SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 3:10:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. The federal minimum wage will increase for federally regulated private sector workers on April 1, but that is not all. We introduced a tax credit for labour mobility. We brought in paid sick leave for employees in federally regulated industries. We invested in union-led training programs. That means more money in the pockets of workers across the country.

69 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/28/23 3:10:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for decades senior officials refused to acknowledge the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. While survivors finally received an apology, that culture of secrecy remains. Just this month, the media reported the existence of documents on sexual misconduct that the Department of National Defence previously denied. The government says it is working to address this crisis, but it is not making the necessary changes for transparency. Will the minister finally take responsibility and establish that independent civilian oversight of our military to protect the women and men who serve?

91 words

All Topics

Hon. Anita Anand (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 3:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. Let me reiterate that since I have been appointed, we have put on the table a number of additional reforms, including laying a road map for all 48 of the recommendations of Madame Arbour. In addition to an official apology, in addition to millions of dollars in supports for victims and survivors as well as the transfer of cases from the military justice system to the civil justice system, we will always support victims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.

90 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mar/28/23 3:11:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents who are refugees and former refugees are facing major delays in obtaining travel documents even when they provide proof of urgency. Between 2020 and 2021, only 15% of applications were processed within 20 business days by IRCC. Many have been waiting for over a year. The member for Vancouver East and I have written to the minister twice about this issue. When will the minister take action to ensure that refugees and former refugees can access their right to travel?

86 words

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 3:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a proud tradition of resettling some of the world's most vulnerable people. Of course we, through the pandemic, resettled more refugees than any other country in the world. We know that when people come here, having the desire to travel and to see loved ones in other parts of the world is a priority for them. Over the course of the past year and a half, we have made significant investments to add staff to our department. We have adopted new technologies and relaxed administrative burdens to speed up processing times so people can be more quickly reunited with their loved ones. I would be pleased to continue my work to expedite processing times, including for refugee travel documents, so more people can connect with those they care about most more quickly.

137 words

The Speaker

Mar/28/23 3:13:28 p.m.
Watch

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Margareta Cederfelt, President of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

36 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Mar/28/23 3:13:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-203

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you will indulge me, before I get to my specific motion, I would like to recognize the tireless work of Senator Leo Housakos, Senator Peter Boehm and former senator Jim Munson in support of autistic Canadians and their families. I also recognize the member for Don Valley East, members from all parties in this House who helped us get to this point and, most importantly, my son Jaden, who inspires me every single day. As we approach World Autism Month in April, there have been many consultations, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-203, an Act respecting a federal framework on autism, be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

159 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Mar/28/23 3:13:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-203

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Mar/28/23 3:15:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Mar/28/23 3:15:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a completely different note, after that nice moment courtesy of my colleague from Alberta, I want to go back to the study I cited during question period. The study is from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it is called “Fueling Unfairness: Carbon Pricing and Small Businesses”. I seek unanimous consent of the House to table it.

64 words

The Speaker

Mar/28/23 3:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: No.

