House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devolution.

Topics

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. I understand the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement of the recent death of Nelson Mandela, there have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the House proceed immediately to Ministerial Statements pursuant to Standing Order 33(1); and at the expiry of the time provided for the Ministerial Statements, the House return to the business before it prior to the interruption, provided that the House may sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment if required to complete Private Members' Business.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous support for the motion?

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points of OrderPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

The right hon. Prime Minister.

Nelson MandelaPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, when I look back on the sweep of political history over my lifetime, what may be the most important development of all has been the struggle and the successes against the phenomenon of racial discrimination over the past half century or so. In this regard there has been no more powerful symbol in the world than Nelson Mandela.

There has been no more powerful symbol of the struggle and the successes against discrimination than Nelson Mandela. With his death, the world is losing a great moral leader and statesman.

The world has lost one of its great moral leaders and statesmen. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years by the former government of South Africa for his part in the struggle that would ultimately end the system of apartheid. Despite his long years of captivity, Mr. Mandela left prison with his mind closed to any settling of scores and his heart open to those he had fought against.

He sought truth and reconciliation, and he worked for greater understanding among all people.

He demonstrated that the only path forward for his nation was to reject the appeal of bitterness. His magnanimity spared all South Africans incalculable suffering.

Nelson Mandela’s enduring legacy for his country, and the world, is the example he set through his own long walk to freedom.

He showed how people can shape better tomorrows and do so in their own time. Nelson Mandela's long march to freedom, his grace and humility throughout that walk, and the bridge to the future he built for his people as he proceeded along it ensures that his remarkable example will inform others for generations.

On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, Laureen and I and all of my colleagues wish to extend our condolences to Mr. Mandela's widow, Graça Machel, his entire family, and all citizens of South Africa. Canada, a nation Mr. Mandela honoured by becoming our first-ever honorary citizen, mourns with them and with the entire world today.

Nelson MandelaPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Outremont Québec

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of great sadness the world over. The courage, values and determination of such an inspiring man will serve as a guiding light for years to come. When he became a Canadian citizen, Mr. Mandela had a few words to say about us.

I am going to allow myself to quote Nelson Mandela when he singled out Canada and our values.

Your respect for diversity within your own society and your tolerant and civilized manner of dealing with the challenges of difference and diversity had always been our inspiration.

That is what Mr. Mandela said during his first address. As we know, he came here several times.

Let us learn from this larger-than-life statesman. This is what counts: respect for others and the fact that we are all equals. Those are battles worth fighting.

For 50 years Mr. Mandela fought apartheid and racism. He guided South Africa toward racial equality and democracy at the risk of his own life and at the price of his own freedom. He is rightly considered the father of modern Africa.

I would like to quote Mr. Mandela's inauguration speech, some 20 years ago, when he became president of the Republic of South Africa. He said, “As we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.”

As Nelson Mandela reminded us during his inauguration nearly 20 years ago, as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

I wish to extend our sincere condolences to his family and loved ones, to the people of South Africa and to those in the world who fight for equality and freedom.

Nelson MandelaPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are all, wherever we are, deeply saddened and profoundly pained at the passing of a great world historical figure, Nelson Mandela, a person who endured 27 years in a South African prison and emerged to not only preside over the dismantling of apartheid, but in fact to make possible, as president, the establishment of a democratic, multiracial, free South Africa.

It was a little over 13 years ago, precisely on June 12, 2001, that we gathered in the House on a motion unanimously adopted to make Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen of Canada. As we said at the time, this conferral of honorary citizenship will have enduring resonance not only for Canada but internationally.

Let me summarize those considerations that inspired that honorary citizenship and that today really amount to a great testament to his everlasting humanitarian legacy that he bequeathed to each one of us, wherever we are.

The first was that Nelson Mandela was really the metaphor and message for the struggle for human rights and human dignity in our time. If apartheid was the ultimate assault on human rights and human dignity, South Africa was the first post-World War II country to have institutionalized racism as a matter of law. We should not forget that apartheid was not just a racist philosophy; it was a legal racist regime, and it was Mandela who fought and gave full expression to that struggle for human rights and human dignity against this racist legal regime.

Second, Mandela was the embodiment of the three great struggles of the 20th century: the long march toward freedom, as he put it, the march for democracy, and the march for equality.

