Debates of Feb. 7th, 2022

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

What about the judges?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we were hoping to deal with Bill C-8 and then hopefully deal with the judges after that legislation, Bill C-9.

My point is that, because of this particular concurrence motion, we are not able to deal with things such as the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars for rapid testing or air ventilation for students in our schools. I do not want to take away from the importance of this particular report, but I can tell members that there are many reports that our standing committees are going to bring forward. I would hope that we would think in terms of the other possible venues in which they can be discussed.

The only advantage of the report coming here for concurrence is that I get to speak to it, and I appreciate that members want me to address the important issues of the day. Having said that, at the end of day when I hear some of the comments, such as “de-identification of data”, what is it? I think that for most Canadians there would have to be some sort of an explanation.

When I turn on my cellphone and make phone calls, I have a basic understanding of it. I make a phone call and my cellphone goes to the closest tower, and it is truly amazing how much information that tower collects, such as my name and where I live. There is all sorts of information no doubt at one tower. Now, if I happen to be driving at the time, and we should not talk on a cellphone when driving but maybe I am a passenger, and if I am going from one tower to the next, it starts to add up. They can track where I am. I can understand why some in society might be concerned about that, but what is done with that information is what the real concern should be.

We have legislation and we also have offices. The Privacy Commissioner's office is not just there for government but also for the private sector, so that if we find that there is a company out there that is inappropriately using the data being collected, then there is somewhere we can go to express the concerns we have. I would like to think I would be at the beginning of the line, whether it was Telus Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health or possibly members of the committee dealing with ethics and privacy-related issues. There are opportunities for us to ensure that the data being collected is not being abused, and there is a need.

I understand the Privacy Commissioner came before the committee and made a presentation. I am absolutely convinced that, on a one-on-one discussion with the Privacy Commissioner or anyone else who is affiliated, such as the critic from the Bloc who is an expert in this field, there is a need for us to take a look at the laws we currently have. I can appreciate that there is a need for change and amendments. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity where we will be able to bring in such legislation, and the same concerns that we are hearing here today and in committee would allow for that type of legislation to pass if, in fact, the opportunity is there to bring it forward.

Through technology, things change rather rapidly. I know there are members of the committee who are here today and if I am wrong in my assertion that the Privacy Commissioner does not believe that there is a need for some of those changes to occur, please let me know. However, I heard more than one member today talk about “consultation” versus being “informed”. Yes, I recognize that there is a difference. The Privacy Commissioner was informed of it and aware of it. If there were some outstanding concerns, directly or indirectly, those likely would have been expressed to the stakeholders who needed to know.

I am not absolutely convinced that every action the government does has to go through the Privacy Commissioner. I have not heard that argument being made. I think there are certain situations where some departments, more than others, may have a higher need. Some departments may have a whole lot more expertise in that area, as I pointed out with the Health Canada agency. I would be very reluctant to make a general statement or to take a brush and apply it to every department and every situation where there is some information that is being drawn. Take a look at Stats Canada. I have received emails from Stats Canada. I am sure other members have also received emails from Stats Canada. There is all sorts of information being collected.

Would you apply the same principle of getting the Privacy Commissioner involved in every agency that the federal government has? Should we be expanding the Privacy Commissioner's office to take that into consideration? I am concerned about governments, whether they are provincial, municipal or federal, whatever they might be, and how they might be using that data, especially on issues of health care with everyone having a health card. All different provinces have that. There are driver's licences. There are endless examples, such as passports or you name it.

I am equally, if not more concerned, about this issue in the private sector. That is where I think we need to be spending more of our time and energy. I would like to think experts would acknowledge that.

When we talk about consent and getting a better indication or more clarity in terms of what consent really is, absolutely, but let us not be completely naive about it. I remember when we were talking about organ transplants in the province of Manitoba, talking about allowing MPI to have an opt-out, or to have it in some sort of a taxation policy, again I am going back to the province of Manitoba, and allow people to opt out without making an assumption. There are ways in which it can be done in a reasonable fashion.

