House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the things I want to talk about today is the importance of privacy.
I know the Conservatives were rightly worried about the federal COVID notification app and what that could mean for privacy. Along with the New Democrats, they asked some really tough questions of the government that got us an app that respects privacy while remaining effective.
Could the member address how there is no need to trade off privacy rights while addressing other priorities.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point from my colleague. What we have done is push the Liberal government to actually take these issues seriously and to recognize that we can put in place the appropriate mechanisms to protect privacy and achieve other objectives.
In the context of the pandemic we are in, the reality is that tracing is a very important tool in responding to the virus. We know countries that have put in place effective tracing systems have generally been much more effective in their response overall. It is an opportunity, a strategy that is very important.
At the same time, I have heard a lot of concerns from people every time I talk about it, and I am firm in the view of the value of tracing. Some people push back and say that they do not trust the system. That is why we need to communicate to people that there can be confidence in the system and actually put in place the mechanisms to ensure they can have confidence in the system, so we can provide the support required in the COVID-19 response.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, the member does tremendous work on human rights, whether it be for Canadians here or people across the world. I am going to quote from the Privacy Commissioner in response to Bill C-11's tabling. He said:
Bill C-11 opens the door to new commercial uses of personal information without consent, but does not specify that such uses are conditional on privacy rights being respected.... [T]he Bill essentially repeats the purpose clause of the current legislation, which gives equal weight to privacy and the commercial interests of organizations. In fact, the new purpose clause places even greater emphasis on the importance of the use of personal information for economic activity.
The previous speaker from Powell River talked about the public uses of information and getting the balance right. What does the member think about the need to have a balanced framework for human rights within Canada, particularly around economic ones?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention was excellent. It was a pleasure to work with my colleague previously on the Canada-China committee where we were dealing with some of these issues around foreign actors that I talked about in my speech.
To his specific question, it should concern all Canadians that the government is including in this legislation mechanisms that expand the possible use of data without the privacy protections that we would expect. It is sort of the nature of the bill that they are piling these things into it, while not always fronting those more concerning aspects of those changes in their communications. That just speaks to the importance of the parliamentary scrutiny that is required to get to the bottom of the details and to understand their impacts.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, the member suggested that he hopes I see the light of the Conservatives, but I can assure him that when 54% of the Conservative Party is against recognizing climate change, it is pretty much a non-starter, although I do admire his interest.
This member keeps saying that the governing party wants an election, but we are not even talking about it on this side of the House. I am pretty sure that member has brought up the word election in this House more than anybody who has been speaking for the Liberal Party over the last couple of weeks. As a matter of fact, if the Conservatives are not interested in an election, there were eight confidence votes last night alone and this member voted against—
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I was so enjoying that question, but we have completely lost the sound.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
If he can hear me, could the hon. member summarize that question?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
In summary, Madam Speaker, I believe in climate change and the Conservatives do not, so I could never become a Conservative, and I apologize.
The member keeps talking about an election. We had eight confidence votes last night alone. I asked for a recorded vote on every single one. This member and all of the Conservatives voted against the budget bill, in essence voting down confidence. Therefore, he is actually the one who appears to be interested in an election.
The member talked about a special committee on WE. The Conservatives have a majority, if they go to their friends in the Bloc, to set up that committee. Why did the member not go to his friends in the Bloc and the NDP to set up that committee?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, if the member wanted to join the Conservative Party, his views on climate change would not be the barrier; it would be his casual disregard for the truth that would get him into more trouble if he wanted to join us on this side of the House. I do welcome his joining us on this side of the House, but more in the sort of switch-places type of scenario.
The member spoke about how Conservatives voted last night on the government's spending. Conservatives do not agree with key aspects of the direction of the government, so it is our responsibility in representing our constituents to raise our concerns, to speak about them, and to vote accordingly.
I will note, though, that those confidence votes passed; that a majority of this House supported those measures. Therefore, it would be particularly rich for the government after getting the confidence of the House, which it did not need my support to do, to then pull the plug later.
We think it is important to warn Canadians about the government's plans with respect to an election. The more the member tries to deny it, the more interesting it will be to play back some of those conversations if the Prime Minister does actually do what many people expect him to do in the next few months.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Victoria has time for a very brief question.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his points on how the Liberals have been scheduling an hour of debate here and an hour of debate on another bill there, without giving them enough time to move forward.
I am thinking in particular of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. It has been months and the government has yet to really schedule enough time to finish second reading. The Liberals either need to admit that climate accountability is not a priority for them or schedule the time. I hope they do not use their own game playing to delay important legislation as an excuse for an election.
On the privacy bill, does the member agree—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I did ask for a brief question. There are only 20 seconds left.
I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to respond.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, it is an important point that for those who are following the way legislation is normally scheduled, the government's approach is very different. We agree with some of the bills and some we do not, but the normal thing for government to do would be to prioritize legislation it wants to see passed and schedule enough debate for it to move forward. Liberals are not doing that, and they are very clearly setting the stage for something else. They have no interest in passing their own legislation. It is very evident.
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading of Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act, 2020. I will be splitting my time today with the member for Davenport.
When Canada's privacy law was introduced in 2000, Parliament intended that it would achieve two objectives, which were privacy protection for individuals and the growth of electronic commerce. Over 20 years later, our government is introducing this legislation to provide an updated strategy for protecting privacy in our new digital world.
I have heard loud and clear from the constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they want to see strong privacy laws. These privacy laws not only protect consumers and help build trust in the digital marketplace, but with the consumer privacy protection act, a principled and agile privacy enforcement regime would create a vital safeguard as companies engage in the digital economy.
Today, I would like to provide further insight into a key aspect of the bill that will not only provide guidance for businesses for protecting individuals' personal information, but will also support responsible innovation. I am speaking today about provisions in the new consumer privacy protection act to formally recognize codes of practice and certification systems as a means of demonstrating compliance with the law.
A key strength of our current private sector privacy law, commonly known as PIPEDA, will be maintained in the new consumer privacy and protection act. That strength is a principled approach to rule setting. Our private sector privacy law applies to all organizations in all industry sectors of all sizes and levels of sophistication. This level of general application is crucial in order to establish a baseline of privacy protection that applies across the marketplace.
While comprehensive, this law must also be flexible, non-prescripted and technology-neutral so that it can be applied in all circumstances. These characteristics have long been recognized as a key strength of the existing law and there is widespread support for maintaining this approach. However, it is sometimes a challenge for organizations, especially smaller businesses without dedicated legal resources, to understand how to implement these high level obligations within their specific context.
For example, consider a situation where an organization is using a cutting edge technology which has not yet been the subject of a finding by the Privacy Commissioner or where an organization must handle complicated data flows with complex accountability, such as in connected and automated vehicles. These challenges are becoming more commonplace in a data-driven economy.
To help address these problems and to provide assurance to businesses and consumers alike, the consumer privacy protection act would allow any entity to apply to the office of the Privacy Commissioner for approval of a code of practice that provides a specific set of rules for how organizations can operate in compliance with the law. This approval would be particularly useful for organizations using a new technology or operating with a new business model.
This type of regulatory certainty is very much needed in today's rapidly developing economy. It gives organizations and their business partners a level of comfort that they are operating on the side of the law. It also supports a level playing field in areas where there is no jurisprudence or specific guidance for organizations. It also makes it more transparent to Canadians how their personal information is being used in these circumstances. To take it—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which way we look at it, it is 1:30. The hon. member will have five and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
It being 1:34 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 12, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).
(The House adjourned at 1:34 p.m.)
