44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 28, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/28/23 12:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the diaspora is definitely scattered, but it is informed. Some of them support the regime, but all those I met were against what is happening right now and do not recognize their country, the beautiful Iran of the past. They would like their country to recover the historic, secular beauty that it once had.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 12:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou is always a tough act to follow. It is truly not easy, but I will try to speak today with sensitivity to this situation in Iran, a very complex subject.
As the critic for the status of women, I have been asked about this topic many times, and I am particularly concerned about the situation of Iranian women and girls. Our debate today concerns more specifically the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. To help people follow my speech, I will read the motion:
That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report the following to the House: In light of the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS 752 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and in light of the killing of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian Guidance Patrol, that the committee demands the government stop issuing visas to all Iranian nationals directly affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iranian Armed Forces, Iranian Guidance Patrol or Iranian intelligence organizations and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a response to the report by the government.
I will quickly provide some context, discuss the situation of women in Iran, and reiterate the role we have to play in this.
First, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was shot down over Iran on January 8, 2020. The United States and Iran had started attacking each other after the United States killed a high-ranking Iranian officer, General Qasem Soleimani, near the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020. Iran also attacked an American airport in Iraq on the night of January 7 to 8, 2020, in retaliation for Soleimani's death. Iran may have been expecting a U.S. counterattack, so its air defence system was on high alert. A total of 176 people died on the downed flight, including 63 Canadians.
I will now turn to the Mahsa Amini affair. The election of Ebrahim Raisi as President of Iran in 2021 marked the rise to power of the most conservative wing of the Combatant Clergy Association. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is said to be in ill health and could die soon. For these reasons, authorities are becoming more rigorous in the application of Velayat-e faqih.
Mahsa Amini was a Kurdish Iranian woman who was arrested by the morality police in Tehran on September 13 for allegedly violating Iran's strict female dress code. She was killed by Iran's morality police just for wearing her hijab “improperly”. She died in hospital three days later, on September 16, 2022. Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish Iranian woman, was only 22 years old.
Her death was followed almost immediately by protests on an unprecedented scale for Iran. Iran forces women to wear the hijab. Mahsa Amini was wearing her hijab, but her hair was slightly visible. This was the reason she was arrested and fatally beaten by police. Her death led to major demonstrations against the regime throughout Iran, and more than 500 people have died so far, while many others are determined to overthrow the regime. Mahsa's death sparked nationwide protests, with Iranian women leading the charge, as well as solidarity rallies around the world.
Activists say that Mahsa suffered a head wound while in custody. Iranian authorities deny any physical contact between the police and the young woman and say that they are awaiting the results of the investigation. Iran's largest protests since the 2019 unrest over increased fuel prices were met with a violent crackdown. According to the latest report from the Oslo-based NGO Iran Human Rights, at least 92 people have been killed since September 16. An official report lists some 60 dead, including 12 members of Iran's security forces.
The international community denounced the crackdown, and some countries imposed sanctions. As a reminder, here is the motion I moved in October:
That the House:
(a) reiterate its unconditional support for Iranian women who are peacefully demonstrating for their rights in Iran;
(b) condemn the killings, intimidation, and acts of violence initiated by the Iranian state against protesters who support the women's liberation movement in Iran; and
(c) call on the United Nations to withdraw Iran from its Commission on the Status of Women.
Last month, I also supported a petition presented by the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill that urged non-partisan action. It reads:
We, the undersigned, residents of Aurora, Oak Ridges, and Richmond Hill, Ontario, draw the attention of Leah Taylor Roy, MP for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill to the following and ask for her help in bringing this matter to The House of Commons.
THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Leah Taylor Roy, MP, to: Demand the Canadian Government urgently follow through with the actions against the Iranian regime which includes making the regime, the IRGC and top leaders inadmissible to Canada, expanding sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations and denying them entry to Canada, and investing more money to allow sanctioned Iranian person's assets to be quickly frozen and seized. The Regime and its most senior officials - including the IRGC - be immediately banned from entering Canada, and current and former senior officials present here be investigated and removed from the country as soon as possible.
We also ask that you insist that the Minister of Global Affairs, the Hon. Mélanie Joly, and the Government of Canada, with its partners and allies, have Iran removed from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which is the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.
