Debates of Dec. 5th, 2013

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the Conservatives' attitude in general. It is very easy for me to sit down with someone and discuss things as equals, particularly with aboriginal communities. This is a principle I follow when visiting communities in my riding.

Unfortunately this government seems to be unable to sit down with anyone and just have a discussion. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is not even able to sit down with the House Leader of the Official Opposition to discuss the agenda of the House of Commons. Since he is incapable of negotiating, he imposes one gag order after another. We have now had 58 gag orders.

If the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons cannot even speak with our house leader just to discuss the agenda of the House of Commons, what kind of attitude do the Conservatives have when they talk with first nations communities?

That scares me a bit. Maybe their general attitude in politics explains why they are unable to hold discussions on an equal footing with aboriginal leaders.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the bill. In one of my previous incarnations I was assistant deputy of resources for Yukon and I had the privilege of participating in some of the devolution negotiations for Yukon.

I also had the privilege of working in the Northwest Territories back in the 1960s. I know that dates me, but I worked at a fishing camp in Great Bear Lake. That was the moment in time that vested a deep love of the north in me. I look for every opportunity that I can to visit the north and for every opportunity to meet with representatives of northern Canada when they come to the Hill.

I have a high level of respect for all three governments in Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I admire the determination in seeking independence and governance of their own peoples and I have incredible respect for the hard work that has been invested in the settlement of first nation final agreements and in moving toward their implementation. Unfortunately, some of those remain unresolved, and I certainly wish those first nation peoples the best in resolving the outstanding issues. They can know that we are behind them so they can move toward self-governance as well.

It is important to understand the governance of the north. Much of the north is also under first nation final agreements and self-government agreements, so there are really three levels of governance. The federal government plays a role in the north. There is the Government of the Northwest Territories and then there are the governments of the distinct first nations and Inuit peoples who have moved forward toward their own system of self-governance. That is why these negotiations take so long: it is because it is important to show respect and due consideration for the rights and interests of all peoples and to carry out consultation.

With regard to Bill C-15, as my colleagues have said clearly, we have every intention to support moving the bill forward to committee for review. I will be encouraging my colleagues who sit on that committee to call for part of the review by the committee to occur in the communities of the north. I make this call in every committee I sit on.

I was very pleased that when I was the environment critic, we did a review of the impact of the oil sands on water. Our committee actually travelled to several communities in Alberta, including Fort Chipewyan, which has borne the brunt of a lot of the impacts of the development there. It is very important that those people who are most directly impacted have the opportunity to participate, not just as witnesses, but to attend and hear first hand what their friends, neighbours, and leaders are saying and what other interested parties are saying on the bill.

I know a good number of the communities of the Northwest Territories are tuning in and watching this debate. Toward the end of my brief comments, I intend to share some of the comments that they asked me to pass on directly, and I will be most pleased to do that.

This is indeed a complex bill. As we have heard, there has been some level of frustration by the peoples of the north of the decision to combine together the legislation moving forward on devolution of powers to the Government of the Northwest Territories with other measures, in particular the measures in part 4 that will provide for changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Most of my comments relate to part 4, because it is on those measures that we have heard the most concerns and have heard the hope that there may be amendments at committee stage and later in the House.

It is important to keep in mind that there has been devolution of powers previously. I believe it was almost 30 years ago that powers over education, health care, transport, forestry, and wildlife were devolved to the Northwest Territories government, so clearly the NWT government was found even three decades ago to have the competence and the capability to deliver governance. We should therefore move forward and further devolve those powers, because the governments for the first nations, the Inuvialuit, and the other peoples of the Northwest Territories deserve to have a government close at hand that they can speak to and that they can influence in making decisions about their future, including the exploitation of resources.

The devolution provisions clearly will be very important because the government of the Northwest Territories will be able to shift away from simply getting a transfer from the federal government, having to bow and scrape and say, “We will do thus and so; can you please transfer resources to us?” I think the government would now be able to appreciate at least up to 50% of the dollars that come from revenue from resource extraction, as it should. I am sure that into the future the Northwest Territories hopes that it too will become a full provincial entity, fully controlling decisions about its peoples, its lands, and its waters.

