House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2021, with 8% of the vote.
Health March 6th, 2013
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, after paying $5 billion in compensation, the government still has not learned its lesson. Contaminated blood from private companies was one of the reasons 20,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis C. The fact that a company that buys blood can open its doors right next door to a homeless shelter without notifying provincial authorities is proof that we need better laws.
What does the minister intend to do to remedy the situation?
Poverty March 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has roundly criticized the Conservatives for their incompetence. We know that the Conservatives ignore the problems of malnutrition and health, but now we have learned that by eliminating the long form census they have made the problem worse.
Why are they refusing to create a national strategy to ensure that all Canadians have access to nutritious and affordable food? Why have they eliminated the tools to make this possible?
Canadian Space Agency March 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, later this month, Commander Chris Hadfield will be the first Canadian to take command of the international space station. He has made our country and the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert proud.
Yet he did not get there alone. Hundreds of people working for the Canadian Space Agency, most of them in Saint-Hubert, in my riding, worked very hard to make the agency's space exploration program a success.
The government decided to cut 10% from the agency's budget in 2012, which led to much uncertainty within the agency, the scientific community and the industry.
The agency and its 687 employees must be given the resources they need to make Canada an international leader in space.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague’s speech. She stated that Bill C-55 was different from Bill C-30, which, as we know, was a spectacular failure for the Conservatives. As my colleague just mentioned, this is proof that the Conservative government is a slow learner.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada asked the government one year ago to amend section 184.4 to make it constitutional. Unfortunately, we have only 19 days to do so. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on this matter.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my NDP colleague for the work she does in the House.
She is always there to ask the right questions. The proof is there: I am being asked questions only by my NDP colleagues. I assume this means that the Conservative members have no interest in the issue before us today.
Like the rest of my colleagues, I certainly have concerns about what will happen to this bill when it gets to committee.
I sincerely hope that our government colleagues will have the decency to properly discuss this issue, which affects the privacy of Canadians, in committee.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank my brilliant colleague who, as usual, is trying to find flaws in the bills put before us. And, as usual, he is succeeding.
He is right. That is why the NDP is showing its goodwill and wants to work with the government. We will support this bill so that it goes to committee and so that we can eventually define who these other people are that can use wiretaps.
I hope that the answer will be clear in committee. We will see what happens after that.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her apt question and her typically perceptive analysis.
As she put it so well, we unfortunately have only 19 working days to examine and analyze this bill. We are of course fully aware that this is the way things are done these days.
Ever since I was elected to the House, this government has done everything in its power to gag members of the opposition and take advantage of its majority in the House. Unfortunately, like my colleague, I deplore the fact that we have only 19 days to analyze such an important bill, one that will affect the privacy of Canadians.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from LaSalle—Émard.
I will start by saying that I am very relieved. Like many of my constituents from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I am relieved that Bill C-30 has died a quiet death.
Many of my constituents wrote to me to share their concerns about the ill-advised and dangerous Bill C-30. I am pleased that it is now behind us and that we can finally focus on the issues related to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.
In all the time I have been a member in this House, this is the first time that the government has listened to reason and acknowledged that its first attempt was not the right one, since it did not correspond to the needs and wants of Canadians. I congratulate the Conservatives on that and urge them to start over more often. It is not so hard and everyone feels better afterwards. I urge the government to start over with the employment insurance reform. It feels so good to do the right thing.
But to come back to the matter at hand, let us be honest: this bill looks more like an appropriate response to what the courts have called for than did the former Bill C-30. This new bill is simply an update to the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional.
This bill is before us as a result of a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, that declared section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. That section allows peace officers to intercept certain private communications, without prior judicial authorization, if they believe on reasonable grounds that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, provided that judicial authorization cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence.
The courts held that emergency situations existed, but that a balance had to be struck between measures to protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures and society’s interest in preventing serious harm. That is why the courts held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the charter, since it does not provide a mechanism for oversight, and very specifically, it does not require that notice be given to persons whose private communications have been intercepted.
An accountability mechanism needs to be enacted to protect the important privacy interests that are at stake, and a provision requiring notice would meet that need. The requirement that individuals whose communications are intercepted be given notice would in no way interfere with police action in an emergency. It would actually enhance the ability of the individuals targeted to identify and challenge violations of their privacy and obtain a genuine remedy. That is part of the balance we must try to strike and it is precisely that balance that we must achieve. Safeguards have to be in place to prevent as many abuses as possible and provide our constituents with a guarantee that their rights and freedoms will not be violated by legislation that this House might enact.
One way to be sure of this is to follow the instructions the courts have given, in particular with regard to privacy.
There are points that respond directly to the decisions of the courts. For example, this bill requires that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. It further provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified within a specified time, which is ordinarily 90 days but could be extended to three years in the case of terrorism and organized crime.
The bill also narrows the class of individuals who can make such interceptions, in addition to limiting interceptions to the offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code, which make up a relatively long list. In my opinion, these measures follow the instructions given by the courts, but we have to make sure that these provisions meet the charter requirements.
Like my NDP colleagues, I would like this bill to be referred to committee so that witnesses can be heard to give us answers to a number of questions, or at least provide some details on certain points. It would not be acceptable for amendments to the Criminal Code to once again be ruled unconstitutional by the court. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that the rule of law is respected and that section 184.4 is amended in order to comply with the Constitution, the charter and Canadian laws. The benchmarks must be clear.
Needless to say, I have no blind faith in this government. Canadians have good reason to be apprehensive about Conservative privacy bills, because their record in this area is dismal. We must always work on behalf of the public and show respect for the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In view of their failed attempt with Bill C-30, that is to be expected. Many Canadians and stakeholders agree.
According to Michael Geist, Bill C-30 may be dead, but legal access is definitely not. He claims that when the government dropped Bill C-30, it introduced Bill C-55 to allow wiretapping without a warrant. He added that although the bill is disguised as a response to last year's Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse, much of it is lifted from Bill C-30.
He is right. That is why we need to be vigilant. The court established new parameters to protect privacy and we expect this bill to comply with those standards. That is why it must be studied in committee.
Business of Supply February 14th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my Liberal colleague's speech. This may be a baby step forward, but the problem has been around for 30 years, and everyone knows that the Liberals and the Conservatives have not done anything to solve it.
Everyone has produced reports on the problem, from the royal commission to Amnesty International, from the United Nations to Human Rights Watch. Even so, nobody has ever implemented measures to try to put an end to the violence even though the problem persists.
Given that this latest special committee will include a majority of Conservative members and is supposed to hold hearings, how will its approach differ from that of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2011?
Business of Supply February 14th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the member opposite. I can assure her right away that I will support the motion.
However, this problem has been around for three decades. None of the previous governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, have done anything but gather statistics. That does not eliminate violence against aboriginal women and girls, stop them from going missing or keep them from being expelled from reserves.
I had the chance to meet with the group Sisters in Spirit and see their documentary on the Highway of Tears. I was in tears. I think that we are taking a step in the right direction today, but it is not enough.
Will the Conservative government agree to hold a national inquiry to determine the causes of the violence against and murders of aboriginal women? Will it put real and practical measures in place to stop the violence against aboriginal women?