Debates of Oct. 20th, 2014

Digital Privacy Act

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member justify the bill on the grounds that it would prevent fraud, but let me quote the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:

Allowing such disclosures to prevent potential fraud may open the door to widespread disclosures and routine sharing of personal information among organizations on the grounds that this information might be useful to prevent future fraud.

That seems to blow a hole in the rationale that the member provided to us for the bill. I am wondering if he could respond to that.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a new generation from the original PIPEDA. It was back in 2001 that we found a solution to protecting private information. Today we are introducing a whole new series of guidelines. We have heard from the opposition and the third party that they are in support of this bill. I thank them for that and it is important that they do.

However, as to the member's comment with regard to the Privacy Commissioner, let me read a couple of quotes. I disagree with him clearly that, in fact, there are holes in the bill. The Privacy Commissioner stated that she welcomed proposals in the bill and that the bill contains “some very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians”. That is very important. She further stated at the time, “I am pleased that the government...has addressed issues such as breach notification”. The bill would clearly protect Canadians and provide new legislation to address technologies that have moved very quickly over the past 11 years.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. As members know, today's debate turns not precisely on Bill S-4 but on a motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

The concerns that I will raise with respect to the bill itself, which go as far as to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, would likely be fatal to the bill at second reading, but we need not concern ourselves with that today. We need not arrive at a conclusion about how fatal these flaws are or how injurious they are to the bill.

The motion before us today would allow us to visit the scope and principle of the bill at committee and make, as required, amendments to those very principles and scope of the bill.

Today, I would argue that this motion warrants support, so that we have the flexibility to properly study, examine and propose amendments to the bill at committee before the principle and scope are set.

Let me set out a few reasons why this is particularly important in these circumstances and relating to this particular legislation.

First, let me address the issue of public opinion that sets the context in which this bill and more broadly the issue of privacy concerns exist.

According to a survey of Canadians on issues related to privacy protection conducted last year, 70% of Canadians feel less protected than they did 10 years ago; only 13% of Canadians believe that companies take their privacy seriously; 97% of Canadians say they would like organizations to let them know when breaches of personal information actually occur; 80% of Canadians say they would like the stiffest possible penalties to protect their personal information; and 91% of Canadian respondents were very or extremely concerned about the protection of privacy.

The current government cannot absolve itself from contributing to this level of public concern about privacy issues. It is not just a matter of legislative lethargy; that is, it is not just about the fact that we are well past the five year mark for the conduct of a mandatory review of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, an act that is by now well behind international standards and has failed to keep up with technological advancements in this digital age.

Part of the issue here is that the current government has itself repeatedly demonstrated insufficient care for the personal privacy of Canadians through its own conduct. I would point to the fact that in one year alone, under the current Prime Minister's watch, government agencies secretly made more than 1.2 million requests to telecommunications companies for personal information, without warrant or proper oversight.

It is a government with a seemingly insatiable appetite and perhaps an addiction to Canadians' personal information. It is a government that needs to be constrained by effective legislation that protects the privacy and personal information of Canadians. It is a government that has no credibility on this subject matter.

This is evident in the legislation that the Conservatives have defeated in this House. In 2012, our NDP digital issues critic, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, put forward Bill C-475, a bill to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would have applied similar online data protection standards that exist in Quebec's personal information protection act. For example, Bill C-475 would have given the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the power to issue orders following an investigation. The Conservatives defeated that bill at second reading. They also defeated our NDP opposition day motion on May 5 last year. That motion simply called on the government to close loopholes in existing legislation that currently allowed the sharing of personal information without warrant.

The current government's disregard for private and personal information is also evident by the legislation that it has brought forward.

Bill C-13, the government's cyberbullying law, includes lawful access provisions that would expand warrantless disclosure of information to law enforcement by giving immunity from any liability for companies that hold the information of Canadians to disclose it without a warrant. This makes it more likely that companies would hand over information without a warrant as there are no risks that they would face criminal or civil penalties for such conduct.

There is a thread here that runs through the government's own efforts to access the personal and private information of Canadians through to their conduct and voting record in this place. It goes against the interests and concerns of Canadians and denies the wishes of Canadians for greater protection of their personal and private information.