That is the petition we presented here in the House.
The United States announced economic sanctions against seven high-ranking Iranian officials for their roles in the crackdown. According to a press release from the Treasury Department, Minister of the Interior Ahmad Vahidi, the key figure behind the crackdown, and Minister of Communications Issa Zarepour, the person responsible for the shameful attempt to block Internet access, were two of the individuals sanctioned. Washington had already announced a slew of sanctions against the Iranian morality police and several security officials on September 22.
Iran's strict dress code forces women to wear the Islamic head scarf, but according to videos posted online, women are leading the protests in Iran. Schoolgirls even organized rallies in several regions, where they removed their hijabs and shouted anti-regime slogans.
In a video verified by AFP, bare-headed young girls chanted “Death to the dictator”, referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, one Monday at a school in Karaj, west of Tehran. Some of these girls lost their lives. Right now, there are allegations that female students were poisoned simply because they decided to protest.
Getting back to the motion, it seeks to sanction members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian armed forces by refusing them visas. However, prohibiting entry to the country is a complex issue, since many people serving in the Iranian armed forces are conscripts.
For example, one Iranian-born man was refused entry to Canada because he served in the armed forces 20 years ago. The United States is also imposing similar restrictions, which many are calling discriminatory.
It would be more reasonable to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, refusing to issue visas to individuals who are currently on active service seems appropriate, but it is not that simple.
On November 14, 2022, Canada announced that it had designated Iran as a regime that has engaged in terrorism. As a result, tens of thousands of high-ranking officials, including senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the army and the morality police, were denied entry to Canada. Low-ranking members of these organizations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is a reasonable approach. For example, those who committed war crimes or other crimes would be inadmissible to Canada regardless of their rank.
Because of the conscription in Iran, all men aged 18 and over must serve in the military. It is therefore reasonable that the Canadian government maintain a certain amount of leeway in its sanctions. We do not want to see a case like the one of a family of Iranian refugees in Saskatoon, who are trying to get a brother who remained in Turkey into Canada. The brother was refused entry because of his military service in Iran 20 years ago. There are many of these types of cases in the news.
Keyvan Zarafshanpour, a 38-year-old man, and his family managed to settle in Canada about three years ago, after fleeing religious persecution in Iran. Keyvan’s older brother Kaveh Zarafshanpour is still in Turkey. Canada refused him entry for supporting a terrorist organization because he served his compulsory military service in the IRGC.
Members can see where this is going. That is why a case-by-case approach is important. There are also branches of the Iranian Armed Forces that are designated as terrorist organizations in the United States, but not in Canada.
Clearly, there is a lot we still have to look into. We need to show considerable diplomacy depending on the situation. I think it is better that way. There are still a lot of grey areas.
For example, in an email, the Canada Border Services Agency stated that it processes applications as quickly as possible, adding that the average wait time is eight years. We also need to take into account the time it takes to process applications. In short, the situation is nothing short of deplorable.
In closing, I will say: woman, life, freedom. Women and girls also have the right to freedom of expression. Women and girls also have the right to a secular state where they are no longer murdered for who they are, where they do not see their rights slipping away, and where they can continue to live a dignified life.
1680 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. She always has a great sense of purpose and always defends the rights of women.
January 8 was the third anniversary of the downing of flight 752. On that day, and every year on that day, Shahin, husband to Shakiba and father to Rosstin, remembered that they last spoke as his wife and son were departing for Canada. Unfortunately, the last conversation he had with his family was that he welcomed them home so they could share some quality time together. That never happened. Each and every year he struggles. To this day, he, a constituent in my riding, continues to suffer.
Would the member agree the government needs to do more to ensure we identify the IRGC as terrorists and nothing else?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and tell her how much I deeply appreciate our collaboration on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and our work on the senior file, which we share. We are working together in both these areas.
That being said, as my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou mentioned and I reiterated, the government is not doing anything about the situation in Iran. I heard the same thing when I attended the protests in Montreal in support of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement.
I was there with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Protesters told us that the Canadian government was not doing enough, that it was not taking enough concrete action, and that it appeared to be afraid to go any further with its sanctions against the regime. What is it afraid of?