I will go back to what I stated earlier, that Telus needs consumers more than consumers need Telus. If Telus were to violate in any way the privacy of Canadians, there would be a consequence to it, a very serious consequence. If Health Canada or the agency were to violate the privacy of Canadians, we would hear about it. I do not want the privacy of the constituents I represent to be violated, but I understand the importance of mobility data, among many other types of data sources out there.

What we are talking about is the coronavirus, COVID-19, and having a sense of mobility and of where people are going. We are not asking who people are and we are not listening to telephone conversations, which was pointed out, or anything of that nature. We are talking about raw data that will enable people who work in the sciences, the health experts and the health agency to ultimately make good, sound public policy. That is what Canadians expect.

At the end of day, I would have much preferred, which is hard to believe, to be debating Bill C-8 today so this issue could go back to the committee for further discussion.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to say that it is clear the member did not read the report or grasp what it contains. The report is very short. It contains one recommendation to the government that is timely. It cannot just go back to committee for more study. It is not that kind of a report. This is a report that calls upon the government to suspend an RFP, with a timeline on it.

We listened to a lengthy speech and did not really get the answer to the question that we are debating. Will the member concur in this report?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong to give the impression that the report cannot go back to a standing committee. A standing committee has the ability to review a report from its past, and this is in fact a report. It can be a very simple and straightforward report. For example, is there any negative consequence to the public by deferring this, and if so, what is that negative consequence? Is the member prepared to say there is absolutely no negative side to postponing this?

As I said, nothing prevents the committee from looking at the report again. It can have the minister come before it, and I recommend that it might want to consider doing this.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for treating us to the pizza story. As an aside, I would like to acknowledge his unwavering loyalty to the Liberal Party.

I am half sorry. I know the member would have preferred to discuss Bill C-8, but the motion was moved and, like it or not, privacy is an important concern. Public and private companies should indeed be subject to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. That much is certain.

I am not sure whether my colleague has had the chance to see the film The Social Dilemma on Netflix. The film explains a bit about the ins and outs of possible perversions of privacy. Shoshana Zuboff, the main subject in the film, is going to appear before the committee to talk about this. If the member for Winnipeg North has not seen the film, I invite him to attend the meeting. With Nobel Prize-worthy experts testifying, I think it is worth listening.

Is my hon. colleague asking whether Telus and the Public Health Agency of Canada are too big to fail?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will have to review Hansard and pick up the name of that show on Netflix. I will do what I can to watch it.

Throughout this afternoon, I have heard members pay tribute to the member's expertise in this field, and I respect that. I did not catch the tail end of the question, whether it was because of translation or the member was cut off, but I recognize that when we talk about privacy, there are the public and private sectors and we should be concerned about both. I would like to see more emphasis put on the private sector, believing that aside from many of the government agencies, there are other forms of accountability for ensuring that privacy rights are being protected. That is why I fall a little more toward the need for privacy and am very much open to his other thoughts.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disturbed when the parliamentary secretary said in his speech that the issue here is what the information is used for. I suggest that the real question is whether the government has the right to even collect it.

These are exceptional times, and I have heard concerns from my constituents with regard to this matter. One gentleman wrote me saying he was worried about the Chinese social credit system and about government tracking. We have heard the member himself say that it can get so much information from this tracking: who he is, where he is, what time he is there and who he is around. This is exceptional information and it should not be made normal.

What authority in law did the government use to put in this system of tracking? Was a privacy impact assessment done so that the Privacy Commissioner could have an idea that this was complying with Canada's privacy laws?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize that what we are talking about is the de-identification of data. The government or Telus is not releasing information that says a person was here or there, nor any other personal information. It is just raw data that is used. My colleague across the way may have a better sense of this, but I do not know for a fact how some of the private companies use some of that raw data. I suspect that the Government of Canada is not the first one to use it.

This is not invasive. It is designed to better inform Canada's health agency so it can make good, sound public policies for the coronavirus.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of his intervention, the parliamentary secretary has been trying to diminish the importance of the issue. He tells us quite frankly that he is not an expert and that he does not know about these things.

He tells us that the government naturally needs to look after privacy, but that this is not a serious matter because the government will ensure that the data is used properly. In fact, no one really knows if that will happen.

