Debates of April 19th, 2021

Digital Charter Implementation Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate on this important issue, the data charter implementation act. I will be diving into what is a large bill and addresses a large spectrum of some of the issues we face in the world in which we live that have been exacerbated by COVID in so much of what we do, such as in this place, the evidence of which is that I am participating in this debate from Battle River—Crowfoot in Alberta. The fact is that digital has been transformed over the last number of months with COVID before us and I will be getting into different aspects of the bill, some of the things I think are laudable and some of the concerns that I have.

The previous member for Calgary Midnapore did a great job on her speech. I would note that we saw in the background that there is snow on the ground. That is certainly one of the interesting things about our country. It is often joked that if we wait a few minutes, the weather will change. That has certainly been the case in East Central Alberta. I would like to take a moment of my time to talk about the wildfires that started and were part of what has really consumed a significant amount of time over the last number of days.

It has been very dry in Battle River—Crowfoot since the snow melted and although there has been some moisture that has lessened the likelihood of those fires, I want to take a moment to thank all of the firefighters, volunteers and volunteer professionals. It is often a misconception that volunteer firefighters are somehow inferior to their full-time counterparts in the city. There have been a number of grass fires over the last week or so in my riding, but one particularly large one received a tremendous response. Four or five fire departments from different small communities reached out, worked together, along with hundreds of community volunteers, and put out this particular fire.

I would note how important it is that we take fire safety seriously at a time when moisture is needed. There was a little of it over weekend and I received more than just a few comments. Rarely are people thankful for snow in April, but those who saw the threat of fire were thankful for the moisture that came this past weekend. As a reminder to all those watching, they should be careful when they are in rural areas and there is such a threat of fire, as there is today, and thank all those who put their lives on the line to protect folks in this area and across Canada.

I will go on to the substance of what we are debating here today. There are two major parts to Bill C-11. Part 1 would enact the consumer privacy protection act and various aspects involved with the protection of personal privacy. At a time when everything we do is online, it is a significant topic of conversation that needs to be discussed. Part 2 would enact the personal information and data protection tribunal act, which would establish a tribunal to hear appeals related to personal information and privacy.

As the world has become more digital, so much of our lives is detailed online and so much of the information we see goes through a filter. I hear from constituents who talk to me about the things they see on Facebook or other social media platforms, even the advertisements they see when they google something or the fact that we even refer to searching for a term on the Internet as “googling” speaks to the extent to which our information is online. We certainly see the need for stronger protections to ensure that Canadians' data, their information and, ultimately, their rights are protected. Certainly, we have had a lot of conversation around privacy as a human right and, further, what the property rights are in terms of data that is online. We see Bill C-11 as an attempt to address that.

I have listened with great interest to some of the Liberal speeches on this matter, and a lot of the points brought up are certainly laudable in their goals. However, the proof will be in the implementation. There is certainly a lack of clarity. There are also no concrete measures outlined here to ensure that the goals and ideas talked about in the preamble, as well as the words spoken by the minister and various Liberal members, are actually translated into actionable items that do what is in the best interest of Canadians. This is of particular concern on an issue like this.

We have seen unprecedented scandal and mismanagement. We have seen a level of access to the highest offices in this land for those who can afford to pay and those who happen to have the Prime Minister and his staff on speed dial. A bill like this, where billions of dollars and corporate interests are at stake, should force every Canadian to pause to think about, when we say this will be implemented and it will be informed by regulation, what the process is between a bill's implementation and ensuring that it is effectively implemented through regulation. What sort of lobbying will take place? Who will benefit? I think these are valid questions that need to be asked.

We have seen that Canadians have very little trust in the Liberals when it comes to ensuring that their best interests are served when the Liberals are getting phone calls from their well-connected friends and the businesses that they associate with.

As this bill will likely go to committee, these are the sorts of questions that have to be asked to ensure that, when it comes to the data and privacy of Canadians, when it comes to being online, and when it comes to some of the transparency mechanisms, every aspect is clearly parsed out, so Canadians can trust that the regulations are not simply being sold to the highest bidder, those who have the most expensive lobbyists, or lawyers who happen to be able to get face time with those in the Prime Minister's Office.