People asked us. We had no answer for them, but we decided to bring back their demands. My colleague mentioned this as well: we have been having this discussion since 2018. Let us move forward and try to work faster to take action in support of Iranian women.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:05:28 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:06:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:06:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 72 Canadians with regard to the holding of a Canadian in prison in China.
Petitioners say that, although Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig have recently been released after a thousand days of unjust detention in China, there are at least 115 Canadians still being detained in China, including Huseyin Celil, who has been detained for over 5,000 days.
Huseyin is a Canadian Uighur human rights advocate who was detained in China for supporting political and religious rights of Uighurs. He is a Canadian citizen who escaped China to Uzbekistan after being unjustly jailed for 48 days in 2001. On recognition from the United Nations as a refugee, he immigrated to Canada, obtained Canadian citizenship and gave up his Chinese citizenship.
The Chinese government has refused to accept his Canadian citizenship and has denied him access to lawyers, family and Canadian officials.
Petitioners demand the Chinese government recognize Huseyin's Canadian citizenship and provide him with consular and legal services according to international law, that the Canadian government formally state that the release of Huseyin from Chinese detainment and his return to Canada is a priority for the government of equal concern to the unjust detentions of the two Michaels, that it appoint a special envoy to work on securing his release, and that it seek assistance from the Biden administration and other allies around the world in obtaining his release.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table a petition today about ocean protection.
It is quite ironic that I am sitting with my colleague from Nunavut, whose birthday it is today. I wish her a happy birthday.
We know Canadians care deeply about the health of the ocean and they depend on thriving ocean ecosystems. In 2019, over one million cruise ship passengers travelled from British Columbia on their way to Alaska. These ships generate significant amounts of pollutants that are harmful to human health, aquatic organisms and coastal ecosystems.
Canada's regulations under the Canada Shipping Act that address the discharge of sewage and grey water are much less stringent than those in U.S. Pacific coastal states. Canada has zero no-discharge zones off British Columbia, it does not require third party independent observers on board ships as is required by Alaska, and it has less stringent regulations that encourage cruise ships to discharge their waste off British Columbia.
Constituents from my riding are calling on the government to set standards for cruise ship sewage and grey water discharges equivalent to or stronger than those in Alaska; to designate no-discharge zones to stop pollution in marine-protected areas, the entirety of the Salish Sea and Great Bear Sea and; to require regular, independent third party monitoring while ships are under way to ensure discharge requirements are met.
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:10:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. It is regarding the ongoing genocide and persecution of the Hazaras in Afghanistan by the Taliban.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to prioritize Hazaras coming to Canada as part of the target of 40,000 Afghani refugees. They are drawing the attention of the House to the persecution of the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan that has been going on for hundreds of years. Most recently, in the last few decades, it has been made worse by the Taliban, who are originally from Pakistan, and they are still involved in the extrajudicial killings of Hazaras, the forced expulsion from their homelands and the destruction of their villages. Some of the worst persecution that went on between 1998 and 2001 was massacres, arrests, forced mass displacement and the confiscation of Hazaras' lands.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to make sure it includes Hazaras as part of the 40,000 target of Afghan refugees.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 1:11:18 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is, again, an honour to rise and speak in this place on behalf of my constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner in relation to Bill C-27. It is dubbed the digital charter implementation act.
It is really frustrating to continually see legislation from the Liberal government that is sloppy, lazy and really incomplete, to be honest, and this bill is no exception.
Canadians have seen most of this legislation before in a failed attempt back in 2020. That legislation died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister took his costly, ill-timed and overly optimistic opportunity to call an election. Since then, we have had three years of inaction on this file, and now the government has tabled this piece of legislation, Bill C-27, which should have been more focused on giving the people of Canada the privacy rights they deserve.
Instead, this legislation is literally the least that they could have possibly done in this regard. The bill is a flawed attempt to start the long overdue process of overhauling Canada's digital data privacy framework. Conservatives will be looking at putting forward some common-sense amendments at the committee stage to protect both individuals and small businesses alike and to ensure that it is the best possible legislation moving forward.
The Conservative Party believes that digital data privacy is a fundamental right that urgently requires strengthened legislation, protections and enforcement. Canadians must have the right to access and control collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data.
It is unfortunate that we could not rely on the Liberals to get it right the first time, but maybe they will have the modesty, humility and common sense to accept the amendments that will be coming, instead of once again using their NDP coalition to control and steamroll at committee stage.
