SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Nov/28/22 12:23:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister for bringing the issue forward to Parliament. Again, I want to exercise some caution that the first two pieces of the legislation are much easier to deal with, because at least there was some discussion on those with Bill C-11. It is a bit different in this one, and the tribunal is an issue, but I am open to looking at it. I just have concerns about that. However, the artificial intelligence part of it is critical. I am glad it is in front of us, but it is going to require much more extensive debate and care, and that is why it should be entirely separate. We in the NDP have proposed a fairly reasonable compromise, and the Speaker will rule on it. The proposed compromise is that there would be a separate vote for that particular part of the bill. The reason is that perhaps the first two parts could lead to a decision that might be different from the decision on the last part, just to ensure that we get enough testimony and time in committee for it. I am looking forward to all perspectives in the House on this. It is time for us to look at that. It is a reasonable position, and I am glad it is in front of us. I do not like the way it is in front of us, but we will deal with that.

242 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/28/22 12:26:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the complexity with which the bill has been introduced and that it presents to my hon. colleague, and the work involved in going through it. He mentioned the problems in terms of the tribunal process. I know the Privacy Commissioner has raised a lot of concerns. Could the member perhaps go into a little more detail about the insistence, which our party certainly has, that the Privacy Commissioner has raised, in terms of ensuring that consumers have far more access to fairness within the legislation than organizations typically would have, because they have more monetary resources to pursue things under legal precedence?

106 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Brian Masse

Nov/28/22 12:27:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe's question is something I did not touch on. Again, there is so much in the bill. She is quite right with regard to the fact that if an individual wants to take a legal right of action against an abuse, it is going to be more cumbersome for them, and a company would have a better chance at that. The tribunal and the division of power with the Privacy Commissioner are going to be very interesting. What I do not want to do is anything that would undermine the Privacy Commissioner. I suppose I am biased in the sense that from my experience, the Privacy Commission has been an excellent model, has done some excellent work and needs more support. That is the other thing we have to do. If we are going to give it more responsibilities, it will need more support. What is worrisome to me is that the tribunal would be a bit disenfranchised from that consistency, and that is one of the reasons we want to see this legislation debated thoroughly.

184 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Nov/28/22 1:49:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, one of the things that concern me in this bill is the proposed personal information and data protection tribunal. The way it is formulated and the vagueness of the membership, especially since many members will be appointed by the government, gives rise to a concern that it might be used as a political tool by the government of the day to overturn rulings it does not like. No other jurisdiction in the world has a tribunal like this. No other privacy regime has a tribunal like this. I am curious as to whether the member thinks it might be better just to empower the Privacy Commissioner.

108 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/28/22 1:49:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I do not understand exactly what the member means by just empowering the Privacy Commissioner. My understanding was that the intent of the tribunal was to oversee decisions that were made by the commissioner. That being the case, I think it is important that there be a body in place to bring complaints about the commissioner to. Having said that, again, if the concern is not about the structure of the bodies but more about the composition and how that is determined, then I think this is a great conversation that can be had at committee, and the committee can bring forward its suggestions on this. The government that introduced the bill certainly is not in a majority, as we know, and the NDP have been there to work with the government quite a bit. If these are suggestions that need to be brought forward, in a minority Parliament there is going to have to be at least a majority of the members on the committee that make recommendations back. I guess we will see what comes back from the committee.

183 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Nov/28/22 4:03:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the tribunal aspect. It is very important that, in this bill, when it comes to privacy protection, besides the Privacy Commissioner, we would have another element of a tribunal. Most importantly, out of that process, there would still be the Federal Court. When it comes to citizens having their data breached, and the whole premise of this bill is to protect that of citizens, children and adults alike, there is still going be a tribunal added. Is there any other jurisdiction that is using a tribunal? If not, why does the member think it is included in this bill?

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Nov/28/22 4:04:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, it is deeply disturbing to me when I see that, among the European Union, U.K., New Zealand and Australia, none of our allies has chosen to use a tribunal. The power is there for their commissioners to make sure that the various entities are being held accountable with regard to an individual's privacy. Their rules are far more specific than ours are in this bill thus far, and it just shows that we are weaker in truly protecting Canadians' privacy rights compared to our allies. It is a sign that we are doing things with an ulterior motive. That disturbs me, because it would again give power to a different organization within the system, which the government is creating to basically give different organizations, perhaps government departments, an out—

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Nov/28/22 4:15:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to pick up on something my hon. colleague talked about around the tribunal. Given the fact that the EU and the United States do not have tribunals and given the fact that the Federal Court has the ability, presently, to appeal the Privacy Commissioner, I have a simple question for my colleague from the Liberal Party. Does he feels that having that tribunal included is a necessity and, if so, why would he feel that way?

81 words

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Nov/28/22 4:35:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, the issue of the tribunal is an interesting one. Does the member know what the cost of the tribunal will be? We are taking away a potential resource from the Privacy Commissioner and/or the court system, and we will have to create an entirely new organization. I am curious to know what the cost of the tribunal will be.

62 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/28/22 4:35:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West, who I have travelled and worked with on the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association. From my understanding of the bill, the tribunal will provide for access to justice and contribute to the further development of privacy expertise. That is very important in this day and age, when we are dealing with artificial intelligence and with a lot of data. We need to ensure that individuals' data is not misused, that we can move forward and that people can have confidence that their data is being protected.

95 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/28/22 6:23:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

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

Context: House Hansard - 136 - Nov/28/22

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Nov/28/22 6:27:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, the private right of action would allow individuals and groups of consumers to seek compensation in court. This has been used effectively in the United States to remedy violations, but it is very burdensome in Bill C-27 to make it even usable. For example, if the Privacy Commissioner does not investigate or rule on a complaint, an individual has no right of action. If the Privacy Commissioner does investigate and rule on a complaint but the tribunal does not uphold it, the individual has no right of action. These are a couple of examples. Does my hon. colleague feel that this bill should be amended to fix this?

111 words

All Topics