In other words, the issue before us goes to the principles underlying this bill. They need to be examined and amended at committee. For example, while Bill S-4 would make it mandatory to declare the loss or breach of personal information for the organizations in the private sector and penalize organizations that do not fulfill this obligation, the proposed criteria for mandatory disclosure remains subjective. It would allow the organizations themselves to assess whether “it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual”.

More and most problematically still, Bill S-4 would add exceptions under which personal information may be collected, used or disclosed without an individual's consent. The bill would make it easier for organizations to share personal information with each other without the consent of individuals if the organizations are engaged in a process leading to a “prospective” business transaction. In other words, under certain circumstances, the bill allows personal information of one organization's clients to be shared with another organization without the consent or knowledge of those individuals.

Here we run into some significant problems with this bill. The amendments proposed contradict the very foundation of the act they seek to amend and serve to defeat what the Supreme Court called in R. v. Spencer the act's “general prohibition on the disclosure of personal information without consent”. As the Supreme Court said in that recent decision, “PIPEDA is a statute whose purpose is to increase the protection of personal information”.

The Supreme Court, in R. v. Spencer, got to the heart of the issue here, understanding what the government has failed to understand about the issue of informational privacy in the digital age. It is worth quoting at length here. It stated:

Informational privacy is often equated with secrecy or confidentiality, and also includes the related but wider notion of control over, access to and use of information. However, particularly important in the context of Internet usage is the understanding of privacy as anonymity. The identity of a person linked to their use of the Internet must be recognized as giving rise to a privacy interest beyond that inherent in the person’s name, address and telephone number found in the subscriber information. Subscriber information, by tending to link particular kinds of information to identifiable individuals may implicate privacy interests relating to an individual’s identity as the source, possessor or user of that information. Some degree of anonymity is a feature of much Internet activity and depending on the totality of the circumstances, anonymity may be the foundation of a privacy interest that engages constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

So, from subscriber information, the Supreme Court has connected that information through to search and seizure.

We have at least before us a major concern with the principles of this act, but seemingly too a bill that is simply unconstitutional. Leaving aside for the moment this latter issue, let me suggest by way of conclusion that if there is something in Bill S-4 that is salvageable, it can only be so if this bill moves to committee before this House sets in concrete the principles and scope of this bill, and limits the kinds of amendments that can arise out of committee post second reading.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking part in today's debate. He spoke at length about the Spencer decision and the impact it will have on this bill. I would like to know if he has heard from his constituents regarding privacy protection.

Does he think we should proceed with this bill as it stands, with the clause that allows organizations to share personal information with other organizations without a warrant and without consent? Does he think that this bill is constitutional is its current form?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. She has done a wonderful job as our critic on digital issues.

With respect to the first part of the question, indeed, constituents have talked to me about privacy concerns. When I read through the results of the survey during my speech, those numbers seem to reflect the kinds of responses I hear from my constituents about their concerns for the privacy of their information.

It is understandable because people understand and recognize what the Supreme Court said, that subscriber information is not just about a name and address. It takes one into all sorts of information. So that if that information is available to private companies, then those private companies are able to delve very deeply into the personal habits, conducts, and information of Canadians. I certainly am concerned about the constitutionality.

My read of the Spencer decision suggests that this bill would fail that test and that is one of the reasons that I support the bill going to committee before second reading in this House.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned constitutionality and the Spencer decision, and how he felt that there may be a problem with the Constitution. I wonder if the member would explain that a little further, with regard to the Spencer decision.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to explain what I can about these matters. I am not a lawyer, but I did take the time to read through that decision and get a grasp for the Supreme Court's view of the importance of the anonymity of subscriber information, the importance of protecting subscriber information, and the importance of understanding that Canadians have a reasonable expectation that that subscriber information is going to remain private. If it is to be given away, it should be given away lawfully and under warrant for very particular reasons that would be approved by the courts, and that is not the case.

It is interesting that in the Spencer decision, in spite of the court's findings about the privacy information and all the rest of it, it is not the case that such protection of privacy obviously inhibits police for doing their job in protecting the safety and security of all Canadians.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for my colleague.