Some will suggest that this is cynical, or that it is simply not true. We could go through a long list of the failures of Liberal scandal and mismanagement over the last five years. None is more obvious on that front than this reality. Using definitive language and a word like “reality” can often get politicians into trouble, but I say the reality is that there is a clear call to ban Huawei from Canada's 5G network, yet the Liberals, the government, have refused to act on that simple demand.

It leaves one to draw conclusions about who is able to influence the government's decision-making process. Conservatives have and will continue to stand up for the rights of Canadians and that includes the right for Canadians to have privacy online.

There are some laudable goals in this bill. I would suggest that all Parliamentarians here believe we need to address the issues that are brought up in this legislation. We have to ensure that we do that. The Liberals will, without a doubt, as they already have done today, blame the opposition for delay tactics, blocking committees and various other things.

The reality is that we have seen time and time again the Liberals bring something forward such as a bill. They will then demand it be passed, even though the very reason for some of those delays are entirely of their own making. However, they later learn that they made mistakes that could have been identified through things such as full democratic discourse and comprehensive committee research.

Earlier today, the Liberals blocked a motion that would have sent this to the industry committee. There is a reason this deserves full consideration, and certainly Conservatives are doing our part to ensure we have a fulsome debate, so Canadians can get the answers they need on this important subject.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands and even millions of applications.

Some of these applications use games to draw people in, in the form of a quiz, for example. They then retrieve the information from the user's contact list. When the user gives their consent by clicking on the button, most often without carefully reading the rules, their contact list is sent to an organization or business.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the flaws in the legislation when it comes to such applications.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question emphasizes how complex the series of issues surrounding digital privacy is. It could be an application a child installs on a phone. When we click on that “agree” button, rarely do people read the sometimes thousands of pages of terms and conditions we agree to. Sometimes it is enlightening to even just take a moment and see what one is agreeing to.

Although there have been steps taken by the private sector to address some of those things, for example, app stores having verified apps versus unverified apps and what not, this touches on the whole host of challenges associated with ensuring digital privacy and that Canadians ultimately have a right to ensure their data is protected.

Further to that, digital information often does not necessarily have clear borders. This is not only a Canadian issue. It is a worldwide issue, especially as servers often exist in different jurisdictions. There are many challenges that exist around that, which is why this debate today is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will not be surprised to hear I am disappointed in some of the remarks he made during his intervention.

Toward the end, he expressed displeasure with the fact that the House did not pass the unanimous consent motion brought forward and that we stopped it. We also put one forward, which was identical, for this bill to go to the committee it was assigned to. I know there are some discrepancies and different opinions as to where the bill should go, but even the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said this bill has feet in both committees.

More importantly, the member talked about what has been going on in this House. There are so many pieces of legislation I would like to see us discuss here, such as conversion therapy. However, it took us, because of Conservative stall tactics, about seven months to pass the fall economic statement. Does the member really believe it is the Liberals who have been slowing down the legislative process in the House?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there it is again. I find it unsurprising but incredibly troubling the sort of rhetoric that comes from that side of the House, especially when the simple answer to the question is that there was a delay of 35 days. That is the legacy of this Prime Minister, who is covering up his WE Charity scandal, and it is 35 days of delay because of prorogation.

The government is in charge of the legislative agenda of this House. It is incumbent upon every member of Parliament to stand up for their constituents and ensure their voices are heard. I hear the hon. member across the way speak so flippantly about this somehow being a Conservative problem, and he could not be more wrong. He and all members of the government should look in the mirror and acknowledge this is a Liberal problem.

Further, there have been bills related to COVID relief programs that have had to come back to this House three separate times. When it comes to debate, had there been fulsome democratic discourse in the beginning, they would not have had to come back three times to fix Liberal mistakes. I will take no lessons from the members opposite, who are somehow blaming Conservatives for a delay, when the reality is they are in government. It is their mistakes causing these problems, and there was a 35-day delay because of the Prime Minister's prorogation and the covering up of the WE Charity scandal.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to participate in parliamentary debates, especially when there is an important and pressing topic such as what we have in front of us today.

Stronger legal protection for both consumer protection and data privacy needs to be improved, and this is impossible to deny. It might be tempting to say that Bill C-11 is timely, but instead, we should be clear with ourselves that it is well past the time for us to address these issues.

