Bill C-11 (Historical)

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act to protect the personal information of individuals while recognizing the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. In consequence, it repeals Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and changes the short title of that Act to the Electronic Documents Act. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which establishes an administrative tribunal to hear appeals of certain decisions made by the Privacy Commissioner under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and to impose penalties for the contravention of certain provisions of that Act. It also makes a related amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. I am speaking in support of Bill C-11, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. It is also known as the digital charter implementation act.

From the earliest days of my first run for office, the residents of Davenport have approached me to tell me how concerned they are about the security of their personal information. They are literally running after me in the streets to say that this is an issue of great importance to them. I can assure members that it is not just Davenport residents who are concerned. The Privacy Commissioner published a survey in 2019 that found that 92% of all Canadians were concerned about their privacy, with 37% of Canadians being extremely concerned. This means that nine out of 10 Canadians are worried about their privacy.

I know that the third wave of this pandemic is the most pressing issue for all of us right now, and rightly so, but it has not made our privacy concerns go away. Indeed, this pandemic has had the opposite effect, given that most, if not all, our lives have moved online, from work to worship to shopping to social gatherings. This is a front and centre issue.

Davenport residents are not comfortable entrusting all their data into the black hole of the Internet, managed mainly by big multinational tech giants. These companies have been operating with outdated regulations and limited transparency. As Canadians right now, we have no choice. We are all used to downloading apps or signing up for things online that come with long privacy policies and consents requests. I do not know about everyone else, but most of us do not have time to read all the online terms and conditions that are often in legalise and not easy to understand. That is why I am happy that Bill C-11 would require plain-language consent requests.

We are also too used to being peppered with targeted ads and content based on the websites we visit, with no consent or even knowledge about algorithms that track our actions. It is impossible to keep track of how our personal data and how our online actions are being used or abused, whether it is to misinform others or even more nefarious purposes like identity theft.

That is will I am glad that Bill C-11 is before the House. It marks a huge leap forward in our privacy laws. Canada must do all it can to protect the data of all our residents, and Canadians should know exactly how their data is used with maximum transparency. We should have the right to manage what data is kept online and what is deleted.

Canada must also keep up with the rapid growth of the digital economy, as hundreds of companies and organizations are now handling our personal data. Other countries have already acted on this. The E.U. passed the General Data Protection Regulations in 2018. Its rules require that other countries meet its standards to do business, to exchange data across borders. This means that if we want Canadian businesses to continue to have an edge in European markets, we have to modernize our privacy rules. It is imperative that we move now, as aggressively as possible, and for all these reasons, we must pass the digital charter implementation act.

What would the bill actually do? First, the bill introduces the new consumer privacy protection act that updates the old PIPEDA act, which was first passed in 2001. Second, the bill introduces the personal information and data protection tribunal act to create an oversight and enforcement body for the new privacy rules. Third, it would retain the measures of part 2 of PIPEDA under the new electronic documents act. The measures in the bill are built upon three key goals: consumer control, responsible innovation and strong enforcement and oversight.

Let me just touch very briefly on how the measures in the bill would meet each of these goals.

First, how do we give consumers more control? Bill C-11 would modernize consent rules and would require companies to ask for consent in plain language, which is great. The bill would also give Canadians the right to data mobility. That means they could direct one organization to share certain data with another for a specific reason. For example, they could direct their banks to share financial information with another bank.

Next, it would give Canadians the right to withdraw their consent for the use of their data. It would allow people to direct a company to delete whatever personal information it has about them, including on social media platforms, which would give control of personal data back to Canadians. The bill also clarifies that even information that has been de-identified is still personal information. Even if a company removes people's names from its data, this bill would ensure that the data still belongs to those people. It has to be protected, and companies need their consent to use it.

Finally, the bill requires transparency for use of algorithms and AI. It would give every Canadian the right to request an explanation of how and why an automated system made a choice or prediction about the individual. I am hoping that at some point, we are allowed to relay what companies can and cannot do with that information.

The second goal is enabling responsible innovation. We want our country to stay globally competitive, support innovation and unlock the potential of data to create incredible value and improve our lives, but we need to support that innovation in a way that guarantees the right to privacy. The bill would simplify consent rules so that companies are not burdened by seeking consent for every use of information, even when consumers reasonably expect it. This is good for business and also helps Canadians make meaningful choices. Rather that being bombarded by consent requests full of legal jargon, consumers will see plain language requests when it really matters.

