Bill C-11 (Historical)

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act to protect the personal information of individuals while recognizing the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. In consequence, it repeals Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and changes the short title of that Act to the Electronic Documents Act. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which establishes an administrative tribunal to hear appeals of certain decisions made by the Privacy Commissioner under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and to impose penalties for the contravention of certain provisions of that Act. It also makes a related amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.

Digital Charter Implementation Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

How is this debate? I am bringing a point of order that the member is not talking about this. That is the only thing I have been talking about.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could encourage the member to stay on topic and discuss Bill C-11 specifically.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In the past, members have sought your intervention to guide members to speak relevantly. I have laid out very clearly the connection between the point I am making and the legislation before us. I am very aware of the rules of relevance and I am sure you will find the member opposite is very aware that those rules are very loosely enforced in this place. While I appreciate the member's guidance to the Speaker, I wonder if perhaps he does not view it as debate because he does not agree with the content of what I am saying.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the interventions by hon. members. Indeed, relevance is a legitimate point of order when it is raised, and I compliment each of the hon. members for their knowledge of the Standing Orders in this respect.

I have heard from each member. I will listen carefully to the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes in respect to his comments on the matter. Yes, there is certainly latitude given to members, for example to make comparisons with respect to the topic before the House. I recognize he is just a little over three minutes into his speech, and I am sure that he will continue to keep his comments relevant to the matter before the House, that being Bill C-11.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the concern the government has with the content of the testimony of those individuals who were ordered to appear is so great that ministers of the Crown ordered individuals not to appear at committee, in contravention of an order of this House. We have seen the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to avoid talking about issues that are embarrassing to it and that are damaging to it.

We now have Bill C-11. We have legislation where, for many months, the opposition has been calling on the government to take a major step to protect Canadians' privacy, and it could achieve that by banning Huawei. We heard very troubling reports today about a country where we learned that via Huawei, communist China was able to listen in to a NATO partners' phone calls happening in that country and listen to the phone calls of a prime minister. This certainly is vindication for everyone who has called for Huawei to be banned. That is a concrete step that the government could take, with the support of this House, to protect the privacy of Canadians, but that has not happened.

We are six years into the mandate of the Liberals. They got a new mandate two years ago. Now they have this legislation. The industry minister has put it forward, but they do not want it to go to the industry committee. They want it to come to the ethics committee.

Why did they wait until this spring before they wanted it to arrive at the committee? Interestingly, last summer, the Ethics Commissioner said that he was investigating the Prime Minister for the Canada student service grant debacle, after the Prime Minister had said he failed to recuse himself from discussions related to the awarding of that contract. Members of the Prime Minister's family had received half a million dollars from the WE organization, and then the Prime Minister voted to give that same organization a half-billion-dollar grant, which would have included more than $40 million in benefit or revenue for the WE organization.

After the Ethics Commissioner said that he was going to conduct that investigation, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office put out a tweet. The tweet highlighted the timeline that it usually takes for a report to come back on a potential violation of the Conflict of Interest Act. The first two reports issued by the Ethics Commissioner with respect to the Prime Minister were “The Trudeau Report” and “Trudeau II Report”. There will be a third report bearing the same name, which is due this spring. So—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member did not intend to use the Prime Minister's proper name in referring to those reports. It is a small point of order, but I hope that he will avoid using the Prime Minister's proper name in this place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention on this issue. This has come up before. In this particular case, the infraction that the member refers to, in fact, is the title of the report. It so happens to include the family name of the Right Hon. Prime Minister in this case.

Certainly, we recommend that members not invoke the names of other hon. members, but I do recognize that on other occasions, the name of this report has been used without there being any disorder or issues of that nature. I will rule that this is acceptable in this case, but I do encourage hon. members not to repeat unnecessarily the names of such reports.

I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the member again when he starts speaking, so I thought this would be the best time to do it. On the same point of order I raised earlier, since you made your ruling, he mentioned the title of Bill C-11, talked about Huawei for about 15 seconds, and then immediately went back to the Ethics Commissioner report.

Now we are rising on a point of order to talk about a report that is completely unrelated to Bill C-11. I know the member indicated that one can supposedly loosely relate, but that is not the case. It is only the case sometimes with special bills like budget bills.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the member to stay on topic and not stray away again, because you already ruled on this once.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Is this on the same point of order, the one the member for Kingston and the Islands just spoke to?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to apologize to the hon. member. I had not realized that distinction around the proper name of the report, so I wanted to apologize for my earlier point of order.