The kind of improvements Canadians need are long overdue, and the government has been slow to act. For years the Liberals have done a lot of talking about it, but it always seems to take them a while to get around to doing anything. They have been talking about a digital charter for years.

This bill was introduced back in November. Five months later, we have had very little time to debate it so far in second reading. I hope they are looking at various ways to possibly amend this bill to get it right. As the official opposition, we want to actually get things done for Canadians.

As the world becomes more digital and interconnected, it is extremely important to make sure people are fully protected in every possible way. In this process, filled as it is with the promise and potential of amazing developments with technology, there are also risks. Each new form of connection can also provide openings to be used against people. Besides the usual bad actors who are always looking for any new occasion to commit crimes, there are more subtle trends that, if we are not careful to check them, could work against everyday people's best interests, such as through invasive levels of data collection. To put it simply, people are not products. We have to make sure they are never treated as such.

As Canadians, we must always ensure that our society upholds fundamental rights and truths. Every person, whether they are acting as a customer or a private citizen, should have the ability to manage their affairs as they see fit and decide for themselves who will have access to their property. They should not find themselves in a position in which they are living at the mercy of powerful interests, whether it is the private or public sector.

We should expect to see stronger protections for privacy and for personal information. There is some clear language in this bill concerning corporations and institutions. However, more importantly, what about when people are interacting with the government? Much more importantly, what about when the government decides to interact with the people, whether they want it to or not? We do not have to go too far back in the past to remember when Statistics Canada wanted to look through Canadians' bank accounts and financial information. This makes me wonder how this kind of thing will be handled going forward under this legislation.

Of course, there is a lot more that could be said about the many ethical scandals directly coming out of the government over the last five years. Is it any wonder that people would be second-guessing the government's commitment to handling their information? Let us go back, though, to what is already in the bill for private entities.

More than words, we need better and stronger protection in action. Is that what we can expect? A few weeks ago, the Privacy Commissioner spoke on Bill C-11. He said:

The government has set out important objectives for the bill, including increasing consumers’ control over their data, enabling responsible innovation, and establishing quick and effective remedies, including the ability to impose significant financial penalties. I support these objectives. Unfortunately, my analysis of the bill’s provisions leads me to conclude that they would not be achieved.

With further definitions and allowances made under this bill, he goes on further to say, “this would result in less consumer control than under the current law.” He also points out, “some of the new consent exceptions are too broad or ill defined to foster responsible innovation.” In particular, he says “one new exception is based solely on the impracticality of obtaining consent. Such an approach would render the principle of consent meaningless.”

Again, what will get this done for Canadians? I want to support this bill because of what it should be doing, but these types of points, as expressed by the commissioner, need to be thoroughly addressed at committee. Canadians deserve greater clarity from this process.

Aside from the government's own activities and operations, along with those of its various agencies, we have to question how much of a priority it is to protect Canadians from external threats to their privacy and security. How the government has handled Huawei might be the best example.

While the Liberals talk a big game when it comes to Canadians' privacy, their inaction on one of the most important and recent privacy concerns with Huawei shows that they do not actually take serious action. I ask member to remember last fall, when opposition parties passed a motion calling on the government to decide whether Huawei would be allowed to participate in Canada's 5G infrastructure.

The government has not only ignored Parliament on this issue. It has also ignored Canada's most important strategic allies. The rest of the Five Eyes alliance have taken decisive action to either ban or significantly curtail the role of Huawei in their telecommunications infrastructure, yet the Liberal government has not listened to their warnings. The United States, in particular, has played a vital role in pushing back against Chinese incursions into democratic nations' security and their citizens' privacy.

Based on its security intelligence, it has warned Canada that including Huawei's technology in our 5G networks would compromise our national security and the integrity of the Five Eyes partnership, yet the Prime Minister has done nothing. The Liberal government must finally have the courage to stand up to China and ban Huawei from participating in our 5G network.

While the government may pretend banning Huawei's participation would limit Canada's access to 5G, the reality is that there are safer options.

Last June, for instance, Bell Canada announced a partnership with Ericsson to help develop its 5G network across the country. Ericsson, of course, is based out of Sweden, with which we have excellent diplomatic relations. Both Sweden and Canada are dedicated to advocating for human rights around the world. Telus also partnered with Ericsson in addition to Nokia and Samsung.