Bill C-11 would also allow Canadians the choice to contribute their data for the common good. It would allow businesses to share de-identified data with certain public institutions to power social benefits like public health and infrastructure. Lastly, the bill would allow businesses to submit their codes of practice to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to ensure they comply with the law. This kind of transparency and streamlined regulation is both good for businesses and good for Canadians.

The third goal is strong enforcement and oversight. With any new regulations, we absolutely need stronger enforcement and oversight. Indeed, I know that is something the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has long requested. What would this bill do? It would give the commissioner that power, including forcing an organization to comply with privacy laws and ordering a company to stop collecting data for personal information. It would also create the personal information and data protection tribunal, and the Privacy Commissioner could also ask the tribunal to impose fines. We would have the stiffest penalties in the G7. For small transactions, the fine would be 3% of global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater, and for more serious violations, the penalty is up to 5% of global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater.

I mentioned earlier that Davenport residents have been raising this as a concern to me for five years now. I have received a number of letters, so I want to pay tribute to all those who have written to me through the years to indicate that this continues to be an issue. I know they will be very happy to hear that we are moving forward on this legislation.

This bill is the first of many steps our federal government will take to protect Canadians' privacy and harness our country's potential in the digital age. Our current privacy laws were passed in 2001, and in 20 years the pace of change has left those laws badly out of date. We will need to keep doing more to stay on top of rapid changes, looking at both the threats and the opportunities. Davenport residents and, indeed, all Canadians demand that we continue to do all we can to keep our privacy and data security laws updated in a way that protects them, while still enabling data to be used for innovation and economic growth.

In 2019, we set out a vision for the Internet in the digital charter. That vision is of an Internet that serves the public good and guarantees certain rights, like the right to control and consent, the right to transparency and portability, the use of data for the common good and the need for strong enforcement and accountability.

I am proud that our government has introduced this bill to implement the digital charter and guarantee these rights to Canadians. We have seen big new challenges, and we have stepped up with real solutions. I ask all of my colleagues for the speedy passage of this bill.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, at 3:59 p.m. today, or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes earlier, Bill C-11, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you will find unanimous consent for the motion that, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice, at 3:59 p.m. today or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes first, Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my good friend.

This afternoon, we will complete second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tomorrow morning we will start with the debate of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), followed by the debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 in the afternoon.

On Monday of next week, we hope to complete second reading debate of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. As all members are aware, at 4:00 p.m. that day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the budget. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will all be days reserved for budget debate.

Finally, on Friday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I was trying to work my way through Mr. Barrett's stream of consciousness, so I'm not sure exactly where I found myself at the end of all of that, but I think it goes back to Mr. Fortin because it's his motion. If we are moving forward with new language on the motion, I think we want to have the law clerk.

The motion as it was, to me, is very straightforward. It is important for us to recognize that the witnesses that were called for by Parliament did not appear. That's a fact. That needs to be part of our report. Whatever further instructions we give the House, I'm uncomfortable moving at this point without the law clerk, so I'm happy with the original motion that we had, I think, which is the original six points.

If we're going to go with a further instruction to the House, I would like the law clerk to give an opinion, but I'm willing, if Mr. Fortin modifies his motion, to vote on it because.... I agree with Madame Shanahan. We've done a lot of work on this. We need to get this thing done. I don't want to go into next week and be still arguing about this, because we have other committee work, and we have Bill C-11 coming.

I think we're at the point.... I don't see any other witnesses, but it is incumbent upon us to remark that the witnesses we asked for did not appear. That will be in the report. That's something that we need to be able to say. If we can agree on the motion and move on, I'm ready to have that. If not, I'm willing to wait until we get [Technical difficulty—Editor] or advice.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I've been listening carefully on the question and answer...and I must say that there's not much new information coming forward. The fact of the matter is that we've been at this study going back to last year.

Viewers should also understand that there's a parallel investigation taking place right now by the Ethics Commissioner, who, by the way, in my opinion, has the most appropriate authority in looking into it. I look forward to his findings and his recommendations.

I was told in the beginning of joining my colleagues in Ottawa that committee work is non-partisan in nature, but more and more what I've been seeing is that it's similar to what's taking place in the House of Commons during debates and question period. It has really, I would say, threatened the work and the outcome of this committee.

I echo what Mr. Angus said earlier, that we have a very important study that is being stalled, quite honestly, by the Conservatives.

