Ed Fast

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I have mutual respect for the member. We are both from the class of 2006, I believe.

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly not trivializing Bill C-27. In fact, right now it is only the Conservative members of Parliament who are speaking to it. This is the most important issue of privacy and protecting the privacy of Canadians within an emerging digital environment. I am disappointed that my colleague from the Bloc does not take this issue seriously enough to get up in this House and debate it. It is important that we get this right.

What we have is a redux of the old bill the Liberals brought forward. It was so roundly castigated and panned at committee that the minister had to go back to the drawing board. However, he has come back with essentially the same milquetoast legislation, which does not address the most critical parts of protecting the privacy of Canadians.

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, to bring it back to the topic of this debate, Bill C-27, the intention of the bill is to modernize the protection of digital privacy rights in Canada. The previous iteration of the bill was roundly panned by stakeholders when it was introduced in the previous Parliament. However, in this new version, Bill C-27, the government has added a few new elements, for example, regulating artificial intelligence.

Unfortunately, there are so many different elements within the bill that nobody can actually address all the issues within a 10-minute speech, so I will focus on the privacy issues that are sorely lacking within the legislation.

The bottom line is that the new bill, Bill C-27, remains fundamentally flawed and is, simply put, a redux of the former bill. Essentially, what it would do is put lipstick on a pig.

The dramatic and rapid evolution in how we gather, use and disseminate digital information in the 21st century has presented the global community with not only a lot of opportunities but significant challenges as we try to protect society and individuals against the unauthorized use of their data and information. This directly implicates the issue of privacy and the various Canadian pieces of legislation that address the issue of privacy.

This is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to “fix” a problem, and I use that term advisedly. It tries to fix things, but just makes things worse. In the 21st century, we are faced with immense challenges in how we protect individuals, our Canadian citizens, against those who might misuse their data and information. Any suggestion that this digital charter is actually an articulation of new rights is simply wrong. This is a digital charter, but it is not a digital charter of rights.

I will turn to the most significant and substantive part of the bill, the privacy elements. Very little of this legislation has been changed from the original Bill C-11, and the government has not measurably responded to the criticism it received from the stakeholders when the previous version of the bill was reviewed at committee.

There are five key additions and alterations to Canada's existing privacy protection laws.

First, the bill expressly defines the consent that Canadians must give in order for their data and information to be collected and used, and there are guidelines attached to that. We commend the government for doing that clear definition of consent.

Second, Bill C-27 addresses the de-identification, the anonymization of data that is collected by private companies. Again, that is important. We want to ensure when private businesses collect information from consumers that this information is not attached to a specific individual or citizen.

Just to be clear, the bill contains numerous broad exemptions, which we could probably drive a truck through, and will likely create the loopholes that will allow corporations to avoid asking Canadians for permission.

Third, the bill provides that all organizations and companies that undertake activities that impact the privacy of Canadians must develop codes of practice for the protection of the information they collect.

Finally, the act would create harsher financial penalties, up to $25 million, for a violation of Canadian privacy rights. We, again, commend the government for doing that.

However, let me say for the record that what we do not support is the unnecessary creation of a new personal information and data protection tribunal, which is another level of bureaucracy that would add more layers of complexity, delays and confusion to the commissioner's efforts to enforce privacy laws.

Canada is not alone in expressing concern over the risks that digital information and data flows represent to the well-being of Canadians and our privacy rights. Many other countries are grappling with the same issue and are responding to these threats, and none more so than the European Union. The EU has adopted its general data protection regulation, the GDPR, which has now become the world's gold standard when it comes to privacy protection in the digital environment.

The challenge for Canada is that the EU, which is a market of over half a billion well-heeled consumers, measures its willingness to mutually allow sharing of information with other countries against the GDPR, the standard it has set. Those who fall short of the rigour of that privacy regime will find it difficult to conduct business with the EU.

Do our current regime and this legislation measure up to the GDPR from the EU? No, probably not. In fact, for years Canada's digital data privacy framework has been lagging behind those of our international counterparts. The problem is that if we do not meet the standard, we will not be able to do the kind of business with the EU we expect to. As someone who played a part in negotiating our free trade agreement with the European Union, I know it would be an absolute travesty to see that work go to waste because our country was not willing to adopt robust privacy and data protections.

I note that, as is the custom with our Liberal friends, the bill creates more costs for taxpayers to bear. There is a creation of new responsibilities and powers for the commissioner, which we support, but this legislation calls for the creation of a separate tribunal, a new layer of bureaucracy and red tape that small and medium-sized enterprises will have to grapple with.

There are other unanswered questions. Why does this legislation not formally recognize privacy as a fundamental right? Regrettably, as presented, Bill C-27 misses the opportunity to produce a path-breaking statute that addresses the enormous risks and asymmetries posed by today's surveillance business model. Our key trading partners, especially the EU, have set the bar very high, and the adequacy of our own privacy legislation could very well be rescinded by the EU under its privacy regime.