Comparatively, Huawei has a proven track record of breaking the law and stealing information. In fact, Huawei was indicted by the American Department of Justice. To quote from its statement at the time, it charged Huawei for “stealing U.S. technology, conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, racketeering, and helping Iran to evade sanctions, amongst other charges.”

The Communist Party of China is the greatest threat to western nations, to national security and to the integrity of our institutions. If the government does not prevent Huawei from playing a role in our 5G networks, it will be giving the CCP a leg up in its quest to establish itself as the world's next superpower. Canadians are nervous about the role China is playing in their lives and the CCP's access to their personal information, and they should be. We know Huawei has close ties to the governing regime. Its founder is even a member of the CCP. This is the same oppressive government that, according to the allegations of its own citizens and residents, has harassed them while living here or has threatened their families in China.

When 5G finally takes off across the country, millions of Canadians' personal information will be transmitted through telecommunication infrastructure. We cannot in any way allow the Chinese government to get its hands on that critical information.

I have something else to say about the failure of the government to provide for rural Canada and for the needs of my constituents. The first principle of the digital charter is universal access. The government has failed to deliver on this need for rural and remote areas. Universal broadband funding has seen delay after delay.

I could speak on and on about various ongoing issues.

With rural broadband, as it is listed in the charter, the universal access side to it is extremely important. At this time of year, many people back home are looking to get into seeding, to get the crops in for the year. We are starting to see more and more how broadband and cell coverage is such an important factor in the practices of farmers, even for ranchers. It is vital infrastructure.

We say that we will vastly protect people's private information, yet we do not even have the infrastructure in place for people to connect to the Internet. If they do, when it is very slow and not responsive to them, it makes it even that much harder for them to be aware of what they are checking a box for or reading through. It makes it that much harder to properly download the information or to figure out what information will be taken from them. That, in and of itself, takes time and it takes a lot of effort. Therefore, when we have a serious conversation on protecting the needs and information of our citizens and we do not even have adequate infrastructure in place, we have to ensure we address some of those concerns first and foremost. This legislation will not accomplish any of that.

Getting to the principle of the bill, it is great we are having a discussion on this. We need to definitely address some of the fundamental concerns that the bill tried to raise. I look forward to continued debate on this. I also look forward to when the bill gets to committee, so we can see some amendments to it and we can start to take a serious approach to the needs of our constituents and of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government brought forward the digital charter back in 2019. We recognized that Canadians were increasingly reliant on digital technologies to connect with each other, to buy goods and services or to access information. The new consumer privacy protection act would give Canadians more control and greater transparency over how companies would handle their personal information.

Would the member not agree that having a timely passage of the legislation is, in fact, in all our best interests, in particular the interests of Canadians?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is important to ensure we have this debate and, yes, the timely passage of the bill would be great. However, the issue is that it has been five months, and this only the third day it has been up for debate.

Only one party is in charge of the legislative calendar, and that is the Liberal government. If it wants to see a timely passage of the bill, I would hope that we would have more opportunities to debate it and that there would not be four-month gaps between the times that are set aside for debate on such an important bill as this one.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have seen again and again, and this concerns me, is that we often see the government trading off privacy rights and not looking at the other priorities. Could the member talk about how we can ensure that privacy rights are respected and that they can work with other priorities? It does not have to be one or the other.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely want to see a process that makes it very transparent and up front. We are starting to see a little more effort. For example, when we go to a website, we will see an acknowledgement that it uses cookies and we have the opportunity to go through it. We have a little more control over what kind of information the website may or may not be taking from us. However, we need to see that more transparent approach, particularly when the government is interacting with us. We need to see the kind of information it will using, gleaning and taking for its benefit. There needs to be more conversation and focus on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a lot of great points, especially around the issue of Huawei.

The House passed a motion requiring action from the government on Huawei, yet we have seen nothing. At the same time, it is bringing in Bill C-11, which has some laudable points in it, but does not address one of the biggest elephants in the room, which is Huawei. The government has refused to ban it from our country. Huawei is well known for stealing information and sharing it with the Chinese communist government.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me why he thinks the government is so reticent to ban Huawei, as the House has demanded.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to see a pattern over and over, where the government delays and decides to not take a principled approach or principled stand on these issues. The issue with Huawei goes much further than just simply whether it is the right company for 5G or not.

