforded consumers in Quebec by the legislation of that province.

Both laws deal with different activities, and the federal legislation will be filling the gaps in the protection given by the Quebec law. In Quebec, the federal legislation will target situations where the activities of an organization are not regulated by the Commission d'accès à l'information. I can think for example of companies under federal jurisdiction, and of the problems Quebecers can encounter in their dealings with companies outside their province.

Bill C-6 settles problems that cannot be handled through provincial laws, even when these laws have been prepared with great care.

When data are transferred across the borders of 13 provinces or territories, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is in a better position to investigate and settle cross border problems.

A second example would be the case of a company headquartered in Alberta collecting information on Quebec consumers. Since Alberta and Quebec are not bound by each other's legislation, there is a need for federal legislation.

Quebec businesses that transfer personal information within Quebec and between provinces will have no problem complying with both laws. When the Barreau du Quebec, of which I am a member, or the hon. member opposite submit that this will cause confusion, they are saying in fact that our Quebec businesses are not capable of coping with situations where two laws are applicable. They are already familiar with that kind of situations. They are obeying industrial safety legislation as well as legislation governing their commercial activities.

Quebec businesses have already had to organise their commercial activities in compliance with different laws, federal as well as provincial. It is a shame to claim that our businesses are not capable of doing that.

Bill C-6 and Quebec Law-68 may be drafted differently but their intent and impact are rather similar. Both pieces of legislation require businesses to obtain the consent of a person before collecting, using or disclosing his or her personal information.

Both pieces of legislation give people access to their personal information that is maintained by private sector organisations. Both provide for monitoring by a privacy commissioner and allow redress mechanisms for people whose rights are affected. Above all, both provide for rights and obligations which are basically similar, since both have the same starting point.

What is that starting point? It all started with the guidelines established by the OCDE in 1980. Sure, there are differences, but Canada can manage them. Canada may be the only country in the whole world which provides in its charter of rights and freedoms that it shall promote its diversity.

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

On the other side of the House they are saying that I did not invent the term.

The activities of the organizations I just mentioned come under federal jurisdiction.

They also say there was no consultation. I am quite surprised to hear it claimed in the House today that there was no consultation with the provinces and with those interested in the whole issue of protecting privacy and personal information.

The very members claiming there was no consultation are saying that the Barreau du Québec was consulted along with the Chambre des notaires. There is some confusion in their minds, to say the least.

There were consultations between governments, which led to one excellent thing: almost all the governments, if not all the governments in Canada, recognized the need for legislation to protect personal information.

However, not all these provincial governments had time enough to pass legislation. British Columbia is preparing to pass legislation. But, Bill C-6 addresses this problem, and as I mentioned at the start of my remarks, it is precisely in order to permit the provinces to pass legislation that may be implemented progressively.

At the end of three years, if some provincial or territorial governments have yet to pass legislation to protect personal information, the federal law will continue to apply in all areas of commercial activity in the private sector.

However, in the case of governments passing legislation that is essentially the same, the organizations covered by provincial legislation will be exempted from the application of the federal legislation.

I will close on this. About the claim that Quebec is best protected, I must tell you that, if—

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

You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I must always address you, and I must never address the people across the way.

I was talking about infringement of provincial jurisdictions. I again invite our colleagues seated to your left and my right to perhaps take constitutional law 101 to find out about federal jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions and joint jurisdictions.

They should read the charter and the British North America Act carefully. Banks, telecommunications companies, broadcasters and cross border transport companies, if I may call them that, otherwise I have invented a new term.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to speak on Bill C-6. I want to indicate that I will be using the whole 20 minutes that I am entitled to.

Bill C-6 is very important to me. As our NDP colleague pointed out, the protection of personal information in the private sector, what with the technological progress being made, must be regulated if we are to protect our fellow citizens from coast to coast.

What is the purpose of Bill C-6? First, part 1 of the bill will ensure the protection of personal information collected, used and disclosed by the private sector.

Many Canadians and Quebecers know that Canada already has a law that ensures the protection of personal information collected and used by the federal government, as have all of the provinces except Prince Edward Island. However, these laws do not affect the private sector. Up until now, Quebec was the only province to have a law protecting personal information, which applied and still applies to the private sector.

First, I want to talk about this bill and the protection it will afford all Canadians, and then I will address the concerns raised by my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.

How will this bill protect personal information? First of all, “personal information” means information about an identifiable individual. This includes but is not limited to the following information: race, ethnic origin, colour, age, marital status, religion, level of education, medical record, criminal, financial or employment information, address, telephone number, numerical identification codes such as social insurance number, fingerprints, blood type, tissue or other biological samples, personal opinions or viewpoints.

This is a broad list, and I did not cover all personal information that could identify a person.

This bill is designed to protect this type of information by requiring organizations to respect the obligations set out in the model code for the protection of personal information prepared by the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA.

The code is entrenched in the bill, which I hope will be passed. This means that it will have force of law as schedule 1 of the law.