It is also important to point out that the statute would amend up to 42 statutes, including the Canada Student Loans Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Divorce Act, the Privacy Act, the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Northern Pipeline Act, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Canada Water Act. Clearly it is a very complex bill that merits very careful review and understanding by all the members of this place and certainly at committee, so that members feel fully competent and informed in order to pass judgment and to vote yea or nay on the eventual bill.

Part 4 is the area where most of my colleagues in the House have raised concerns. Part 4 deals with the many changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the most significant being the devolution of a system of co-management between the first nation peoples and other governments.

I know from my direct experience in working on these matters in Yukon that for the first nations and indigenous peoples of this country to have a right to have a say in the management of wildlife, water, and other resources in their territories is a matter that has been fought for long and hard. They do have their own distinct territories, and then they have the right for traditional harvest in additional lands. It is very important that they have the opportunity to have a direct say.

Those are the significant provisions that we are hearing from peoples of the north. They wish potential amendments to be tabled in committee and debated, and it should be their right and privilege to come before the committee and to suggest amendments to the bill that would then be given due consideration.

The issue has been raised of the inherent potential contradiction between part 1 of Bill C-15 and part 4, in that part 1 provides for the devolution of powers to the people of the north and then part 4 pulls back the rights and powers of northern peoples to actually make decisions in a lot of matters, including water, wildlife, and so forth.

There has been particular concern with shifting decision-making from the peoples of the north to the federal ministers and cabinet. It has been pointed out that there are specific provisions whereby federal ministers and the federal cabinet would have the power to direct that the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories must withhold final assent to any legislation that is brought forward by the legislature in the Northwest Territories for up to a year.

A lot of concern has been expressed about that. Either they are going to be given the powers to move forward or they are not going to be given the powers to move forward.

I took the time to phone some of the first nations in the North and I want to share some of their feedback.

This comes from president Robert Alexie and vice-president Norman Snowshoe of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. They wish to have their comments on part 4 shared in the House:

The Gwich'in Tribal Council fully supports the Devolution of authority to the GNWT and strong economic development in its region and in the NWT. The MVRMA amendments, however, increase the authority of the federal Minister at the expense of regional decision-making. The Gwich'in have less authority over their Settlement Area now because of these amendments. The residents of the NWT have less authority over the regulatory system under these amendments. Therefore, the Gwich'in support NWT Devolution and reject the MVRMA amendments.

In closing, I will say that a number of other first nations governments express the same concerns and wish to have the opportunity to come forward and share their concerns at committee.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague's raising her very thoughtful arguments, particularly as they pertain to indigenous people and their concerns about this bill.

It gives me the opportunity to stand in the House and reflect for a moment on the passing of Nelson Mandela, which we just heard about a few minutes ago. Even here today, as we are debating this bill, when we think of Nelson Mandela, we think of his enormous legacy for human rights and human dignity.

As parliamentarians, it is something that we uphold and honour. Even with this bill today, which is about indigenous rights, equality, and dignity, it is something we reflect on. I hope that we carry it forward as a legacy.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also look forward to the members on that side speaking in support of our sadness at the passing of Nelson Mandela.

Some years back, the House made him an honorary Canadian citizen. Why was that? It was because he was revered around the world for standing up for the right of the peoples of a territory to voice how they should be governed and have equal rights and opportunities.

That is precisely what this legislation should do, not just this bill before us right now, but particularly this bill, because it is talking about the devolution of powers. We must always make sure that we are moving forward with a consistent principle, and that is toward greater self-government. That was the promise of the government: to move toward respecting greater self-governance by our indigenous populations.

Therefore, it is critical that we carefully consider any concerns raised by indigenous peoples in the Northwest Territories about this bill.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer brief comment, both on the passing of Nelson Mandela and on the debate we are having today.

I have been in this place for a significant length of time. I was here when Canadian citizenship was conferred upon Nelson Mandela by unanimous consent in the House. That was a very proud moment for all of us.

I have many constituents who are originally from South Africa, some of whom knew Nelson Mandela through personal contact. He was a great man at every level. We have lost a very important person from our midst.