Thirty-five years ago, our Supreme Court affirmed that privacy is “at the heart of liberty in a modern state”, yet nowhere in this bill is that right formally recognized. Any 21st-century privacy regime should recognize privacy as a fundamental human right that is inextricably linked to other fundamental rights and freedoms. By the way, I share the belief that as a fundamental right, it is not appropriate to balance off the right to privacy against the rights of corporations and commercial interests. Personal privacy must remain sacrosanct. When measured against that standard, Bill C-27 fails miserably.

I have much more to say, but I will wind down by saying that this bill is another missed opportunity to get Canada's privacy legislation right by consulting widely and learning from best practices from around the world. There is a lot riding on this bill, including the willingness of some our largest trading partners to allow reciprocal data flows. This bill is not consistent with contemporary global standards.

The Centre for Digital Rights notes that this legislation “fails to address the reality that dominant data-driven enterprises have shifted away from a service-oriented business model towards one that relies on monetizing [personal information] through the mass surveillance of individuals and groups.” That should be a wake-up call to all of us. Sadly, this bill fails to listen to that call. Let me repeat that there is a move toward monetizing personal information through mass surveillance of individuals and groups, and the government has not yet recognized that.

For those reasons, I expect the Conservatives will be opposing this bill and voting against it.

[Medical Assistance in Dying, March 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, life is precious and is a beautiful gift. With that in mind, I stand here in support of Canada's most vulnerable. Eight years ago, we warned the Liberal government that its assisted death legislation would create a slippery slope that would put at risk the lives of many vulnerable Canadians. We were right.

The Prime Minister has engineered an unprecedented expansion of Canada’s assisted suicide regime by including mentally ill persons and signalling he wants to include children as well. There is absolutely no consensus among Canadians that we should do this. My bill, the mental health protection act, would repeal the government's decision to extend assisted death to mentally ill persons.

Instead of inexorably moving toward a culture of death, let us celebrate and nurture a culture of life. Let us provide these vulnerable Canadians with the social and mental health supports they need to enjoy meaningful and joy-filled lives.

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member mostly talked about low unemployment and 3% GDP growth, basically suggesting Canadians have never had it so good. However, when the Canadians who are watching these proceedings today go to the grocery store, they know that those prices are not going down. If anything, they are still going up, and the problem with inflation is that once those inflationary prices are baked in, they are there to stay. Canadians know that this is going to be a serious, ongoing problem.

The member did mention spending, very briefly, at the end. Given the fact that former Liberal colleagues, finance ministers and governors of the Bank of Canada have said that Liberal government spending is a major contributor to inflation in Canada, how is her government going to actually control spending going forward so we do not have those inflationary pressures anymore?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, when I look at the plight of our veterans, I know many of them suffer from PTSD. Can anyone imagine a veteran walking into an office and asking for help? They say they need mental health supports and are asking for help. They are begging the government and the response is, “I am sorry. Why not consider medically assisted dying?” That is not acceptable.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, I totally agree with the member and his analysis of what has gone on. We have had the unelected, unaccountable senators plugging in a provision that has life-and-death consequences, and the government just rolled over when it came back to this place. That is an abdication.

The fact that there are no safeguards in place is of grave concern. However, once those safeguards are in place, we should fully expect that over time the government is going to chip away at them so that it can expand the scope of this legislation even more.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, this is humorous because of the expert panel my colleague referenced. When it had finished all of its work and finished hearing from all of the witnesses, what did it actually say? It did not come up with one safeguard. The panel said to do this on a case-by-case basis, that we do need safeguards and to just go ahead with the legislation as it is. That was the expert panel.

There are no safeguards in place in Canada right now, none. That is why the government is asking for an extension of another year. However, even if there were safeguards in place, we have never had a debate in this House on the merits of including the mentally ill and mentally disordered within Canada's assisted suicide regime.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join this debate.

The underlying legislation of Bill C-39 is very simple. The government is simply asking that it be given more time to introduce safeguards, guidelines and professional practices that would allow assisted deaths to be administered in such a way that mistakes are not made. However, we already know that mistakes are being made under the current regime, so that should not give Canadians any confidence. In fact, Bill C-7, which is the bill that has given rise to this request for an extension, is just another case of the Liberal government getting it so wrong by failing to consult in advance and then, after the fact, trying to fix all the mistakes and fill in all the gaps.

This is another story of failure, and what I would like to do is explain a bit of the context. Members may recall that back in 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada, for the first time, opened up the door to legalized assisted suicide, and the Liberal government then responded with Bill C-14, which restricted MAID, or medical assistance in dying, to those who were at the end of their lives and living in intolerable, grievous pain. We were assured this was not a slippery slope that was intended to include other vulnerable Canadians in Canada's assisted death regime. That is what we were told. Many of us did not take the government at its word. We did push back, but the government passed the legislation anyway.

Sure enough, here we are, some eight years down the road, and our fears were confirmed when the Quebec court, in the Truchon case, ruled that limiting MAID to those whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable was unconstitutional. The government did not appeal that case, a seminal case because it is opening up a life-and-death piece of legislation and expanding it without a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe that was an abdication of responsibility in itself. Instead, the government chose to accept the ruling and move forward with Bill C-7, which ended up extending MAID to include, among others, the mentally ill.