That is precisely the problem: We do not know, and we want to know. I ask the member if his party will vote in favour of the motion to protect the privacy of our constituents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to explain, from my perspective, what I see as an incredible health organization, the Public Health Agency of Canada. It is world-renowned in terms of its capabilities. It is an organization that has required data in the past. To the best of my knowledge, and members can correct me if I am wrong, it has been respectful of people's privacy. As I indicated earlier, Telus, a corporation, needs consumers more than consumers need it.

I believe that at the end of the day, no private information associated with individuals is being released. From a personal perspective, I suggest that the committee continue to have a dialogue on this issue with others regarding privacy, because I know it is a concern of Canadians.

I would hope we would want to continue to debate bills like Bill C-8 and others dealing with COVID. That is really what this report comes down to, the issue of COVID. It is all about getting that data so we can provide good, sound public policy in combatting this pandemic.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was the former chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. One thing we learned there is that privacy is a big deal. Most of us in Canada believe that. However, apparently the member across the way does not think it is a big deal. He is saying it is no big deal and telling folks not to worry about it.

With the new quantum computing capacity, de-identified information can potentially be reidentified. This depends on who gets access to the information. My concern with the member across the way is that I wish he would respect our Privacy Commissioner and all the work he has done in the past and all the work we have done with the International Grand Committee involving half a billion people concerned about Canadians' privacy. I wish he shared my concerns, and the concerns of the opposition, that this is a big deal.

When is the government going to treat the privacy of Canadians with the effort it deserves?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always supported and will continue to support the privacy rights of the people of Canada without any hesitation whatsoever. The member is wrong to assert that I do not care about privacy rights. As a Liberal who has a fundamental belief in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I understand the importance of this at the end of the day and will continue to do what I can to ensure that we still get good, sound public policy respecting privacy. At the same, with the Privacy Commissioner, I have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, following that speech, it is important that we really get focused on the actual motion and the actual report that has been tabled in Parliament. The previous speech seemed to assume that we were debating a larger issue around privacy and something that can continue to be studied. However, this is a very specific motion, and it is, in fact, a very short report.

First, Mr. Speaker, I will inform you that it is my intention to share my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I am the chair of this committee, and it was a real pleasure to table this report last week. This report was the result of a motion that was moved by my Bloc colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, and passed unanimously by the committee last Monday. It is a simple report. It is one of the shortest reports that I recall ever being associated with. It simply informs the House of the following:

That the [Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics] call upon the government to suspend the Public Health Agency of Canada's cellular data tender upon adoption of this motion, and that the tender shall not be re-offered until it the committee reports to the House that it is satisfied that the privacy of Canadians will not be affected....

That is it. I just read the entire report that was tabled. The committee is asking the government to suspend an RFP that has a deadline this month, which has just been moved again. This is timely. This is not something we should go back and restudy. We are calling upon the government to take concrete action about business that is under way right now.

As chair of the committee, it is my responsibility to ensure that members of the committee have an opportunity to be heard and that the rules of the committee are followed. It is not ordinarily my job to take a position on the motions moved at committee, other than to break ties, but it is my job to ensure that motions are dealt with properly and the privileges of committee members are respected.

In this case, the motion was debated at last Monday's meeting. Amendments were moved by both the governing party members and opposition members, and through a fairly lengthy debate on the amendments, the committee passed the amendments and the motion unanimously. In debating concurrence on this motion, it is therefore important that the House be made aware of the process that produced this short report. It was proposed by an opposition member, but in the end, and after improvement through debate, it was unanimously adopted.

The reason I have joined this debate, and taken time to walk members through the process of how this motion came to be adopted, is it is my sincere hope that the House will unanimously adopt this concurrence motion. I hope the House will concur in this report, perhaps with the full weight of a recorded vote, and that the government will take a unanimous committee report seriously and will actually suspend the request for proposal that is part of this motion.