The government's bill is called the Digital Privacy Act. However, we now know that the Conservative government does not have the best record in the world when it comes to protecting privacy. It lost track of a significant amount of Canadians' personal information. It passed Bill C-13, which gives statutory immunity to Internet service providers who decide to voluntarily hand over personal information. There is no shortage of examples: government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests to Internet service providers in just one year.

Does the hon. member not have any misgivings about this? Will the government really make good changes during the review of this bill in committee?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about what they will bring to committee, but the member rightly points out the government's own record and conduct on these things.

I think the best response, perhaps, is to quote Steve Anderson, the executive director of OpenMedia.ca, who said that the proposed bill appears to do little to tackle the foremost privacy issue of the day, the dragnet government surveillance of law-abiding Canadians and widespread government breaches of our sensitive information.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my absolute pleasure to express my support for Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. When the industry minister released Digital Canada 150, our government's plan to guide Canada's digital future, he set out clear goals to put our country at the forefront of the digital economy.

One of the five pillars of this ambitious plan is “protecting Canadians”. In order to realize the full benefits of the digital plan and the digital world, Canadians must have confidence that their online activities are secure and that their online privacy is protected through strong measures like the digital privacy act.

This government is taking concrete action to make sure that Canadians and their families are protected from online threats. Protecting Canadians online is particularly important when we consider the most vulnerable segments of our society. Indeed, as the Internet becomes present in virtually every aspect of our economy, and our children's homework, it is also becoming an essential element in our children's lives.

A recently released survey conducted last year by MediaSmarts, a charitable organization dedicated to digital and media literacy, revealed that in 2013, 99% of Canadian students were able to access the Internet outside of their school. When online, students play games, download music, television shows and movies, and socialize with their friends and family.

The survey reveals that over 30% of students in grades 4 to 6 have Facebook accounts, and that by grade 11, my daughter's year, 95% of students have an account. However, with this increased online presence comes increased risk. As we have seen, young people can unfortunately become targets of online intimidation and abuse. This government has acted to protect our children from cyberbullying and other similar threats.

In addition to responding to the very real and harmful threats related to cyberbullying, this government is also acting to protect the privacy of minors and other vulnerable individuals through proposed amendments to the digital privacy act.

In our modern digital economy, our children must be able to go online in a safe and secure way if they are to develop the skills they will need later to find jobs in the digital marketplace. The online world has the potential to provide considerable benefits for our children's education and development, and it can greatly enrich their social lives.

At the same time, going online can expose children to privacy risks. For example, minors can be subject to aggressive behavioural marketing tactics, or they could have their personal data collected and shared without truly understanding what is being done. There is the potential for long-term privacy consequences.

The digital privacy act includes an amendment to Canada's private sector privacy law to strengthen the requirements around the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, which will increase the level of protection for vulnerable Canadians such as children. Specifically, the digital privacy act clarifies that when a company is seeking permission to collect, use, or disclose personal information from a specific group of individuals such as children, then the company must make sure that an average person, such as a child in that group, would be able to understand what is going to happen with the information.

An example is the best way to illustrate how the proposed amendment will work. Imagine, for example, an educational website that is designed primarily for elementary school children. Under the proposed amendment, any request by that website to collect, use, or disclose personal information would need to be worded in such a way that it is understandable by the average elementary school student. This not only includes making sure that the wording and language used in the request is age appropriate, but that the request itself is appropriate as well. If it is not reasonable to expect that the average elementary-aged child would understand the purpose and consequences of them clicking “okay”, then under the digital privacy act the company would not have valid consent.

Minors under the age of majority are more vulnerable and require additional protections. At the same time, privacy protection for children must reflect their level of maturity and psychological development. It must respect that.

That is why our government has ensured that the flexibility inherent to the act which allows the application of contextual privacy protections is reflected in our proposed amendment. The ability of teenagers to understand what is being done with personal information and their ability to make decisions about what they will and will not agree to is completely different from what elementary school children are capable of.

As they age, minors become more able to make sound decisions about themselves and what is being done with their personal information. Therefore, a website directed, for example, to grade 12 students, should not explain what it intends to do with information and seek consent in the same way that an educational website for elementary school students would. The process is similar; the means are different.