11 words

The Speaker

Mar/28/23 3:16:12 p.m.
Watch

The Chair would like to make a statement regarding the period for questions and comments following speeches in the House. A series of points of order were raised on this topic on Wednesday, March 22, 2023. That day, some members immediately left the chamber after completing their speeches and were therefore unable to take part in the period for questions and comments thereafter. The Chair thought it necessary to return to the House regarding this matter, given the numerous concerns expressed. The provisions in the Standing Orders governing the period for questions and comments were adopted by the House on November 29, 1982, following the recommendations of the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. They were further modified on February 18, 2005, becoming the current Standing Order 43. In its report, the special committee expressed its intention that questions and comments exchanges be “short and sharp”. Our current practices have maintained this spirit. The current iteration of Standing Order 43 includes references to both speeches and questions and comments periods. It shows those proceedings should be interpreted as complementary, as they enhance the qualities of each other. Setting aside time for questions and comments enriches debate and allows for a constructive exchange of views, instead of only a series of set speeches. With respect to the events of last Wednesday, the issue raises concerns on what becomes of the period for questions and comments when the member who just completed their speech is unavailable. This happens frequently when debate has been interrupted for another proceeding, resuming several hours or sometimes several days later. It is a well-established practice, in those cases, that the questions and comments period may only continue if the member having made the speech is present. This is the way my predecessors have consistently ruled. These were not, however, the circumstances that occurred last Wednesday. Instead, members were leaving immediately after the conclusion of their speech. Many members, as well as the Deputy Speaker, expressed some concern that this resulted in the questions and comments period not taking place. While this does not appear to have been a widespread practice in the past, it was something contemplated by one of my predecessors. On October 28, 1985, Speaker Bosley stated at page 8076 of the Debates: I said quite precisely to the House that when a normal period of interruptions such as a lunch period, overnight period or adjournment of the debate has caused a problem then it seemed to me to be unreasonable or to be against the spirit of what was intended by the Report to allow the question and comment period to continue in the unavoidable absence of the Member. If the...Member is interpreting from that that he thinks that I believe that the question and comment period can be obviated by a Member making a speech and leaving the chamber then he has not interpreted me correctly. Based on this, it is the expectation of the Chair that members having just completed a speech take part in the ensuing period for questions and comments. Furthermore, should a member making a speech not be available immediately thereafter, and while the content of the member’s speech is still fresh to all, the Chair shall still recognize other members wishing to ask questions or comment on the speech, for the duration of the prescribed period. The Chair invites the House leaders to discuss this matter further should they feel it necessary. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may also want to study the matter and make recommendations back to the House. I thank members for their attention.

