Annick Papillon

[The Environment, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to continue with this special Quebec edition in Parliament this evening, after the Quebec Bridge, I am pleased to speak to you about the Port of Québec, which is another rather embarrassing situation under the circumstances. Let me put things into context.

In October 2012, the first cloud of dust escaped the Port of Québec and came down mostly on the Limoilou neighbourhood. The incident triggered a strong public response and resulted in increased monitoring of the port's activities ever since. This led to the finding that an unusually high rate of nickel dust settles onto Limoilou. A watchdog committee was set up thanks to the exceptional work of a remarkable person, Véronique Lalande, and her spouse, Louis Duchesne.

In April 2013, Quebec's ministry for sustainable development, the environment and the fight against climate change, found that the nickel dust was definitely coming from the Port of Québec. The activities surrounding shipping nickel in bulk, particularly by St. Lawrence Stevedoring, are the main cause.

Studies showed that the concentration of nickel in the air was five times higher than Quebec standards. After measuring the concentration, the Direction régionale de santé publique de la Capitale-Nationale established that the nickel dust in the air affected people's health, primarily by causing allergies and asthma, and had the potential to become carcinogenic with very long-term exposure.

The Port of Quebec is part of the Canada Port Authorities, and falls under Transport Canada, which owns and manages Canadian ports. The department is also responsible for supervising the environmental management of leased facilities, for example, by a company such as St. Lawrence Stevedoring, which is under federal jurisdiction.

However, there is a problem and it is a legislative problem. This is not just about health and public safety. First of all, the legislation is not effective. That is why we are here this evening. As federal MPs, we are primarily legislators, and that is why we must fix the law, which has many gaps at this time.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is leaving it up to the Port of Québec to use its own criteria in conducting environmental assessments of projects such as the expansion, which is a hot topic in Quebec City nowadays. This means the Port of Québec is in charge of assessing the environmental impact of its own infrastructure projects.

We are at this point because provisions that threaten the objectivity of environmental impact assessments of major federal projects were introduced in the Conservatives' mammoth bills, sometimes known as Trojan horse bills. These bills included many provisions. Often, a single law changed many bills, meaning that lots of little pieces of legislation could be eliminated with a single vote. Unfortunately, that is how these provisions were changed, and that is how we got to this point.

My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou is doing exceptional work on this file. In June, he introduced Bill C-612 to subject Canadian port authorities to audits by the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

What we are asking is simple. We just want the government to look closely at this issue and make the necessary legislative changes. Will the government stop treating the port like a state within a state? It is absurd.

[The Budget, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us ask them the question once more. With respect to the budget implementation bill, the Conservatives ended up listening to the NDP last week. They would finally eliminate the fees imposed on consumers who want to receive a paper invoice. However, as usual, the Conservatives only got it half right. The measure will only apply to telecommunications companies. Once again, the banks will be spared.

My question is the following. Why are the Conservatives protecting the banks, which make record profits every year, instead of consumers, who are barely making ends meet?

[Small Business, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been one year since the Competition Tribunal found that credit card fees Canadian businesses have to pay are excessive and that more coercive regulation is needed.

Could the minister tell us when he intends to announce a code of conduct for the credit card companies and explain to us how this will help reduce costs to Canadian small and medium-sized businesses?

[Consumer Protection, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in its throne speech a year ago, the government promised to put an end to this kind of excessive fees, but nothing has been done. Consumers are tired of paying the abusive fees charged by banks and telecom companies. Consumers sometimes even have to pay just to get their bills. Can you imagine? Despite the Conservatives' promises, many companies continue to gouge consumers.

When will the Conservatives take real action and support the NDP's proposals to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the second report, and we want a committee of independent experts. I highly doubt that the government has all the answers. I am the consumer protection critic. We are calling for an ombudsman to ensure that there is no gas price collusion, for example. An ombudsman and independent experts are solutions worth looking at. The NDP has often made those proposals. I would even say that they are proposed by the NDP most of the time. The government should immediately take note of that simple solution, which consists of creating committees of independent experts, ombudsmen who could ensure that oversight measures are strengthened and allow us to give Canadians the guarantee they are looking for.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly it. There are no warrants, and there is no oversight or transparency.

Canadians do not like people tinkering with their privacy. It makes no sense and, quite frankly, it is unacceptable. Bill S-4 is not designed to correct the existing deficiencies. The bill contains measures that would increase warrantless access to the information of telecommunications company subscribers, for example. That is shameful and it makes no sense. We have seen some cases of abuse recently in the news. Do we want Canada to go in that direction by letting anyone do anything with the personal information that defines our life? What would be our recourse as Canadian citizens if that were to happen?

Identity theft is a reality, and this information can circulate and be used. Even the government has lost information. At some point, we have to be aware of what we are doing. I think that in light of the fact that this is being done without a warrant, without oversight and without any kind of protection, Canadians have a reason to be concerned. That is why we are sounding the alarm.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, which amends Canada's privacy legislation. However, in its current form, Bill S-4 contains measures that will make it easier to access personal information without a warrant.

By proposing to refer this bill to a committee before second reading, the government has decided to take a new legislative route with this bill.

Indeed, the government motion aims to refer this bill to a committee before second reading. This motion will therefore allow members to examine Bill S-4 before second reading and propose amendments that will modify its scope.