So where and when will this bill apply? Once it is passed, this bill will apply to any organization which collects, uses or discloses personal information in the course of commercial activities. Commercial activity means any activity that is of a commercial nature, which includes selling and buying as well as other activities such as barter and exchange transactions.

What is an organization? An organization can be a business, an association, a partnership, a person or a trade union, for example.

However, there are organizations to which this bill will not apply, for example organizations that do not conduct commercial activities, such as a hospital, a public health clinic or a doctor who provides public health services. It will not apply to organizations that use personal information for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes only, nor will it apply to the use of personal information for personal or domestic purposes, such as Christmas card lists.

To facilitate the harmonization of provincial and federal legislation on the protection of personal information, the coming into force of this bill will take place gradually.

After a one-year transition period, the bill will apply to private sector fields, and I repeat to private sector fields, subjected to federal regulatory control. But what are the private sector fields that are subjected to federal regulatory control? That is described in the Canadian Constitution.

Some areas are strictly of provincial jurisdiction whereas others are strictly of federal jurisdiction. Others yet are mixed. Those fields that are subjected to federal regulatory control are: telecommunications, radiobroadcasting, banks and interprovincial transports, as far as the protection of personal information from clients and employees is concerned.

This bill will also apply to agencies that share personal information outside the provincial or national borders. I will say it again because I want to make sure that my colleagues from the other side of the House fully understand this notion. This bill will also apply to the agencies that share personal information outside the provincial or national borders, for example credit assessment officers and some insurance companies.

After tree years, the act will be extended to include all personal information collected, used or disclosed within any commercial activity, whether it is subject to federal regulatory control or not. However, if a province pass a legislation that is essentially similar to the federal bill, the agencies or activities falling within the provincial act will be exempt from the federal act. As all of us in the House today know, and as many Canadians and Quebecers know, Quebec has had such legislation since 1994.

I would like to address a few concerns raised by Bloc Quebecois members. First, the fact that, in their view, there is no need for this bill in Quebec. We have been told several times that the Barreau du Québec, of which I am a member, the Chambre des notaires, and other professional bodies and societies made their positions known on Bill C-6.

I am sure that the Barreau du Québec did not claim that the personal information of a non-resident of Quebec that is disclosed or exchanged outside the borders of Quebec would be protected by the provincial law. The provincial law is clear: its purpose is to protect the personal information of Quebecers when this information leaves Quebec's borders. The law is silent about the personal information of non-residents of Quebec that is collected in Quebec and disclosed or transferred outside Quebec.

The need exists. I am speaking to Quebecers throughout the province, whether they live in Sept-Îles, Chicoutimi, Ville-Marie, Shawville, Bedford, Montreal, Lachine, Saint-Lambert, Châteauguay, Charny, Lévis, Charlesbourg or Sillery.

I was very proud when the Government of Quebec adopted the protection of personal information act in 1994. As a Quebecer, I was very proud. It is a wonderful piece of legislation, but it is not perfect. Furthermore, representatives of professional bodies who appeared before the committee said so. They even pointed out safeguards in Bill C-6 that do not appear in Quebec's legislation. I could mention whistle blowing. I will get back later to this form of safeguard, which exists in Bill C-6 and not in Quebec's legislation.

There is a need in Quebec and not just in the other provinces. It was suggested today in the House that the need exists in the other provinces because they did not give themselves a law to protect personal information within their boundaries and that only Quebec did—that there would be no need in Quebec for such a federal law, but that need could exist in the other provinces. I am sorry, but the need exists from sea to sea in Canada, including in Quebec.

As I said previously in the House, in the case of a Quebecer living in Quebec and dealing with a company outside Quebec, if that company collects personal information about that individual and discloses that information to some other companies, associations or organizations and if that Quebecer tries to complain or to sue that company which is not carrying on its commercial activities in Quebec but in some other province, he will be ruled out of court. The first thing the court will say is that the Quebec law does not apply to that company.

Bill C-6 is needed to ensure the protection of personal information about all the Quebecers and all the people who are not necessarily Quebec residents but who were in Quebec at the time the information disclosed outside Quebec was collected.

It was suggested that provincial areas of jurisdiction are invaded. I invite my colleagues to go attend a course on constitutional law. That is a well known subject. Here we have a federal system and our constitution has set some areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Some other areas are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and a third category of areas is under joint jurisdiction. When dealing with the commercial sector, I regret to have to tell my honourable colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that commerce is an area coming under federal jurisdiction also. When a company carries on commercial activities outside Quebec, that is interprovincial or international, we are getting into an area of federal jurisdiction. You can laugh—

[Points Of Order, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today a member on the other side of the House used what I consider to be unparliamentary language for this House.

The member for Lakeland, when the President of the Treasury Board was answering a question, said “You are lying through your teeth”. Then when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was responding to a question, he yelled twice “You are a number one scum ball”.

I am not aware of the type of language that the member for Lakeland uses outside of the House, but one thing is clear, that is unparliamentary language and I would ask that the member for Lakeland apologize and withdraw those comments.

