44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/7/23 11:07:23 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon West.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House.
Another day, another debate about an NDP-Liberal piece of legislation about Internet freedom in Canada. The good folks on the west side of Saskatoon have heard me speak in this place about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, two bills aimed at controlling what Canadians see and post on the Internet.
Today we are dealing with Bill C-27, which is aimed at protecting the online data of Canadians. This legislation is meant to put safeguards around the use of artificial intelligence and establish rules around Internet privacy. Sounds good, sounds noble and sounds like something we should support. To a certain degree I do support these initiatives.
However, I have deep reservations with this legislation as it exempts the Government of Canada from these very safeguards. Do we as Canadians need the protections in this bill from companies? Absolutely, but we also need protections from government, especially this NDP-Liberal coalition government that wants to take away some of our liberties and freedoms.
Some on the other side may accuse me of fearmongering about the NDP-Liberal suppression of civil liberties and freedoms on the Internet; I am not. Let me lay out the facts, and the people in Saskatoon West can decide for themselves.
Bill C-11 is the first piece of legislation meant to strip of us of our rights to free speech on the Internet. Conservatives such as myself and free speech advocates have been warning that the provisions put in place by the NDP-Liberals to have government-appointed gatekeepers decide what is acceptable speech or not in Canada will lead to disaster.
We have already seen that a prominent University of Toronto professor has been threatened with the revocation of his licence and livelihood for tweeting out against this legislation and the current Prime Minister. Imagine what would happen when the Prime Minister has the full weight of the law to simply muzzle this type of speech. Anyone who disagrees with him would be silenced and would be fined, lose their livelihood, and what is next, go to a re-education camp? We all know about the Prime Minister’s fondness for the basic dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China, heck, he does not even mind if the People's Republic of China funnels money to his family foundation and tilts elections towards the Liberal Party of Canada in this country.
How about the second piece of legislation meant to limit our Internet freedoms, Bill C-18? That legislation allows government-appointed gatekeepers to decide what is or is not news in Canada, and forces private companies to block content they do not like from their feeds and search engines.
If there is a story critical of the NDP-Liberal coalition and the Prime Minister, they call it fake news and ban it. If there is another fawning story by Andrew Coyne in The Globe and Mail about the Trudeau Foundation and the Chinese Communist Party, it is forced to the top of everyone’s news feed and search engine, like it or not.
When I spoke about Bill C-18 in December I warned of the consequences that this legislation would have. Specifically, I mentioned conversations I had with Google and Amazon Web Services and the impact on how they deliver services to Canadians. Google flat out told me it would simply get out of the business of delivering any and all news to Canadians as it did not want to become an instrument of the Canadian government to spread partisan messaging for the party in power. Just last month it began beta testing how it could shut down its news services for Canadians.
We need a 21st century solution to this problem, not one based on ideas from 40 years ago. Bill C-27 is supposed to protect people’s data from corporations. We need that but what we need, as well, is protection from this NDP-Liberal government when it comes to privacy.
Bill C-27 completely fails us in that area. The government has dragged its heels on Internet privacy for years, and unfortunately it has been a pattern to consistently breach our digital privacy rights. We saw it when the government waited until just last year to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from operating in Canada while other countries did the right thing years before us.
We saw it with the $54 million “arrive scam” app tracking Canadians border travel up until September 30, and the public bank account freezing for people who donated to the truckers last year. The list goes on and on. In the words of Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t it ironic?” when we hear the government start to talk about online privacy rights. I just hope it learns to start respecting the privacy of Canadians.
Let us take a look and see if this legislation actually protects the online privacy of the people of Saskatoon West. After all, they are rightfully distrustful of government and corporations when it comes to accessing their data
Here are some examples showing why they are distrustful: Tim Hortons tracking the movement of users after they have ordered something on their app; the RCMP using Clearview AI to access a data bank of more than three billion photos pulled from websites without user consent; and we cannot forget Telus giving the federal government access to the movements of over 33 million devices over the course of the pandemic.