In terms of the bill that we are debating today, it is significant that the Government of the Northwest Territories has been seeking devolution for a long time. When I was the minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development, this became very much a mission along with the Premier of the Northwest Territories at that time.

One of the things that became agreed upon was the need to get to implementation as early as possible. This is how the April 2014 date came along. Everything that this place can do to expedite getting to implementation in that time frame would be very helpful indeed.

That is just a simple comment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree absolutely. It is not enough just to sign agreements or to enact legislation; the government of the day must commit to actually implementing the legislation, and we hear concern after concern from the Government of Nunavut that the government is simply not delivering on its commitments so that it can move forward, deliver self-governance, and have the dollars for capacity.

I know full well, because I was a senior official in the Government of Yukon, that a lot of discussion goes on under the tables about how each one of the territories would like to have the powers devolved, but they are going to and fro over how many resources and how many PYs the federal government would transfer to them. In other words, how many real people would they have in order to deliver the responsibilities that were once the responsibilities of the federal government?

I hope that the government has, in fact, committed sufficient resources so that the Northwest Territories can actually implement these powers that will be extended to them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to add a very quick comment, I would ask for leave to provide comment on the passing of Nelson Mandela as both the Conservatives and the NDP have done. I would appreciate it if I could have less than a minute.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. There is no provision at this point for members or caucuses to make tributes to Mr. Mandela. It is my understanding that something is being discussed among the parties at this point. The members who raised the matter in the context of questions and comments seemed to be able to weave it into the relevance of the matter that was before the House, which was quite clever in my opinion. I do understand that something more formal will be coming from all parties.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 22, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (order-making power), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (order-making power), which I will refer to as PIPEDA, to make things easier.

I want to begin by putting this bill into context. From May to December 2012, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted a study on social media and privacy. Numerous witnesses testified as part of that study, including Internet and privacy experts, privacy commissioners, community groups and others.

Those witnesses raised the point that more and more information is being gathered and used for business and marketing purposes. In fact, businesses collect this information, use it and share it without the consent of the individuals concerned, which is in violation of PIPEDA.

Given the concerns raised in committee by the many experts from various fields, the wonderful member for Terrebonne—Blainville introduced Bill C-475 in the House in order to try to respond to those concerns and observations from the community and strengthen the bill in question.

I would add that Bill C-475 is attempting to amend an act that has not been reviewed since 2000. Allow me to digress. I may belong to the last generation that can claim to remember the first day when a computer came into the house. This computer was not in colour and the screen was black and yellow and square-shaped, with blurry graphics.

I remember the first time I typed my homework on a keyboard. I was typing with two fingers and this was very time-consuming. I kept hitting the on/off button with my toe. I would always lose my work because there was no autosave feature for documents at that time. In short, I have a whole lot of memories that I might be able to share with my children and grandchildren one day.

In the meantime, I will point out that it is completely absurd that a privacy act has not been reviewed since 2000. I think I do not need to say more on that subject. It is high time we made changes to this act.

First, Bill C-475, which amends an act that needs to be updated, grants powers of enforcement to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Moreover, the commissioner herself emphasized that she wished to have these powers when she appeared before the committee. In other countries and in certain Canadian provinces, the law provides for measures that give more powers to the commissioner. However, this is not the case for Canada. We hope this will change soon.

Who is the commissioner and what powers does she have exactly? This is a good question, and it has to be answered before we say her powers must be increased. I will take the definition used by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, which describes the commissioner as follows:

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada acts as an ombudsman who investigates complaints and negotiates solutions.... While the Commissioner does not have the authority to order an organization to change their personal information policies or procedures she may make public any information relating to the personal information management practices of an organization.

That summarizes the commissioner's existing powers. Bill C-475 would enhance those powers.

The commissioner recommends that organizations that refuse to implement the measures she suggests be required to abide by the law and comply with deadlines set by the commissioner, and even be liable to a fine in cases of non-compliance.

The commissioner therefore needs a little more power over Internet-based offenders.