Third, Mandela was a role model for nation-building wherever we are. He was the one who inspired the notion of establishing a rainbow coalition, of taking diverse peoples, even antagonistic peoples, adversaries, races, and identities, and welding them into a united rainbow coalition for nation-building.

As one who served as a member of his international legal team, I was privileged to hear the testimonies of those who had worked with him throughout the years in prison and afterward and who said of him the incredible testimony that Mandela was a person without rancour, without any sense of revenge, without any anger at all, a person without any malice—a person, yes, of resilience, yes, of determination, of commitment, but a person open to and therefore capable of welding together those diverse peoples into one nation.

Finally, he was most of all a metaphor for hope, particularly for the young, in his speaking of the importance also of education as a linchpin of the future.

I will close by saying one thing. May his memory serve always as an inspiration for all of us, wherever we are, and may that memory serve as a blessing for this House and everyone in this universe.

Nelson MandelaPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words, not many.

We are gathered in a spirit of non-partisan grieving for someone we had the honour to call a fellow Canadian. Nelson Mandela was marked by two extraordinary things, among many: moral clarity and moral courage.

We know he inspired us. With your permission, I would like to close this session with the words that inspired him, words written in 1888 by William Ernest Henley, which he recited over the 27 years he remained on Robben Island, imprisoned:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Rest in peace, Nelson Mandela, who captained that soul to the safest of harbours. God bless him, his memory, and all who loved him.

Nelson MandelaPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It has been requested that members rise for a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

At this point, the House will revert to the business that was before it prior to the statements.

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, we will now resume consideration of the motion for second reading of Bill C-475, an act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act with regard to order-making power, as listed under private members' business.

The House resumed 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 ActPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add my comments to those of my leader and say just how sorry I am to hear of Mr. Mandela's passing. He was always a great source of inspiration for me.

I have always been part of Amnesty International and other groups that defend human rights around the world. In fact, that is one of the reasons I decided to become a member of the NDP, because it is the party that does the most to defend human rights.

For me, Nelson Mandela has always been a beacon of light and hope. I would like to thank him for everything he did for us, for people around the world and especially for South Africans.

With that, I will continue on another topic altogether, that of technology. I really want to begin my speech by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. Like me, she was elected in 2011. She is an extremely intelligent and dynamic young woman who has proven that young women have definitely earned their place in politics. She has really proven her willingness to work hard and listen not only to her constituents, but also to all the stakeholders who have an interest in the field of technology and privacy. She consulted them and listened to them, and today she is introducing her bill, Bill C-475. I really do commend her. We are all very proud of her and we thank her for taking this issue so seriously after it had unfortunately been overlooked for so long.

We now know that this legislation has not been updated since 2000. Obviously, a lot has happened since 2000, including Facebook, Twitter, iPhones and smartphones. Technology has drastically changed over the last 13 years, creating a whole new context. We now have to resolve issues that would never have crossed our minds a few years ago.

We have to realize that a number of problems stem from a lack of legislation. This bill aims to solve problems that were ignored for months or even years. The current free-for-all regarding the distribution of personal information is due, in part, to a lack of political will, as well as a legislative void. That is what makes this bill so important.

We cannot continue to do nothing while technology evolves every day. We cannot keep silent and stand idly by while these problems occur.

In fact, my hon. colleague who spoke earlier will rise again shortly to discuss a crucial issue: the fact that people have lost confidence in the system meant to protect their personal information. They have lost confidence not only in companies, but especially in the government, because it did nothing while things kept getting worse.

That is why it is extremely important to restore the public's trust in technologies, in Parliament and in legislation, so that people feel safe at home. This is our job as parliamentarians. When Canadians do not feel safe, it is up to us to do something. Something needs to be done, and it is our job to do it.

This came up in the many consultations, as my colleague pointed out. Unfortunately, 91% of Canadians said they are extremely concerned or very concerned about privacy. That is almost 100%.

I would really like to know what percentage of members of Parliament are concerned. We are all MPs and as parliamentarians we are concerned about Canadians. However, how do we feel as individuals? I would like to do a little survey here and have people tell us honestly whether they are concerned about whether their information is being protected.

For example, seven in ten Canadians reported feeling that they have less protection of their personal information than they did 10 years ago. It is time to ensure that Canadians are and feel safe. This is about feeling safe. We cannot let this situation get worse.