The proposed amendment adjusts for this difference by focusing on what is reasonable to expect of the group of individuals being targeted by the company's product or service.

The former interim privacy commissioner strongly supported this proposed amendment when speaking to the Senate committee that was studying the bill last spring. This is what the Office of the Privacy Commissioner said in its written submission to that committee:

We think this is an important and valuable amendment that will clarify PIPEDA’s consent requirements. By requiring organizations to make a greater effort to explain why they are collecting personal information and how it will be used, this proposed amendment should help make consent more meaningful for all individuals, particularly for young people for whom the digital world is an integral part of their daily lives.

As an added protection, PIPEDA has always recognized that parents or other authorized representatives have the right to provide consent on behalf of an individual, including children. Indeed, the responsibility and commitment to protect the privacy of children and other vulnerable Canadians is absolutely a shared one. Parents, governments, educators, as well as charities in the private sector, all have a central role to play in protecting the online privacy of our children.

The government firmly believes that digital literacy and skills are at the core of what is needed for individuals to succeed in today's online economy. Understanding by parents, educators, and children of the relevance and importance of protecting online privacy is a central component of digital literacy.

The government supports the role that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is playing in educating Canada's youth about the importance of online privacy and helping them to not only understand the impact that online services and applications can have on their privacy but also helping them make wise, smart decisions.

For example, the office of the commissioner created a graphic novel called Social Smarts: Privacy, the Internet and You. It was designed to help young Canadians better understand online privacy issues. They have also created tools to support parents and educators as they seek to protect children's online privacy. A discussion guide and privacy activity sheets have been developed to help them work with children to explore and understand privacy risks associated with social networking, mobile devices, texting, and online gaming.

The government is committed to protecting the privacy of Canadians. The digital privacy act takes concrete action to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, and that includes our children. At the same time, this legislation respects the growth of our children as they approach adulthood. It is measured and graduated because of that.

I hope all hon. members will join me in supporting this very important bill.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that over 70% of Canadians feel that their personal information is less protected than it was 10 years ago. Today, over 90% of Canadians are very or extremely concerned about the protection of their privacy. It is in this context that the government is bringing forward a bill that would allow for an enormous exemption for the sharing of this information. It was put this way by Geoffrey White, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre: “The private sector exemption quite simply allows private sector spying on consumers without any due process whatsoever”.

I wonder how the member reconciles public opinion on concern about the privacy of personal information and the inclusion of that private sector exemption in the bill.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It is an important one for us to answer. We are doing this because Canadians have asked us to do so.

As a long-time school trustee, not to mention being a mother of two children, I know how parents, educators, and our youth feel about privacy issues. This proposed act would address these issues in a responsible, measured, and may I say respectful, way, recognizing that an 18 year old or 17 year old is totally different from a nine year old.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during her speech, the member shared a few quotes from the Privacy Commissioner.

However, as is common practice with the Conservative government, she obviously forgot to mention some other things that the Privacy Commissioner said.

I have two quotes to share. The first quote states:

First, we believe that the grounds for disclosing to another organization are overly broad and need to be circumscribed, for example, by defining or limiting the types of activities for which the personal information could be used.

The second quote states:

Allowing such disclosures to prevent potential fraud [as provided for in paragraphs 7(3)(a.1) and 7(3)(a.2)] may open the door to widespread disclosures and routine sharing of personal information among organizations on the grounds that this information might be useful to prevent future fraud.

Does the member have anything to say about the negative points raised by the Privacy Commissioner? What is her government going to do to fix these problems in the bill?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question.

We obviously have to clarify all of the quotes from the Privacy Commissioner. However, it is important to understand that we are working on developing partnerships and agreements among teachers, parents and young people.

This is not a group solution. It is a very important collaboration intended to protect young people and all Canadian citizens and taxpayers. Furthermore, this bill is designed to protect everyone's privacy.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this motion by the government to have Bill S-4 go to committee before second reading, which is a rare event in the House. This is a procedure that was made possible for the first time in 1994 amendments. I believe it stemmed from the 1982 McGrath committee's report that said that committees should more often be used at the early stages of legislation to make sure that things are caught and that a wide variety of perspectives are taken into account in drafting legislation and, frankly, to make the role of MPs more meaningful than is often the case when a bill is studied only after second reading in committee.