Right after the House rose for the Christmas break, reports in the media broke stating that, unbeknownst to anybody, the Government of Canada had been secretly using mobility data from 33 million mobility devices. This is what was said in the reports that came out just after we broke. This news was shocking to many Canadians, but what was even more shocking was that the only reason this came to the public's attention, seemingly, was a public tender for a new contract to extend the program for another five years. The deadline to respond to that request for proposal was the third week of January, meaning that this RFP would have opened and closed while Parliament was not sitting, and members of Parliament would not have had an opportunity to question the government about it.

The committee held an emergency meeting on the subject in mid-January and unanimously voted to study the entire subject. That study is under way at committee, which met this morning in furtherance of it. Curiously, the government extended the deadline for the RFP on the eve of the emergency meeting, and it further extended the deadline until later this month. In response to the committee, which is now earnestly studying the broader issue, we have called upon the government to further suspend the deadline until we prepare a report stating we are satisfied that privacy is not unduly at risk.

Some might ask why there is a need. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North hinted about whether or not we really needed to debate concurrence in this report. Surely the government knows that this recommendation came with unanimous support from parliamentarians representing all recognized parties, and we will follow this recommendation, right? The governing party members supported this recommendation, including the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, who in fact worked with and moved one of the amendments that was passed unanimously.

However, this does not seem to be the case. The Minister of Health appeared at our committee last Thursday, and when asked about this very motion and suspending the RFP, the minister refused to commit. He talked about how he RFP had been extended, but when he was questioned about why it was extended, he spoke about the need to give prospective bidders more time. In fact, it sounded like there were no bids and that perhaps there was a single contractor asking for more time.

Regardless, the minister did not acknowledge the real concerns about ensuring that the privacy of Canadians was protected. He made no indication that he was going to actually suspend the RFP pending the committee's report, which is what this motion and this report calls for.

Choosing not to respond to the substance of the report reminds one of an early promise the government made when it was first elected. It promised that it would listen to parliamentary committees, and yet the Liberal government has quite spectacularly failed to do so. The incredible lengths the government has gone to to ignore committees and even defy the will of the entire chamber is a matter of historic record. One recalls how less than eight months ago, the government dug in so deeply on its refusal to comply with the health committee's request for documents related to the Winnipeg virology lab that it prompted the incredible spectacle of a public servant being admonished by the Speaker of the House in the furtherance of the Liberal government's cover-up, a matter still unresolved.

The Liberal government also prorogued the House to prevent committees from getting to the bottom of conflicts of interest that were at the heart of the student job program contract with the WE organization. The government also said it would respect the independence of committees, yet at committee after committee in the last Parliament, we saw the repeated use of filibuster tactics to prevent motions from coming to a vote.

Fortunately, this has not been the case at the ethics committee. As I have said repeatedly, this report was supported unanimously. It should be supported by this House unanimously, yet the government has given no indication, including in the response to the direct question asked twice to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that it would in fact agree and concur with this report.

Therefore, I am not surprised that my Bloc colleague has moved this concurrence motion. I am sure he is very concerned that the government will ignore the will of this committee, but regardless of the outcome of this concurrence debate, I wonder if the government will note that this motion came not as an attempt by Conservatives to disrupt its parliamentary agenda. There were media reports last week saying that Liberals were looking for partners to ensure they could pass time allocation motions and things like that to avoid what they call Conservative obstruction. I hope the Liberals do not think my Bloc colleague is guilty of obstruction, because the government has given every indication that it plans to ignore a committee recommendation that was passed unanimously.

Perhaps the government would take note that when members of Parliament debate bills and motions in this House, they are actually doing their jobs. Our seats in this House are not here for us to be spectators; we are here to debate. We are here to use procedural tools that exist to ensure that the rights of members to represent their constituents can be used. Perhaps they would also note that all parties use these tools when it is necessary to do so.

In closing, I remain hopeful that all members of this House will join me in voting in concurrence with this report and add the weight of a vote in this House to the report to urge the government to do the right thing and suspend the RFP until the ethics committee has finished its report.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member can answer a very direct question from me on the issue. When will the committee have its report finished?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know just yet, and I can give him a direct answer. We spoke about this today. In committee, all members, including members of the government side, are in the process of compiling witnesses. Not all witnesses have been available, and there is often a lot of trouble coordinating these things.

