44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, this is very progressive legislation that deals with an area of concern that Canadians have, and it is something the government is concerned about. That is why we have the legislation. It is for safety and privacy, which are of critical importance.
We are moving into a significant digital economy with databases. The issue is there, and I am interested in knowing where the Conservatives are going to fall on this legislation. When I listened to the member, she seemed to express concerns about this area, but there was no indication of whether the Conservative Party would be supporting the legislation. We just heard from the Speaker in terms of voting on the three parts.
Does the member have any suggested amendments that she is thinking about? I believe that Canadians need this legislation. Would it not be nice to have legislation of this nature pass second reading before the end of the year?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I note that the last time we had any real changes to the privacy legislation of this magnitude was a couple of decades ago. We did not even have iPhones 20 years ago, so I would ultimately argue that there is a need for change.
Tim Hortons aside, I believe the legislation we are talking about provides a good balance between consumer rights, the issue of privacy and the whole digital market out there. No doubt, it would be nice to see the legislation go before committee and, ideally, for that to take place sometime before the end of the year.
Given the urgency of the issue itself and the fact that we have not seen anything for 20 years, would the member agree that it would be nice to see the legislation pass before the end of this year?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was in response to a question by the leader of the Green Party that a member of the Conservative Party responded by implying that the best thing we could do would be to defeat the legislation and send it back to the drawing board. I do not believe that would be the position of the leader of the Green Party, but I do have a question for her.
I can appreciate there is a fear factor. We want to be cautious as we move forward, and what I suggested before in my question is that it seems to me there is a great deal of interest on all sides of the House to get into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. Given the limited time for debate in the House, would it not be better to see the legislation go before a committee because a committee has a lot more time to get into the details of the legislation?
After all, we would still have all of third reading and so forth. That is why I made reference to whether we should be looking at trying to get this legislation through second reading before the end of the year, given the importance of the issue.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member raises a fascinating issue, which is the capturing of images and how one would protect the privacy of the individual, especially when it is in a public setting. I think that could be applied in many different ways. It would be interesting to see how that sort of a discussion would, in fact, take place at a standing committee.
The member is right in the sense that the legislation is not that far off. I do not know all of the details of it, obviously, but I am led to believe that Quebec has done some fabulous work on this issue. I wonder if he could provide any insights into how the Quebec legislature dealt with the capturing of images and the public versus privacy issue.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the member and the many others who are, in essence, saying that Bill C-27 is a substantive piece of legislation that is ultimately designed to ensure privacy for Canadians.
As I made reference to earlier, I think we could look at how effective the legislation of the Quebec legislation has been, which was passed just over a year ago, and what the response has been to it. I understand that was what the member was saying. Taking into consideration AI, the tribunal, digital and just how much the digital economy has grown, 20 years ago is the last time we have seen any sort of substantive changes to our privacy legislation.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that we update and modernize. After all, 20 years ago, we did not even have iPhones.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to some things that were mentioned previously. I am forming the opinion that the Conservative Party does not support having a tribunal. I guess I am looking for clarification on that point.
Is it the Conservative Party's approach to say that, once the commission has made a decision, a tribunal would not be warranted and that the only recourse would be to take it to a federal court? What would it replace the tribunal with, or would it replace it with anything?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
