House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize if the member feels I was interrupting. I was really fascinated to hear that the Conservatives actually do want to take—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
That is again falling into debate.
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope has less than a minutes to finish up.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Speaker, we saw the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety roll on down to Mar-a-Lago.
Regarding our pointing out that there are issues, the Leader of the Opposition has been raising the issue of fentanyl and illegal drugs for over a year. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump. The Liberals can talk about Donald Trump and chirp all they want, but their leader, the Prime Minister, and the public safety minister went down to Mar-a-Lago because they knew that they had to take this matter seriously. It is time that they start taking the issue of fentanyl and the border seriously right now.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion that is now before the House.
The question is on the motion that the question be now put. If a member participating in person wishes the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
moved:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:
(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 1, Part 2 and the schedule to section 2; and
(b) ) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3.
Mr. Speaker, as New Democrats, we are taking this opportunity to try to rescue part of a bill to protect Canadians' privacy as the Conservatives and Liberals have been warring over a number of different things. We have an important piece of legislation that has been drafted poorly but can be recovered. We are going to focus on this Parliament being able to rescue tens of thousands of dollars, having multiple meetings with witnesses and a variety of organizations, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others, that would not seem to be naturally in the NDP camp, but are on this issue.
It is important to note that the petty politics going on by the Liberals and Conservatives on this are at the expense of the privacy of Canadians. Specifically, I am talking about Bill C-27, which goes back to 2020 with regards to Bill C-11. It re-emerged in 2022 in this chamber, in November, when the Liberals tabled an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
The Liberals drafted a bill that was so encompassing and so problematic because they were willing to compromise personal privacy rights for the consumer industry, big tech and other businesses at the expense of individual Canadians' privacy. However, we called them out on that. We have this motion in front of us today because the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stood in this chamber and helped separate the actual bill to make sure that the privacy component of this, which should have been done separately, can still get done.
As Parliament winds down, not only this session but potentially a future session, we still have time to protect Canadians' privacy. The Liberals and Conservatives have no interest in this whatsoever. They would rather play their own games and sacrifice the privacy of Canadians.
The bill was so poorly drafted that when I first saw it, I went to the minister back in 2022 and asked him to separate the bill, saying that he did not have to compromise Canadians' privacy for consumer interests. The Liberals knew that, because their lobbyists, their friends, their CEOs and the big tech, all those elements were chirping in the minister's ear, basically giving him the political support to go ahead with this. When I said to the minister, “Separate the bill, and let's do the privacy component first”, the Liberals basically said that they could not do it, they did not want to do it. We proved that wrong in this chamber by separating the bill in a previous debate.
Here we are now, as New Democrats, understanding there are dozens of organizations calling for the personal protection of privacy, including the Privacy Commissioner, to get this done and to not waste the work that is now being compromised by the games going on by the official opposition and the Liberals.
Again, this bill was drafted so poorly. When bills go to committee, they usually have maybe a dozen, at the most, amendments. Of those amendments, there are usually a few that are very significant to the bill and others that could be on language. I believe this bill had over 240 amendments to correct the problems with the bill.
We had debates here in the House of Commons and we referred the bill to committee. The minister showed up, after doing a lot of prancing around Canada about how great the legislation was, talking about the importance of artificial intelligence and how Canada has to deal with it, which we do agree with. However, the reality is that he did not care at all, and neither did the Liberals, about the privacy element.
In fact, we saw elements of the bill do the same thing to the Privacy Commissioner. This has been taking place in the Competition Bureau. I am referring to the Shaw-Rogers takeover. We saw the debacle that played out, because New Democrats were the ones that opposed that. We have seen that it has not lowered prices, only laid off workers. It has led to non-disclosure clauses from the people who got fired from Rogers. The Liberals did not care at all and created a tribunal over the top of the Privacy Commissioner.
That is important, because the tribunal, for doing its job, was actually sued by Rogers. Rogers took it to court to do due diligence, but the tribunal, which has people appointed from Liberals and Conservatives, then taxed our own Competition Bureau $10 million to pay for the legal costs for Rogers for just doing its job.
We did not want the same thing, we do not want the Privacy Commissioner being overridden by political appointees of Liberals and Conservatives. The history that I have seen here in this place, over the two decades I have been here, is one of constant appointments of either the blue or the red team to different positions of power, with no oversight and no accountability, leading to decisions against the public.
