René Villemure

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, and everyone else for that matter. Over the weekend, many people told me that they were not too happy that the government was shutting down debate in these circumstances. I guess that when a government does not believe in its own bill, it invokes closure.

In any case, I would like to ask my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge a question on vaccination efforts around the world. Canada does not exist in a vacuum, and, if we want to fight COVID-19, we will have to look beyond our borders.

What does my colleague intend to do to secure the logistical support needed for getting vaccine doses to developing countries and ensuring that those doses get there and are properly administered?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to tell me if he believes it is immoral or unethical to give a tax break to Canadian Pacific, which made more than $2 billion in profit last year.

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, dialogue, in which two parties discuss an issue to find a way forward, is a fundamental tool when considering ethics. Based on what I have heard today from the other side of the House, this is unfortunately a one-sided conversation in response to the committee members' attempt to reach out.

We reached out and have gotten nothing in return. Does my colleague think that our colleagues on the other side will vote in favour of this motion?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

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?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

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?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for demonstrating that our work at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is about much more than just this matter in connection with the Public Health Agency of Canada.

We need to establish exemplary standards, as other countries have done, so that Canadians are well protected. Does my colleague believe that we could draw on the General Data Protection Regulation currently in effect in the European Union to quickly implement certain provisions on consent?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enlightening remarks. Two problems have been identified. The first is related to consent, the second to data anonymization. I will focus on the first.

We have been told over and over that anyone could consult the data on COVIDTrends. Telus users could opt out anytime because there was an opt-out function. Did users know they were supposed to check COVIDTrends, and did they know they could opt out?

Is it reasonable to believe that COVIDTrends was known to the public given that the Prime Minister mentioned its existence just one single time, back in March 2020?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I spent 25 years advising governments around the world, and this is the first time I have been called a conspiracy theorist. That is unacceptable.

The parliamentary secretary keeps telling us there is no problem, but denying the existence of a problem does not make it go away. Earlier, he said that all the information gathered was obtained on the basis of consent.

This morning, the commissioner told us it was impossible to obtain consent from 33 million people. Being impossible, it is actually not even desirable.

Was this information obtained on the basis of consent or not?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has listed all the benefits of using data, and I have to admit that they are compelling. However, even if the end goal is commendable, part of the problem is that the parliamentary secretary is trivializing the issue. The committee members were unanimous in expressing concerns, and they are now confused. Why did the government not want to work with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Once again, I am not presuming that the government would misuse the data, but it is showing a lack of transparency and a desire to maintain that lack of transparency. As an ethicist, that concerns me.