As we know, in committee after second reading, and after hearing any amount of testimony from witnesses that could suggest serious problems with a bill, the amendments are often extremely constrained by the rule that they must fit within the principle of the bill. Quite often that means that the principle is understood by the chair or the legal staff advising the chair as simply the principle of a given provision, and therefore, an attempt to work more broadly than the narrow purpose of a given provision is often ruled out of order.

Beyond that, I have found so far in committees, since arriving in the House, that there seems be a reluctance at the moment, on the part of the advisers to chairs, to understand that bills can often have multiple purposes and not just a single purpose. Therefore, in the end, after second reading, committee work often really is an exercise in frustration, because a lot could be done to perfect a bill that is technically ruled out of order due to the fact that we have to work within the principle of the bill as voted at second reading.

It is great that this bill is going to committee before second reading. It will hopefully allow, in the spirit of what this procedure is all about, a full, frank hearing, from all kinds of witnesses, about the problems I hope the government understands are in this bill. I hope this is also the reason the minister has decided to send it to committee before second reading. There can be true dialogue and engagement among MPs, obviously with the government watching what is going on and giving its input through government MPs, so that this bill is taken apart and rewritten in the way this procedure would allow.

I myself stood in the House to move unanimous consent to have Bill C-23, what New Democrats called the unfair elections act and the government called the fair elections act, referred to committee before second reading, exactly for the reasons I have just given. There were so many obvious problems in the bill. Not sticking to the principle in the bill and working collegially across party lines would have benefited the study of that bill. In retrospect, New Democrats realize how true that was. Although we got serious amendments passed, with pressure from backbench members of the government suggesting changes that helped us in our efforts, that bill would be much better if it had gone to committee before second reading.

There is another procedure that, in the spirit of openness, I am hoping the minister might consider. To date, it has not been the practice of the government to table opinions about the constitutionality or charter compliance of a bill. Given the real concerns that exist with respect to warrantless access to information that is contained in this bill as kind of a compendium bill to Bill C-13, I would ask the minister to please consider, for once, having the Department of Justice table a written opinion on the constitutionality of this. Why does it think that the Spencer judgment coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply or, if it applies, that the bill is written in a way that justifies it under the charter?

So often in committee there is minimal to no good testimony from the civil service side on why, supposedly, the Minister of Justice has certified that a bill is in compliance with the charter. We know that the standard for the minister doing that is a very minimalist standard.

I will read from the Senate testimony on Bill S-4 from Michael Geist, of the University of Ottawa, to tell the House why having that additional procedure as part of the referral to committee before second reading would be useful. He says:

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both [to] past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

That is an extremely good summary of a core problem with the bill in terms of the fears it raises that it has gone too far. It would purportedly create an updated regime to protect privacy and in the process would potentially ram through new problems with respect to Canadians' privacy.

I would like to now, in my last couple of minutes, go over a few points that I hope come up in committee.

I wish to thank a constituent, Mr. John Wunderlich, an expert in privacy law, who worked with me on the weekend to better understand the bill. These are points that I hope do have discussed.

In paragraph 4(1)(b) of the act, the definition of who this would apply to would move from just employees to employees and applicants for employment. In that context, this leaves hanging the question of how much or how little this would apply to companies whose business is to conduct background checks. The committee should solicit feedback on this. In my view, the background check function in the employment sector is done far too often and too deeply and already constitutes a systemic privacy invasion in the employment sector. Therefore, this extension needs to be looked at.

The next thing is the definition of valid consent. While it is welcome, because it brings clarity, the committee should note whether the current systems asserting consent on the web actually provide meaningful information to web surfers about just how many entities will be given access to either some or all of their personal information. Right now, there is a real risk that so-called valid consent, as outlined in the bill, would actually piggyback on the systematic sharing of information that people have no idea is being shared. The act could become a smokescreen behind which individual profiles were built and shared across businesses.

I have already spoken about the potential for the warrantless invasion of privacy because of the fact that organizations could seek information from others when they are simply investigating breaches of agreement or fraud. We should keep in mind that when they are investigating fraud, it is not just in the criminal context. All of this involves civil questions as well. An example is fraudulent misrepresentation.