615 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Mar/28/23 3:22:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House to speak to this piece of legislation. I would like to start today by saying a few words about how this bill is structured, and then I plan to use the majority of my remaining time to discuss the implications of this legislation regarding personal privacy rights. When I look at this bill, my initial response is this: Should there really not be three separate pieces of legislation? One would deal with the consumer privacy protection act and issues related to modernizing PIPEDA, perhaps a second, separate piece would create the proposed personal information and data protection tribunal act, and a third, separate component, which should absolutely be its own legislation, would be for the section dealing with artificial intelligence. AI may present similar, very legitimate concerns related to privacy, but the regulation of AI in any practical sense is almost impossible at this juncture because so many aspects of it are still very unknown. So much is still theoretical. So much of this new world into which we are venturing with AI has yet to be fully explored, fully realized or even fully defined. This makes regulation very difficult, but it is in this bill, so it forms part of this legislation. We can see just how vague the language related to the AI framework really is. I understand why it is that way, and do not get me wrong; I think we need this type of legislation to regulate AI. However, in the same way, this is way too big a topic to delve into in a simple 10-minute speech. It is also too big a topic to drop into an existing piece of legislation, as the government has done here, basically wedging this section into what was known as Bill C-11 in the last Parliament. I have deep concerns with AI. They are practical concerns, economic concerns and labour concerns related to the implementation of AI. I even have moral concerns. We have artificial intelligence so advanced that it can make decisions by itself. The people who have created that technology cannot explain how it came to those decisions and it cannot tell them. The capabilities of this technology alone seem almost limitless. It is actually a little scary. Personally, I look at some of the work being done in AI and wonder if we should, as humanity, really be doing this. Just because we have the knowledge and capability to do something does not necessarily mean it is for the betterment of humanity. I wonder sometimes where this technology and these capabilities will take us. I fear that in hindsight, we will look back and see how our hubris led us to a technological and cultural reality we never wanted and from which we will never be able to return. However, here we are, and we have this capability partially today. People are using it, and it requires some form of regulation. This bill attempts to start that important conversation. It is a good first step, and that is okay. I think this is one of those things where we need to start somewhere as we are not going to get it done all at once. However, again, given the enormity of the topic and the vast implications, it should be its own separate piece of legislation. Those are my thoughts on the structure of the bill, and now I will shift gears to talk a bit about personal privacy. Personal privacy is a fundamental right. Three decades ago, long before the advent of the Internet or smart phones, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled privacy is “the heart of liberty in a modern state”. It did not say that privacy was at the heart; it said privacy is the heart. Personal privacy is the fundamental right and freedom from which all other liberties flow, and with the advent of the Internet age, the age of the smart phone and the age of digitized everything, laws related to protecting the fundamental right to privacy must be updated. Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data. The question is, how do we realistically do that? One of the reasons I am a Conservative is that I believe in individual rights and that rights and freedoms must be coupled with accompanying accountability and responsibility. This has to be a two-way street. Canadians need to be informed, and they need to be responsible and aware of what they are agreeing to, subscribing to and giving permission for. How often do we simply and blindly click “accept” without reading the terms and conditions for using a website, using an app or allowing others the use of our information? I would be curious to know among my colleagues in the House, when was the last time they fully read the terms and conditions of a user agreement or a disclosure statement? Most of us just hit “accept”. We do not want to be bothered. Recognizing this, can we really say the privacy of Canadians is being violated when many individuals live every moment of their lives posting in real time online for all the world to see, and access and just click “accept” without reading what they are agreeing to? In this context, what is the role of government and what is the responsibility of the individual user? Government and businesses need to provide clear information, but people also need to be informed. They need to take responsibility. I recall a while back when my office received an email on this subject of privacy. The individual was deeply concerned about web giants having access to his personal data. I had to laugh, because at the bottom of the email it said, “Sent from my Huawei phone”. As a government creating legislation, where should those legal lines between consent and informed consent be drawn? As Canadians, we are a bit too quick to consent. However, we have also seen far too many examples of Canadians’ private and mobility data being used without their consent. We heard about the Tim Hortons app that was tracking the movement of Canadians; how the RCMP was using Clearview AI’s illegally created facial recognition database; the public doxing of all those who donated to the freedom convoy; Telus giving location data to the Public Health Agency of Canada without a judicial warrant; and, in my view, the most egregious violation of privacy in generations, the requirement by the government and others for Canadians to provide their personal health data and information in order to work and/or travel. If I am honest, it is this violation of privacy rights that makes me truly hesitant to support any effort by the government to strengthen privacy rights: first, because it has so flagrantly violated them, but also because I and a growing number of Canadians just do not trust the government. We do not trust it to keep its word. We do not trust it to create legislation that does not have loopholes and back doors that will give it the capability to violate individual personal freedoms. Why? Because we have seen it from the Liberals. They want to control everything. There has never been a government that has had such an utter disregard for Canadians. I have noted before that it was the Prime Minister's father who famously said that the government had no place in the bedrooms of Canadians. However, the current government not only wants to be in our bedrooms, but in every room, on every device, in every conversation and in every thought. It wants to control what Canadians think, what they see and what they post, and, by extension I can safely say, how their private data is curated and used. One thing that is vital if we are to trust the government with our private data and with protecting privacy, there must be clear boundaries. This leads to one of the larger issues with this legislation, an issue we are faced with every time the government brings legislation forward. It fails to provide clear definitions. There is a section of the bill that deals with the sensitive information of minors. The fact that there is no section for the protection of sensitive information of adults is a sign. What does it mean by “sensitive”? It is never defined. What does it mean by “scrutiny” for data brokers? It is this habitual lack of specificity that characterizes so much of the government's legislation. It is like a band that is way more interested in the concept of the album and how it looks on the cover than the actual quality of its music. If it cared about the quality of the music, it would have brought forward a bill that looks more like the European Union's 2016 GDPR, which is widely regarded as the gold standard for digital protection. By that standard, PIPEDA fails the test, but so might Bill C-27 if we do not bring it closer in line with what other nations have done. This lagging behind does not just affect personal privacy, but the ability of Canada and data-driven Canadian businesses to work with our EU friends. This whole new regime outlined in the bill has huge implications for businesses, something I am sure my colleagues will be addressing. There is so much that can and should be said about this legislation, but it comes down to this: Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data.

1635 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/28/23 3:32:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I must first reflect on how much I appreciated the ruling of the Speaker, which recognized that members should stick around for questions and comments after giving a speech. Having said that, I want to disagree with what the member said when he talked about just how evasive he believes the Government of Canada wants to be. I do not think the member realizes how much we appreciate the Charter of Rights. We were the ones who introduced it. When we look at the legislation, it is substantive in the sense of protecting the privacy of Canadians, whether with the huge data banks of our government, such as the health data banks, or private companies, such as Tim Hortons. The previous speaker gave an indication that the Conservatives do not like the legislation and gave the impression that they would not support the legislation. Could the member provide his support for the legislation and indicate that he would like to see it go to committee?

