SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Rick Perkins

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • South Shore—St. Margarets
  • Nova Scotia
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $136,927.65

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23
Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)
  • Mar/28/23 1:19:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-27 
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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23
Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)
  • Mar/7/23 11:53:27 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-27 
Madam Speaker, we have talked about legitimate interest being an exception of a business being able to use data without permission. Another provision in the act, subsection 15(5), gives a business the ability to do implied consent, which is really consent without consent. Can you comment on how the Liberals are in the pockets of big tech on that?
60 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23
Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)
  • Mar/7/23 11:03:41 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-27 
Madam Speaker, I believe I heard the member for Winnipeg North say in his presentation that the Conservatives were supporting the bill. That is incorrect. We are opposing the bill, not that we oppose the modernization. It is needed, but this bill is inadequate. There are many reasons but the primary reason is that it does not put personal privacy interests above those of business interests. In the “purpose” section of clause 5 in the bill, it says that, basically, they are of equal weight. Further on, in subclause 18(3), the bill says that a legitimate interest of a business, determined by a business, is a reason that a business can use one's data without one's permission, in a way that they did not get permission for. That is one of the fundamental flaws in the bill, in terms of the idea that personal information, mine or anyone's, is mine and should be paramount and superior to that of the business. The business is there just to serve my interest, not of equal value. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
190 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 153 - Feb/3/23
Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)
  • Feb/3/23 1:09:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-34 
Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Windsor West, who I enjoy working with on the industry committee, and the former chair who did marvellous work on it. It is a great report. My personal favourite is recommendation number one, which is that the state-owned enterprises be reduced to zero for review. The Investment Canada Act focuses on the acquisition of companies. However, it does not focus at all on the acquisition of individual assets. These would be things like a mine sold by a company to a foreign interest; or a technology sold, without the company being sold, to an interest that may not be in Canada's best security interest or net benefit interest. I do not recall hearing about this. Could the member comment on that?
133 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border