Bill C-475's second goal is mandatory reporting of all data breaches that could harm the individuals concerned. I do not need to go into detail about how the Internet is changing quickly and how now, young and old alike are putting more and more information out there. Things are changing quickly, and we have to ensure that we can keep up with it all, understand it and regulate it.

Companies collect, sell and share this information. Part of the solution is educating people and raising awareness about the kind of information they disclose on the Internet. Still, it makes sense that people should know what is being done with their information because, after all, that information can be very valuable to the companies that can use it. That is not a bad thing in and of itself, but there should be rules for using that information.

People who create a Facebook account are asked to supply quite a lot of information. They are not the ones who decide they want that information to show up on their Facebook page. No, there is a whole form to fill out that includes their year of birth, where they live, their address, favourite movies, favourite music and much more. That is just Facebook. I use Facebook because I am not very well-versed in using other technologies. I joined Twitter just a few months ago because my colleagues and assistants pressured me to. Things are going well so far, but there are still some concerns.

A closer look at the details of this bill, at what can and cannot be done, at the powers that the Canadian commissioner has compared to commissioners in other provinces and other countries, gives us reason for concern.

Perhaps I am a little paranoid when it come to technology, but when a window appears with a little red x, I am afraid to even click on it. I wonder if that will even close the window that just appeared without me wanting it to, or if I will be clicking on a link that will give information to some company, or what have you. You know what I mean. It is hard to know what we can even trust anymore. It is not only what I decide to disclose myself, but it goes much further in terms of what information can be collected, whether we like it or not. Information can even be collected without us knowing.

It is therefore high time that we took action to update the Privacy Act.

It is this government's responsibility to move forward on this, and quickly. Things are changing fast, and we need to take a first step. This bill might not solve everything, of course, but it does address some of the concerns expressed by experts and by the commissioner herself in the parliamentary committee's examination. I really hope the government will bring forward something like this. It would be the least it could do.

In closing, I would like to point out that the Union des consommateurs believes that the implementation of the principles proposed by the NDP, through their private member's bill amending the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, constitutes a real advancement to better protect the privacy of consumers.

I would also like to commend the enthusiasm of my NDP colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville and congratulate her. She has demonstrated her competence in managing this file for our party. She has remained very open and co-operative, and has been extremely innovative and dynamic in her collaboration with stakeholders from all walks of life in this file. She has introduced a very important bill, and I hope that we can continue for the well-being of current and future generations, in order to bring in extraordinary technologies, which can sometimes cause us some concern.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had many occasions in my years in Parliament to speak in this House, but never at such an auspicious time. Oh my gosh, when I hear that Nelson Mandela just passed away, I want to share a personal experience, if I might.

My family used in live in South Africa, and much of it still does. They are white South Africans, and they lived there through Nelson Mandela's rise to power. He could have been many things, but he was a great humanitarian. He was forgiving when many might not have been. He was compassionate and understanding when others might not have been. As I make my other comments, they almost seem subdued compared to the very real experience of Nelson Mandela's impact on the world. Others will say things more articulately than I, but I will say that if the world could be measured by the quality of what Nelson Mandela brought to humanity, this would be a much better world.

I will speak now to Bill C-475 and its impact on organizations and the public. Of course, I am referring to Canada's private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, otherwise known as PIPEDA, which the bill looks to amend.

PIPEDA was developed with an important objective in mind, and that is balance. The act is designed to balance an individual's right to privacy with an organization's need to collect, use, or disclose personal information for legitimate business purposes.

I was president of a large company in London, Ontario, when PIPEDA was first introduced. For those who do not know, that is the tenth-largest city in Canada. I would say we invested considerable funds, as did corporations across Canada, to ensure compliance and to do the right thing, because a corporation must be measured in terms of being honourable and doing the right thing. The costs associated with PIPEDA then and now are very real and ongoing, but in a corporation's business it is important to comply, for the sake of the public, which is what we are talking about in terms of this legislation today.

When PIPEDA was first introduced, the government stated that in order for Canada to become a leader in the knowledge-based economy and in electronic commerce, consumers and businesses had to be comfortable with new technologies and the impact that these technologies would have on their lives. I believe that policy objective still stands. However, in order to maintain that important balance in PIPEDA, we must consider the burden imposed by the proposed requirements of this act and always weigh that burden against the corresponding benefit to society.