167 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Mar/28/23 3:33:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I should have pointed out at the beginning of my speech that I would be sticking around to answer any questions and address any comments. I appreciate the member for Winnipeg North, who I hear an awful lot, so I am getting used to him. I do appreciate the member's question about whether or not Conservatives support this legislation because, in principle, we support the concept that there needs to be regulation in protecting, acquiring, monitoring and distributing individuals' personal data. He pointed out that the Liberal government was the one that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have a question for the member, and I know he cannot answer it, but why did the government not respect the charter?

126 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mar/28/23 3:34:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, after testing ChatGPT earlier, I continued my research with Bing and asked it whether the Liberal government deserved Parliament's confidence when it comes to its Bill C‑27. The search engine told me that the bill enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and that the Liberal government had introduced it in 2021. It also told me that it was unable to tell me whether the Liberal government deserved Parliament's confidence regarding this bill, but I could read the details of the bill. Fortunately, artificial intelligence still has its limits because we need to think for ourselves. I will ask my colleague from Provencher a question. Would the Liberal government deserve our confidence when it comes to Bill C‑27? The member talked in his speech about confidence in the government. Accordingly, should we not be urgently sending the bill to committee? I think that everyone agrees on the need to regulate artificial intelligence. There is urgent work to be done in committee. Will the member be able to quickly provide his support to influence the content of this bill?

185 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Mar/28/23 3:35:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member inquired with ChatGPT to determine whether or not Canadians should have confidence in the Liberal government on Bill C-27. I would be much more curious had the member asked whether Canadians should have confidence in the Liberal government, period. I believe its AI ChatGPT would have been crystal clear in saying that no, we do not have confidence in the Liberal government. Having said that, we do think this legislation is important. I think we are going to listen to debate to make a decision whether or not to send it to committee for further study.

106 words

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

Mar/28/23 3:36:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is about the balance between personal information, privacy and business interests. It is something that this bill focuses a lot on. The government talks about balancing them rather than the personal privacy of an individual being paramount. In particular, in subclause 18(3) of this bill, the government says that it is okay if it is in the “legitimate interest” of the company, even if it harms an individual. They do not need express consent to use the information. I wonder what the member's views are on that, and whether or not the government is actually putting the emphasis on the individual or the big tech giants from the U.S.

121 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Mar/28/23 3:37:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, if we read the bill, especially in section 18, where the government has carved out a little space for business, it would appear as though business interests trump those of the private individual. I believe that mistake has been made too often, where we have given personal data to businesses too flippantly. Personal private data, first and foremost, belongs to, and should be protected by, the individual.