The bill came back to committee. I do not even know how many witnesses we had, off the top of my head, but we went for a long period of time and heard how badly the legislation was drafted. Some were so desperate to have anything that they would take anything, and they admitted that the bill was basically a piece of garbage. They basically said they would just take anything other than nothing, but most of those times, that was from the interests tied to businesses and consumer rights for industries versus those concerned with Canadians' personal privacy and protection. We heard that constantly, as the committee wound through all the different witnesses.
The minister came to us at the very beginning of all those witnesses and said he had some amendments, but it turned out those amendments were just ideas. They were not in any legislative format that we could deal with. They were not in any legal terms. He did not have the House of Commons or his department draft them. They were basically a set of ideas and propositions that did not even make any sense, in terms of the legislation. I do not think the minister even understood, and probably does not to this day, the amendments.
We got through the entire process. We fought over these amendments and what the minister really meant. Was he willing to compromise on the Privacy Commissioner and trying not to neuter it? Was he willing to do the right things to fix some of the elements of AI that people are concerned about? I kept on asking witness after witness whether they thought we should split this bill, and the resounding answer was “yes,” even from those who want to get the AI stuff done, and that there was no need to put the Privacy Commissioner in there.
Again, I go back to the roots of this legislation. The roots of this were to address the undermining of personal privacy of Canadians at the expense of businesses being able to access their data information and not be updated. We have an open hole right now. We have all this work that has been done, but we are going to propose to send it back to committee with this motion to try to deal with it and see if this House can actually get something done for Canadians. We spent a lot of time and money on this. There are some really significant issues here, and we are doing this because we have been in consultation with many groups and organizations that still want to see our privacy protected.
We got to clause-by-clause, and we went through over 200 amendments, as I mentioned. We found that there are some elements there that we could actually work with, at least as the opposition members. To give credit to the Conservatives, the Bloc and ourselves, there were some elements that we could actually agree upon and work with, and the government altered some of its stuff, too, but we were still stuck in a myriad of problems.
The situation became so bad that the Liberals began to filibuster their own bill in committee, because they did not know what to do. The minister then said he would come back with further amendments, and we have not seen them to date. I raised this most recently a couple of weeks ago as we tried to plan out our session, and we still have not had the Liberals bring back any of those amendments. They are on the record promising them. They said that they were going to happen, but we still have not been able to get over this tribunal issue. The tribunal issue is something important that we can get done.
Hence, we are going to split this bill, or see if there is interest in the House to do it, to see if we can rescue part of this legislation. I think it is important to note that, when we look at some of the issues here, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns about this. It has some of the best capabilities of understanding legislation and it understands that we must protect the privacy component. Unlike the United States, we do have a Privacy Commissioner, and that is very important when dealing with artificial intelligence. It cannot actually be different.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada also expressed misgivings and reservations about the bill's structuring and proposed measures for digital privacy in AI. Governments could benefit from them being addressed separately, as these are distinct areas that require separate attention.
Again, we have that component that can go forward with support from the Privacy Commissioner. It is indifferent to how legislation should be brought through the House of Commons, but at the same time it recognizes this is not the only way to do this. The minister did not have to throw everything he could into a bill to diminish privacy rights to distract Canadians, and that is really what this was about.
We should never even have started on the AI component without finishing the privacy component. This could have been done ages ago, and it should have been done ages ago. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is calling for separation of the bill, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that privacy laws and AI regulations receive individual, dedicated scrutiny, especially given their different implications for society and households. These organizations, among others, are also very much interested in moving it forward.
I mentioned the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as well. It sent in support, believing that the legislation has to be separated. I had a chance to meet with the members recently on a number of different issues, including border issues. They are really well aware. I know the previous debate was partially about CBSA officers. I am on the front line; I have 40% of Canada's daily trade go through my riding to the United States. The New Democratic Party has been supporting getting the training centre and improving the mandate of CBSA officers. This includes being able to seize illegal and counterfeit goods and materials, which they cannot do so readily right now, as well as ensuring that the 1932 order in council has been rescinded and, most importantly, giving the push to get 1,100 frontline border officers and sniffer dogs.
Those who were doing the examination are hired back by the Liberals after they were cut by the Conservatives. Under COVID, we had two tranches of not hiring workers. They are short 2,000 to 3,000 workers right now. The Conservatives and Liberals pushed for apps like ArriveCAN to take over the workers on the border. They went to more automation.
We believe the solution is right in front of us, and that is workers on the front line. Bring back the sniffer dogs. Bring back the workers who were fired and put them on the border where they should be. This is also a way to help stop drugs, paraphernalia, car smuggling and all that from coming into Canada.