We all knew what the schedule of the committee was going to be. We have the Pornhub study. We are also anticipating Bill C-11 coming forward, which was mentioned earlier. Also, there is the new information that we may be able to get through our conversation or correspondence with Mr. Li. To me, that's the most productive part. That's the contributing part to the study that we're talking about today.

I don't know why the Conservatives are so addicted...or believe so much that they are going to gain their positive political objectives through this process of endless questioning. I haven't heard anything new that I haven't heard previously.

With that, since we have the minister here on behalf of the government, I want to clarify something.

First of all, Mr. Shugart testified that no one in the public service raised any red flags about WE Charity's financial well-being and resources before the CSSG proposal went to cabinet on May 22.

Did Mr. Theis see or hear about any red flags being raised about WE Charity's finances and resources? I think it was talked about previously, but the minister didn't get a proper chance to respond to that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You're not really here for the Canada summer service grant, because you weren't there, but you are the director of the House, so when is Bill C-11 coming? I know it's going to upend all our work. Are you bringing it in a day or two days? If your Liberal colleagues are going to filibuster, I'm trying to fit my calendar in and see how long I have to listen to them before we get to the legislation. Could you tell us when we're going to get Bill C-11?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading of Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act, 2020. I will be splitting my time today with the member for Davenport.

When Canada's privacy law was introduced in 2000, Parliament intended that it would achieve two objectives, which were privacy protection for individuals and the growth of electronic commerce. Over 20 years later, our government is introducing this legislation to provide an updated strategy for protecting privacy in our new digital world.

I have heard loud and clear from the constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they want to see strong privacy laws. These privacy laws not only protect consumers and help build trust in the digital marketplace, but with the consumer privacy protection act, a principled and agile privacy enforcement regime would create a vital safeguard as companies engage in the digital economy.

Today, I would like to provide further insight into a key aspect of the bill that will not only provide guidance for businesses for protecting individuals' personal information, but will also support responsible innovation. I am speaking today about provisions in the new consumer privacy protection act to formally recognize codes of practice and certification systems as a means of demonstrating compliance with the law.

A key strength of our current private sector privacy law, commonly known as PIPEDA, will be maintained in the new consumer privacy and protection act. That strength is a principled approach to rule setting. Our private sector privacy law applies to all organizations in all industry sectors of all sizes and levels of sophistication. This level of general application is crucial in order to establish a baseline of privacy protection that applies across the marketplace.

While comprehensive, this law must also be flexible, non-prescripted and technology-neutral so that it can be applied in all circumstances. These characteristics have long been recognized as a key strength of the existing law and there is widespread support for maintaining this approach. However, it is sometimes a challenge for organizations, especially smaller businesses without dedicated legal resources, to understand how to implement these high level obligations within their specific context.

For example, consider a situation where an organization is using a cutting edge technology which has not yet been the subject of a finding by the Privacy Commissioner or where an organization must handle complicated data flows with complex accountability, such as in connected and automated vehicles. These challenges are becoming more commonplace in a data-driven economy.

To help address these problems and to provide assurance to businesses and consumers alike, the consumer privacy protection act would allow any entity to apply to the office of the Privacy Commissioner for approval of a code of practice that provides a specific set of rules for how organizations can operate in compliance with the law. This approval would be particularly useful for organizations using a new technology or operating with a new business model.

This type of regulatory certainty is very much needed in today's rapidly developing economy. It gives organizations and their business partners a level of comfort that they are operating on the side of the law. It also supports a level playing field in areas where there is no jurisprudence or specific guidance for organizations. It also makes it more transparent to Canadians how their personal information is being used in these circumstances. To take it—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member does tremendous work on human rights, whether it be for Canadians here or people across the world. I am going to quote from the Privacy Commissioner in response to Bill C-11's tabling. He said:

Bill C-11 opens the door to new commercial uses of personal information without consent, but does not specify that such uses are conditional on privacy rights being respected.... [T]he Bill essentially repeats the purpose clause of the current legislation, which gives equal weight to privacy and the commercial interests of organizations. In fact, the new purpose clause places even greater emphasis on the importance of the use of personal information for economic activity.

The previous speaker from Powell River talked about the public uses of information and getting the balance right. What does the member think about the need to have a balanced framework for human rights within Canada, particularly around economic ones?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, in 2019, during the summer, I was very surprised to receive a text message on my government cellphone from a volunteer from the Conservative Party of Canada, asking me if I wanted to vote Conservative and to reply back via text.

