Ted Falk

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, May 1st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what many members on this side of the House have been saying.

Constituents in the riding of Provencher are very concerned with the increased cost of living, and we have seen the government put a disproportionate amount of emphasis in this bill, Bill C-47, on environmental spending and green spending, which is something that needs to be debated more rigorously.

We also know the government has chosen to take $13 billion of taxpayer money and commit it to Volkswagen for an apparent green initiative. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, who tabled this motion. Many of these initiatives are going to require the mining of critical minerals and other minerals in order for them to be successful here in Canada. Is he prepared to move legislation forward that would remove some of the regulations and roadblocks his government has set up that make mining in Canada virtually impossible?

[Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, April 26th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to rise in the House to speak to a bill that comes to us from our colleagues in the Senate, where there is general agreement among the parties that there needs to be action taken on this issue. After listening to some of the speeches earlier today, it does not sound as though there is going to be unanimous support in the House for this bill, but I think there will be enough to get it across the finish line.

I am a father of three and a grandfather of 10 children, some of whom may even be watching today. The issues related to children are very important to me today, as I think they are to all of us in the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this bill, which our friends in the Senate have put before us.

I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for presenting this bill, as well as Bill S-210, which I am also very strongly in favour of. The latter is a bill that calls for age-verification methods to be implemented to protect children from online pornography, another type of exploitation. It passed the Senate last week and I hope we will be debating it in the House very soon.

UNICEF, in its 2021 report, showed that the number of children involved in child labour had risen to 160 million worldwide, an increase of 8.4 million over the preceding four years, the first significant increase in this generation. The most significant jump was for kids aged five to 11, and the number of children doing hazardous work rose from 6.5 million to 79 million between 2016 and 2020. Again, those numbers are from UNICEF.

We know who the culprits are. We know which corporate entities are utilizing child labour, and we know about the children in Congo getting sent down mines to bring up the cobalt so that we here in Canada can have the latest device or drive an electric car. However, it goes even deeper than that, with many layers to consider.

Canadians are great people. We are kind, generous and compassionate. We can ask any Canadian if they think that child or forced labour is a bad thing and every one of them would say yes. If we ask them if the Government of Canada should do something about it, they will say, “Yes, we must.” Should we ban products produced with forced labour or child labour? Absolutely. That is good, but what are they willing to give up in order for that to happen? I realize that it is hardly that simple, but, really, that is the question. To be honest, most Canadians would be shocked to discover what products we use and enjoy on a daily basis that, in fact, contribute to robbing children of their freedoms.

While I may not always see eye to eye with my colleague from Vancouver East, I would like to reference some statistics from her speech in March. According to a 2016 report from World Vision, it is estimated that 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods produced by child or forced labour every single year, and that is right here in Canada.

I serve a rural riding and I am an agriculture kind of guy. Canada's farmers are the best in the world, but internationally, the agriculture and grocery industries are among the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour. Seventy-one per cent of all child labour takes places in the agriculture sector, and many of its items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves. In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of these food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago.

I look at that number and think about the fact that, as Canadians, we waste somewhere around 58% of the food we produce here in Canada. According to research done by Toronto-based Second Harvest, some 4.8 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted during processing and manufacturing and some 2.38 million tonnes is lost at the consumer level.

In short, the abundance of food we produce here in Canada has led us to dismiss its intrinsic value and we actually waste more than we consume. In a world struggling to feed itself and in a country where one in five families is struggling to feed itself, it is hard to fathom those numbers. Then we turn a blind eye and import billions of dollars' worth of food from countries and companies where we know it is kids slaving to produce it. It is mind-boggling. It is so wrong.

I am glad we are having this conversation. I am glad we have this bill, and there are positive aspects of this legislation. However, I just wish this bill had more teeth. The legislation is great in principle, but there are still some problems with this bill. Given that this will likely be the last chance we have to address these issues, I am going to raise a few of them here.