We all agree that requiring organizations to report certain data breaches is necessary. Data breaches can pose a serious threat to the protection of our personal information and to the security of organizations and individuals. Reporting certain data breaches publicly would allow individuals to protect themselves, and it would also encourage better data security practices by organizations. That is laudable, yet it must said that there are ways to achieve these goals without creating an undue burden on organizations and the Privacy Commissioner.

Data breach notification has the potential to be cost-prohibitive while not providing the kind of information the public requires. For example, in the United States, where this process is tracked closely, the average cost to an organization of a single notification is estimated at $188 per record, and when this figure is multiplied by the number of those potentially affected, any data breach notification could result in substantial cost to companies that must deal with that breach. Based on this data, the total average cost of a data breach to an organization is approximately $5.4 million.

As most states have mandatory reporting of data breaches, there are hundreds of breaches reported every year. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an organization that tracks this, there were 592 breaches reported by the private sector in the United States last year. These incidents involved the information of more than 11 million individuals. That number is extraordinary. As organizations south of the border are required to notify so often, notification fatigue among the public can be a serious result.

When notification processes become simply a matter of sending out a form letter to individuals, there is always a deep concern that these letters become increasingly perceived by recipients as junk mail. We have learned from the experience of other jurisdictions. That is why this government believes the best approach to notification is one based on risk, where notification should be required only for those breaches that represent the potential for significant harm to individuals. In this way, consumers would only receive notifications when necessary and would accord them the attention they deserve, instead of seeing these messages as unwanted spam. What we are talking about here is modernization, not overhaul, as proposed Bill C-475 suggests.

The Privacy Commissioner has been a strong advocate for data breach notification. I would like to point out, however, that even she has not asked to be informed of all breaches, nor has she asked for the responsibility to determine the need for notification of when there is a breach. In fact, in her paper on the reform of PIPEDA published earlier this year, the commissioner proposed that organizations be required to report breaches “where warranted”. This suggests that the commissioner understands the burden of overnotification and supports an approach that would minimize that burden. That is modernization, not overhaul.

Unfortunately, this is not the approach taken in Bill C-475. The bill would require organizations to report to the Privacy Commissioner every data breach posing a possible risk of harm. The average organization is risk-averse, and will err on the side of caution. I know that from my own business experience. As a result, it is likely that all breaches would be reported under these circumstances, undoubtedly resulting in notification fatigue among consumers. Under Bill C-475, the commissioner would have to assess each incident reported to her and determine whether it poses an appreciable risk of harm, warranting notification to individuals. This would impose a financial and administrative burden on the commissioner's office and would likely limit its ability to deal with other complaints under the act.

In the province of Alberta, where the data breach reporting has been in place for two years, the office of the Alberta privacy commissioner has estimated that the average time to process a reported breach and determine whether notification is required is 76 days. In the case of more complex data breaches, this could be much longer. This indicates that the risk assessment process is complex, difficult, and ultimately costly.

My colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, has provided us with much to consider, including some statistics on data breach incidencts. According to my hon. friend, there are 18 privacy breaches every year for every publicly traded company in Canada. We know there are over 3,000 companies traded on the Canadian-based stock exchanges. That would amount to a minimum of 54,000 data breach incidents every year. Given the number of days to assess a single data breach incident, it does not serve the public interest to process each of these 50,000 incidents each year.

Let us remember that the intent is to provide Canadians with timely information about a breach of their personal information so that they can take steps to avoid fraud, identity theft, and misuse of their personal information. I sense the intent of my colleague opposite, but it is not clear to me that my hon. friend has fully considered the administrative and resource implications of dumping this requirement on the Privacy Commissioner's office, and whether it is in the public interest of Canadians to receive so many notifications.