When governments abuse their power, it destroys the level of faith Canadians have in their institutions. In fact, if we look at polling data, we see that the number of Canadians that have faith in their government is at an all-time low. With scandals like these, it is no wonder why.
If we want to improve the level of trust held between individuals and institutions, we must look at protecting Canadians' private data. If we dive into this legislation, it seems the intent is to create a level playing field between citizens and companies when it comes to how their data is used. However, if we look into it further, the balance between businesses using business data and the protection of our privacy is off.
The bill, as it is currently written, skews toward the interests of corporations rather than the fundamental rights of individuals. There are too many exceptions granted to businesses in this legislation. Some are so broad that it is like the legislation never existed at all.
For example, business activities are exempt if a “reasonable person” would expect a business to use their data, without including the definition of what a reasonable person is. The concept of legitimate business interests has been added as an exemption to consent. How does one determine if a business interest outweighs the privacy rights of an individual? Finally, the bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. This absence tips the scales away from Canadians and could affect how their privacy interests are weighed against commercial interests in the future.
Artificial intelligence comprises a major component of this legislation. AI is becoming a key tool in today's world, much like engineering was in the last century. In the past, an engineer would sit down and design a bridge, for example. Obviously, the failure of a bridge would be a huge event with the potential for major disruptions, significant costs, potential injuries and even death. Therefore, we have professional standards for engineers who build bridges, but what about artificial intelligence?
In today's modern world, AI is used more and more to perform ever more complex tasks. In its early stages, AI was used as a shortcut for repetitive tasks, but as the technology advances, it is now being used for much more. In the future, it is not unreasonable to expect AI to play a significant role in designing a bridge, for example. Artificial intelligence also needs to have standards, which is why our universities teaching AI put a big emphasis on ethics, as there are huge implications.
I know first-hand the dangers of unregulated AI systems interfering in our day-to-day lives. On the immigration committee, we have studied this issue and looked at how Canada's immigration department is using Chinook, a so-called e-tool to help IRCC bureaucrats assess applications in bulk form. This AI program was introduced in-house by these bureaucrats, which means the software's algorithms are beholden to the beliefs of its creators.
The concerning part of all of this is that there is a known culture of racism within the department, and members do not have to take my word for it. The NDP-Liberal Minister of Immigration said this of his own department at committee: The IRCC “has zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or harassment of any kind. However, we know that these problems exist throughout the public service and in our department...[and] we must first acknowledge this reality.”
There were no outside consultations done on the use or creation of this artificial intelligence application, and rejection rates have climbed since its introduction. Although I am pleased that the government is finally looking to add a framework to address concerns surrounding AI, it needs to get its own house in order first.
I will wrap up with these final thoughts.
If we are going to address concerns surrounding our digital privacy, we must listen to Canadians, and many Canadians are worried that this legislation does not protect them. I have met with Bryan Short from OpenMedia, and he said this:
Bill C-27...only plays brief lip service to privacy being a fundamental human right in its preamble; Bill C-27 fails to do the more important task of inscribing the privacy rights of people as being more important than the business interests of companies.
The bill before us is supposed to be about protecting Canadians' privacy, yet it completely avoids inscribing privacy as a fundamental right. We all know the saying “There is no point in doing something unless you do it right”, and it is quite clear that the government needs to go back to the drawing board once again on some aspects of this legislation since there is not much evidence of it consulting Canadians on how their data was actually used.
I believe the former Ontario privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, said it best in 2020 during the initial Liberal attempts to bring in privacy reform to Canada when she stated:
[With] the Liberals under [the Prime Minister], it's been extremely weak. They have not addressed repeated requests from the federal privacy commissioner to strengthen existing privacy laws.... I'm tired of that. I want a party that will walk the talk. And I'm hoping that will be the Conservatives.
Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to walk the talk when it comes to strengthening our privacy laws, and Canadians can count on the Conservative Party of Canada to respect their freedom of expression online. We will scrap the online censorship legislation put in place by this tired, worn out, costly coalition. We will allow people to choose for themselves which news they want to consume, not just what the government wants them to see. Under our new leader, we will be the voice of those left behind by the NDP-Liberal government, and we will put Canadians back in the driver's seat of their own life.
1940 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Canadian Conservative Party has become such a champion for big tech companies. Since the member opposite brought this up even though it is not related to this legislation, does he think it is okay that Google blocked news access to hundreds of thousands of Canadians in order to strong-arm the government? Does he think Google is a paragon of virtue that will, on its own, protect Canadians' privacy rights?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have many things to say, but where to begin?
First, Google is one option. There are many other browsers that can be used. If someone does not like one of them, they can go to another. That is the beauty of the free market and companies providing services.
The other thing is that Google's response was a direct response to the government's proposed legislation. The government refuses to admit that there are consequences to what it is proposing. There are significant consequences to the government dictating what consumers in Canada can see. This will affect everybody from consumers themselves to the companies that provide content.
It is an example of the government being completely oblivious to the real implications of what it is proposing with its legislation in Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I, too, found my colleague from Saskatoon West's comments on Bills C‑11 and C‑18 quite interesting. There will be an opportunity to return to Bill C‑11, likely later. I was particularly surprised by the comments on Bill C‑18, especially in a context where Google is currently blocking access to news content for nearly 2 million Canadians, which is no trivial matter. By the way, we still do not know why.
I have heard so much misinformation, it is outlandish. Bill C‑18 requires digital giants to negotiate agreements. It is not forcing them to do anything other than negotiate agreements to pay the companies that produce the news content they use and get rich off of. It seems quite logical to me.
The point I took the most issue with in my colleague's comments was when he said that Bill C‑18 will allow the government or the CRTC to decide what news people will be able to access online.
Since he seems to be an expert on the subject, I would like him to tell me specifically what clause of Bill C‑18 would allow the CRTC to do such a thing.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about Bill C-18 and Bill C-11. There have been many comments from people outside of this place, like experts in the field. Lots of different things have been said, and the reality is this. The government is going to have gatekeepers in place who will tell Canadians what they can see and what they can hear on the Internet. That is what we as Conservatives are fighting against. We do not want the government to be the one to tell Canadians what they can see, what they can read and what they can post online.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, right now, Bill C-27 does not explicitly apply to political parties. We know there have been privacy breaches and the misuse of data in the past in the political area. Does the member think this kind of legislation should be amended to include political parties?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. It is a good example of why this bill needs to go to committee to be studied. There are many questions that I have raised and other speakers have raised, and these are things that need to be looked at in committee. The committee is in a great place to call witnesses and to look further into some of these things.
I believe that changes need to be made to this legislation to improve it. The member's suggestion is one possible way that it could be looked at. There are many more things that could be looked at, and I believe the committee is the right place to do that.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with the summary of that. The government is mostly concerned about big business and the ability to use data. The Conservatives are concerned about individual Canadians and their right to privacy protection.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, last week, the federal government banned the use of the TikTok app on government devices because of data privacy concerns, so it is very appropriate for us to be discussing this matter today. Digital data privacy can be seen as a fundamental right, one that urgently requires strengthened legislation, protections and enforcement. Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data.
This is a pressing issue. Realizing that, the European Union introduced the GDPR, its General Data Protection Regulation, in 2016. EU countries were given a couple of years to adapt to this new privacy reality, with the regulation coming into effect in 2018. The GDPR has been used by many other countries as a framework for privacy protection.
With the GDPR as an example, and faced with a changing digital data universe, the government basically did nothing to protect data privacy for Canadians. Perhaps that is an unfair statement. After all, digital and online data privacy was addressed in the last Parliament under Bill C-11. The Liberals recognized that Canada needed to bring its privacy laws into the 21st century.