We can look at a number of different things. I want to go back to and talk about how the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is actually calling for this bill because it understands there is a difference when it comes to artificial intelligence and the privacy elements.
It is important, not only to individuals but also to companies to understand how to protect Canadians' rules. There are many Canadian companies that want to follow rules, protect privacy and do the right thing. Those companies should be rewarded versus some of the larger ones we have seen, like Meta, Facebook and so forth. These companies have used loopholes to expose people in their privacy or use it to their advantage to manipulate them, and are getting rewarded for it and do not have to pay the consequences of not respecting privacy or the provisions under data protection.
In fact, it was the New Democratic Party that put forth the first legislation on a digital bill of rights. We did this several years ago on everything from net neutrality to the right to be forgotten with regard to getting information scrubbed from the Internet, as well as a series of things to protect personal privacy. I know this very well coming from the automotive capital of Canada because we saw what took place with vehicles. They now gain information about drivers and how that is sold, how it is distributed and so forth, versus even actually selling the cars at times. This data can be more valuable than making the vehicle. This is one of the reasons we have had a focus on this for a long period of time, and we believe the privacy element should not be abandoned by the misfortune in the House.
There are a number of different organizations that are also concerned with this. In an article for The Hill Times, Andrew Clement says, “the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act needs a reset.” The author states that AIDA was written “too hastily”, noting that it “skipped...the normal public consultation” process and was introduced alongside the digital charter implementation act, whereas it should have been “separated from the rest of Bill C-27 for substantial reworking.”
The author suggested redrafting AIDA, which should include genuine public consultation; looking to the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act; and engaging community advocates, researchers, lawyers, and representatives of at-risk populations. The reason I gave that reference is that this was the due diligence and why the minister laid an egg with this bill. It was basically broken upon delivery as well because he did not do the work that was necessary beforehand, consulting all the different organizations. What we had is what Ottawa loves. Ottawa loves this so much. Ottawa has the back room scurrying with all the lobbyists who go to the Conservatives and Liberals. They all get paid for this. They are lawyers or representatives, who are getting the meetings and all those different things. Can we guess who the mass majority of them are? They are Liberals and Conservatives. They get all these appointments. They get all this lobbying going on; then, instead of having public consultations, which we think would have been important, they start to steer their influence if they can.
Canadians care about privacy. Members can look at the B.C. civil liberties union and others across the country, including some good protection in Quebec, which is better than in other parts of Canada. We need to give them credit for that. On top of that, that interest is well respected, not only here but also across the world.
Interestingly enough, on April 24, a joint letter was sent to the minister; it was also sent to the rest of us in turn, as well as to the official opposition. It was a joint call for AIDA to be sent back for meaningful public consultations and redrafting. Nothing has happened since then, aside from more debacle. These groups and organizations are calling for something the NDP has been asking about for a long period of time, in terms of why the government is putting privacy rights at the expense of artificial intelligence rights for businesses and corporations. I asked about that, especially when I had the first meeting with the minister.
These organizations include Amnesty International, the Canadian section; the BC Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Arab Federation; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council; the Centre for Digital Rights; the Centre for Free Expression; the communications program of Glendon College, York University; Digital Public; Fédération nationale des enseignantes et enseignants du Québec; the Firearms Institute for Rational Education; International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; Inter Pares; Just Peace Advocates; Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Mines Action Canada; the National Union of Public and General Employees; NSTP Consulting corporation; OpenMedia; the Privacy and Access Council of Canada; Response Marketing Association; Rideau Institute of International Affairs; and Tech Reset Canada.
Then there is a whole series of other individuals who would add another 34 names that I could actually put down here. I will not read them all because there are just too many. However, reading out the names of those different organizations tells us that there is a general consensus that the legislation is a complete and utter disaster the way it is. What we can do now is what New Democrats have called for in a motion, which is to separate them as follows:
(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 1, Part 2 and the schedule to section 2; and
(b) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3.
That way, we can actually do the job that is necessary.
This is crucial because Canada has fallen farther behind. I know that the Liberals are all excited about creating another digital group and committee, which the minister announced, because we cannot get this through committee if there is no interest. Again, I remind the chamber that, the last we saw of this, the Liberals were in committee filibustering to talk out the clock before we broke session. They would not even come with their own committee recommendations or amendments. They talked the clock out on themselves for the last two meetings that we had because they did not know what to do. We are still waiting, to this day, for those amendments to come forward.