The government is committed to an approach that would require the organization experiencing a breach to conduct the risk assessment based on the sensitivity of the data and the probability that they have been or will be misused. The organization is in the best position to quickly assess the circumstances surrounding a breach of its security safeguards and to determine the risks involved. The government believes that organizations should notify the commissioner and affected individuals of certain breaches, those posing a real risk of significant harm. This allows the commissioner to retain oversight of how organizations are handling the process of risk assessment and notifications to individuals. The commissioner would have the option of initiating an investigation if it were believed that notification did not occur when it was required.

In closing, with appropriate oversight and guidance by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the responsibility for determining risk and the need for the notification of individuals should ultimately rest with the organization. I hope I have clarified for members the benefits of a more balanced approach to data breach notification. Again, it is modernization, not overhaul.

I hope colleagues will agree that the approach taken by Bill C-475 would impose unnecessary costs and has the real risk to potentially undermine the primary objective for data breach notification, which is that of providing timely information to individuals when there is truly a risk of harm.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, but before I provide comment on Bill C-475, as other members have, I just want to reflect on Nelson Mandela, who is now deceased at age 95.

The world has lost a great leader. Many would argue he was one of the greatest leaders we have seen in the last hundred-plus years. Nelson Mandela served as the president of South Africa between 1994 and 1999. We think about where he came from. He went to jail back in 1962, which happened to be the year I was born. Then in 1990, 28 years later, he was released only because of international pressure from around the world in recognizing Mr. Mandela. He came from that situation to ultimately becoming the president of South Africa and everything that happened in between, such as his significant role in abolishing apartheid.

We have lost a world leader today, an inspiration not to millions but ultimately to billions over the years. It is most tragic. I give my personal very best to all who have been affected.

Dealing with Bill C-475, it is important for us to recognize a few things. First and foremost, the issue of personal information is on the top of many minds. The idea of identity theft is prevalent. We know it is a very serious issue. It happens on a daily basis. Just recently we were talking about cyberbullying, as an example. The technology is out there, and the criminal element is causing a great deal of discomfort for a lot of people in dealing with personal information.

The public as a whole does not believe that the government is doing enough to protect privacy, and the public is watching. This is why I found the previous speaker's comments interesting as he started to outline some of the costs and concerns that he has with regard to Bill C-475—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Could hon. members come to order, please? The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor, and I would ask all hon. members to refrain from causing a disruption in the chamber.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill C-475, it is important for us to recognize that there are some concerns that should and could be easily addressed by allowing the bill to be sent to committee. I would argue that there is a significant advantage if we allow that to take place. The simple reason is that there is a need for more debate. When we go into committee, different stakeholders will be able to get more of the facts on the record. When we talked about the Privacy Commissioner and the additional workload there, I can respect that. We want to hear what the facts are. We do not want to make it overly awkward, costly, and just not practical in some cases. With Bill C-475, we have an opportunity to move forward.

Members will remember earlier this year when literally thousands of student records were released. There was a huge concern all over the country. There were student loan records that were found to have been misplaced or had fallen into the wrong hands. We know that many people were directly affected by it. The government, somewhat kicking and screaming, had to acknowledge its role in not being forthright in releasing that information.

I believe there is some merit to the bill. When we take into consideration the concern that Canadians have as a whole related to the issue of personal information and wanting to see government doing more, I do not see what we have to lose by allowing the bill to be sent to committee.

I chose to stand up for two reasons. One was to emphasize the point that we should allow the bill to be sent to committee. At the same time, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I wanted to get on the record the passing of a great man, Nelson Mandela. I am sure there will be more formal positions taken by many dignitaries around the world in recognition of this iconic world figure.

With those few words, I am prepared to leave it at that, in the hope that we will see the bill succeed and be sent to committee where we can hear the thoughts of different stakeholders as to what we could be doing to ensure that we are protecting the personal information that people have entrusted to either the government or the private sector. We need to do more. This bill will not necessarily answer all of the problems, but it will at least provide a venue for us to make some changes that could improve our current system.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that there has been a huge reaction to Nelson Mandela's death. I was saddened to hear the news. He unfortunately passed away after a long and full life.

I want to take this opportunity to say that the fight against apartheid was a great source of pride for Canadians. We could be very proud of our government, which was a leader in this battle. By making Mr. Mandela an honorary citizen, we paid tribute to him and to the great figures from this country who sought to defend and promote human rights.

