Bruce Hyer

[Petitions, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first petition I present concerns the ELA.

Residents of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster, B.C., are unhappy with the government's decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario. These petitioners note that closing that world-renowned facility will jeopardize unique research and our understanding of human impact on lakes, rivers and fish.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the cell phone freedom act. I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Montreal, Calgary, Kamloops, Edmonton and Ottawa in support of the cell phone freedom act to provide more customer choice and promote competition in the domestic wireless market.

The petitioners want to support my Bill C-343 so that Canadian consumers are no longer chained by anti-competitive network locks on their cellular phones.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again I present a petition on behalf of the many residents of Saskatoon who are opposed to the government's decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario. The petitioners point out that closing this world-renowned freshwater science facility will jeopardize unique research and our understanding of human impacts on lakes, rivers and fish.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be against the rules to ever say something good about another party but I will break that tradition of lockstep criticism today.

On October 18, I asked the Conservatives to block the Petronas deal. I was pleased to hear the very next day that the minister had, indeed, blocked that buyout. Hopefully, he will stay the course, stand up for Canadian energy security and block the China-Nexen takeover.

Will the minister accept my thanks?

[Telecommunications, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kenora has done a good job of demonstrating how most Canadians are getting well connected to the Internet. Where we differ is that I care about all Canadians, even those who are not well off.

I cannot understand why the Conservatives think cancelling this valuable program is anything other than mean-spirited and short-sighted. The community access program has very clear benefits for Canadians seeking employment, for example. Would keeping the program around not be the right way to help Canadians get back to work and to enable them to achieve the long-term prosperity to which the Conservatives say they are committed?

The Americans understand the importance of giving their citizens the tools to get back on their feet. Through their aptly titled Connect2Compete program, they offer low-cost Internet service to low-income households and refurbished computers for $150.

If our government has an alternative such as this to compensate for the cancellation of the community access program, I would be happy to hear about it, but it does not.

[Telecommunications, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in June I said the government was leaving underprivileged Canadians behind with the cancellation of the Community Access Program, or CAP. I would like to expand on that today.

The Conservatives' omnibus budget brought in a number of changes to Canadian programs and legislation, as we know, including the elimination of the Community Access Program, which started in 1995. The program was intended to expand Internet service to all Canadians. When questioned on the cancellation, the government is quick to claim that 98% of Canadians now have Internet access. However, this number does not tell the real story, or the whole story, and I would like to delve a little deeper.

While Internet access has expanded among well off Canadians, many others are left disconnected. Internet service is still thin in remote areas, like the small towns and reserves in Thunder Bay--Superior North. Moreover, many low-income households cannot afford to access the Internet. The Conservatives think that leaving this many Canadians without Internet access is acceptable. Are they content to leave these Canadians cut off?

It does not end there. The government overhauled employment insurance in its budget as well. To qualify for EI, Canadians must provide proof that they have conducted daily job searches. However, the Internet is by far the most useful tool Canadians have when they look for a job. People who are out of work, or have lower paying, or seasonal jobs often cannot afford Internet access. This makes it harder for them to find a job and to access EI. What a Catch-22.

Conservatives say that they are committed to helping every Canadian find work, yet they are constantly taking away the very tools that Canadians need to accomplish that.

Disadvantaged youth and seniors are also disproportionately impacted by the decision. Without the knowledge or tools they need to access email and the web, seniors find themselves more isolated.

CAP funding was also used to offer training courses on how to use the Internet. This was an important part of bridging the so-called digital divide between those with Internet skills and those without. As government programs and other daily services are increasingly being offered online, this strategy to increase digital literacy is a major benefit of that program, one that will also be lost with this cancellation.

I received a letter over the summer from the Multicultural Association of Northwestern Ontario in Thunder Bay, which used CAP funding at its youth centre. The centre is located in the inner city, where many underprivileged youth rely on those free services to get through school, to find jobs, or to keep in touch with families, many of whom live far away on remote reserves. The letter says, in part, “Regular evaluation of the hundreds of kids we serve reveal they benefit tremendously from the free community access program services we offer”. At least they did before the Conservatives axed the program.

