SoVote

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

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Nov/28/22 12:40:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the protection of minors. I have a simple question. I cannot find anywhere in the bill where it defines a minor or a reference to “sensitive information”. Could the hon. member please inform the House how the bill defines a minor and sensitive information?

52 words

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

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Nov/28/22 12:42:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague opposite is very interested in this matter because our personal information was leaked by a Quebec financial institution. That was very worrisome. I believe that it is in the business interests of financial institutions to protect their customers and not to lose them. They have really taken the lead in this area. The provinces have followed suit, but I believe it is also the federal government's role to enhance these protections and ensure that standards exist across the country.

87 words

All Topics

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

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Nov/28/22 12:44:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question, which I believe has come up at different times in this Parliament and previous Parliaments. It is an area, I am sorry to say, that I do not have a lot of insight into, but the overriding principle of safeguarding the information of Canadians has to be first and foremost, especially for any political party that hopes to earn their votes.

69 words

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

Ms. Ya'ara Saks

Nov/28/22 12:54:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, this legislation is important right now so that we can weed out what is not legitimate. We all have these phones. I have one. It tells us when we have been to the grocery store, it tells us when our flights are on time and it tells us where we are in the world. We acquiesce to that every day and that data is used. In the same mind, we want to make sure that when businesses, large or small, have access to that information, because we have agreed to it in theory, that it is guard-railed and it is protected. That was a great question, and I think that is exactly why we are moving on this legislation.

122 words

All Topics

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

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/28/22 1:23:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with the bill is again with respect to companies having too many rights and too much power within this. One of them is around the disposal of information. Could the member talk about his party's concern with that as well, when companies say that they are disposing of it and yet that information is truly not disposable?

66 words

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

Mr. Rick Perkins

Nov/28/22 1:25:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, all information is identifiable because it involves, and should involve, expressed consent up front and is trackable under all systems now, even under AI. It can be, theoretically, and at times the identity is removed to put it together in a larger context of data. I am looking forward to hearing testimony on this. It is my understanding that there are technologies that allow people, through a back end, to figure out and get at that data. I am not sure the legislation is strong enough to deal with the issue of the itemized data, the stuff that had people's individual identification taken off, and that it cannot be reconstituted. I know there are penalties in the bill for doing that if it is done without permission, but there are questions around the technology's ability to truly hide one's data at this point.

148 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Nov/28/22 1:47:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, personal information is a shared jurisdiction. The Government of Quebec already has Law 25 on personal information. Are there any guarantees that the new legislation will not infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction? Has the member already considered that? Does he have any examples?

45 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. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Nov/28/22 1:50:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I appreciated hearing the thoughts of the member for Kingston and the Islands, but one proposed section that is a concern to me is proposed section 18(3), which states: An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for the purpose of an activity in which the organization has a legitimate interest that outweighs any potential adverse effect on the individual resulting from that collection or use I wonder if the member could comment on the possibility of tightening up the language of what a legitimate interest is and if, in his view, this is something the committee could look at improving when the bill gets there.

125 words

All Topics

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

Mr. James Bezan

Nov/28/22 5:05:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, I agree that we should be dealing with this in a more focused way. Instead of having one big omnibus bill, this should be split into smaller bills so we can have a more fruitful debate and have a chance for more expert input. Then we would have more parliamentarians engaged in drafting any potential amendments to any legislation. As it is right now, the bill will be referred to only a couple of committees, and we have a timeline, which seems to be pushed by the government, that does not work. The Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, notes that “most Canadians whose data was used did not know their data was used. The parties, both the government and the private sector, could have done more to inform users that their data was used for these purposes.” That was the data collection done through PHAC. He also said, “the second issue is whether it is good legislative policy that de-identified information falls outside the reach of privacy laws.” The Liberals are trying to correct that through legislation. However, as David Lyon said, “high-level studies from various places, one from Imperial College London and the university in Leuven, show that 99.8% of Americans could be reidentified in a dataset that used 15 demographic attributes.” That is disconcerting, and that is why this legislation falls short.

234 words

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

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Nov/28/22 5:37:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about rights, and I agree with her that privacy rights are an important part of the digital age. Like other rights, we must be clear where we stand on them. I am wondering if the member agrees with me in questioning whether making it easier for the Facebooks and the Googles of the world to use Canadians' personal information in ways that have nothing to do with their services in the guise of helping small business is the right place to stand. That is certainly one of concerns I have.

96 words

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

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Nov/28/22 5:50:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House and the member to subclause 15(6) of the bill, which states, “It is not appropriate to rely on an individual’s implied consent if their personal information is collected or used for an activity described in subsection 18(2) or (3).” If we look at clause 18, it states that one can use a person's implied consent when collecting information. It is fascinating to me that this bill says, on the one hand, that one cannot use implied consent, but then the exemptions part says one can rely on implied consent. What are we trying to do with this bill? It is really muddying the waters for me, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague has a comment about that.

138 words

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

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Nov/28/22 6:26:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, there is different legislation that is covered for the government, but philosophically, absolutely the government should be held accountable for keeping Canadians' information safe. We know there have been breaches over time. We had a recent one with the ArriveCAN app. There was information that was sent out to 10,000 people that was not accurate. We know there have been other breaches over time. It is imperative that Canadians know that the government is also held to account for the information it holds in all the different departments a Canadian citizen might correspond with.

97 words

All Topics