It is also a shame because Canada's digital data privacy framework has been in dire need of modernization for years. This government has been dragging its feet as well for years on this critically important legislation.
It appears that there is no good reason as to why there has not been advancement on this legislation. Clearly, they did not spend their extra time making the legislation any better than when it was first proposed in 2020.
Conservatives will be looking to see how this bill can be improved. However, when looking at how to improve something, we need to look at why it is even in front of us to begin with.
The Liberals brought it forward today because they were finally exposed for being flat-footed on Canadians' data protection and how they were exposed. Let us think about TikTok.
Michael Geist, Canadian research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said that he found it “pretty stunning” that the Liberals had to block TikTok on government devices as a precaution because, again, “part of what [the Liberals] were attributing the TikTok ban to was essentially Canada's weak privacy laws.”
The expert continued to say that, when it comes to Bill C-27, the government “sat on it. It barely moves in the House.”
He is not alone in his criticism either. Former privacy commissioner of Canada Daniel Therrien shared similar concerns to those of Michael Geist and those we as Conservatives have.
The former commissioner, Mr. Therrien, argued that the solutions in proposed Bill C-27 are not strong enough to rein in technology companies from pursuing “profit over respect for democratic values”.
He also said that Bill C-27 “will not provide effective protection to individuals, in part due to weak enforcement provisions.”
Former commissioner Therrien's most notable criticism, however, is in his retort to the Liberals' claim that the bill “will create the most important penalties among G7 countries”, which is called “simply marketing”.
This is just a gentlemanly way of a former public official saying that it is not really the case. There are those of us who would call it by some other name.
At best, Bill C-27 is a first step. It is better than the nothing that the Liberals have done for the last three years. That is where the catch-22 is with this bill as proposed.
Doing something will be better than staying in our current technological stone age, with respect to data privacy.
Specific items like the bill's requirements for all businesses to have a privacy watchdog and maintain the public data storage code of conduct are positive measures. However, it does cause worry about the burden this new layer of red tape will have on small business and especially for sole proprietors. Again, on a catch-22 of this lazy Liberal legislation, the law does not go far enough to protect children's privacy for example.
While the information of minors is finally included in the legislation, the definition of what is sensitive, what a minor is or who a minor is are not set out, and the sensitive information of adults for example is not given the same special provisions. This means that businesses are left to decide what is sensitive and appropriate for minors. It also means that the courts, when interpreting the legislation, will understand that if not amended, the sensitive information of adults was specifically left out of the legislation.
Further, businesses will have to navigate varying rules in each province where different definitions of a minor actually apply and that depends on provincial law. This is not good for protecting minors, this is not good for protecting Canadians' sensitive information and this is not good for businesses.
Finally, the fundamental problems in this bill can be summed up in that this bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. Thirty-four years ago, the Supreme Court said that “privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state”.
Conservatives believe that individuals are worthy of privacy as a fundamental right, and the concept of privacy as a fundamental right is worthy of legislative protections. Based on that alone, the Liberals have missed the mark on this legislation. Once again, it is up to the Conservatives to fix the Liberals' poorly written legislation.
As I close, I want to offer my thanks for the hard work of the Conservative members of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. They have done a great job to date. They spent a lot of time on the previous iteration of this legislation, and I have heard a great deal about how Canadians' information and data is used without their consent. With the many identified flaws of the bill, Bill C-27, I think it would be best if this bill were voted down and redrafted, honestly, in order to take these issues into account. However, the NDP-Liberal coalition will surely ignore doing these things right in favour of expediency and send it off to committee.
With that, Canadians and I are leaving the flaws that I have pointed out, and there are many more, along with the additional flaws that I am sure my colleagues will find in their review and will need to be fixed at committee. The Liberals have left the committee a lot of work, but I know that my colleagues there are up for the challenge.
1244 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the overall theme of his speech, which was about the positioning of personal privacy versus business interests. In clause 5 of this bill, it basically says that the purpose of the bill is to balance interests. There has been a lot of discussion about the protection of personal privacy interests. However, clause 18 of the bill says that business interests can trump individual interests by saying that express consent is not needed for a company to do something with the information of an individual if the company thinks it is in the legitimate interests of the company.
