Charmaine Borg

[Digital Privacy Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that bothers me about this whole process is that this bill was introduced in the Senate first, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned in his question, and then brought to the House.

We even adopted a motion to study the bill before second reading stage, which instilled confidence and was a sign of good faith. We thought we could amend this bill and make the necessary changes to ensure that it truly protects Canadians' personal information in the digital age.

However, the government kept saying we did not have enough time to amend the bill because it needed to be passed as quickly as possible.

I want to point out that this government introduced similar bills in the past and I myself introduced a bill on this topic that we could have passed and would already have become law. The Conservatives refused it all. They did nothing and now suddenly they are making this an urgent matter.

Why did they fail to do anything about this before it became an urgent matter?

[Digital Privacy Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is entirely supportive of the need to update our privacy laws, especially in the digital age, when we frequently share our private lives online. However, something about this bill really bothers me, which is why the NDP will not be supporting it.

Unfortunately, although the bill is called the digital privacy act, some of its measures actually work against privacy by opening the door to more sharing of personal information among organizations, on a voluntary basis, without the knowledge or consent of the individuals in question. The Privacy Commissioner even raised some concerns about this. This will really open the door to a lot of information sharing. Sometimes it will be for legitimate reasons, and sometimes not.

Why has the government not taken action in this regard? Why did it not include the amendments put forward by the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that this bill really does protect Canadians?

[Digital Privacy Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech.

He said he is extremely concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. However, his party voted in favour of Bill C-13, which represents a major threat to protecting Canadians' personal information. He himself voted in favour of Bill C-51, which truly poses serious risks to personal information protection, since it allows our personal information to be shared among a number of government agencies without any parliamentary or judicial oversight. It is very disconcerting.

I am confused. Does the hon. member want to protect personal information or is it not as important as all that?

[Petitions, May 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the great pleasure of presenting a petition asking the government to eliminate the tax on feminine hygiene products. It is a tax that we consider to be truly discriminatory. The women who signed this petition are very proud that the NDP brought this issue to Parliament and was successful and that this discriminatory tax will disappear on July 1.

[Canada Post, May 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have served up the same tired lines about Canada Post over and over. It might be time for a new strategy.

More than 600 municipalities, including the City of Terrebonne, expressed their discontent. The NDP listened to people and elected officials, so it understands that home mail delivery is not a luxury; it is an essential service.

Instead of spending thousands on legal fees, why will the government not agree to a moratorium?

[Digital Privacy Act, May 28th, 2015]

I asked a question. I was there.

[Digital Privacy Act, May 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that a time allocation motion has been moved in the House for the 97th time. Frankly, it is an insult to our democracy.

What I find even more shocking is that not only is the government imposing a gag order at report stage and second reading, but it has already imposed one for third reading, even though the House has not yet begun that debate. This is really rich. Once again, it is an insult to our democracy.

The government is invoking the urgent need to pass this legislation. I agree that it is really important to protect Canadians' personal information and take action, but this government dragged its feet for years. It had four years to do something. There were some bills in the past that were simply never introduced in this House.

We had plenty of time to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Once again, the government dragged its feet on this issue.

Now all of sudden there is a sense of urgency, when we had countless opportunities to update the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I introduced a bill that the House could have passed into law already. Instead, the government is making this an urgent matter at the last minute. It is despicable.

Why did the government take so long to act on this and then turn around and say that this is an urgent matter? It makes no sense.

[Business of Supply, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the International Open Data Conference being held here in Ottawa. We keep hearing that the government is committed to open data. On paper it has a wonderful program, but in reality there is a culture of secrecy that goes with it. Data is not published, scientists are muzzled, and information does not reach the public. It is truly a major problem. That is what today's motion is all about.

I would like to know what my colleague opposite has to say about the government's plan for open data, which exists on paper, but not in reality.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present the NDP's supplementary report on the identity theft study. We agree that identity theft is a very serious issue and that the protection of Canadians' personal information is a key component of a strong digital economy. In general we agree with the recommendations and the report.

However, we believe that the recommendations fail to cover some issues, including the following: requiring government and Internet service providers to produce transparency reports whenever personal information is voluntarily shared; a targeted strategy for first nations; updating the Privacy Act; ways to verify IDs; the requirement for credit freezes to be offered to consumers; guidelines surrounding the use of social insurance numbers by private organizations; and order-making power for the Privacy Commissioner.

The NDP's supplementary recommendations would put an end to the growing problem of identity theft and would provide better protection for Canadians' personal information in the digital era.

[Canada Post, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the frustration with Canada Post's decision to terminate door-to-door delivery continues to grow.

Nearly 600 municipalities, including Terrebonne, have expressed their displeasure. On the weekend, the president of the Union of Quebec Municipalities spoke out against Canada Post's attitude and called for a moratorium.

Will the minister finally listen to the public and municipal officials and put the brakes on this reckless decision?