Some members from the New Democratic Party and the Green Party would like Bill C-11 to apply to political parties. What does the member have to say about that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this afternoon on Bill C-11. The bill raises important issues about the privacy of Canadians. It is legislation that seeks to reform aspects of our privacy framework in Canada concerning the use of Canadians' data. I look forward to the debate and the study that is going to take place at committee because I know this bill raises many important issues. It is a very technical area: Canadians will want to delve into the details, find out what the impacts of the provisions are and whether the bill would do the things the government says it would do.

I have some initial comments about the issue of privacy and some of the main threats facing the privacy of Canadians, but I also have a couple of comments on the provisions of the bill. It would provide the Privacy Commissioner with important new order-making powers, it would bring in fines and give individuals the right to demand that their data is destroyed. It would bring in some new powers and provisions for the privacy protection of Canadians, as well as for the Privacy Commissioner. These are some important things to look at, and some study of the details is required.

Certainly, the Conservative caucus is very committed to protecting Canadians' privacy and ensuring that the details all check out with what the government has claimed. I am looking forward to the depth of conversation that I know is going to happen and needs to happen on a piece of legislation in an important policy area such as this.

I want to flag some concerns I have in terms of the process of this legislation, as well as the broader framework of privacy in this country.

This bill was initially tabled in the fall and it has had very limited debate between then and now. It underlines the confusion we have about the government's legislative priorities. It looks very much like the government is trying to set itself up to complain about its legislation not passing by scheduling a bill for an hour here and an hour there, rather than having the kind of focus we would typically expect from a government that is trying to pass legislation. Generally, if a government identifies a bill as an area of priority, it will schedule that bill for enough time to be able to complete debate and then it will proceed to committee. However, today alone we have had an hour of debate on a pandemic election bill, and this afternoon we have gone on to a completely different topic rather than the government picking one issue to move the debate forward.

On a process point, the other thing that is interesting to me about this bill is the committee the government is planning to refer this bill to. The industry, science and technology committee has an important role in looking at the regulation of business, promoting business development in this country and so forth, and the minister who just spoke and is leading this discussion is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, but will this bill be referred to the industry committee? No. Once this passes second reading, the bill will be referred to the ethics committee. The ethics committee has a mandate that includes privacy, but I note in particular that there is a lot going on right now at the ethics committee. It is doing important work trying to get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

If I was cynical about the government's motivations, I would think it was interesting that it had decided to bring forward legislation and then refer it to the ethics committee, given the tradition we have in this place of legislation receiving priority at committee. However, we have critical issues of government ethics and scandal that we need to get to the bottom of. It looks like a manoeuvre to try to push the WE scandal off the agenda. It is very striking to see that the government has been so desperate to avoid discussion of its own ethical lapses, around the WE Charity scandal in particular, that it has done all kinds of things to damage its own legislative agenda simply to cover itself on the ethical front.

In fact, the government prorogued Parliament, going back to last summer. There was important information that was coming out as part of the committee studies that were going on in relation to the WE Charity scandal, and the government prorogued Parliament.

Then this issue comes back in the fall, and we are trying to restart the study of it. The government threatens to declare something a confidence issue in order to avoid having a separate committee that could study it. If we had a separate committee, this would not be an issue, right? If we had a separate committee that was looking at these various issues of government corruption, then we would not have an issue with seeing this legislation studied at the ethics and privacy committee.

However, with this renewed discussion and with new information coming out right now as well, we see the government bringing back Bill C-11. It makes me wonder if the House leader thought, “We want to kill this discussion of the WE Charity situation at the ethics committee, but we can't prorogue Parliament again, right?” I mean, I suppose they could, but it sort of gets more and more obvious what they are doing, so they thought, “Let's bring back this bill that we haven't done anything on in months and try to get it sent to the ethics committee.”

These are just more of the kinds of games, I think, that we see from the government. If it was serious about our being able to get to the bottom of these ethics issues as well as moving forward with this legislation, it would be a simple matter of either allowing the creation of that special committee to look at the WE Charity issue or having this bill go to the industry committee. Again, it just raises the question: What is the government trying to hide here?

The government's ethics failings are well known, and it seems the next step in its plan to avoid discussion of its terrible ethical record will be to call an election, a particularly extreme step to kill all of its legislation and shut down important discussions in Parliament on a wide variety of issues, including government ethics.