I wonder what the member thinks about a government that says this protects personal privacy while giving all the power to the businesses to determine legitimate interest.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I go back to something my father taught me a long time ago that in all things that one is deliberating, one should have a reasonable and a balanced approach.
With respect to my colleague's question, there needs to be an appropriate balance, legislatively, so that there is no ambiguity and misinterpretation. However, the businesses and individuals, whose information a business has, have the comfort of knowing that it is used appropriately, that there are safeguards in place for its use and that it is not going to be misused. I think that would be an appropriate balance to strike.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think everybody would agree that for Canadians to prosper and benefit from the improvements of technology, they need to have confidence in the systems. If we look at some of the new apps out there now, it is extremely easy to access information about individuals, whether that is considered to be private information or public.
Could the member expand on why he might see this as critical in making sure Canadians have that confidence to trust the technology? At the end of the day, that is what these businesses will have to rely on if they are going to be successful.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my hon. colleague. When he stands up, I never know what angle he is going to go with. It is nice to have a reasonable question from my friend across the way.
I look at some of the recent examples of privacy and mobility data being used without consent. The member is right. Canadians have to be confident about the information they are using in apps, and they have to have businesses they can trust.
The Tim Hortons app was tracking movements after orders, which caused concern for Canadians. Telus' data for good program was giving location data to PHAC. That was a significant faux pas. One that really stood out was the public doxing of those who donated to the “freedom convoy” through GiveSendGo. Anytime one is revealing their personal information online, there has to be some confidence behind it. Businesses rely on it. Those who use those businesses as consumers need to have confidence that the information is not going to be abused and shared inappropriately.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, given that this is a debate on artificial intelligence, I thought it might be fun to have ChatGPT make up a question for my Conservative colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner about passing Bill C-27 and the Liberal government's lack of urgency, since that is one of the things my colleague mentioned.
This is ChatGPT's question: “How does his party view the Liberal government's lack of urgency to pass Bill C‑27, which is designed to protect workers and retirees in defined benefit pension plans in the event of employer bankruptcy? Also, how does he think this inaction could affect affected workers and retirees, as well as the economy as a whole?”
There is room for improvement, but the crux of the question is there. In terms of delays, I understand that the Liberal Party could have introduced a similar bill a long time ago, but my colleague said that he would vote it down all the same.
Are we not at the point where we should approve the principle of the bill quickly and improve the content in committee?
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not see the connection to the first portion of my hon. colleague's question. I do understand that this bill absolutely needs significant improvement.
I am certainly supportive of it, in principle, to go to committee to have the amendments ironed out and improved upon so the legislation could address some of the concerns raised by my friend, as well as the concerns identified by people across the country. This includes some of the experts who say we need to strike the right balance, and it is about time privacy legislation takes into account all those issues.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. While there are many important components of Bill C-27 to debate, my speech today will focus on just two aspects. The first is privacy, and the second is identity.
The protection of both the privacy and the identities of Canadians is essential. We need to ensure that strong legal mechanisms are in place to guarantee that protection. Connected with that is the need to protect from the commercial interests of private companies, as well as protection from the government and its potential overreach into the private lives of Canadian citizens. Consequently, I believe a national digital charter is urgently needed. To protect Canadians, it is important that we have a piece of legislation that acts as an umbrella to protect Canadians from government, and to uphold the privacy of Canadians' data and their digital identities.
The second part of my speech will highlight some of the breaches that have occurred over the past three years. These breaches drive home the urgent need for more stringent protection for Canadians when it comes to privacy and protecting their private information.
Privacy rights are at the heart of any democracy. They are necessary for reinforcing the limits and boundaries between private citizens, their government and the private sector. In Canada, individual liberties are guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has made comments on this. She stated, “liberty...depends on and mandates respect for the individual and his or her right to be free from government restraint, except as authorized by law.”
Justice McLachlin further explains why it is important for government to keep the people informed and to answer questions, stating, “People who possess power, even small administrative powers, may use information they should not have improperly. And even if they don’t, the individual’s fear that they may use it, often leads to unwilling compliance.”
Just as we have fundamental freedoms entrenched in the highest law of our land to protect us from government encroachment of our freedoms, I also believe that it is necessary to have digital data privacy legislation. That is a fundamental right that urgently requires the strengthening of our legislative protections and enforcement.