The “real risk of significant harm” test for companies in particular to decide whether they are going to inform the commissioner and at another stage inform persons of breaches of privacy is a problematic standard in the sense that it is actually very general, and it is probably too low. There should be a presumption for disclosure to the commissioner, and it should be left up to the commissioner to either determine, or assist the company in determining, whether this is significant enough to let the persons whose information was released know that it happened. At the moment, it is an entirely discretionary system, based on a very vague standard, which may mean that data will be breached without people actually knowing it and being able to take the measures necessary to protect themselves.

Those are only three of the more specific concerns that need to be looked at. There is a lot in the bill.

I have a final comment, and it may be a rather strange one. I am looking at my colleague across the way. The privacy legislation from Alberta should be looked at very closely as a reference point for whether the government has gotten certain things wrong. That province has gotten things right.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That will bring the debate to an end for now.

Destinations for All World Summit

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Destinations for All World Summit, a summit on accessible tourism, began yesterday in Montreal. I would like to congratulate Kéroul and its president, André Leclerc, for the exceptional work they did organizing this major event on tourism for travellers with disabilities.

This summit will help expand and showcase accessible tourism, establish global partnerships and encourage more accessible infrastructure.

By bringing together the expertise of researchers and specialists, the Destinations for All World Summit will promote a better understanding of the specific needs of the client base and markets.

The ideas being shared will lay the foundation for many exciting projects that will spur economic growth and that will also allow those living with disabilities to travel with dignity.

I would like to thank the participants and the people of Kéroul for their dedication. Enjoy the Destinations for All World Summit.

Pipeline Training Centre

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the wealth of Alberta's oil sands is tied to the movement of Canadian petroleum products to global markets.

It is not surprising that an Alberta public college is breaking new ground in training for the petroleum transmission industry. Portage College is building Canada's first pipeline training centre and transmission process loop. Trainees literally build, operate, and repair a pipeline that simulates real-time operations and data.

Under the leadership of Dr. Trent Keough, the president of Portage College, and Ray Danyluk, chair of the board of governors, the college has been working with aboriginal communities and global transmission companies to design and operate its site and programs, thus developing opportunities for hands-on training for aspiring pipeline workers, spill response teams, welders, and heavy equipment operators.

We need to show the world how innovative Canada's petroleum and training sectors really are.

I would like to congratulate Portage College for its leadership in building Alberta's first pipeline training centre.

Vision Care for School-Age Children

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October is Children's Vision Month.

It is estimated that nearly 25% of school-age children have vision problems. Despite the economic, social, and health care advances that have occurred in our society, many preschool and school-age children are not receiving adequate professional eye and vision care, and there is a cost to this as well.

Untreated vision problems can lead to learning at a slower rate than other children, frustration with learning, a negative self-image, behaviour and discipline problems, possible need for special education and related services, higher risk for school dropout, and lifelong disadvantages and underachievement.

Canada needs a nationally coordinated plan of action for vision health. The Canadian Association of Optometrists recommends establishing a comprehensive eye examination for every Canadian child prior to entering school and a national public education campaign for parents and health professionals on early detection.

I hope all members will join me in supporting these recommendations.

Dalai Lama

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to welcome honorary Canadian citizen the Dalai Lama back to Canada.

On November 17, 1950, at the age of 15, Tenzin Gyatso was selected as the 14th Dalai Lama.

His message of peace and compassion has been recognized around the world. In 1989 he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work and contribution in the struggle for the liberation of Tibet and the efforts for a peaceful resolution.

In September 2006, while in Vancouver, the Dalai Lama was presented with honorary Canadian citizenship by our government.

While here he will be sharing his message of compassion by speaking in the public school system. He will also be meeting with Canadian parliamentarians to discuss struggles Tibetan people face in their non-violent search for religious freedom and language rights.

The Dalai Lama is a true example to all of us of what it means to live a life of compassion and peace.

Outstanding Contribution to Prince Edward Island

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Mr. Sterling MacRae for his outstanding contribution to Prince Edward Island.