As I wrap up my speech, I want to thank all the interested parties out there. Canada has an opportunity with artificial intelligence; Canada could actually be a leading component for good on this in the world. However, we have to do this with the right protections in place and the right way of doing things. The first thing is to protect our privacy elements with the Privacy Commissioner and update, and the second part is to get it on to the business of order.
Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member is raising an issue on which, I would suggest, the government has been fairly aggressive. It has addressed a number of different issues related to the Internet, cybersecurity, protecting Canadians' data, AI and so forth.
He is referring to one piece of legislation. I think that there is a great deal of merit in terms of looking at it with a holistic approach. Given what we have witnessed over the last number of months, in terms of the House, we have an opportunity to at least make headway in areas that Bill C-27 is proposing. If we were to split the bill, it could ultimately prevent one aspect from being able to pass, even if it is just setting a framework.
Does he believe that this would be advantageous for Canadians?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is not advantageous for Canadians for the Liberals to flush all of this down the toilet just because they really cannot get their way at committee and because they want to neuter our Privacy Commissioner's office with a tribunal that will overreach and overstretch the Privacy Commissioner.
The alternative that the Liberals have in place right now is basically to stumble around committee, waiting for their amendments to come, which we do not even know and do not have. I do not know who else supports this. Otherwise, we move ahead without them, and then we actually have a stalemate. We then try to get it to the other place, where they have to deal with the bill in a matter of months, when it has taken us two-plus years and is ongoing.
I say that it is worth the effort. The test of mettle was done when the Speaker ruled to separate the bills. The member does not have expertise as a Speaker, but the Speaker allowed us to separate the bills because they are different. They could be different, and I read all the names of the groups and organizations that said that this should be done. Apparently, they are different from that, but I will respect the idea of trying to create an opportunity to fix the legislation that should never have been crafted this way in the first place.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for raising this issue in the House. I want to acknowledge how very patient he has been.
When I was on the Standing Committee on Industry a year ago, we were talking about this issue. We were working on it. We could already see the bill's shortcomings. Basically, the bill was outdated as soon as it was introduced. Why? It is because ChatGPT showed up right afterward.
Here is my question for my colleague. Why did the government not introduce a new version of the digital charter bill, Bill C‑27, since it was already obsolete when we studied it?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue actually did really excellent work on this. We worked together, trying to see if we could fix the bill. That was the intent. We found ourselves in a situation in which the government was particularly stubborn and did not want to change. We worked quite well together to try to find escape clauses and hatches. We talked about this particular idea at the time, as basically a backstop or a fail-safe to not waste, basically, two years of legislative work.
I agree with him that it really should have been done at that time. If we went back in time, maybe we should have been more forceful instead of trying to co-operate. The minister just took advantage of that, going to the public and, basically, blaming us for his failures.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, Clearview AI should have been the red flag, when we read in The New York Times about this company that was stealing vast amounts of personal data to create photo databases of people's faces and then selling to whatever bidders came online. There was no interest in dealing with this from the federal government. I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner and asked him to launch an investigation, and he found that Clearview AI broke Canadian law.
This was the moment when the Liberal government came forward to bring new privacy legislation. We actually thought it would strengthen the Privacy Commissioner in this time of very troubling mass data theft of people's identities. The Privacy Commissioner told us that the changes to the law, by putting this tribunal over him to undermine his work, would make it impossible for him to find a ruling against Clearview AI today.
It is shocking that, in the face of the data thefts that we have seen with Cambridge Analytica, the rise of AI and the rise of facial recognition technology, the government actually undermined the privacy rights of Canadians to help out corporate interests. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on this?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for the question, which really gets into the political ideological difference of the New Democrats. I do not know where the Bloc is on this, but I think its members are on the same page as us. I do not know where the Conservatives and Liberals are going.
We believe in a strong, independent privacy commissioner that can take on big business, that can take on those who are abusing Canadian privacy and that is not beholden to the Conservative and Liberal political appointments that they put on these boards and tribunals. They can basically put the thumb down on the Privacy Commissioner, as we have seen for the competition commissioner. That is the ideological difference between these things. They want their political appointments to actually rue the day, whereas we believe in a strong, independent privacy commissioner who answers to Canadians.
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑27 proposes industry self-regulation. That is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse. Bill C‑27 also calls for as much alignment with European legislation as possible, which is not happening even though it is the gold standard.
To me, this bill looks like a rough draft cobbled together by novices. It does not seem up to the task of protecting the basic right to privacy, which is what matters most right now.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I did not talk too much about what was taking place in Europe and other places.