Number two in the 10 principles of the charter is safety and security, and we are talking about the safety and security of our citizens in Canada and abroad. We have been seeing a regime in place that is looking to use facial recognition software to persecute its own people. Our government needs to take a very serious, strong and principled approach when dealing with Huawei, respect the will of Parliament to ban Huawei from 5G and take a strong stance and make it known that Canada we will defend our citizens.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to joining the debate on Bill C-11.

“One who wants to know is better than one who already knows” is a Yiddish proverb, and members know I have a great love of them.

However, I want to go through the legislation before us, because a lot of constituents have written to me with major concerns. It is not that they dislike the legislation per se. They agree, as many members have said, with the principles and content, but the bill falls far short of their expectations.

As the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has said, it is an issue of control, who controls the information. My personal belief is that property rights are a human right, and our digital presence, our cookies, the way we look is their digital private property and it should really be treated that way. We have a come to time where we should extend our conception of what is a property right to our digital presence.

I remember knocking on doors in Mahogany in my riding. A gentleman who worked for a large IT company was very concerned about deepfakes, the ability for people to create some really lifelike images, voices and mannerisms of other individuals and the possibility for it to be used for a nefarious purpose, to mislead, misdirect and also to get money out of people. Imagine what type of use people could get out of deepfakes. I think of the past few years where we have seen a lot of companies make immense strides in providing a digital picture of people who never existed, but they look so lifelike that it is so difficult to tell if they are actually deepfakes. They trick our eyes and brains to think they exist.

On the issue of control, I have had constituents bring up issues of Clearview AI harvesting through facial recognition technology, the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandals. Closer to home in Calgary, is Cadillac Fairview and what constituents have termed “secret mall surveillance”. There was a panel put up in different parts of the mall, one of the biggest malls in Calgary, that were collecting information off the images of people going in. I cannot remember what the purpose was, but it was stopped once many people started to raise issues with what the information was being collected for.

It is an issue of control. There are principles in this digital charter, and I do not want to go over them too much. However, I want to raise issues specific to things like the right to opt out of the sale of personal information. That is a really big one. The GDPR does this already as does the European Union.

Sometimes when people go online, depending on the country source for the product or service purchase, after having clicked through terms and agreements, because many people do not read those, it will ask whether they are opting out of the sale of their personal information. That is missing in this legislation, and it really should have been in there.

Many constituents, like Chris MacLean in my riding, raised this as an issue, saying that they would like to have more control to consent to where their information would go. I could imagine certain situations where people are fine with their personal information being sold, perhaps some of what they give a particular company is not much and they feel it could have some type of purpose or there could be some controls put in place. However, this legislation does not have that.

Then there are the consent exemptions. I want to focus a little more on this one. This issue has been of major concern to people in my riding. As I mentioned, Chris had issues with it, Kevin Silvester, Shelley Bennett and Randall Hicks had issues with it. There is a lot of them. The issue is “for a public interest purpose” is how the government has defined it, that is socially beneficial purposes, clause 39 is one of them.

It kind of lists off government institutions, public libraries, post-secondary educational institutions, any organization that is mandated under federal-provincial law or by contract with a government institution. What if it contracted out a large government youth program, like the WE charity, and then it ran it. What kind of personal information would be collected? I know it has been embroiled in its own scandals of late. The ethics committee met this morning and discussed it even further.

It continues on to point four. This is subparagraph 39(1)(b)(iv) under the disclosures made to any other prescribed entity. Then there is paragraph 39(1)(c), the disclosures made for socially beneficial purpose. That is such a broad definition. Who gets to decide what is a socially beneficial purpose? I could drive two Hummers through that definition, working for a contracted out organization, perhaps collecting information, processing a program, a service on behalf of the federal government. I have major issues with the way that is structured, because it allows so many exemptions to be provided in interactions.