We support the motion, because we hope that some of the serious concerns we have about this bill will be examined in committee. We are very concerned about the fact that one provision in Bill S-4 makes it easier for organizations to share personal information without a warrant or consent from the client, and without the appropriate oversight mechanisms in place.

In an article published in the spring 2014 journal of the Ligue des droits et libertés, Stéphane Leman-Langlois, the Canada Research Chair in Surveillance and the Social Construction of Risk at Laval University in Quebec City, gave a very clear explanation of the risks associated with industrial surveillance.

Here is what he had to say in that article:

We easily forget that every second of the day, a myriad of private entities are collecting a mountain of information on us, our habits, our behaviour, and our interactions with others...

A number of commercial entities have to collect basic information on their clients just to provide them with the service they require. A mobile phone could not work without continually indicating its location. The company also has to keep records, for billing purposes, on the calls received and made with the phone...

As you can imagine, this adds up, and after a while can represent massive amounts of data...

The information that metadata can provide about us is absolutely unbelievable. An ongoing experiment at Stanford University, with 500 volunteers willing to share their metadata, has shown that the researchers could determine financial records, health status, membership in the AA, whether the individual had an abortion or owned a gun, and many other things...

Just recently, the spotlight was on certain government intelligence agencies that were deeply involved in the widespread collection of information on Canadians. The agencies in question were specifically the RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSEC, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, and the National Security Agency, or the NSA, from the U.S.

Often...these agencies stop collecting or actively intercepting data and simply demand data that has already been gathered by companies...

All this may seem remote from our daily reality...but this activity has a perfectly tangible impact on our lives as ordinary citizens...

The picture being painted by Professor Leman-Langlois of Laval University, should make us realize the importance of the subject being debated today.

However, this is what this same professor and expert in security information had to say on the government's current position:

We can all agree that there is not very much privacy on the Internet, but still, there are some very weak protections in place. However, rather than strengthening privacy, which of course would be the best thing to do, the government is bombarding us with bills that will reduce those protections.

Although Bill S-4 proposes significant amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, such as the obligation to report any breach of security safeguards involving personal information and increased powers for the Privacy Commissioner, the NDP is worried about the negative impact that some provisions of the bill will have on Canadians' privacy rights. The Conservatives have a very poor track record when it comes to protecting personal information, and Bill S-4 will not fix this troublesome past.

In just one year, government agencies secretly made over 1.2 million requests to telecommunications companies for personal information without a warrant or proper oversight. What is more, according to documents we obtained, the Canada Revenue Agency was responsible for more than 3,000 privacy breaches in less than a year. Last month, here in the House, I asked whether the government intended to follow the NDP's recommendation to set up a committee of independent experts to look at how the government uses and stores Canadians' communications data. However, as usual, the government had nothing to say. The Conservatives never gave me an answer to my question. The government should have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by Bill S-4 to correct the flaws in PIPEDA that led to repeated violations of Canadians' privacy.

In 2012, the NDP introduced Bill C-475. This bill would have added online data protection standards to federal legislation that are similar to those in Quebec's personal information protection act. Quebec's data protection standards would have been applied to all federally registered organizations and to organizations with customers and users in Quebec. The Conservatives opposed our bill, and now they have introduced a watered-down version of the same bill.

The NDP believes that Canada needs to require mandatory reporting of the loss or breach of personal information based on objective criteria, as proposed in Bill C-475. The NDP also wants to remove the provisions from Bill S-4 that allow organizations to disclose personal information to other organizations without the consent of Canadians and without a warrant.

In order to truly protect Canadians' privacy, deterrents should be put in place to encourage or force private companies to abide by Canadian laws.

That is what the NDP is proposing, and we hope that the government will listen to us in committee, because that is what we are asking for. We think we need to get to the point, and that is why we are here. If this is not done properly, we would certainly need a committee of independent experts. As I said, I think the solution is there, but as we have seen too often, the Conservative government cuts corners and we end up with something like this.

I will now take questions.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have gutted our environmental assessment process, and now the Port of Québec is conducting its own environmental impact assessment of its infrastructure projects, including its expansion project. That is ridiculous.

How can the government claim that this process is fair and transparent when the Québec Port Authority is assessing its own projects?

[Consumer Protection, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, consumers' bills are going up and the profits of small businesses are declining. Why? Because credit card companies never lose. They pay themselves first.

Despite the government's promises, nothing has been done to reduce credit card fees.

When will the Conservatives act to help SMEs and families and rein in the greed of credit card companies?

[Privacy, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said that I asked 15 questions in four minutes. That is the point of the late show. The point is to ask many questions of the government, because Canadians have many questions. Experts raise many important points.

Here, we endure gag order after gag order. Our speaking time is always being cut short. That is why I have to bombard the government with questions in order to get answers. It would be great to hear some.

The government is once again giving itself discretionary powers, as it has done in a number of departments and in a number of areas, but it is not guaranteeing that it will protect the privacy of Canadians.

If it truly wants to do some cleaning up, it should appoint inspectors at the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate tax havens, for example, which are worth billions. Why is the government not doing that?

The government only wants the power to look for information as it sees fit. If it wants some information, it will simply go get it, without a warrant. It is doing away with procedure and is not respecting the privacy of the public.

The NDP will prevent that from happening, since Canadians are justified in asking for guarantees regarding this government's actions. This is only natural. It is a matter of transparency. Perhaps the Conservatives do not understand that concept and have no ethics at all.