First, the bill does not prescribe what specific measures a company must take to be in compliance. Yes, it includes general guidance as to what information should be provided, but it is the reporting entities themselves that will retain discretion over the design and implementation of compliance systems.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which includes such members as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Canada, puts it more bluntly. It states that Bill S-211 would only apply to a small minority of companies and it “does not require companies to stop using child or forced labour....or to conduct human rights due diligence.”

If that is the case, or even if we are just leaving it up to the individual companies to police themselves, which in some cases is the very reason why this type of legislation is necessary and has been brought forward, then this legislation may really not have the teeth we all want it to have.

I think this is a situation where it is appropriate for the government to give specific and binding measures and standards to remediate forced labour or child labour in order to be in compliance; otherwise, this is what I see happening.

We will pass this bill. Let us pick a corporation. We will call it the Orange Company. For years, it has used child labour to source its material and build its products. When this legislation comes into effect, Orange Company needs to send its report to the minister's office, so it looks at the guidelines, creates its own reporting system and prepares a report. Who needs to approve this report? If we look at part 2, subsection 4(a), it is the entity's governing body. What other verification is required? One signature. It states in subsection 5(b), “the signature of one or more members of the governing body.”

Without me needing to stretch out this illustration, we can foresee how this does not provide sufficient accountability. Not only that, the systemic concerns run deep, far deeper than what I have time to discuss here.

Let me affirm the efforts identifying, in part 2, subsection 12(1), the minister's prerogative of asking for a revised report in the event of skepticism. I can imagine how this step would force companies to dig deeper and divulge more. However, the consequence for non-compliance is only a fine, really a small fine compared to the revenue that many of these companies will actually generate.

I recognize this legislation is a starting point and we do need to start somewhere, but like so many other topics, this requires a much broader national conversation, one that considers all different layers, including those of the victims. We can slap on band-aids and promise the world, then pat ourselves on the back, but real change always comes with a cost, a cost that would probably infringe on some of the many treasured items that we use daily. That is true of the economy and it is true of our society.

Author Rosie Danan wrote:

Change always comes with a closing cost. But it's still worth trying. Not because the odds are particularly good, mind you, but considering the alternative. There's value in the struggle. Value in touching the raw and bloody parts of our souls, opening them up to the sunlight, and hoping they heal.

As parliamentarians, we have the ability to pass a child and forced labour law that has teeth. We have the ability to ensure that no products made with forced or child labour enter Canada. We can levy severe financial or criminal penalties on those entities that use forced labour, and that do or want to do business here in Canada. We can do all that. The question is this: As Canadians, is that really something that we are willing to do?

[Hutterian Emergency Aquatic Response Team, April 25th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Provencher is blessed with 13 Hutterite colonies. In addition to their extensive charitable work, these communities are often on the cutting edge of entrepreneurship and innovation. I want to highlight one such group: HEART, led by Paul and Manuel Maendel from the Oak Bluff Hutterite Colony.

“HEART” stands for Hutterian Emergency Aquatic Response Team. They have invested and trained to become Canada's most elite divers and underwater operators for the purpose of recovering drowning victims. Their goal is simple: to help bring healing and closure to grieving families and give glory to God.

As the leaders of the team said in my office the other day, “When the fire department or RCMP call off a search, or say it is too dangerous, that is when you call us.” I asked them what happens when the weather gets in the way. They answered, “We pray and it usually changes.”

HEART has done recovery operations as far as the west coast of B.C. and as far north as Nunavut. They even operate under the ice and they do it all for free. These brave individuals turned a personal family tragedy into a life-changing ministry. They are a credit to their community, to their faith and to our country. I thank HEART.

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, if we read the bill, especially in section 18, where the government has carved out a little space for business, it would appear as though business interests trump those of the private individual. I believe that mistake has been made too often, where we have given personal data to businesses too flippantly. Personal private data, first and foremost, belongs to, and should be protected by, the individual.

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member inquired with ChatGPT to determine whether or not Canadians should have confidence in the Liberal government on Bill C-27.

I would be much more curious had the member asked whether Canadians should have confidence in the Liberal government, period. I believe its AI ChatGPT would have been crystal clear in saying that no, we do not have confidence in the Liberal government.