The United States has referred it to a presidential commission, and after going through its debacle. The European Union actually has some better practices that we can be and should be looking towards, which is why having a strong privacy commissioner also matters in this debate. I would say to the member that, yes, there are some great lessons that we can learn from there. However, we cannot get anywhere under the current context that has been created.
More and more, every single day, I believe that the context that we are in was cleverly drafted by the Liberals to get just that. However, we pushed back right away when we saw that the Privacy Commissioner would be compromised on artificial intelligence by big business and data collection by big business against Canadians, which is simply wrong. That is why they married the two processes together when they should not be at all, ever.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I really want to underscore how important the work of the member for Windsor West is. He is the dean of the NDP caucus, but he is also somebody who brings vast intelligence and experience to these kinds of issues.
The reality is that the Conservatives never dealt adequately with any of this; they were just a terrible government, the worst in Canadian history. In addition, the Liberals have been ragging the puck.
What would an NDP government do that is better than the failed Conservative policies, which were absolutely abysmal, and those of the Liberals, who basically will not do anything unless the NDP pushes them and forces them to get it done?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost on this particular element is the protection of the Privacy Commissioner and a digital charter of rights. Not only would this be a complement to individual privacy in this world and this country as well, but, more importantly, it would also help clarify this to small and medium-sized businesses that want to do the right thing, which is to protect privacy. They have to compete against the unruly and the ones that want to abuse Canadian privacy. We have seen this from major chains, such as Tim Hortons and others; we have also seen a lot of different, spectacular digital and privacy breaches that have taken place where there is actually a black market for this.
We would empower the Privacy Commissioner and make sure that he or she has the proper types of tools and necessary resources to do things. We would have a digital charter of rights to protect Canadians. We would also give those businesses that are actually doing the right thing the proper credit and support; they are often small and medium-sized businesses. One of the reasons we believe in pharmacare and dental care so much is that it takes the pressure off them financially to help their employees. This, on top of that, would provide them with rules on how to cover themselves and how to do the right thing for their customers. Often, our neighbours, friends and family are the ones running those businesses; they just want to do the right thing, as opposed to the exploitation by Meta and others.
Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue about the Internet, and threats on the Internet, in a number of ways. He spent a great deal of his time focused on Bill C-27, and understandably so since that is what the motion is about. The government has taken a very holistic approach in dealing with all aspects of the Internet in the form of legislation and regulations.
Quite often in legislation, we see a framework that is absolutely essential to support healthy and strong regulations that, ultimately, protect the interests of Canadians. It has been somewhat frustrating, as the member was frustrated when talking about what is taking place in committees; on the floor of the House of Commons, it has also been frustrating. The member referred to Bill C-27 being held up in committee, but he tried to put the blame on the government.
One of the biggest differences between the government today and the government while Stephen Harper was prime minister is that we are very open to ideas, constructive criticism, and looking at ways we can improve legislation. That means we have been open to amendments and changes. There have been a number of recommendations, but there was also an extensive filibuster on Bill C-27. It was not just government members but opposition members, much like we see filibusters taking place now on other aspects of the safety of Canadians.
For seven or eight weeks now, there has been a Conservative filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are other pieces of legislation dealing with the Internet that the Conservatives continue to filibuster. I am referring to Bill C-63, which deals with things such as intimate images being spread on the Internet without consent and child exploitation. We are talking about serious issues facing Canadians, including Bill C-63, that we cannot even get to committee because the Conservative Party has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons.
When the member opposite talks about Bill C-27, I can assure the member that the government is very keen on the legislation. We do not see how Canadians would benefit by splitting the legislation because both aspects are really important to Canadians. We should look at where it can be improved and we are open to that. We have clearly demonstrated that, but we need a higher sense of co-operation, whether dealing with Bill C-63 in the chamber or Bill C-27 at committee. Bill C-26 deals with cybersecurity. As I said, the government is very aware of what is happening on the Internet and our responsibility as legislators to advance legislation that helps establish a framework that will protect the interests of Canadians.
Earlier, I referred to a trip I took to the Philippines in the last five days. One of the companies we visited was a Canadian company, Open Text, that employs 1,500-plus people. We sat in a room that had this huge monitor of the world, and Open Text talked about how threats to infrastructure and to individuals occur every second. We are talking about a trillion type of number when it comes to computer threats occurring on a monthly basis. Open Text can tell where they are coming from and where they are going. It was a very interesting presentation.