When we read about these organizations, it is a lot compared with any other prescribed entity. There are no limits on this prescription. There are no limits on what the federal government could prescribe as an outside entity and then our information would be shared with them. That is a consistent concern that my constituents have. They mostly focus on the business angle of it, but we know that the federal government oftentimes has a lot of contracting out of services, including IT services and procurement services. For the construction of ships, for example, the government does not own shipyards; it contracts that service out and asks someone else to do it for the government. When they do that, is there not a possibility, because it is for a socially beneficial purpose, that the federal government could decide just to share information quite broadly? I have an issue with it because I do not think it does a great service for Canadians.

There is another issue I have with one of the definitions provided. It is the definition being used in the law for how personal information is defined. It says, “an identifiable individual”. The example that I gave, that many of my constituents give as well, is an example from Calgary when, years ago, Cadillac Fairview, which owns the Chinook Centre in Calgary on the Macleod Trail, was using facial recognition and surveillance information. Maybe they were just tracking the flow of pedestrian traffic through the mall, perhaps to plan where the doors should be; I do not know this, but if the benchmark being used in the definition is “an identifiable individual”, how much effort is a company going to put in to identify someone? That is what makes it identifiable. When I read through the legislation, I have a hard time grasping how far this could go. Is there an expectation that the companies will not keep this information at all because they did not make it identifiable, so it is okay? Is it because the image is too grainy? Is it because their name is so common that it could be just about anybody? It is an imprecise definition that could have really been beefed up from the beginning instead of taking it to committee in such an incomplete format.

Those are the issues I found, just reading through the legislation and after so many of my constituents wrote to me. They still have major issues. What they want to see is a significant number of amendments brought forward to fix the legislation. There are a few ways to do that. The government could just draft a new piece of legislation and table it again and have it go forward. There are a lot of good things in the bill, like many members have said, that make it salvageable.

At the committee stage, that is where they get into it. I do really believe this should go to the industry committee. It may want to bounce the bill around to the different committees. I used to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance in the previous Parliament, and the government would apportion the omnibus budget bill to different committees and look at the parts in order to have the expertise. So much of this is about corporations and businesses that it should really go to the industry committee. Again, it is the industry minister who has tabled the law.

On the issue of identifiable information, the definition should include such information as people's email address, obvious personal information like location information, gender, biometric data, web cookies, political opinions and any pseudonyms they might use so the company or the organization that is collecting it can combine it all together. It does not have to be a private organization; it could be a public one, it could be a charity doing this; who knows? That could have been a much better definition than simply leaving it very open-ended as “an identifiable individual”.

Another matter that a lot of my constituents have raised is the playing field between a Canadian company based here where Canadian law can easily reach it with the fines that would be levied; and then international companies, perhaps based in Latin America, in parts of Africa, in Australia and other countries that have different privacy laws and how we would be able to find them and also collect the fines on them. That whole mechanism and the fact of a tribunal of three to six people and only requiring one expert is another issue.

I have tried to lay out as many issues as I have heard from my constituents in my riding. I mentioned that some of them had very specific concerns.

Much of the legislation is on the right path, but there are so many shortcomings. Like the previous member said, the issues here are data privacy and control, regarding who controls the information and where it can go and that the legislation is still unclear in certain parts, regarding who can deal with it; and exemptions and exceptions being given. Those two different concepts need to be fleshed out more in the legislation. It should be done at committee. It should be done at the industry committee first. If it needs to go to the ethics committee afterwards, so be it; but the industry committee should deal with it first, immediately.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things at issue, in terms of protecting Canadians from a digital perspective, is that we are seeing a lot more identity theft. We are getting a plethora of scams, where people have obtained our personal information or email addresses and whatnot and come after us. Could the member comment on what this bill would do to address those concerns?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can tell, not much new in this legislation specifically deals with those types of issues. We have all seen the phishing scams, even on Parliament Hill, where people pretend to be banks, financial institutions or credit unions. It looks so real and the interaction is so real that people feel it was actually sent by the named institution. There is a lot more that could be done and witnesses could be brought forward at committee who could deal with it, but the industry committee is the right committee to deal with this bill.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member highlighted the discussion around privacy rights. Privacy is a fundamental human right and this bill would fail to protect privacy rights. In terms of protecting children, it goes in the opposite direction. It has loosened the regulations when other countries are strengthening the rules around protecting children. It continues with a broken model of consent that pits individuals against corporations and political parties, which is a power imbalance.