This investigation is going to take a while. It is not going to be finished immediately, but in the meantime, the government should suspend this RFP because it is that important.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, for raising very important points.

Indeed, this was done unanimously. Again, unanimity is not a flower worn on a lapel. It is a clear message that is sent to the House to say that all the parties agreed. The House should pay attention to that, especially when we say that it is very important and there can be no delay.

Dr. Tam told us that so far, the information that has been extracted from the data in question has not been spectacular, and she also said that delaying the RFP would not be so bad. That is Canada's expert telling us that.

Could my colleague remind us of some of Dr. Tam's messages?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Trois-Rivières raised a really good point in talking about the case for urgency, which has not been made successfully at committee. We have heard from experts already, including Dr. Tam, the minister and the Privacy Commissioner, and so far the committee does not feel that there is a sense of urgency that would negate the importance of the recommendation contained in this report.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague elaborate more on his concerns on the differences in the testimony given by the Privacy Commissioner and the testimony given by public health?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is uncertainty around how much consultation, if any, occurred on this matter, which goes to part of the reason it is important to adopt this recommendation to suspend the RFP until the committee can actually get to the bottom of assuring Canadians that if this program is to continue, it will not adversely affect their privacy.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to get his opinion on something.

I have been listening to the debate for some time and I have heard government members tell us that it is no big deal, that everything is in order, there is no problem, no need to worry, and we need to act quickly because this is necessary and they will be careful.

I have some vague memories of the WE program. The government initially told us that everything was in order, that the program was a good one, and sorry, but it was the only company. We ultimately found out that the program had been designed for their buddies.

I am almost afraid that the Liberals might prorogue Parliament in a month or a week.

I do not know how my colleague can convince Liberal Party members that this is important. They are not being attacked. The motion moved by my colleague from Trois-Rivières does not presume anything, and he pointed this out a number of times in his speech this afternoon. He said that we are not presuming that a mistake has been made. We simply think we need to examine this issue more closely.

This affects all of Canada. Could we take this seriously and be careful with people's personal information? What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he raises a good point. The government's track record on listening to committees or even following votes and orders of the House is not good.

He did not really have a question but asked for my opinion, and in my opinion, yes, this motion is necessary, given the track record of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate on an important subject. Let me make a couple of quick observations before I get into the substance of this debate.

I find it very concerning that, whether it be through the parliamentary secretary to the House leader from Winnipeg or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, there seems to be a great disregard in the government's attitude toward the democratic will represented by parliamentary committees and ultimately the Canadians those committee members represent, which is very concerning, and the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health refused to commit or acknowledge that this RFP, should it be passed by the House, should be stopped.

Time and again they have used clever wordsmithing to simply delay discussion of the current RFP here, for purposes related to either competition or various other things. They seem to be going out of their way to counter the democratic will of, in this case, a parliamentary committee made up of members of Parliament who have been tasked to do important work. The ethics committee does important work, and it seems that the government is obsessed with avoiding accountability. That digs at the very heart of why I hear on a daily basis, and would be shocked if members in the governing Liberal Party did not hear on a daily basis, the concerns Canadians have with respect to the erosion of trust. They will stand up and say that everything is great, that it is sunny ways, delivering the sort of rhetoric we have heard often from the Prime Minister across the way. It is incredibly concerning.

If you would indulge me for a quick moment, I want to share something that happened back in my constituency and is a bit unrelated to the subject at hand.

What we do in this place is incredibly important. I had the opportunity to judge 4‑H public speaking this past weekend. Generally, an MP probably should not enter into a judging position and ultimately have to pick winners and losers, but let me simply say this: It was incredible to see.

As a former 4‑H club member who was in 4‑H woodworking as kid and participated in public speaking with what at the time was a pretty serious stammer, it was an absolute honour to be able to share that event with these young men and women from the Camrose 4‑H Beef Club and to hear their speeches on a wide variety of subjects. In the coming years, it would not surprise me one bit if one of those who participated in the event the other day will one day be running for office as a result of the exceptional work that 4‑H does generally in preparing the leaders of tomorrow. I also salute the folks involved in the 4‑H public speaking event that I had the honour of attending and judging this past week, so let us give a great round of applause to all of those individuals.