Without this program, we cannot offer the training and services needed by underprivileged Canadians to create a better life for themselves and their children. Cancelling this program means that many disadvantaged citizens are being left behind and we are telling them that we just do not care.

We should care. Internet connectivity is essential for all Canadians. It is with this in mind that I ask the government to stand up for Canadians, not just the well off, and reinstate this essential program.

[Border Security, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I support shiprider. My question is not about shiprider.

Far too many questions remain and Canadians are largely being left in the dark. This is a crucial and expanded agreement, one that will well impact our sovereignty and the rights of Canadians like few others in our history. It must not be written and signed in secrecy.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, will the government agree to lay out what is exactly being negotiated under this cross-border law enforcement initiative and the government's position on each issue being negotiated? Will it respect existing Canadian laws and treaties, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty? Finally, will the government bring any agreement to Parliament for review and approval of this crucial document and agreement?

[Border Security, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to a hugely worrisome and important issue that has unfortunately received little attention. In June, I asked a question about the government's leaked plans to “ease Canadians into the idea” of U.S. agents operating on Canadian soil as part of a sovereignty sharing perimeter security deal with the United States.

Tonight is Halloween. Imagine the fright ordinary Canadians would get if they are at home and all of a sudden their door bursts open and U.S. drug enforcement agents storm into their house, arrest them and abscond across the border with them, where they can be charged with things that are not even crimes in Canada.

That is exactly the horror show that the government is bringing to Canadians. It might not just be the DEA. It could be the FBI or U.S. customs and immigration agents or the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms or even the CIA. We cannot be certain of who all would be involved because the government is keeping Canadians, and the House, largely in the scary dark.

Who needs due process and extradition treaties when they can just waltz into another country and arrest whoever they want? Marc Emery would see the problem with this scheme.

This is all part of the “beyond the border” initiative, which will hugely expand the nature and scope of joint law enforcement operations and information sharing.

One of the dozens of non-budget items in this year's omnibus budget was changes to permanently allow for U.S. agents to operate on Canadian soil. The shiprider program has crawled out of the water and onto the land.

Cross-border co-operation between law enforcement to stop crime is a laudable goal. However, it must be done in a way that respects Canadian sovereignty. After fiascos like the FIPA, the Canada-China foreign investment protection treaty, it is clear that Canadians are skeptical about closed door agreements being negotiated that impact Canada's sovereignty. These plans must respect the rights of Canadians.

A joint resolution from the federal and provincial privacy commissioners urged transparency and respect for Canadian privacy standards regarding this initiative. It was very apt, considering the severe consequences Maher Arar suffered because basic standards were not followed. The resolution said:

Any initiatives under the plan that collect personal information should also include appropriate redress and remedy mechanisms to review files for accuracy, correct inaccuracies and restrict disclosures to other countries; Parliament, provincial Privacy Commissioners and civil society should be engaged as initiatives under the plan take shape; [i]nformation about Canadians should be stored on Canadian soil whenever feasible or at least be subject to Canadian protection; and [a]ny use of new surveillance technologies within Canada such as unmanned aerial vehicles must be subject to appropriate controls set out in a proper regulatory framework.

They mention aerial drones because it has emerged that they could be part of this cross-border initiative. Do we really want to have U.S. predator drones flying deep into Canada, spying and carrying out missions at will?

None of this is being discussed in the House because the government is not following the privacy commissioners' directives. Parliament is not being engaged or informed about this cross-border law enforcement scheme.

Questions remain. Will the private information of Canadians only be stored in Canada? How will disclosures to other countries be restricted, or files corrected for inaccuracies? When violations occur, what redress or mediation measures are being put in place under the beyond the border plan?

I know the plans are currently on hold as legal—

[Petitions, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I am very proud to present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Thunder Bay regarding the development of a federal suicide prevention strategy.

The petitioners note that suicide is especially prevalent among young people and the second leading cause of death among youth between the ages of 10 and 24.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on child care. The residents of Thunder Bay, Red Rock and Nipigon support a national child care program and note that Canada ranks dead last among OECD nations when it comes to early learning and child care spending.

The petitioners call on the government to do more for our young people.