I know that there will be more elaborate tributes, so I will speak to the wonderful bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. I think it is wonderful because I admire that my colleague is looking to innovate, to get us caught up and to anticipate some very serious problems related to the major changes society is experiencing so rapidly.

I want to read the first part of section 10.01:

For the purposes of this section and section 10.02, “harm” includes bodily harm, humiliation, embarrassment, injury to reputation or relationships, loss of employment, business or professional opportunities, financial loss, identity theft, identity fraud, negative effects on credit rating and damage to or loss of property.

I read that section because I think it is important to understand that our world has changed considerably and has done so very quickly.

I have already mentioned in this House that I used to be an archivist. I therefore understand the importance and value of information, especially when it is nominative information. I worked in this field for a long time, and my job would have eventually included applying the principles associated with the protection of personal information. I would have done it as a professional, but the organization I belonged to as an archivist would have also fully applied these principles.

I am not that old, but I graduated quite a while ago, in the early 1990s. At that time, our tools were far more limited. The emergence of computers began to change things, but the possibilities were much more limited than they are today.

I also had the privilege to read notarial deeds from the first half of the nineteenth century. To give some background, many parents passed on a parcel of land to their descendants. More often than not, the heir was their son. They would place a clause in the deed requesting support from their son as the new owner of the land, because social programs did not exist at that time.

Since that time so long ago, our society has changed so much that we now totally depend on exchanging money to live. Things were different 150 or 200 years ago, when we could depend on the strength of our arms, the bounty of our land and our ability to obtain almost everything we needed without spending a single cent.

There has been a profound change over the last 15 or 20 years. The electronic means with which we carry out our transactions have not only become commonplace, but are also extensively used by all generations.

The Internet and the numerous sites that facilitate transactions and offer new ways to trade and barter create new opportunities. This is like the wild west. Anything is possible, both good things and, unfortunately, abuses by dishonest individuals. It is really deplorable that the government would neglect Canadians and contemplate spying on them through legislation such as Bill C-30. Instead, the government should have taken into consideration these new tools and imposed a requirement to take precautions and report incidents resulting from the loss, theft or unintentional or negligent transmission of sensitive data. In the case of lost or stolen sensitive data, the technology is now so quick that in just a few hours these sensitive data can be used to commit fraud or abuse or to damage someone's reputation. It can be used widely, to the detriment of the aggrieved individual. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville is taking a particularly important, crucial and laudable initiative to the great shame of the government, which should have done this itself.

Since the government was not taking action, the official opposition put forward a proposal and one of its brightest members proposed a solution widely supported by the testimony of leading experts. There are many of them. It is a great pleasure for me to put things in perspective and, more importantly, to call on the government to take a serious look at this bill in committee, because this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. The Governments of Alberta and Quebec are already ahead of the federal government and have plugged some holes. If the federal government does not follow suit and correct the flaws that exist in the legislation, millions of people could potentially become victims. We are aware of the burden that having to comply with the act could represent for organizations. However, the potential harm can be so costly that I am convinced the impact and external costs of the government's negligence would ultimately exceed the costs that may be incurred to comply with the bill introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Again I congratulate my colleague for her initiative. I wish her well and I thank her on behalf of my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great crowd behind me, because this is a really important bill. There is such a great response. I really want to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for working on this important piece of legislation. She deserves congratulations for a lot of reasons. It is a great piece of legislation.

My colleague was elected in 2011. She is proof positive than an individual MP can advocate for constituents, give a caucus important advice in a critic role, represent NDP values in a critic area, and make concrete legislative suggestions to the House. The fact that we have such a good piece of legislation before us speaks volumes about her ability to make a difference here in Parliament.

The former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, said that as of 2010, we create more information in just two days than was ever created up to and including 2003. That is an incredible statistic. It is massive. We create about 2,000 years' worth of information every couple of days. That is just one way of measuring how the digital world we live in today is different even compared to just 10 years ago.

Change is happening quickly when it comes to technology, innovation, and information sharing. It is increasingly an issue for Canadians, because in the last 10 years, with the growth of the digital economy, social media, and Internet access, greater amounts of personal data are shared. They are collected, used, and disclosed.