[Crime Prevention, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on October 6, the federal government announced allocation of $557,165 to assist in the funding of 15 crime prevention projects in Quebec.

The National Strategy for Community Safety and Crime Prevention helps communities to develop community solutions to problems linked to crime and victimization and to enhance the awareness of all communities involved in the fight against crime.

There is much still to be done. Let us hope that everyone directly or indirectly involved in crime prevention will participate actively in this type of program, the existence of which was made possible by the federal government.

Essentially, the purpose of this initiative by the Liberal government is to enhance the quality of life of Canadians, and this requires enhanced security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 and the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-6 will have exemptions for private sector activities regulated by provinces that have already adopted legislation essentially similar to the federal act protecting personal information.

What does this mean? Let us talk about Quebec. I am from Quebec. The province of Quebec has already adopted legislation that is essentially similar to the act proposed by the federal government. Therefore, the organizations affected by Quebec's act will be excluded from the application of Bill C-6 with regard to transactions that are entirely conducted within the province.

The federal act, when it applies to Quebec and the other provinces, will affect federally regulated businesses—notably telephone companies, banks, airlines and interprovincial carriers—as well as all interprovincial and international personal data exchanges for business purposes.

This is very important, because Quebec's act does not protect personal information about me when I do business with a company outside the province of Quebec, or with a company that transfers personal information about me outside Quebec for business purposes.

The federal act will complete the protection given by Quebec's act to consumers of that province, and I am one of them. These acts will apply to different activities, and the federal act will fill the gaps still existing in the coverage of the Quebec act.

In Quebec, the federal act will affect situations where the activities of an organization are not regulated by the access to information commission. That relates among others to federal businesses not regulated by the Quebec act, and to the privacy protection problems experienced by Quebecers dealing with businesses outside their province.

Bill C-6 resolves problems and situations that simply cannot be handled by provincial legislation, regardless of how carefully it was drafted.

For example, given that data moves easily across the borders of the 13 provinces and territories, the privacy commissioner is in the best position to investigate transborder problems and resolve them.

A second example will be that of a business with its head office in Alberta, which gathers information on consumers in Quebec. Neither province is subject to the authority of the other, a federal system is necessary. Quebec businesses transferring personal information within the province and from one province to another will have no difficulty complying with the both sets of laws.

We could identify a number of situations in which a company in one province must act comply with two legal systems. Bill C-6 and Quebec's Bill 68 are perhaps drafted differently, but their spirit and their effect are quite similar.

The two laws require the companies to obtain the approval of the individual before gathering, using or disclosing personal information on him. Both give the individual access to personal information on him when it is kept by organizations in the private sector.

Both laws contain provisions concerning surveillance as ensured by the privacy commissioner and mechanisms of recourse for individuals who have been adversely affected or believe they have been adversely affected. But, most importantly, the rights and obligations set out in the two laws are essentially the same, because they have the same starting point, namely the guidelines established by the OECD in 1980.

Naturally, there are differences, but only because of the fact that the two laws achieve similar ends by different means. If I want to go to the Ottawa from Montreal, I can take a number of routes. What counts is: do I reach my destination?

Once Bill C-6 has been passed, Quebecers will have the best protected private life in Canada, since they live in the only province that has passed legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.

My esteemed colleagues on the other side of the House go on and on ad infinitum about how Bill C-6 is such a terrible bill and about how Quebec's Bill 68 is such a great bill. I am a Quebecer and I am quite pleased the federal government has decided to adopt legislation that will protect my private life and my personal information when it leaves the province. Right now I do not have that protection under Bill 68.

Yes, Bill 68 has a disposition concerning the transfer of information, but if I attempt to sue a company outside of Quebec that received my personal information, I will be thrown out of court. The first thing that will be said is that the provincial legislation does not apply to a company that exercises its activities outside the province. As a Quebecer I am very pleased that my government has decided to protect the personal lives and the private information of Quebecers, all Quebecers regardless of their political stripe.

[Louis Riel Act, October 20th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an act respecting Louis Riel.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is familiar to the House as it was introduced before prorogation, is to reverse the conviction of Louis Riel for high treason and to formally recognize and commemorate his role in the advancement of the Canadian Confederation and the rights and interests of the Metis people and the people of Western Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance Act, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking the consent of the House to introduce a bill regarding Louis Riel. It is essentially the same bill that was referred to as Bill C-417 in the last session.

[Ywca Week Without Violence, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the week of October 17 to 23 has been selected as the fourth annual YWCA Week Without Violence.

This violence free week challenges all Canadians to come up with solutions to control violence in their community. Thanks to the ongoing support of Clarica—formerly the Mutual Group—the YWCA Week Without Violence will reach tens of thousands of Canadians.

Violence of one sort or another has affected every one of us, or at least someone we know. Violence is found everywhere: in our homes, in our schools, at work and at play. The YWCA Week Without Violence has become an international initiative organized by more than 30 countries worldwide, including Canada.

I wholeheartedly support this initiative and I urge all members of the House, indeed all Canadians, to do their part in stemming the flow of—