I would ask the hon. member whether he thinks political parties should be included in this legislation and bound by the privacy rules.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the first part of his observation on privacy rights. Privacy rights should be property rights. That is where we should go and expand it, and that is the way it should be understood. I talked about, for example, deepfakes and the concerns I heard at people's doors, specifically in Mahogany. I had a constituent who spent a lot of time explaining it to me. It has panned out in public media about the misdirection and ability of people to be misinformed on something that looks so absolutely real. It tricks one's eyes and ears into believing the person is actually saying what is being said.

The member talked about algorithms. Many of us have children. I have three kids and they just love YouTube, but sometimes I wonder where the algorithm leads them based on the choices they are making as they are clicking. More than once I have had to stop them because the algorithm has gone completely out of control and showed them things that no child who is 10 years old should ever be able to see.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I see Bill C-11 as legislation that offers world-leading privacy and data protection. It also has some of the strongest fines among the G7 privacy laws. This is legislation that Canadians would support and it even seems that members on all sides support the legislation.

The government does not have a process like opposition days where things are voted on automatically. We are very dependent on opposition parties recognizing the importance of legislation and allowing it to get to the committee stage. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on whether he believes the bill should move forward. We have had many days of debate, for example—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. He is participating in setting the agenda. It has been months since this legislation came to Parliament to be debated. He should perhaps look at his own schedule to determine how many more days the government could do this. I read directly from concerns of my constituents, and I invite all members to do that. That is exactly what I did. I printed off the emails because I wanted to discuss their specific concerns. That is what each of us should be doing and that is what matters the most.

This is not world-leading legislation. The GDPR in the European Union is world-leading. This is not that.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 imposes obligations with regard to the collection, retention and disclosure of personal information, which is good. However, it does not require businesses to verify that the person they are dealing with is who they claim to be before authorizing a financial transaction.

In the interest of regulating banking practices and reducing fraud, should we not be requiring financial institutions to institute robust identity checks to prevent fraudsters from stealing someone's identity and using their personal information? Should banks not be required to include the number of fraud cases due to identity theft in their annual statements? Should they not be required to contact anyone whose identity may have been used fraudulently?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for his comments.

I agree with the first part of his question and his idea. I think people need to provide valid and informed consent. Many of my constituents have the same concern about private businesses sharing their personal information.

I agree with the first part, but as far as the second part is concerned, I would like to hear more debate on the matter before taking a position.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-11. It is important to start with the conversation that has been had around where this legislation is going to be debated. The legislation belongs to the industry minister, so we would expect the industry committee would deal with it. In spite of an offer from the opposition by way of unanimous consent to have this sent to the industry committee, the government will instead send it to the ethics committee.

What else the ethics committee has been dealing with and will be dealing with this spring are germane to the rationale for the destination of this bill. Up to this point, the ethics committee has looked at the pandemic spending, particularly the issues around the failed Canada student service grant and the half billion dollars destined for the WE organization. That study has faced some significant obstruction: first, by way of Parliament being prorogued in the midst of a pandemic; and, second, upon returning from prorogation, the committee was filibustered for the equivalent of 20 meetings, more than 40 hours. When the agreement on having witnesses appear was finally reached in December, many months followed where the witnesses would not appear. Finally, summonses were issued.

The potential damage to the government and the Prime Minister the testimony that the committee is looking for is great. Not only did the Prime Minister prorogue and the Liberal members filibuster for the equivalent of more than 20 meetings, but when an order of this House was issued for witnesses to appear, which passed with majority support, the Liberal members said they did not like the decision, they did not support that Canada's Parliament had spoken that it was within its powers to exercise an order for people to appear at committee and instead wanted others to go, so they told those individuals to defy an order of Canada's Parliament. Who told them that? Ministers of the Crown told individuals to dodge, to duck an order—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate we are having today is on Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act. Although I thought at the beginning that the member was going to briefly reference the ethics committee, he is now completely talking about an unrelated matter. I guess he trying to justify why this is going to a certain committee, but that is certainly not the content of the bill, which is what we are supposed to be discussing now. Perhaps you could—

[An hon. member]

Debate.