Charmaine Borg

[Access to Information, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous for the Conservatives to say they are modernizing the administration of the act, when it is the law itself that needs to be fixed. The experts they consulted, and even their own advisory panel, told them so. The Information Commissioner has said that fixing the law is the one element that needed to be in the plan, and it is not there.

I would like to give the minister a chance for real openness. Why does he refuse to fix the Access to Information Act?

[Access to Information, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the action plan on open government that the Conservatives launched this week has some major flaws. They do not even have the nerve to modernize the Access to Information Act, which is the key to an open government. What is more, when the NDP introduced a bill to reform the Access to Information Act, the Conservatives voted against it.

How can the government claim to be more open when it refuses to modernize 32-year-old legislation?

[Media Literacy Week, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are right in the middle of Media Literacy Week, an annual event led by MediaSmarts and the Canadian Teachers' Federation. Activities will take place across the country until Friday to help Canadian youth understand the importance of using social media well.

We all know that digital platforms are powerful tools. They can promote worthy causes, but unfortunately, they can also be used for cyberbullying, cyber-misogyny and spreading hate messages. To combat the negative aspects of online communication, Media Literacy Week invites all participants to explore the positive uses of social networking.

This week, over 100 organizations across the country are working with young people to help them develop good media skills and make a positive contribution to progress in their community.

As the digital issues critic, I hope that all of my colleagues will help draw attention to Media Literacy Week so that together, we can encourage young Canadians to make good use of digital technology.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech, which really highlighted the different problems with this bill.

I would like to hear her thoughts, because she said that the government could have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by Bill S-4 to correct the flaws in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, known as PIPEDA, which allow for a parallel system in which government agencies can simply ask Internet service providers to provide information on customers, such as their IP address. I would like her to talk some more about that and explain why it is important to correct these flaws in order to put an end to that non-consensual parallel system that has no oversight and no transparency.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yet again, I listened with great interest to my Conservative colleague's speech.

I have a more specific question for him. I agree that a data breach notification requirement is essential. I even proposed a similar measure in my Bill C-475, which the member voted against.

In my model, I proposed an objective mechanism that would not make organizations themselves responsible for determining whether the data breach or leak was significant enough to notify the client concerned.

What Bill S-4 proposes is really subjective. It would have the organization make its own determination. Many lawyers, experts and academics have found this approach problematic. Does my colleague think that this approach is problematic?

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to all of the Conservative members' speeches, but if memory serves and if I am in the right place on the agenda, we are debating a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before second reading. Every time a Conservative member rises, he says that he is talking about Bill S-4 and does not talk about the motion that we are supposed to be debating today. I understand that the two might be connected, but we are debating the motion and I think it is important to point that out.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for taking part in the debate on this very important bill.

At the beginning of her speech, she asked why the government wants to send this bill to committee before second reading, since it has introduced so many versions of it.

I had a conversation with my colleague earlier. She seems to have some concerns, and I think they are well founded. Could she share them with the House?

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that we are debating a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before it passes second reading.

The member who just spoke talked about all the good aspects of Bill S-4, and yet he voted against my Bill C-475, which proposed more or less the same things, if not better protections for Canadians.

However, my question is more about the Supreme Court decision regarding a provision of this bill related to personal data. We do not know whether the Conservatives plan to change this provision during the study in committee.

Is the member who just spoke afraid that this bill will be considered unconstitutional? If not, why does he not want to consider the Supreme Court's decision in the Spencer case in relation to this bill?

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the previous question.

The member said that it was perfectly okay and normal to share information. She wants to convince people that the government is putting up a fence around Canadians' personal information.

However, is she aware that this bill proposes exactly the opposite? Does she really think that private companies can share personal information without ensuring that the information is appropriately protected, without any transparency and without a system to ensure that this happens only under certain circumstances?

None of those elements is in place. Does she really think that we are going in the right direction?

I wonder if this is really what the government should do to protect personal information. I think it is exactly the opposite.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I heard several of the Conservative members' speeches. They gave 10-minute speeches on Bill S-4. That is nice, but we are debating a motion to refer it to committee before second reading. I did not hear a single member explain why that would be necessary.

My New Democratic and Liberal colleagues said that they hope to be able to fix some of the legislative problems with the bill before us. The Conservatives want us to send it to committee, but they do not seem to be acknowledging that their bill is problematic.

Can the member tell Canadians why the government is using an unusual measure to send this bill to committee? So far, the Conservative government has not explained its intentions at all.