That is why we need a federal digital charter, which would act as an overarching piece of legislation. However, Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, falls short of this very important objective. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner, for years, has made several calls for reform. Privacy watchdogs have repeatedly lamented that our federal privacy laws are outdated, that they fail to provide the needed legal protections in an increasingly digital world.
Canadians also have serious concerns about privacy. First, they have concerns about how their private information is being used, and what large corporations and governments are doing with it. Second, these concerns have turned into a fear because of the misuse and abuse of private information in the recent years.
This leads me to the second point of my speech. I will speak about the bigger problem in the privacy landscape in this country, which is that the Liberal government is failing to update its own legal boundaries and parameters in this area. The reality is that this bill does not touch on the Privacy Act, the act that governs the government, and this digital charter does not cover how the government handles the information it collects from Canadians.
Essentially, this bill is saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” With this bill, the government is telling businesses, even sole proprietorships, that they should add additional layers of red tape under the threat of financial penalties. Business owners are still struggling to recover from COVID setbacks, lockdowns and government red tape.
My fear is that many of these small businesses, subject to these new requirements, would not be able to survive or have the capacity to implement some of these new requirements. These demands come even though government itself has failed to lay down the rules and regulations as to what is needed in the form of a regulatory infrastructural framework to secure our digital future.
A digital charter is needed to protect Canadians, but the federal government should be leading by example by outlining a digital charter that would protect the personal data and privacy of its own citizens first, before it asks businesses to do so. Let us be honest that the number one privacy concern Canadians have right now is how their government is using their information. These fears were exacerbated during the trucker convoy when Canadians’ bank accounts were frozen and property was confiscated through the abuse of the Emergencies Act.
Canadians still remember how the government quietly spied on their movements during the pandemic without their consent. A year ago, it was discovered that the Public Health Agency of Canada was tracking Canadians' movement during the pandemic. This was done without their knowledge, and PHAC wanted to keep doing it quietly for years into the future, but it was the Conservative opposition that discovered this breach and stood up for Canadians. We demanded answers from the Public Health Agency on the way the data was collected, how it was defined, what third parties were privy to the data and whether any data was reidentified. It is important that the government answer these questions and sets standards because it is falling short of its own requirements.
Canadians have not forgotten even the ArriveCAN debacle, the privacy questions around its mandatory use, and the terms and conditions associated with it. In other words, exactly what personal data and identifying information has been shared outside the app? Under what circumstances, and with which domestic or international organizations, was it shared? The app’s privacy notice even stipulated that the government had the right to share our information contained in the app with international organizations and institutions.
Canadians have a right to know with whom their data is being shared. This matter, it is no surprise, was referred to the Privacy Commissioner for an investigation. We are still waiting for an answer on the ArriveCAN privacy breaches.
Let us not forget that Canadians were fined thousands of dollars and threatened at their own borders for not submitting their own private medical information. This was, in my view, a massive overreach of government powers, but the reality is that this overreach happened because Canada has insufficient legal safeguards in place to prevent such abuses, and this creates a profound distrust in government.
It concerns me that the government is moving toward integrating a digital proof of identity framework that would massively expand the centralization of government access to the private information and data of Canadians. There are numerous ethical abuses that relate to this data collection.
The biggest concern is having all of one's private information in one place. Imagine our health information, driving information and banking information all in one portal. This would give information handlers a great deal of power over our data. This power urgently needs to be kept in check, and we need public experts in consultation on the ethics behind this centralized data collection power to uncover what we need to do to protect Canadians.
In conclusion, Canada’s digital privacy framework has long been in dire need of modernization. I want to thank the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which worked hard on this issue for years. Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring and retention of their personal data. However, in Canada, the Liberal government is failing Canadians by not prioritizing its own accountability when it comes to protecting privacy rights. The bill sadly fails to put forward a rigorous and comprehensive legislative framework that would defend Canadians’ data, privacy and digital identities, now and in the future.
1344 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we heard some fairly outlandish claims about the government illegally monitoring Canadians, which is extremely bold, to say the least. I am curious as to whether the member has any actual facts to back up that claim or if that is just another conspiracy theory being led by Conservatives and the alt-right wing of the party.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