If we have an early election, of course we are not going to get anywhere on this bill, so hopefully the government will resist the urge to put politics and its own political interests first and instead focus on the kind of policy work that we are doing and are prepared to do in this place to move important issues forward.

In this speech, I want to also zero in on an important issue of privacy, that being the threat to Canadians from foreign actors who are trying to access our data and who are, in many cases, trying to interfere in Canadian institutions, trying to intimidate Canadians and potentially trying to steal intellectual property. In the interest of Canadians, we need to take the threat to privacy that comes from foreign actors very seriously. It is my view that the defining national security threat of our time is interference and intimidation in Canada by foreign state-backed entities.

I have had the opportunity to work with many Canadians who have themselves been direct victims of this kind of intervention, threatening their security and privacy. We had a press conference here on Parliament Hill when I launched Motion No. 55, which is a private member's motion that I am putting forward with respect to foreign state-backed interference and intimidation. We had four people participating in that press conference who were from different backgrounds, from different parts of the world originally, who are now Canadian. They shared their own stories of foreign state-backed intimidation, and all of them expressed frustration at the nature of the response. They felt they were being referred back and forth among different institutions and that we did not really have the capacity to support them effectively and identify who is really responsible for addressing these issues. Is it CSIS? Is it Global Affairs? Is it the RCMP? Is it the local police? Who do they go to? Who responds to it, and then what is the response from the government?

The response from the government has been quite weak. In the case of this minister who is now responsible for this legislation, we had many of these discussions in his previous role as the foreign affairs minister. I would ask him about what he was doing in response to the likely and in some cases very evident involvement of foreign diplomats in the interference with and intimidation of Canadians, and he would kind of look at the camera and tell the diplomats not to interfere in Canadian affairs.

It is great to say that, but we need to have a policy framework and a strategy in place to protect the privacy of Canadians when it is threatened by malicious foreign actors, which are often state-backed or directed actors.

It is with this in mind that Conservatives put forward an opposition day motion, which passed, calling on the government to put in place a comprehensive plan to protect Canadians from this kind of interference and intimidation. The government just failed to respond effectively to that.

My private member's motion, Motion No. 55, reiterates the call of that opposition day motion, but it also particularly focuses on the issue of support to Canadians who are victims. My motion is saying that we need to do more to support Canadians who are victims of foreign state-backed interference and that the federal government's approach to privacy in this area needs to involve cross-jurisdictional co-operation.

It also says the federal government should seek to work collaboratively with provincial, territorial and municipal governments on responding to foreign interference, recognizing we do see manifestations of this foreign interference happening at other levels of governments, such as efforts to capture elites, control institutions, misdirect funds to their interest, and so forth. We see those attempts at intimidation happening at other levels of government, and the response needs to involve effective engagement of those other levels of government as well.

This is another area where the government could be doing more, and needs to do more, to respond to this primary issue of our vulnerability in terms of national security.

In the midst of us saying the government needs a plan and a strategy on this, the simple thing it could do would be to take on this principle of first doing no harm. If it really recognized the threats regarding security in this area, the first thing it would do would be to just say no to Huawei, because we know there are threats to Canadians' security and privacy associated with Huawei being involved in our 5G network.

There is really no disputing the close relationship between Huawei and the Chinese state. We know all private organizations based in China have a high degree of vulnerability to influence and control by the Chinese Communist Party, such as the requirement to defer to party committees, the requirement that information be shared with the Chinese military, and the requirement to respond to requests by the Chinese military.

We know the vulnerabilities that exist across the board, but it is especially the case when we look at a company like Huawei. Clearly, there is a long-standing and very close relationship between the state and this company. Nobody else in the world has trouble figuring this out. Four out of five Five Eyes countries have understood the importance of saying no here.

Our own interests are at stake here, as well as the opportunities for ongoing effective co-operation with our partners, who see these risks. We do not want to be perceived in Canada as being a point of vulnerability. If we want to be able to maintain the levels of co-operation that are so important for our interests, we have to work effectively with our allies and give them reason to have confidence in us.

Yes, the government needs to have a comprehensive plan to address foreign interference and protect Canadians' privacy, but why not just start by doing no harm and saying no to Huawei. As well, the government has just been absent in answering these very basic questions when it comes to the involvement of Huawei in our 5G network.

Going back, we had a previous public safety minister, Ralph Goodale, who said that they would make a decision before the election. We are not talking about the election the government is planning now, we are talking about the last election in 2019. The government said there would be a decision on Huawei before that election. We probably will not see a decision on Huawei at this rate before the next election, or maybe even the one after it, if Liberals stay in government. If Conservatives form government, there would be a decision very quickly when it comes to Huawei, but the government has put it off.