Having said that, we do think this legislation is important. I think we are going to listen to debate to make a decision whether or not to send it to committee for further study.

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I should have pointed out at the beginning of my speech that I would be sticking around to answer any questions and address any comments. I appreciate the member for Winnipeg North, who I hear an awful lot, so I am getting used to him.

I do appreciate the member's question about whether or not Conservatives support this legislation because, in principle, we support the concept that there needs to be regulation in protecting, acquiring, monitoring and distributing individuals' personal data. He pointed out that the Liberal government was the one that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have a question for the member, and I know he cannot answer it, but why did the government not respect the charter?

[Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, March 28th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House to speak to this piece of legislation. I would like to start today by saying a few words about how this bill is structured, and then I plan to use the majority of my remaining time to discuss the implications of this legislation regarding personal privacy rights.

When I look at this bill, my initial response is this: Should there really not be three separate pieces of legislation? One would deal with the consumer privacy protection act and issues related to modernizing PIPEDA, perhaps a second, separate piece would create the proposed personal information and data protection tribunal act, and a third, separate component, which should absolutely be its own legislation, would be for the section dealing with artificial intelligence.

AI may present similar, very legitimate concerns related to privacy, but the regulation of AI in any practical sense is almost impossible at this juncture because so many aspects of it are still very unknown. So much is still theoretical. So much of this new world into which we are venturing with AI has yet to be fully explored, fully realized or even fully defined. This makes regulation very difficult, but it is in this bill, so it forms part of this legislation.

We can see just how vague the language related to the AI framework really is. I understand why it is that way, and do not get me wrong; I think we need this type of legislation to regulate AI. However, in the same way, this is way too big a topic to delve into in a simple 10-minute speech. It is also too big a topic to drop into an existing piece of legislation, as the government has done here, basically wedging this section into what was known as Bill C-11 in the last Parliament.

I have deep concerns with AI. They are practical concerns, economic concerns and labour concerns related to the implementation of AI. I even have moral concerns. We have artificial intelligence so advanced that it can make decisions by itself. The people who have created that technology cannot explain how it came to those decisions and it cannot tell them. The capabilities of this technology alone seem almost limitless. It is actually a little scary.

Personally, I look at some of the work being done in AI and wonder if we should, as humanity, really be doing this. Just because we have the knowledge and capability to do something does not necessarily mean it is for the betterment of humanity. I wonder sometimes where this technology and these capabilities will take us. I fear that in hindsight, we will look back and see how our hubris led us to a technological and cultural reality we never wanted and from which we will never be able to return.

However, here we are, and we have this capability partially today. People are using it, and it requires some form of regulation. This bill attempts to start that important conversation. It is a good first step, and that is okay. I think this is one of those things where we need to start somewhere as we are not going to get it done all at once. However, again, given the enormity of the topic and the vast implications, it should be its own separate piece of legislation.

Those are my thoughts on the structure of the bill, and now I will shift gears to talk a bit about personal privacy.

Personal privacy is a fundamental right. Three decades ago, long before the advent of the Internet or smart phones, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled privacy is “the heart of liberty in a modern state”. It did not say that privacy was at the heart; it said privacy is the heart. Personal privacy is the fundamental right and freedom from which all other liberties flow, and with the advent of the Internet age, the age of the smart phone and the age of digitized everything, laws related to protecting the fundamental right to privacy must be updated. Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data. The question is, how do we realistically do that?

One of the reasons I am a Conservative is that I believe in individual rights and that rights and freedoms must be coupled with accompanying accountability and responsibility. This has to be a two-way street. Canadians need to be informed, and they need to be responsible and aware of what they are agreeing to, subscribing to and giving permission for. How often do we simply and blindly click “accept” without reading the terms and conditions for using a website, using an app or allowing others the use of our information?

I would be curious to know among my colleagues in the House, when was the last time they fully read the terms and conditions of a user agreement or a disclosure statement? Most of us just hit “accept”. We do not want to be bothered.

