Charmaine Borg

[Industry, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government announced a weak digital strategy. In comparison, Australia is much more ambitious. The Australian strategy ensures that people will have access to an Internet connection that is five times faster than the target announced by our Minister of Industry.

Why did the minister wait so long to table a digital strategy and why is he being so unambitious?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent and very passionate speech. People are passionate about this because it has a direct bearing on how they get to work every day.

I am a member from the north shore. There is a toll bridge on the A-25. A number of people in my riding are unhappy about this situation. However, there is another way to get to the Island of Montreal. My colleague's constituents will have no alternative if a toll is charged on the Champlain Bridge.

I would like my colleague to reiterate his position on that and to explain why it is important to learn from one's mistakes.

[Taking the Privacy of Canadians Seriously Act, March 25th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-580, An Act to amend the Privacy Act (personal information—loss or unauthorized access or disclosure).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my bill to update the Privacy Act, which dates back to 1985. This is the second bill I have introduced to strengthen our outdated privacy laws.

This time my focus is the public sector. I am proposing two measures: develop a mechanism to require mandatory disclosure within a reasonable period of time when information is lost or compromised, and give the commissioner the power to order government agencies to comply with her recommendations.

In December 2012, under the Conservative government, the Department of Employment and Social Development lost information pertaining to half a million Canadians. Between 2002 and 2012, there were more than 3,000 violations. The problem was not fixed, and instead it got worse. We now hear that in 2013 alone, there were over 3,800 violations or breaches of personal information at Canadian agencies, and only 170 of those were reported to the commissioner.

The government is dragging its feet and refuses to update laws, and Canadians are the ones suffering the consequences. The NDP is fighting to make suggestions and propose meaningful measures to ensure that safeguards reflect current challenges. A look at our government agencies is long overdue, but the government does not take the privacy of the people it is supposed to protect seriously.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to tracking by government agencies of customers’ usage of communications devices and services: do government agencies use their own (i) tracking products (e.g. “IMSI Catchers”), (ii) infiltration software (e.g. zero day exploits, malware such as FinFisher, etc.), (iii) interception hardware (i.e. placed within or integrated with a company’s network)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to requests by government agencies to telecommunications service providers (TSP) to provide information about customers’ usage of communications devices and services: (a) in 2012 and 2013, how many such requests were made; (b) of the total referred to in (a), how many requests were made by (i) RCMP, (ii) Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (iii) Competition Bureau, (iv) Canada Revenue Agency, (v) Canada Border Services Agency, (vi) Communications Security Establishment Canada; (c) for the requests referred to in (a), how many of each of the following types of information were requested, (i) geolocation of device (broken down by real-time and historical data), (ii) call detail records (as obtained by number recorders or by disclosure of stored data), (iii) text message content, (iv) voicemail, (v) cell tower logs, (vi) real-time interception of communications (i.e. wire-tapping), (vii) subscriber information, (viii) transmission data (e.g. duration of interaction, port numbers, communications routing data, etc.), (ix) data requests (e.g. web sites visited, IP address logs), (x) any other kinds of data requests pertaining to the operation of TSPs’ networks and businesses, broken down by type; (d) for each of the request types referred to in (c), what are all of the data fields that are disclosed as part of responding to a request; (e) of the total referred to in (a), how many of the requests were made (i) for real-time disclosures, (ii) retroactively, for stored data, (iii) in exigent circumstances, (iv) in non-exigent circumstances, (v) subject to a court order; (f) of the total referred to in (a), (i) how many of the requests did TSPs fulfill, (ii) how many requests did they deny and for what reasons; (g) do the government agencies that request information from TSPs notify affected TSP subscribers that information pertaining to their telecommunications service has been accessed by the government, (i) if so, how many subscribers are notified per year, (ii) by which government agencies; (h) for each type of request referred to in (c), broken down by agency, (i) how long is the information obtained by such requests retained by government agencies, (ii) what is the average time period for which government agencies request such information (e.g. 35 days of records), (iii) what is the average amount of time that TSPs are provided to fulfil such requests, (iv) what is the average number of subscribers who have their information disclosed to government agencies; (i) what are the legal standards that agencies use to issue the requests for information referred to in (c); (j) how many times were the requests referred to in (c) based specifically on grounds of (i) terrorism, (ii) national security, (iii) foreign intelligence, (iv) child exploitation; (k) what is the maximum number of subscribers that TSPs are required by government agencies to monitor for each of the information types identified in (c); (l) has the government ever ordered (e.g. through ministerial authorization or a court order) the increase of one of the maximum numbers referred to in (k); (m) do TSPs ever refuse to comply with requests for information identified in (c) and, if so, (i) why were such requests refused, (ii) how do government agencies respond when a TSP refuses to comply; and (n) in 2012 and 2013, did government agencies provide money or other forms of compensation to TSPs in exchange for the information referred to in (a) and, if so, (i) how much money have government agencies paid, (ii) are there different levels of compensation for exigent or non-exigent requests?

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I had a really hard time listening to my Liberal colleague's speech, and I think my NDP colleagues feel the same way.

I want to share some facts with the House. Honduras is widely considered to be the murder capital of the world, with a record 7,172 homicides in 2012. Twenty-three journalists were killed there in the past three years alone. Just 1% of crimes are investigated by police. This means that there are 7,172 homicides in a year and only 1% of these crimes are probably investigated by the police. Journalists live in constant fear.

I am pleased that we are not supporting this free trade agreement because it is not a good agreement. As a democratic country, Canada should not support a country that allows such things to go on within its borders. I am proud not to support this agreement. I would like to ask the member how he can morally and ethically support it.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will get straight to my question. The Conservative member said that there were a lot of poor people in Honduras and that this agreement would help them. However, we know that there is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. My concern is that this agreement will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The government has not implemented any measures to prevent that from happening. I would like to hear my colleague comment on that.

[An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document), March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I do not have much time.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on his initiative. The Access to Information Act is extremely outdated. We have been suggesting changes for a long time, but nobody has done anything. Today our colleague wants us to take action.

I was disgusted when I heard the parliamentary secretary say that the bill had quite a few problems. After all, it was copied right from the Conservative platform. He might as well have been commenting on the Conservatives' commitments and their promises to Canadians.

The Conservatives should keep the promises they made to Canadians in the hopes of getting elected. They should support my colleague's bill. Numerous experts, including the Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, who is doing an excellent job, have asked the government to update the law because it is outdated.

[An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document), March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on this wonderful bill, which comes at a critical time, since this Conservative government is showing an increasing lack of transparency.

A Montreal Gazette editorial quotes the Prime Minister. I would like to read what he had to say.

Before the Prime Minister came to power, he said:

Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.

He said those words when he was the opposition leader, but his government has done exactly the opposite.

Why does the member think the government has taken so long to fulfill its promises? Can he also comment on whether government members are disappointed when they look at the promises that were made and the plan for 2014?

[Canada Post, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the suburbs north of Montreal are among the first to lose home mail delivery.

Back home, the city of Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines adopted a resolution demanding to be consulted before any changes are made to its postal service.

The city of Terrebonne is concerned about having community mailboxes in its historic downtown. It fears that this will detract from the charm and heritage of Old Terrebonne.

Will the minister promise to consult the municipalities and consider other solutions before imposing draconian changes on the postal service?