Charmaine Borg

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. It is important to strike a balance. Yes, there are emergency situations, but things should be handled case by case. What we are seeing now is an abuse of this whole parallel system in which a phone call to an Internet service provider is all it takes. The Supreme Court has taken action on this file. It ruled on the matter. Now the government has to abide by that ruling. I hope that is what the government will do during the committee's study of this bill.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the digital age, there are many new risks. I offer a computer security course for seniors at a seniors centre in my riding. This helps me to see just how concerned people are about the risks they face in the digital age. These individuals do not necessarily know what happens when they enter their personal information into the vortex of Facebook, Google or any other network. People often think about the two examples that I just mentioned, but this goes even further than that. Phishing emails are often sent to people who do not necessarily know how to distinguish between a phishing email and a legitimate email.

I want to share some key figures that show just how concerned people are about this issue. A total of 70% of Canadians feel less protected than they did 10 years ago, 97% of Canadians would like organizations to inform them in the event of a data breach, and 91% of Canadians say that they are concerned or extremely concerned about the protection of personal information. That is huge.

The NDP has taken action on this file. We introduced Bill C-475. On one opposition day, we moved a motion to close the gaps in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to enhance the transparency of the parallel system for information sharing between Internet service providers and government agencies. We took action. Unfortunately, the government took an extremely long time to propose amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and debate them. We are happy to be doing this today. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal bill. It needs to be improved.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather peculiar question coming from someone who supported Bill C-13 at third reading. Together, these two bills strengthen the parallel system for accessing personal information. Of course, there is the traditional system under which a warrant is needed to obtain personal information about someone. However, as a result of flaws in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there is also a parallel system under which a government agency can simply pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and ask for information about that company's clients. That is something that the government does not seem to want to correct. In fact, the government wants to do the opposite. It wants to increase its ability to do this sort of thing by giving itself legal immunity under Bill C-13 and by now allowing organizations to share Canadians' personal information among themselves without consent and without a warrant.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are looking at today is unique in that it is the first of its kind in Parliament.

We have to wonder whether it is worth sending this bill to committee before it is passed at second reading, since that is not in keeping with the usual legislative process. While I have numerous concerns about Bill S-4, I still plan on supporting today's motion because I think that we can work together to improve the bill. However, that does not mean that I support the bill, and I must make that distinction.

As parliamentarians, we have been elected to work together and find effective solutions. That is what I am hoping to do today. I want to reach out to the government in the hopes of improving this bill because some of the elements are a step in the right direction.

As the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said, I introduced Bill C-475 in the House. That bill was designed to make significant changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to ensure it reflected the reality of the digital era. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against it. There could have been better protections in place, but we were unable to work together. This time around, I hope that will be possible.

It is extremely important that PIPEDA be updated, since it has not been updated since the very first iPod was introduced. Technology has evolved. Facebook did not even exist yet at the time. Things have really changed, and the law must reflect the current reality. This bill is a good first step, but it does not go far enough.

For instance, it is important to introduce a mandatory system for notifying users of data losses and data breaches. However, the model proposed by the government is subjective: organizations can decide whether the data breach is significant enough to report. In some situations, these organizations will not have the best means or knowledge to do this, especially the really small organizations. Is it really in their interest to disclose such data breaches? Probably not.

Bill C-475 proposed a model that was objective. That is one aspect that must absolutely be improved in order to better protect Canadians' privacy, and I hope this change can be made in committee.

It is important to implement a system that will ensure greater compliance with PIPEDA. With international digital mega-corporations in the picture, our laws are too frequently broken because there are currently no penalties. That is why we need a system of penalties to enforce corporate compliance with PIPEDA and Canadian privacy laws.

Unfortunately, Bill S-4 does not go far enough in this respect. It creates the option of putting together a committee that will act in good faith. Sometimes everyone acts in good faith and is happy, but that is not always how things work.

The commissioner has to be able to issue orders earlier in the process, but that is not what the government has proposed. That is what I proposed in Bill C-475, and that is another change that will have to be made to Bill S-4 before we can support it.

However, what really bothers me about this bill is the provision that would allow organizations to share personal information without a warrant and without the consent of the individual concerned. That is a huge problem. Even though this bill is called the digital privacy act, it contains a provision that could really interfere with the protection of privacy. I find that deeply contradictory.

It is also extremely important to point out that between the time that this bill was drafted and the debate today, the Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling that information such as data from Internet service providers on their clients, including their IP addresses, email addresses, names, telephone numbers, and so forth, are personal information and cannot be obtained without a warrant. Obviously, I am paraphrasing, but that is more or less what the Supreme Court ruled.