However, that bill was never passed. Apparently, data privacy was not a big enough issue to be made a priority, and the digital charter implementation act was scrapped in favour of an election that Canadians neither wanted nor needed. Now we are asked once again to address this subject. It is indeed better late than never. I would have hoped, though, that with the delay, the government could have improved on what it is proposing.
Perhaps if the government had moved a little faster, Canadians would not have had to question how their data was being used and how their privacy was being invaded by governments and corporations. We are left to wonder how many privacy breaches have gone undetected or unreported. The ones we know of are disturbing enough. Tim Hortons used its app to track customer movements. The RCMP used Clearview AI’s illegally created facial recognition database. Telus gave customer location data to PHAC.
353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It has been more than 20 years since Canada’s existing digital privacy framework, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, was passed. With technological changes in recent years, legislation is needed to address subjects such as biometrics and artificial intelligence. We have to consider how Canadians understand the issue of consent when it comes to the use of their data and their privacy.
I am deeply concerned and disappointed with how sloppy the Liberal approach in Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022, currently is. Privacy is a fundamental right. This bill does not mention that, despite the Supreme Court of Canada having acknowledged it. We need to clearly distinguish the extent to which Canadians’ digital privacy will be protected. If the government wants the bill to be fully effective, it needs to further explore the scope of accountability required when privacy is breached.
The clear definition of consent is a major improvement from what it once was in the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Document Act, but a good definition is only the beginning. Because technology has greatly expanded and evolved since the implementation of PIPEDA, should we not also expand the umbrella of activities that consent would cover? The large number of exemptions allowed would weaken the impact of the legislation.
Bill C-27 may be a good beginning, but I had hoped for something better. It is sad that the bill’s title is perhaps the strongest statement in the legislation. While the title gives some idea of what the legislation is all about, it is already dated. We are no longer in 2022, and the Liberals are once again falling behind.
As parliamentarians, we know the power of words and the importance of speaking in a way that can be understood by those receiving the message. It is important that legislation can be understood. It is even more crucial that the bills we pass spell out exactly what we intend.
Perhaps the most important part of any of the laws is the section that provides definitions. They need to be clear and comprehensible and not subject to differing interpretations that weaken the intent of the legislation. Legislation that allows each person to provide their own definitions is problematic. Bill C-27 uses words such as “significant impact” or “sensitive information”. I cannot help but question what is covered by these vague terms.
Before the people of Edmonton Manning sent me to represent them in the House, I was a businessman. I understood the importance of safeguarding the personal information my customers entrusted to me and not to abuse that trust. However, as we have seen, some companies make unauthorized use of the information they gather to gain a competitive edge or for profit.
With that in mind, there must be a balance between acceptable use of data by business and the fundamental protection of our privacy. It seems to me that the balance is wrong on this bill, given the way it addresses user consent and the use of collected information.
The more I read Bill C-27, which 100 pages-plus, the more questions I have. There is too much in it in need of clarification. Yes, that will be done when it goes to committee after second reading, but the government could have presented a better bill to make the committee’s work easier.
I do not want to sound too negative. I know the Liberals mean well, even if they do not seem to be able to quite understand just how important digital privacy is to Canadians in the 21st century. I am pleased therefore to see that they understand that sometimes mere words or a scolding are not enough.
It makes sense to me that the Privacy Commissioner will receive new powers to enforce violations of the consumer privacy protection act. That may be the most impactful change the legislation brings about. It is not enough to simply recommend that perpetrators stop their violations. Any parent could tell us that consequences are needed if we want to ensure improved behaviour.
With the Privacy Commissioner finally being able to force violators to conform to the rules, I think we will see increased respect and better treatment of Canadians' personal information. The harsh financial penalties for non-compliance will be a powerful motivator.