I want to be clear here. I do note that the original Bill C-7, which was introduced by the justice minister, did not include the mentally ill in Canada's assisted suicide regime. However, when that piece of legislation, Bill C-7, went to the Senate, the other place, the senators inserted a provision expanding and extending assisted suicide to the mentally ill in Canada. When it came back to this House, the government, instead of pushing back, the way one would expect a government to do, simply rolled over and said it would accept it the way it was, and that is now becoming the law of the land.

Bill C-7 also provided that the mentally ill provisions of Bill C-7 would come into force in two years. That is the sunset clause some people talk about. During that period of time, proper safeguards and practice standards were to be put in place to ensure that mistakes were not made. Not surprisingly, as it is a Liberal government, it got to the end of the two years, and virtually nothing has been done. The government actually struck an expert panel to review this, but it did not give that panel the right to review the merits of the underlying assisted suicide regime in Canada.

There is also a joint parliamentary committee between the Senate and the House that is still reviewing these provisions, and I am looking forward to that report. However, again, the mandate of the committee did not include any real, substantive review and investigation into the substance of medically assisted suicide. All it was allowed to do was tinker around the edges to implement a policy that has life-and-death implications for many Canadians.

Here we are. We have no safeguards and there are no guidelines for our practitioners, but we support the bill because we are trying to push this down the road as far we can. I will mention why in a moment.

The woefully inadequate rollout of the government's MAID regime is a manifestation of a Liberal government that appears to be in disarray and whose ideology is moving Canada from a culture of life to a culture of death rather than providing the necessary resources to our most vulnerable. Many in the House have raised that issue and have asked this: Why is it even necessary to apply assisted suicide to the marginalized in Canada, the vulnerable? They ask because right now we are not providing them with the resources and supports they need to live a satisfying and joy-filled life.

What is really of concern is that numerous stakeholders have said they oppose Bill C-7. By the way, there is no broad consensus in Canada that we move forward with assisted suicide for the mentally ill. There is some consensus for MAID to be in place for other cases where there is extreme pain involved, but Canadians do not support extending it to the mentally ill.

What is also of concern is that the government has now signalled that it will go beyond the mentally ill and would like to include mature minor children in this regime. The government is charging ahead with a life-and-death policy that has increased Canada's momentum down the slippery slope that we had warned of.

Is death now seen as a more cost-effective way of managing the most vulnerable in our society? Many have posited that this is the case now. Canadians have a right to question whether their government can be trusted on issues of life and death. If this is being extended to the mentally ill and to mature minors, what about the indigent? What about the homeless? What about the drug addicted? What about veterans? We know that veterans have already been counselled by the government to consider MAID as an option to serve their needs and provide them with support. We know that people who are arriving at the food banks are asking where they can access MAID, because they do not want to live in poverty anymore. That is a reflection on us as parliamentarians. It is a reflection on our country, and we can do better.

There is, however, some good news, and I will end with it.

I recently tabled a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-314, the mental health protection act. It would reverse the Liberal government's reckless acceptance of the unelected Senate's assisted death amendments. It would arrest the dangerous momentum that the expansion of medically assisted death has triggered on the slippery slope. Under my bill, Canadians whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder would not qualify for MAID. At the same time, the preamble to my bill calls upon the government to finally deliver the mental health supports that have repeatedly been promised in federal budget after federal budget but have never been delivered. This is the least we owe to those who struggle with mental illnesses such as depression.

In closing, to ensure that we do not implement the mental health provisions of Bill C-7 before the House has an opportunity to revisit my piece of legislation, we on this side are very supportive of moving forward and passing the bill expeditiously. It will buy another year and push the whole issue of the mentally ill down the road, and we will make sure that we implement private member's legislation that actually protects the most vulnerable.

[Criminal Code, February 10th, 2023]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table today the mental health protection act. As members know, medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2016. Under Bill C-14, medical assistance was expressly limited to capable adults who have an irremediable disease that causes enduring and intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated, and when their natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this would not lead to a slippery slope on which the scope of MAID would be continually be expanded to include other Canadians. Not surprisingly, in the intervening seven years, the government has expanded the scope of MAID by de facto extending its scope to those who are not dying, but who are living with disabilities.

More recently, the government expanded MAID to include mentally ill persons and also signalled its intention to extend this right to mature minor children. Clearly, we are on the slippery slope many of us had warned about, and Canadians have a right to ask who is next. Will it be the drug addicted, the indigent, the homeless, or needy veterans? What about willing seniors who are tired of life? Where does it end?

My bill would reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. There is no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada's medically assisted death regime. Issues of irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close enough to being resolved to justify this major policy shift in favour of death.

Let me be clear: My bill does not, in any way, reverse the rest of Canada's MAID regime. Instead, it arrests Canada's slide down the slippery slope of assisted suicide, which so many of us had predicted would happen. I would respectfully ask that all of my parliamentary colleagues give thoughtful consideration to my bill, and join me in protecting and supporting the most vulnerable in our society.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)