SoVote

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 10:17:50 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I am curious if the member would expand a little more on the artificial intelligence section of this bill. Our reading of the bill is basically that the government has this vague definition of what artificial intelligence is and that it does not really know, but we should trust the government. The minister will define it all in regulation, will enforce the regulation, will investigate if one has broken that regulation and will impose fines on that regulation without ever having to go to Parliament to decide anything. Therefore, he is going to be judge, jury and executioner on artificial intelligence and on something the government has not defined. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 11:03:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard the member for Winnipeg North say in his presentation that the Conservatives were supporting the bill. That is incorrect. We are opposing the bill, not that we oppose the modernization. It is needed, but this bill is inadequate. There are many reasons but the primary reason is that it does not put personal privacy interests above those of business interests. In the “purpose” section of clause 5 in the bill, it says that, basically, they are of equal weight. Further on, in subclause 18(3), the bill says that a legitimate interest of a business, determined by a business, is a reason that a business can use one's data without one's permission, in a way that they did not get permission for. That is one of the fundamental flaws in the bill, in terms of the idea that personal information, mine or anyone's, is mine and should be paramount and superior to that of the business. The business is there just to serve my interest, not of equal value. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

190 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 11:21:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I think it is ironic that members of the Liberal Party, the government, are claiming some sort of aversion to big corporations. Obviously, they have not read the bill. Subclause 18(3) says: (3) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual The government does not believe in the protection of personal privacy. It believes in the protection of access to data for companies.

106 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 11:53:27 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, we have talked about legitimate interest being an exception of a business being able to use data without permission. Another provision in the act, subsection 15(5), gives a business the ability to do implied consent, which is really consent without consent. Can you comment on how the Liberals are in the pockets of big tech on that?

60 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 1:09:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech from the member for Nepean. I note that at the beginning, the member talked about the issue of children, and the minister went on about that in his opening speech. However, the bill is 124 pages, and do members know how many times minors are mentioned? It is once, and it does not define what a minor is. It says that a minor's information is “sensitive”, but it does not define what “sensitive” is. Perhaps a member of the Liberal government could define for the House what a “minor” is under this proposed law and what “sensitive information” is, as it would say in the definitions section.

124 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/7/23 1:38:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member has been participating in the debate today. One of the questions that I have is, if this is really about protecting the personal privacy of individuals, why this bill has so many exemptions for businesses. It allows, in subsection 18(3), the legitimate interests of businesses to override the interests of an individual. In subsection 15(5), it allows businesses to use implied consent, not real consent, to override the interests of personal privacy. Why is it that personal privacy is not part of the purpose of the bill as a fundamental right?

100 words