Of special note is Sterling's impressive service through his involvement with the local fire department. Sterling, after 57 years as a volunteer fireman at the New Glasgow Fire Department, has decided it is time to retire from active duty. Imagine that: 57 years. Having recently celebrated his 80th birthday, he will now be an auxiliary member.

Sterling is a seasoned farmer. In fact, I caught up to him on Friday heading out to combine soybeans. He is also founder and co-owner of New Glasgow Lobster Suppers, started when the District Junior Farmers Organization, of which Sterling was a member, first bought it for its meeting place. These days, New Glasgow Lobster Suppers is owned by two farming families, the Nicholsons and the MacRaes, and patrons from around the world continue to enjoy wonderful meals and hospitality there.

We thank Sterling for his volunteerism and his commitment to the safety of his friends, community, and neighbours.

We wish him and his wife Jean well.

Dalai Lama

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to welcome one of Canada's honorary citizens back to the soil of our great country today. His Holiness the Dalai Lama arrived in Vancouver about an hour ago.

It was an honour for me to move the unanimous motion in the House in 2006 to convey honorary citizenship on His Holiness and to have met him on a number of occasions since. This is because his teachings on enlightenment and empowerment are a lesson for all of us, and are reflective of the values of freedom, democracy, and human rights that we, as Canadians, cherish.

During this week in Vancouver, the Dalai Lama will be giving a series of talks and lectures, including a lecture at UBC in support of the Tibetan resettlement project and a session with CEOs of small businesses about ethics. On Friday some of the members of the House and of the upper chamber will meet with the Dalai Lama under the auspices of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet.

We all know that the ongoing situation in Tibet is of grave concern to His Holiness as well as to my colleagues. I pray that their meeting will be fruitful and that future generations of Tibetans finally experience the hope and freedom that they have so long desired.

Marie-Klaudia Dubé

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the significant contribution that Marie-Klaudia Dubé, my riding assistant, has made to her community. On Wednesday, October 15, during the Héritage Saint-Bernard benefit gala, Ms. Dubé was honoured for her involvement with Les amis et riverains de la rivière Châteauguay, an organization that fights to protect the Châteauguay River.

Every year, Héritage Saint-Bernard honours an individual for their dedication to improving our environment, highlighting their work. Marie-Klaudia founded the ARRC in 2008 and has been the president of the organization since then. Every year, she organizes a major shoreline cleanup, finds funding to plant trees to prevent shoreline erosion, carries out prevention and awareness activities for residents, and much more. She is also a dedicated employee in my office where she works every day to help citizens who need help. She is currently fighting cancer. We wish her a full and speedy recovery so that she can continue to help improve the lives of her fellow citizens.

Thank you and congratulations, Marie-Klaudia. The community is eager to have you back.

Ross Gorman

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to announce the passing of a true community leader in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

Mr. Ross Gorman was a co-founder and owner of Gorman Bros. Lumber, an industry-leading, value-added lumber mill that employs 350 people in my riding. Gorman Bros. Lumber is unique. When the mill was threatened with a serious forest fire some years ago, it was Gorman Bros. employees who risked their own lives to save it.

Ross Gorman was more than a great leader who built family relationships with those that he worked with. Mr. Gorman gave back to his community, supporting the Okanagan Masters Swim Club, the cross-country ski club, and Westside minor hockey, among others. Mr. Gorman was also a strong supporter of the United Way and the West Kelowna Community Food Bank, providing help to countless families in their time of need.

I ask that all members of the House join with me in recognition of Mr. Ross Gorman, a leader in our community and in our country, who will be greatly remembered.

Anniversary of Maple Ridge

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate the 140th anniversary of Maple Ridge, my hometown.

In September 1874, a group of settlers gathered at John McIver's farm and decided to incorporate as a municipality. The stunning view of maple trees running along the ridge on the edge of the McIver farm gave this new community its name, Maple Ridge. What began as a rural community with fewer than 50 families now has a population of almost 80,000, and it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the metro Vancouver region.

There is more good news. On September 12, 140 years to the day after its incorporation, Maple Ridge became a city. I want to congratulate Mayor Ernie Daykin and his council on this important achievement.

Maple Ridge has a blend of rural charm and urban sophistication. I am proud to say that I am from the city of Maple Ridge, which I think just might be the best place to live in Canada.