Given the amount of time the Liberals had before presenting Bill C-27, we must question why they did not come up with a better bill. They have left me, and all Canadians, asking if they really understand what their own legislation is supposed to do.
Does the consumer privacy protection act, as proposed in the bill, do enough to properly protect Canadians’ personal information? The Liberals had a chance to look at the EU’s GDPR and see how well that worked. Did they learn anything?
Would Bill C-27 improve the protection of Canadians’ personal information or are there so many exemptions for needing consent in the sharing of personal information that the words of the bill are meaningless?
Would the legislation create proper protections for Canadians’ biometric data? Given that no such protection currently exists, perhaps we should be thankful that the subject is addressed at all.
Is it reasonable to exempt security agencies and departments, such as CSE, CSIS and DND from AI regulations? How do you balance privacy and security concerns?
Canadians’ digital privacy and data needs to be properly protected. This bill is a flawed attempt to start the long overdue overhaul of Canada’s digital data privacy framework. The Conservatives will be looking at putting forward some common-sense amendments at the committee stage to ensure we have the best possible legislation.
967 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to go to the principles of the legislation, which the member just said he would like to see a series of amendments at committee.
Would the member concede that if the bill does not pass through, he will never have the opportunity to propose those amendments? It would, in essence, sabotage legislation that is substantive and that is there to protect the privacy of Canadians. There would be substantial financial consequences where there have been violations of this law.
Could he provide his thoughts on that?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in a previous Parliament, the government killed Bill C-11 because it wanted to have an election. It did not see the importance of that bill. Now the government is proposing a flawed bill and expecting us to support it. We will support a bill that really makes sense, a bill that will help and work for Canadians.
I do not think we have any interest in wasting time. It is up to the government to do something with its bill to make it acceptable for other parties to support it.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Manning for saying something at the start of his speech that we believe is quite important. He said that a lot of our personal data is already compromised. It is already compromised because the government was so lax before introducing legislation. It would not even have gone ahead with Bill C‑27 if it had not felt pressured by the European legislation.
Bill C‑27 does nothing to protect individuals whose data is already compromised, so does my colleague from Edmonton Manning have some ideas for amendments that would address that?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did mention the European law and the fact that the government was too late at looking at it and in considering steps to bring Canadians legislation that would help and that was most needed.
I also mentioned the fact that there are a lot of vague definitions that will lead to problems for this bill to be resolved.
The government presented the bill much later than the Europeans, who presented their bill in 2016. It is 2023 now. It could have done something much faster, quicker and more mature so we could work together to provide Canadians something that is most needed.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his recommendations on the many amendments that are needed to strengthen this bill. In particular, I am interested in one of them, which is about empowering the Privacy Commissioner. We know that this is essential if we want to protect the rights of Canadians. One way to do that would be to equip the Privacy Commissioner with the power to seek the imposition of administrative monetary penalties in a manner that would be similar to the powers that the commissioner for competition has under the Competition Act.
I would like the member to elaborate on how we must empower the Privacy Commissioner and ensure that he has the powers to enforce Canadians' privacy rights. In particular, on this issue, does he agree we need to amend this legislation?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I go back to the one thing I mentioned. Even these vague definitions would still be in the hands of the minister to decide after the fact, and that is one of the biggest flaws in the bill. We do not understand how the minister would handle this and whether the minister would let the commissioners play their roles and do their jobs. That is why we have to be very careful approaching the bill and examining it, especially at committee, to be able to bring forward an acceptable and effective piece of legislation.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as it stands now, federal laws do not require federal political parties to follow the same privacy laws that apply to others across the country. This is an issue that could have been identified and addressed in Bill C-27, but it has not been. I wonder if the member for Edmonton Manning has a position on this and would he like to comment on it.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did actually edge on where the federal and provincial responsibilities come on certain aspects of privacy and privacy protection. Again, the definitions come into play in understanding the legislation. That is why the government could have done much better in bringing more clarity to the bill, so we could at least study it better.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