69 words

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

Mar/28/23 3:37:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, as I look around the chamber today, there are a few people who I think would remember my predecessor in my role as the member of Parliament, when I first was elected, for Wild Rose. His name was Myron Thompson. Myron was pretty well known. He was the guy with the cowboy hat and he was pretty outspoken. One thing many people do not know about Myron Thompson is that back when he was a young guy he had a try-out with the New York Yankees. He was a pretty good baseball back catcher, but he did not make the team, and it was because there happened to be a future Hall of Famer at that position for the New York Yankees. I wanted to reference that future Hall of Famer today because it is an amazing testimony to the impression he made on the culture. As an 1950s era baseball catcher, he is still famous not just for his play on the diamond but also for the gems he dropped in conversation off the diamond. His observations have actually even found a place in English lexicon and are known as “Yogi-isms”. Of course I am talking about Yogi Berra. That is the fellow who beat out Myron Thompson for a spot on the New York Yankees way back then. He became a 1972 Hall of Fame inductee. He has 10 World Series victories to his credit, which is the most of any Major League Baseball player in history. An hon. member: You've got to tie it in to the legislation somehow. Mr. Blake Richards: Madam Speaker, he is certainly better known for the way his trademark mangling and misuse of words and phrases has resulted in strangely keen insights that are still widely quoted today by many. I have a few favourites. One of them is “I didn't really say everything that I said.” Another one is “We made too many wrong mistakes.” Another is “Swing at the strikes.” When I thought about Bill C-27 and preparing to speak today, it brought to mind Yogi-isms, and not only because those examples I just cited reminded me of the Liberals' poor approach to governance but because the title of this bill is a real mouthful at 35 words long. This brought that to mind as well. For now, I will call it the consumer privacy protection act, but it is really summed up best by what is probably the greatest Yogi-ism of all, which is “It's déjà vu all over again.” That really speaks to it. The member was looking for me to tie it back in, so there it is. There is the tie back in. Here we are in 2023 and here I am speaking on yet another rehash of another Liberal bill from years previous. They have a real penchant for that, these Liberals. They kind of remind me of Hollywood Studios that no longer seems to be able to produce an original script so it just keeps churning out sequels. If Bill C-27 was a film, one could call it “Bill C-11, the redo”. Bill C-27 is essential a warmed-over version of previous Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act the Liberals introduced back in 2020. It is not to be confused with the current Bill C-11, which is also making its way through Parliament and is the online streaming act and which also poses another threat to Canadians' privacy and online freedoms. It is really easy to see a bit of a pattern evolving here. In any case, in May 2021 the Privacy Commissioner said the digital charter act “represents a step back overall from our current law and needs significant changes if confidence in the digital economy is to be restored.” It of course died when the Prime Minister cynically called an expensive and unnecessary election nobody wanted and everybody paid for and that did not change the Prime Minister's political fortunes one iota. Bill C-27 carries the stamp of that former digital charter proposal, which Conservatives had concerns about then, and which we still have concerns about in its new form now. Some of the text is in fact directly lifted from Bill C-11 and the text of that bill is available for all to review. Let us talk more about the impact of the bill's content, rather than the wording itself. The bill purports to modernize federal private sector privacy law, to create a new tribunal and new laws for AI, or artificial intelligence, systems. In doing so, it raises a number of red flags. Perhaps the most crimson of those flags, for me, is that the bill does not recognize privacy as a fundamental right. That is not actually all that surprising, because this is a Liberal bill. I hear daily from Canadians who are alarmed by how intrusive the Liberal government has become, and who are also fearful of how much more intrusive it still seems to hope to become. It just seems just par for the course for the government that, in a bill dealing with privacy, it is failing to acknowledge that, 34 years ago, the Supreme Court said privacy is at the very heart of liberty in a modern state, individuals are worthy of it, and it is worthy of constitutional protection. When we talk about privacy, we have to talk about consent. We have seen far too many examples of Canadians' private and mobility data being used without their consent. I think some of these examples have been cited previously, but I will cite them again. We saw the Tim Hortons app tracking movements of people after their orders. We saw the RCMP's use of Clearview AI's illegally created facial recognition database. We saw Telus' “data for good” program giving location data to the Public Health Agency of Canada. These were breaches of the privacy of Canadians. There needs to be a balance between use of data by businesses and that fundamental protection of Canadians' privacy. The balance in this bill is just wrong. It leans too heavily in one direction. There are certainly issues with user content and use of collected information. For instance, there are too many exemptions from consent. Some exemptions are so broad that they can actually be interpreted as not requiring consent at all. The concept of legitimate interests has been added as an exception to consent, where a legitimate interest outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual. Personal information would be able to be used and shared for internal research, analysis and development without consent, provided that the content is de-identified. These exemptions are too broad. The bill's default would seek consent where reasonable, rather than exempt the requirement. In fact, there are several instances where the bill vaguely defines terms that leave too much wiggle room for interpretation, rather than for the protection of Canadians. For example, there is a new section regarding the sharing of minors' sensitive information, but no definition of what “sensitive” means is given, and there would be no protection at all for adults' sensitive information. These are both problematic. De-identification is mandated when data is used or transferred, but the term is poorly defined and the possibility of data being reidentified is certainly there. Anonymization or pseudonymization are the better methods, and the government needs to sharpen the terms in this bill to be able to sharpen those protections. An even more vague wording in the bill is that individuals would have a right to disposal, the ability to request that their data be destroyed. Clarification is certainly needed regarding anonymization and the right to delete or the right to vanish. There are many more examples. I know my colleagues will certainly expand on some of those questions as posed in the bill. I know my time is running short. I want to speak to the individual privacy rights of Canadians briefly. Canadians value their privacy even as their government continually seeks ways to compromise it. The Public Health Agency of Canada secretly tracked 33 million mobile devices during the COVID lockdown. The government assured them their data would not be collected, but it was collecting it through different means all along. Public confidence is not that high when the Liberals start to mess in issues involving privacy. The onus should be on the government to provide clarity around the use and collection of Canadians' private information because, to quote another Yogi-ism, “If you don't catch the ball, you catch the bus home.”

1470 words