The Liberals have continually said that the decision is coming. Part of our opposition day motion dealt with Canadian intimidation and privacy issues around foreign-state-backed actors. Our opposition day motion included the requirement that the government make a decision with respect to Huawei, but the deadline came and went. The Liberal government, by the way, has a track record of ignoring the motions that are passed by a majority of Parliament.

I think the Liberals' effort to create this narrative about Parliament is not working. The reality is that Parliament is generally working, but sometimes it does things they do not like. Sometimes the opposition works together to pass motions the government does not want to see pass. Sometimes the opposition puts an issue on the agenda and pushes it so much that many government members support it, as we saw with the Uighur genocide, even though the government abstains.

To me, that is a sign of a Parliament that is lively, that is working and that is doing its job because it is holding powerful people to account. That is a big part of what Parliament is supposed to do. The government wants to spin this narrative of Parliament precisely because it is working: it just does things sometimes that the government does not like. Some of that is borne out of the leadership of our party. Some of it is borne out of the very good co-operation that has been on display among the opposition parties.

The point is, we had a motion pass that called on the government to make a decision on Huawei and it still has not. This is a huge issue for Canadian security, for Canadian privacy and for the protection of our national interests at this critical time in global affairs. We are seeing heightened competition, and Canada needs to be clear and principled in terms of standing up for, and standing with, other countries that believe in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Part of protecting the rule of law, of human rights, is emphasizing the importance of protecting the privacy of Canadians and excluding actors from our systems who we know will not respect that privacy: actors who say they have a legal obligation to provide data to a foreign military when asked.

Regarding Huawei, there is this issue of looking at the kinds of human rights violations that they and other Chinese-state-affiliated companies are involved in. We see, with the Uighur genocide, the technological enabling of human rights violations by companies such as Dahua and Hikvision: companies that the Canadian pension fund at one time invested in.

We are talking about the involvement of Huawei and other companies that are complicit in detailed monitoring, tracking and controlling. We see these horrific violations of privacy taking place inside China right now: horrific violations of privacy that are being enabled by the very companies that the government has not yet refused access to Canada. That should be a huge concern in any privacy debate we are having.

When the same companies are part of things like the social credit system, whereby individuals are tracked in terms of whether the government thinks they are behaving well, and their ability to travel and participate in events is determined automatically by algorithms based on intense monitoring and evaluation, a very Orwellian system is being brought in.

Then we have some of the actors who are involved in developing these kinds of technologies and deploying them. Those same actors are looking to do business here in Canada. That should concern us. The government needs to make some clear choices. It needs to decide where it stands on these issues and needs to start standing with us, in the opposition, who are taking a principled stand in defence of human rights, in defence of privacy and in defence of our national security. We are recognizing and responding to the very real threats that we see from various actors.

One of the other issues that I hope to see taken up at committee is people's privacy in terms of their intimate images, and some of the horrific abuses of people's human rights that we have seen perpetrated through the Pornhub platform. We have heard testimony at committee that people's intimate images, even involving minors, were posted repeatedly without their consent. That is another privacy issue that Parliament must act on urgently, without delay.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address the minister since he has changed portfolio, and I cannot start without thanking him once again for the enormous personal effort at rescuing various constituents who were on cruise ships some months ago.

My question is, of course, on Bill C-11. I have read the commentary, as I am sure he has, of Daniel Therrien, our Privacy Commissioner, who is disappointed in Bill C-11's failure to ensure that privacy is recognized as a right. A rights-based approach would deal with a lot of the criticisms that will come up.

I know the government is taking the view that this is a constitutional matter and there are limitations, but the Supreme Court has made important comments on privacy. Is the minister open to changing this? I do not know if—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, privacy is essential. Trust in the digital economy is essential. Together as parliamentarians we need to find the right balance for Canadians to be safe and at the same time have innovation.

I am so pleased that colleagues have worked together to bring in Bill C-11 so we can offer, as a legacy to future generations, a framework that they will be proud of, that will protect their information, that will spur innovation and that will protect their data, as they expect this Parliament to do in an age where the digital economy and the data economy are becoming more and more present in our lives.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 references innovation and the strengthening of privacy for Canadians. As he references in his comments, it is 20 years in business. How important is that in the modern-day world?