Recognizing this, can we really say the privacy of Canadians is being violated when many individuals live every moment of their lives posting in real time online for all the world to see, and access and just click “accept” without reading what they are agreeing to?

In this context, what is the role of government and what is the responsibility of the individual user? Government and businesses need to provide clear information, but people also need to be informed. They need to take responsibility.

I recall a while back when my office received an email on this subject of privacy. The individual was deeply concerned about web giants having access to his personal data. I had to laugh, because at the bottom of the email it said, “Sent from my Huawei phone”.

As a government creating legislation, where should those legal lines between consent and informed consent be drawn? As Canadians, we are a bit too quick to consent.

However, we have also seen far too many examples of Canadians’ private and mobility data being used without their consent. We heard about the Tim Hortons app that was tracking the movement of Canadians; how the RCMP was using Clearview AI’s illegally created facial recognition database; the public doxing of all those who donated to the freedom convoy; Telus giving location data to the Public Health Agency of Canada without a judicial warrant; and, in my view, the most egregious violation of privacy in generations, the requirement by the government and others for Canadians to provide their personal health data and information in order to work and/or travel.

If I am honest, it is this violation of privacy rights that makes me truly hesitant to support any effort by the government to strengthen privacy rights: first, because it has so flagrantly violated them, but also because I and a growing number of Canadians just do not trust the government. We do not trust it to keep its word. We do not trust it to create legislation that does not have loopholes and back doors that will give it the capability to violate individual personal freedoms.

Why? Because we have seen it from the Liberals. They want to control everything. There has never been a government that has had such an utter disregard for Canadians.

I have noted before that it was the Prime Minister's father who famously said that the government had no place in the bedrooms of Canadians. However, the current government not only wants to be in our bedrooms, but in every room, on every device, in every conversation and in every thought. It wants to control what Canadians think, what they see and what they post, and, by extension I can safely say, how their private data is curated and used.

One thing that is vital if we are to trust the government with our private data and with protecting privacy, there must be clear boundaries. This leads to one of the larger issues with this legislation, an issue we are faced with every time the government brings legislation forward. It fails to provide clear definitions.

There is a section of the bill that deals with the sensitive information of minors. The fact that there is no section for the protection of sensitive information of adults is a sign.

What does it mean by “sensitive”? It is never defined. What does it mean by “scrutiny” for data brokers? It is this habitual lack of specificity that characterizes so much of the government's legislation.

It is like a band that is way more interested in the concept of the album and how it looks on the cover than the actual quality of its music. If it cared about the quality of the music, it would have brought forward a bill that looks more like the European Union's 2016 GDPR, which is widely regarded as the gold standard for digital protection. By that standard, PIPEDA fails the test, but so might Bill C-27 if we do not bring it closer in line with what other nations have done. This lagging behind does not just affect personal privacy, but the ability of Canada and data-driven Canadian businesses to work with our EU friends.

This whole new regime outlined in the bill has huge implications for businesses, something I am sure my colleagues will be addressing. There is so much that can and should be said about this legislation, but it comes down to this: Canadians must have the right to access and control the collection, use, monitoring, retention and disclosure of their personal data.

[Online Streaming Act, March 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, like the member, I am getting hundreds of emails sent to my office as well.

Does the member think he is getting all those emails on his computer and physical mail through a mailbox because of the misinformation from the Liberals and NDP?

[Online Streaming Act, March 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for that excellent and informative speech. When we listen to the Liberals and the NDP, and the rhetoric coming from that side, they would have people think that only the Conservatives have concerns with this bill. In fact, there are millions of Canadians who have written submissions to Liberal offices. They have testified at committee.

In fact, the Senate has come back with these very important recommendations and amendments to this bill. In the Senate, the majority by far is made up of non-Conservative members.

[Criminal Code, March 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we have all become very aware of the conflict situation in Haiti, and we know that many NGOs and humanitarian aid organizations are doing very good work there. Would the legislation also provide organizations working in Haiti, for example, with protection as well?