This bill identifies a problem. The problem is that our privacy laws are not built for a digital age when we create and share so much personal information.

PIPEDA was adopted in 2000. I remember it quite well, because I was a law student, starting in 2001, and we talked about what the implications would be for the groups, organizations, and communities we worked with. At that time, there were almost no social networking sites, microblogging sites, or video-sharing sites. Tumblr and YouTube did not exist, and there was no such thing as Facebook. I remember the first time I ever googled something, and it certainly was not a verb at that time.

Now over 18 million Canadians have a Facebook account, including many of us here in the House. A lot of us use this form of social networking. That number of 18 million Canadians is more than half of Canada's population, which is incredible.

Can anyone remember a time when they could not YouTube a viral video or find an old friend on Facebook? It was a completely different world 10 years ago. Now we are light years ahead of where we were in 2000.

What we are talking about here would transform the digital world in Canada. It is the type of change that affects Canadians on a huge scale. As Canadians, we are incredibly connected. We are the second-greatest Internet users in the world. More than 80% of us access the Internet regularly. Approximately 70% of us think that our personal data is less secure and less protected than it was 10 years ago, and 97% of Canadians would like to know when their personal information has been exposed because of a data breach.

It is worth noting these statistics, because most Canadians agree with the goals of this bill. It is absolutely unthinkable that we would expose so many Canadians to risks to their online privacy, especially when many people are aware of and concerned about these risks.

We need to update our privacy laws to recognize these changes and keep up with them; otherwise, we risk leaving Canadians unprotected. Canadians have moved on from 2001. It is time that our privacy protection laws moved on as well.

I would like to stress the importance of taking advantage of the opportunity this bill presents. We know that the Conservatives presented a privacy bill, Bill C-12, that came out of the 2006-2007 review of PIPEDA. However, it has been languishing on the order paper since 2011. That is far too long. Not one but two PIPEDA reviews are overdue.

We need privacy protection for the 21st century, but we also need it in the 21st century. Bill C-475 responds to these pressing challenges for protecting our privacy in a new digital age.

In a May 2013 review of PIPEDA, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada identified pressure points where PIPEDA needed to be changed. The first two of these pressure points, and arguably the most important ones, are addressed in Bill C-475.

The first pressure point identified in the report was enforcement. The report points to the fact that under PIPEDA the Privacy Commissioner is limited to the role of an administrative investigator, and that while she may seek resolution through negotiation, persuasion, and mediation, she actually has no enforcement powers.

The report says:

The days of soft recommendations with few consequences for non-compliance are no longer effective in a rapidly changing environment where privacy risks are on the rise. It is time to put in place financial incentives to ensure that organizations accept greater responsibility for putting appropriate protections in place from the start, and sanctions in the event that they do not. Without such measures, the Privacy Commissioner will have limited ability to ensure that organizations are appropriately protecting personal information in the age of Big Data.

Bill C-475 answers this recommendation in giving enforcement powers to the Privacy Commissioner to order organizations to comply with privacy legislation and to fine them if they refuse to take action within an established time period.

The second pressure point in the Privacy Commissioner's report was to “shine a light on privacy breaches”. It recommended that PIPEDA should:

require organizations to report breaches of personal information to the Commissioner and to notify affected individuals, where warranted, so that appropriate mitigation measures can be taken in a timely manner.

This is really common sense. First of all, we want to know when our personal information has been put at risk. As I said before, 97% of Canadians agree that they want to know when there has been a breach in their privacy. The harm that comes from these breaches can include identity theft, financial loss, negative credit ratings, and even physical harm. We should be aware that we have been exposed to a higher level of these risks when our privacy has been breached.

I will wrap up by saying that the Privacy Commissioner stressed that too often the rights of individuals are displaced by organizations' business needs and that it is becoming increasingly clear that the balance between these rights and needs is no longer there.

I would like the House to know that New Democrats are not stuck in the past. We recognize the imbalance, and with the bill we will take the first steps to make sure to protect the interests of businesses and consumers in the new digital age.