I have major reservations about the constitutionality of this provision of the bill. I asked the government to reassess it and withdraw it. Unfortunately, my request was not favourably received.

I think we could work together during review in committee on withdrawing this provision, which may violate the Canadian Constitution. I hope that is why the Conservatives want to send this bill to committee.

Obviously this is a Senate bill. During review in committee, a number of witnesses shared their concerns over this very provision. The Privacy Commissioner said the following in a brief:

Allowing such disclosures to prevent potential fraud [as provided for in clauses 7(3)(a.1) and 7(3)(a.2)] may open the door to widespread disclosures and routine sharing of personal information among organizations on the grounds that this information might be useful to prevent future fraud.

Indeed, the government wants to protect personal information, but allowing access to that information without a warrant, without consent, without any judicial oversight and without transparency is very problematic.

On many occasions, the government has used PIPEDA and its loopholes to call on Internet service providers and ask for Canadians' personal information. Why? We do not know. We do not even know exactly how many requests have been made, because this information is not available to the public. However, based on what the Privacy Commissioner revealed, we know that in a single year, government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests to Internet service providers to obtain personal information about their customers. That is a huge problem.

The government could have taken this opportunity to truly protect Canadians' privacy and to fix the loopholes in PIPEDA that allow this kind of information to be transmitted without legal oversight, without consent and without any transparency. It could have done that. I hope it will do so during the study in committee. That is very important. I am just making a suggestion.

We are debating the motion today. We are prepared to agree to study this bill before it passes at second reading, as is usually the case. I hope that this will be a gesture of good faith, and that the Conservatives will take this opportunity to fix the loopholes in PIPEDA and to eliminate the clause allowing organizations to share information without a warrant. We cannot support a bill that contains provisions that violate Canadians' privacy.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no one else seems to be interested in the debate today. I hope that will change in the future.

I have another question. Time and time again, this government has outright refused all proposed amendments, changes or modifications to a bill. In committee, the government often does not even listen to what the witnesses have to say.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether it is truly a gesture of good faith to study this bill in committee before it is passed at second reading? Will there finally be at least a basic amount of co-operation for once?

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's speech; however, today we are debating a motion to send Bill S-4 to committee before it is even debated in the House of Commons. That is a rather exceptional measure. This is the first time this measure has been used since 2011. However, the parliamentary secretary did not provide an adequate reason for why the government wants to speed this process up. I hope it is to fix the mistakes in the bill, and to fix the fact that this bill violates our privacy by allowing organizations to share personal information with each other, without a warrant and without consent.

Can the parliamentary secretary provide a better explanation of why the government wants to send this bill to committee? If it is to make changes, what kinds of changes does the government have in mind?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. I want to talk about her fisher analogy.

She seems to think that this bill will not allow anyone to access personal information without a warrant, but does she realize that there is already a parallel system to allow any government agency to cast a line and a big net to an Internet service provider—which would be the ocean in this case—and to catch all kinds of fish?

That does not seem clear to my colleague. Perhaps the government did not explain all the details of the bill to her. I do not know everything, but I know that this provision is in the bill. I would like to know whether she likes that.

[The Environment, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a government report indicates that the former Saint-Maurice shooting range was contaminated as a result of National Defence activities. The land consists primarily of 169 hectares of wetlands, which is rare on Montreal's north shore. The people of Terrebonne and surrounding areas are concerned that there is no plan to quickly decontaminate this site.

Can the government guarantee that the land will be decontaminated within a reasonable time and that the wetlands will be protected when the land is transferred in future?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his excellent work and for introducing a bill with provisions that were very similar to those in the first few pages of the bill we are debating today.

We could have acted very quickly. We could have passed the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which would have allowed us to examine the issue of cyberbullying and find ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, despite claiming that they are committed to combatting cyberbullying. That is extremely disconcerting.

In response to my Liberal colleague's question, I am extremely disappointed to hear that they are supporting this bill and that they are supporting this government's desire to violate the privacy of Canadians.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is something we have said over and over. We should be able to split this bill in two. Cyberbullying victims deserve a debate on these problems. They deserve that we tackle the issue of cyberbullying and debate provisions that would help fix these problems. I repeat that we also need to address prevention. Unfortunately, these two issues are being dealt with at the same time.

I would like to talk about what Carol Todd said during her testimony in committee. She said that she did not want people's privacy to be invaded in her daughter's name. That is fundamental.

Why could we not adopt only the parts of the bill on cyberbullying and the sharing of non-consensual images, and then examine the other parts later, especially in light of the Spencer decision, which changes everything?