No government has invested more in issues around AI than this government has, recognizing the potential good but also the extreme harm out there. We can think about different types of data banks. There are government data banks, such as Canada Revenue at the national level and health care records at the provincial level. There are the Tim Hortons, the private companies, and the data they acquire in their applications. The amount of information about Canadian individuals on the Internet is incredible. Technology has changed the lives of each and every one of us, whether we know it or not.
We can take a look at the number of cameras on our public streets, in malls and so on. We can think of the number of interactions we have on a daily or weekly basis, whether that is banking, which contains very sensitive information, or medical reports—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is almost Christmas, and the hon. member has already given us 20-some minutes this morning. Now we have to listen to him again. Could you maybe consider a way of giving a Christmas gift to all of us and—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
That falls into debate. Every hon. member has the right to speak.
Even though we are really happy to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North speak before us, I would remind him that I will be interrupting him in about five minutes.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of what the Prime Minister has said to me, which is that he wants me to reflect the ideas, thoughts and concerns of the people of Winnipeg North. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, at the national Liberal caucus or even, very rarely but at times, at the standing committees, Liberal members of the caucus really believe it is important that we take the ideas and thoughts of our constituents to Ottawa. Then, when we present legislation or budgets, or when discussions take place at our standing committees or within our caucus, they are a true reflection of what Canadians, as a whole, are thinking and want the government to take action on. That is why we see legislation like Bill C-27.
I can tell the members opposite that Canadians are very much concerned about identity theft through the Internet. They are very much concerned about privacy. They want to know that the government is going to protect their privacy. That is why we are enhancing the Privacy Commissioner's abilities, with respect to the amounts of fines or the types of things the Privacy Commissioner would be able to conduct. This would provide assurance to Canadians that, even if the Conservatives are more concerned about playing games and filibustering, whether on the floor of the House or at our standing committees, we will continue to take actions to support Canadians.
Just last week, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced the launch of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute. That is to bolster Canada's capacity to address AI safety risks, further positioning the country as a leader in the safe, responsible development and adoption of AI technology. Although we have a legislative responsibility we are advancing, we are also prepared to put in budgetary dollars to ensure the interests of Canadians, first and foremost, are being protected. While the Conservative Party is more focused on being obstructionist and making character assassinations, we have consistently supported Canadians, whether through budgetary or legislative measures, and ensured that issues of concern to them are, in fact, being reflected in Ottawa.
If we look at the advancement in the Internet and the issues that have come out of that, that is why, as a government, we have brought forward not one but several pieces of legislation to protect children and protect our economy. I think of the business transactions that take place every day. Protecting the interests of Canadians is a priority with this government, such as advancing the issue of AI and its use in a positive way, looking at ways we can ensure a heightened sense of safety on the Internet and looking at Internet security as a priority. By providing the funds and the legislative measures that establish a framework, it will make a difference. We want Canadians to know that, as a government, we are there to protect their interests when it comes to the information that is gathered on the Internet and the very real cyber threats out there. We will be there, today and tomorrow, to protect those—
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, today, on Human Rights Day, we celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a commitment to the dignity, equality and freedom of every person. However, women's rights are under attack, from the actions of the morality police in Iran to the silencing of women in Afghanistan and the restrictive abortion laws in the US. These injustices remind us that women's rights are human rights.
Canada's commitment to human rights extends beyond our borders. At the UN this year, we announced initiatives to protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls. We continue to empower Afghan women through education, while sanctioning Taliban and Iranian officials responsible for gender apartheid. At home, Canada must continue to uphold our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The notwithstanding clause must only be used in exceptional circumstances, not at the whim of a populist leader. As Liberals, we stand firmly for our charter and for equal rights for all. By joining with others to stand up for our rights and our future right now, we can make the vision of dignity, equality and freedom for all people, including women, a reality.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is the perfect time to take a moment to express our gratitude to those who make our community a better place to live. Today, I would like to sincerely thank all the organizations in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for their commitment, generosity and unwavering dedication.
Their actions make a real difference in the lives of many families and individuals. Whether they are supporting the less fortunate, organizing celebrations or creating spaces for sharing and helping others, these organizations are the heart of our community. Thanks to them, smiles abound, connections are made and the spirit of the season is on full display. Their work involves so much more than the visible, tangible things they do. Their work warms our hearts and creates a profound sense of solidarity. They are artisans of hope, and their impact is immeasurable.
On behalf of all the residents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I want to say a huge thank you. Together, let us continue to make our community a place where no one is forgotten.
I wish everyone a very merry Christmas filled with joy, peace and precious time with their loved ones.
