Ève Péclet

[Digital Privacy Act, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one of our biggest concerns here is that a provision in this bill would allow organizations to share personal information more freely and without a warrant for business purposes.

For example, a telecommunications company or some other type of business could share an individual's personal information with another business for the purpose of a prospective business transaction between another company and a Canadian citizen.

This bill would allow different companies to share personal information that belongs to Canadians without clear, precise and robust oversight by Canada's Parliament, which is to say, by Canadians.

Would my colleague comment on that provision in the bill?

[Digital Privacy Act, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really put his finger on the problem, which is rather widespread and applies to other bills besides the one before us today.

For instance, following public pressure, the government unfortunately had to withdraw Bill C-30 from the order paper. However, there was also Bill C-51 and Bill C-13 on cybercrime. Now we are talking about Bill S-4, which completely destroys Canada's privacy protection regime. It waters down the criteria for obtaining warrants and, in some cases, even allows authorities to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant.

I wonder whether the member could tell us just how troubled he is that this government says here in the House and elsewhere that it wants to protect Canadians, and yet it introduces a number of bills, like Bill C-51, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4, that put Canadians' privacy at risk.

[Digital Privacy Act, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague mention amendments. However, the Conservatives rejected one of our critical amendments that was supported by many witnesses. That is rather problematic. We wanted to work with the Conservatives, but as usual, they turned a deaf ear in committee and refused to work as a team.

Why did they once again refuse to accept our amendments, which would have corrected and improved the bill so that we could better protect Canadians? As it now stands, Bill S-4 is still quite flawed. For example, it leaves it up to the companies to enforce the regulations, which is unacceptable.

I would therefore like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives rejected our amendments.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I gather that standing up for female victims of violence is very important to him. I have one simple question for him: why did he vote against our motion for a national action plan to end violence against women knowing full well that one in three women in Canada will, in her lifetime, be a victim of sexual, physical or psychological violence?

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague’s speech. I know that women’s rights are very important to her. We worked together on Bill C-36 concerning prostitution. There was a provision in that bill that unfortunately criminalized the victims, the women. The government proposed an amendment precisely because criminalizing victims as an objective will never put an end to any criminal activity. In fact, she supported that amendment.

However, what struck me is that Bill S-7 does exactly the same thing. It criminalizes these women, who are themselves victims of an unacceptable practice. I would like to know why the government was not prepared to reverse the trend, in this bill, and remove the provisions that criminalize the victims.

We know it, and my colleague knows it: criminalizing victims does not prevent offences from being committed.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech.

Many parts of the bill criminalize people who could be considered victims in this tragedy of forced marriage. Unfortunately, as we have seen with a number of bills—for example, the prostitution bill introduced by this government—criminalizing the victims would not only marginalize them even further in these situations, but would have the opposite effect and frighten the victims. In fact, they could decide not to report these crimes. In the end, the victims would remain in this vicious circle that the minister described and defined so well because when you tell a victim that her family will be incarcerated and that she, too, could be charged, then you have failed to protect the victims.

I would like the minister to explain why the government chose the approach of criminalization rather than an approach that protects victims.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition was put together by a very active citizen in Pointe-de-l'Île. The petition calls for a regulatory change with regard to the application of the metric system.

We know that 94% of the world's population uses the international metric system and it is the only system that has been taught in our schools for over 35 years now. Canada should therefore drop any reference to any system other than the metric system in ads, on signs, and on packaging. The petitioners are also calling for containers to be standardized to the metric system in units of 100 grams or 100 millilitres.

This petition was signed by more than 100 people in my riding.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition is signed by over 150 people from my riding who support the initiative the NDP presented to Parliament to end violence against women, specifically by calling an inquiry into the murdered and missing aboriginal women.

[The Senate, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as if that were not enough, we found out from Public Works and Government Services Canada that the senators' temporary offices could cost Canadian taxpayers $24.5 million just so that the Liberal and Conservative senators do not have to walk an extra block to get to Parliament, their place of work. Frankly, it is high time we abolished the Senate.

However, in the meantime, will the Prime Minister put his foot down and say no to the senators and this $24.5 million expense?

[The Senate, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a double standard with this Prime Minister.

He promised Canadians he would clean up the Senate. However, once in power, his plan to reform the Senate was quashed by the Supreme Court, and now nothing is happening. It is the status quo for the Conservatives.

Apparently the 30 Liberal and Conservative senators named in the Auditor General's report might be investigated by the RCMP. There is a real pattern of abuse in the Senate, and the Prime Minister just stands idly by.

What is he going to do? Will he take charge and clean house in the Senate once and for all?