Ève Péclet

[Ethics, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, how gullible do we look? The Conservatives are taking us for fools.

On December 19, 2013, the Prime Minister was asked about plausible deniability within his office. His response was that Mr. Wright knew “full well that I don't believe in that doctrine.” Can the Prime Minister tell us at what point he informed Nigel Wright about his position on plausible deniability?

[Ethics, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is the art of not answering a question.

The parliamentary secretary can try to deflect responsibility away from the Prime Minister, but he is the one who told the House, verbatim, that Benjamin Perrin was not involved in a legal agreement. Now that his office and the police are in possession of the emails that magically reappeared, can a government member tell us what role Benjamin Perrin really played in this scandal?

[Ethics, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Senate. The Prime Minister said in the House, more than once, that Nigel Wright was the only one involved in the secret repayment agreement. We know that is not true. We also know that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary opposed the NDP motion to shed light on Perrin's deleted emails.

Why? Did he know that these emails prove that the Prime Minister misled the House?

[Ethics, December 9th, 2013]

This is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I am speechless. I cannot even believe this.

I know the parliamentary secretary does not want to be here right now. He tries to answer questions during question period. However, I am so astonished. He has four minutes to at least make his point tonight, and he stands up and makes no points at all.

I am going to ask him my question one last time.

Who in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for giving orders to senators? Ms. Stewart Olsen clearly indicated that she was at the service of the Prime Minister's Office. Who then in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for giving the orders to senators?

[Ethics, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to get clearer answers about the Senate scandal, which involves the Prime Minister's Office and senators.

I asked a question regarding ethics in the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, I asked several questions without ever getting any answers. This evening, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs will be able to give me clear and precise answers on the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the Mike Duffy scandal, particularly its interference in this affair. I will explain what I mean in my speech today.

According to Canadian parliamentary tradition and according to the Prime Minister, the Senate is an independent institution that should ultimately be a separate branch of the legislative body of the House of Commons.

That is why everyone is wondering what business the Prime Minister's Office has getting involved in Senate affairs. Why did a senator, Ms. Stewart Olsen, say that she was at the service of the Prime Minister's Office?

Here is the fundamental question that he must answer: what business does the Prime Minister's Office have getting involved in the affairs of the Senate, an institution that, according to the Prime Minister, is independent from the legislative body of the House of Commons? The Prime Minister's Office should never have been involved in such a scandal.

When we learned about the scandal surrounding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy's expenses, the Prime Minister immediately hit the roof saying that he had nothing to do with it, that he knew nothing about it and that he was not responsible for what happened in the Senate.

Unfortunately, a few days later, the Prime Minister changed his story by saying that Nigel Wright was responsible and was taking all the blame. Today, we want to know who was aware of this orchestrated scheme. Whose hands are dirty?

Now that we know that, unfortunately, the Conservatives interfere in Senate affairs, we need to know who in the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for breaking the fundamental rules of our Parliament.

[The Senate, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week the impertinent Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais joined the member for Calgary West in the Conservative chorus of ineptitude. That nasty Senator Dagenais looks like a real winner.

This is the same man who vigorously defended the firearms registry, before salivating at the idea of a limousine and then completely changing his mind. That is called having no backbone and no principles.

He got what he deserved. He finished third, a pathetic showing for a star candidate. Naturally, the Prime Minister rewarded his abysmal failure by giving him a job for life, at $135,000 a year.

After sleeping for two years on the backbenches, he finally did something to stand out last week.

Did he demand accountability in the Senate scandal? No.

Did he oppose his boss's irresponsible policies? Never.

Still bitter about his crushing defeat, he sent a letter to all members, insulting someone who dared to point out the complete obsolescence of the Senate.

By doing so, Senator Dagenais proved just one thing: it is high time that we rolled up the red carpet and abolished the Senate. Canadians strongly agree.

[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add my comments to those of my leader and say just how sorry I am to hear of Mr. Mandela's passing. He was always a great source of inspiration for me.