The content of this bill did not come from the NDP alone. It came from the Privacy Commissioner, Internet law experts, consumer protection groups and Canadian citizens, who are, of course, our primary concern. I think it came out of the 2012 study of social media and privacy by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Parliament has acknowledged this. People came to testify. This bill is not just a partisan NDP initiative. It means something to all Canadians and will enable organizations, lawyers and the Privacy Commissioner to protect Canadians.

There is no reason the Conservatives should refuse to support this bill. The NDP is not alone in going after the Conservatives about this. Canadians, lawyers and the commissioner want this too. How many people have to tell the government to do something before it actually does something?

This is about giving Canada's Privacy Commissioner the power to enforce the law. That is very important. We know that commissioners have an extremely important role to play in analyzing not only the government's actions but everything that has to do with access to information. Giving the commissioner the power to enforce the law will simply strengthen the essential role she plays in identifying problems and telling Parliament which initiatives should be taken.

I would just like to close by saying that our colleague in the House is speaking on behalf of Canadians and Quebeckers who are worried as well as all stakeholders who are worried and who all say that we need to act now to protect Canadians' information and privacy.

I would like to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her work and for conveying the wishes of Canadians and stakeholders to the House.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to speak after hearing the wonderful statements made by the Prime Minister, our leader and the member for Mount Royal. I would like to add my voice to theirs by saying that I am truly saddened by the death of Nelson Mandela. Today we lost a great man and a great symbol of hope.

Despite this, I will still speak to my bill. I am very pleased to close the debate today, although I would like to—and could—talk about it for years and years.

I want to thank all the members who contributed to this debate. Unfortunately, I have to point out that the Conservatives made several erroneous statements that undermined the real debate on Bill C-475. I want to go back to some of those statements today to set the record straight.

The government said it was committed to updating the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Unfortunately, the government did not even respect the provision of the act requiring a review of this legislation every five years to update it. This review should have been conducted two years ago. Moreover, the legislative amendments made during the first review in 2006-07, have yet to been implemented. The government is therefore not committed to updating the act.

It is shameful that the government is refusing to vote in favour of Bill C-475 and then has the gall to say it is concerned about Canadians' privacy.

As for the concerns about consultations and the provisions in Bill C-475, I would like to point out that we consulted 11 major companies and business organizations that would be affected by the bill and 15 consumer groups and rights and freedoms advocacy organizations from five provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We also consulted 15 of the most well-known and important academics in the domain and we heard from approximately 40 experts who shared their opinions about the implementation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Another issue was the size of the monetary penalty companies would be liable to. There is no list of penalties. There is just one: a monetary penalty will be imposed if an organization fails to correct its non-compliant practices as ordered by the commissioner within the time limit. The bill is balanced because this penalty, which cannot exceed $500,000, will be imposed according to a list of criteria that assess the severity of the offence and the organization's ability to pay. I should point out that other countries, such as Germany, Australia and France, have much higher penalties.

My colleagues opposite talked about how the privacy commissioner's role would change and expressed concerns about the commissioner's ability to handle these new demands. Rapid changes in the digital world will change the role of moderators as well. What we are asking for in Bill C-475 is what the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada told the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics it wanted to see.

With respect to the ability of the commissioner's office to deal with the new demands, the commissioner explained in committee, during the assessment of their financial statements, that having the power to issue orders and impose sanctions would produce better results that would be more timely and less expensive for Canadians. During that hearing, the commissioner's office proved without a doubt its ability to adapt its services based on economic constraints, while also increasing the office's efficiency.

However, I must say that suggesting that the commissioner's office is incapable of dealing with the provisions it proposed in committee, and without the benefit of any examination, amounts to completely baseless fearmongering.

Bill C-475 is a balanced bill. It proposes concrete measures to protect people's personal information in the digital age. It gives Canadians greater powers to protect themselves when their information is lost or stolen. It reassures Canadians regarding their engagement on the Internet, which is good for our economy.

Bill C-475 provides incentives to organizations for obeying the law. That it crucial to protecting the privacy of our constituents.

I wish to reiterate my desire to work with the members of all parties in order to make the necessary reforms to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I appeal to the good judgment of all members to vote in favour of Bill C-475 on December 11.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 6:36 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

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

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, the division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.)