I am not addressing the one from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is very kind of the hon. member; I appreciate her so doing.

Back to the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I have been, as I indicated I would, listening carefully to the hon. member. In fact, his argument, as I have been following it, has to do with the delay of the scheduling of this particular bill before the House. I suppose that is a legitimate point of debate in the House.

I see we still have about three minutes left, and I am sure he is going to link those ideas together and conclude with his arguments being relevant to Bill C-11. We will let the hon. member finish.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am thrilled that members are listening so intently, I do think it is a bit telling that they cannot even get through a 10-minute speech without their tactics. It is disappointing, to say the least.

However, I left off speaking about the report that bears the Prime Minister's name. Now, the member opposite heckled when I said that, saying that if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is raising the point, one knows one is really out of order. Well, we see that is not the case. While the member opposite has to speak for his team today, what I can say is that the official opposition recognizes that the tactics being used by the government by attempting to send Bill C-11 to the ethics committee are part of a coordinated cover-up.

Liberals do not want to deal with the privacy of Canadians. They have had six years to do it. They do not want to deal with the privacy of Canadians. They refuse to take simple steps like banning Huawei, like Five Eyes partners. They do not want to take the necessary steps. They do not want to send this to a committee that is going to deal with this uninterrupted.

When the report bearing the Prime Minister's name comes to committee, we are going to put Bill C-11 to the side and we are going to address that report from the Ethics Commissioner. If the government really wants this legislation to be dealt with in an earnest way, then it is going to send it to a committee, as suggested by the opposition, that ought to be dealing with it, because the industry committee deals with the industry minister, and the ethics committee deals with the Ethics Commissioner.

When we have a bill that the government members profess is designed to protect the privacy of Canadians and is so important to them, we would expect that they place it at a committee where it can be given its due consideration and not time it with their hope that it will be able to displace the work of an officer of Parliament. The committee is surely going to deal with that matter; it is of great public interest.

While I look forward to members asking questions that are germane to Bill C-11, and of course we are not going to hear any questions that stray away from the meat of this bill, it is incredibly important that people recognize that as the defence committee has filibustered, as the ethics committee has filibustered, as PROC has filibustered and as Parliament was prorogued, this bill is being used in an attempt to avoid embarrassment for the government, for the Prime Minister. When a report from the Ethics Commissioner lands at the ethics committee, it will be dealt with and Bill C-11 will be put to the side, and Liberals will say that the opposition does not care about the privacy of Canadians.

We do now, we did before and we will then, but the government has a choice to make, and today it can decide to send that bill to the industry committee and it will receive due consideration. I would be happy to give our full attention to Bill C-11 and its merits, debate those and make amendments at the industry committee, but if government members are looking to disrupt the work of the ethics committee, they are going to be unsuccessful in doing that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I did say that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was always right, but what I find even more honourable about her is how she apologized when she was wrong. I have a ton of respect for that member, and I will always listen attentively to what she has to say.

The reason I kept raising the point of order is that the preceding two speakers to this member kept going on and on about how the government is not responsible: The government sets the agenda; it has all been the government, and the government can do what it wants. However, in reality, we have seen that the opposition and this member came forward and maybe for 30 seconds out of the 10 minutes actually spoke about Bill C-11. His agenda, and we all know this from being in the House, is totally on another matter.

I get jaded, perhaps, when I see members from the opposition coming in here and saying, “It is the government. Why has the government not done anything? We would never play these games.” Then, literally right after they are done speaking, this member comes in here and plays this game. That is where my concern is born from.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the member opposite seems to be obfuscation. While I was interrupted multiple times because the member did not want to hear the case, hear the facts that the scheduling of the bill, the placement of the bill, is being used to hopefully disrupt a committee, he used the time to make a comment about the schedule of the House.

Obviously, these are legitimate points of debate that I have made this morning. However, when the government wants to obfuscate and obstruct, it should fully expect that the opposition is going to hold it to account for that. We make no apologies for it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to focus on the bill itself.

Of course, for Canadians, privacy rights are an important part of life in the digital age, and there are many platforms and many ways in which people's privacy could be breached. Facebook and Google often use Canadians' personal information in ways that have nothing to do with the service, under the guise of helping a small business, for example. We have also seen a variety of platforms where people can hide behind anonymity to post various comments.

I am wondering whether or not, in addressing these issues of privacy, platforms such as Google and Facebook should be allowed to share personal information under the guise of supporting a small business. Does the member agree with that? What other action should the government take to stop and hold to account these various platforms so that people cannot hide behind anonymity?