I know that the chair of the committee, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, highlighted what I would suggest is a concerning disparity. Last week the committee heard some testimony from the Minister of Health on the subject we are discussing. This morning we heard testimony from the Privacy Commissioner. I would like to highlight a couple of those differences.

The Minister of Health, who was not actually the Minister of Health at the time when some of these decisions were made, certainly made it sound as though his department had been thoroughly engaged with the Privacy Commissioner over the course of the pandemic, and he specifically referred to it, yet we learned that this simply was not the case from the testimony we heard from the Privacy Commissioner this morning.

It is things like that which call into serious question the credibility and the trust that this place certainly needs to have in the ministers of the Crown. I would suggest that the erosion of trust is a big part of the reason, and this is related specifically to the motion at hand, that we are willing to press pause on this RFP to make sure that Canadians can in fact trust that their government is in this case protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. The fact that there are some pretty serious differences is incredibly significant and cannot be understated. This motion seems to have been over-complicated by Liberal members who have entered into the debate, which I would note does not include Liberal members of the committee who actually voted for the motion.

The motion is very simple. It says that we should simply press pause so that Canadians can trust their government.

I would note that one of the significant reasons for that, as I asked the Minister of Health and have brought up in the discussion related to the topic at hand, is that it is unclear exactly what the information that was provided to the Public Health Agency of Canada was. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, in quite an ironic twist, sent a letter to the ethics committee that outlined why it was not a big deal and should not be cause for concern. However, I would note that the company BlueDot of which a sample was provided along with the letter from the parliamentary secretary called into question whether or not the parliamentary secretary had even read the documentation that he had provided and, further, whether or not it was the extent of the information that was being provided.

The minister talked about anonymized, de-identified and segregated data, which is fair. There has been reference to cellphone use and mobility providers and all of the other aspects of the reality of living in the information age. Specifically, the Privacy Commissioner did note today, in addition to the specifics of this, that much of our privacy legislation is 40 years old and is way out of date, and I know that other members of the committee from different parties have also noted this.

What does that data look like? What information was provided to the government? Given the information and the sample report from BlueDot, there were striking inconsistencies. The information largely was incredibly general and, quite frankly, information that I would not have a problem with, but that information had to come from somewhere. It is unclear exactly what further was provided.

To simplify it specifically, does de-identified and anonymized mean that names, phone numbers and addresses were removed but maybe everything else was provided? The very evidence suggests that they tracked the specifics of whether or not somebody crossed a border. They talked about grouping together in one metric but not grouping together cellphones in another metric. In fact, if members can believe it, the members of the committee could not even verify the number of devices that were used in some of these questions.

As I come to the end of my speech, I would simply suggest that Canada is a democracy and a democracy can only function if its citizens trust their institutions in terms Parliament and their government, which in our parliamentary democracy Parliament gives authority to. This is a prudent and important step to ensure that we can help rebuild some of the trust that has been eroded, and it is incredibly important that this motion not only pass but that Canadians' privacy is respected.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a very quick question of the chair of committee, and I am going to pose the same question. I asked what we can expect if it goes to committee in terms of the amount of time it would take to pass so that an RFP can be issued, and the chair implied that it could be quite a while. We all know that standing committees can actually do things virtually in two or three days, very substantive things. Why would we not want to give some sort of tangible indication of whether it would be a week, a month or six months? What is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that question emphasizes the fundamental misunderstanding of what is being debated here. The actual motion that is being debated was one of two motions that the committee dealt with at an emergency meeting that took place just prior to Parliament being brought back. The first is the study that is ongoing, which the member for Winnipeg North seemed to insinuate when he asked the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge the question earlier. Now he is actually referring to the concurrence debate that is taking place now, which is incredibly simple and says we need to press pause until Parliament can affirm that the privacy of Canadians can be respected.

Those two fundamental differences speak to the great misunderstanding that comes from the members opposite, or perhaps they are intentionally playing politics once again on issues and hurting Canadians' trust in Parliament and the government.