I have always been part of Amnesty International and other groups that defend human rights around the world. In fact, that is one of the reasons I decided to become a member of the NDP, because it is the party that does the most to defend human rights.

For me, Nelson Mandela has always been a beacon of light and hope. I would like to thank him for everything he did for us, for people around the world and especially for South Africans.

With that, I will continue on another topic altogether, that of technology. I really want to begin my speech by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. Like me, she was elected in 2011. She is an extremely intelligent and dynamic young woman who has proven that young women have definitely earned their place in politics. She has really proven her willingness to work hard and listen not only to her constituents, but also to all the stakeholders who have an interest in the field of technology and privacy. She consulted them and listened to them, and today she is introducing her bill, Bill C-475. I really do commend her. We are all very proud of her and we thank her for taking this issue so seriously after it had unfortunately been overlooked for so long.

We now know that this legislation has not been updated since 2000. Obviously, a lot has happened since 2000, including Facebook, Twitter, iPhones and smartphones. Technology has drastically changed over the last 13 years, creating a whole new context. We now have to resolve issues that would never have crossed our minds a few years ago.

We have to realize that a number of problems stem from a lack of legislation. This bill aims to solve problems that were ignored for months or even years. The current free-for-all regarding the distribution of personal information is due, in part, to a lack of political will, as well as a legislative void. That is what makes this bill so important.

We cannot continue to do nothing while technology evolves every day. We cannot keep silent and stand idly by while these problems occur.

In fact, my hon. colleague who spoke earlier will rise again shortly to discuss a crucial issue: the fact that people have lost confidence in the system meant to protect their personal information. They have lost confidence not only in companies, but especially in the government, because it did nothing while things kept getting worse.

That is why it is extremely important to restore the public's trust in technologies, in Parliament and in legislation, so that people feel safe at home. This is our job as parliamentarians. When Canadians do not feel safe, it is up to us to do something. Something needs to be done, and it is our job to do it.

This came up in the many consultations, as my colleague pointed out. Unfortunately, 91% of Canadians said they are extremely concerned or very concerned about privacy. That is almost 100%.

I would really like to know what percentage of members of Parliament are concerned. We are all MPs and as parliamentarians we are concerned about Canadians. However, how do we feel as individuals? I would like to do a little survey here and have people tell us honestly whether they are concerned about whether their information is being protected.

For example, seven in ten Canadians reported feeling that they have less protection of their personal information than they did 10 years ago. It is time to ensure that Canadians are and feel safe. This is about feeling safe. We cannot let this situation get worse.

The content of this bill did not come from the NDP alone. It came from the Privacy Commissioner, Internet law experts, consumer protection groups and Canadian citizens, who are, of course, our primary concern. I think it came out of the 2012 study of social media and privacy by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Parliament has acknowledged this. People came to testify. This bill is not just a partisan NDP initiative. It means something to all Canadians and will enable organizations, lawyers and the Privacy Commissioner to protect Canadians.

There is no reason the Conservatives should refuse to support this bill. The NDP is not alone in going after the Conservatives about this. Canadians, lawyers and the commissioner want this too. How many people have to tell the government to do something before it actually does something?

This is about giving Canada's Privacy Commissioner the power to enforce the law. That is very important. We know that commissioners have an extremely important role to play in analyzing not only the government's actions but everything that has to do with access to information. Giving the commissioner the power to enforce the law will simply strengthen the essential role she plays in identifying problems and telling Parliament which initiatives should be taken.

I would just like to close by saying that our colleague in the House is speaking on behalf of Canadians and Quebeckers who are worried as well as all stakeholders who are worried and who all say that we need to act now to protect Canadians' information and privacy.

I would like to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her work and for conveying the wishes of Canadians and stakeholders to the House.

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2013]

That is not all, Mr. Speaker. Irving Gerstein did not just lie. He also tried to manipulate the audit report of Senate expenses.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how many times Senator Gerstein called his accomplice at Deloitte, Michael Runia, to talk about this audit?

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, at the recent Conservative convention, Senator Irving Gerstein said that he had never approved the use of party money to repay Mike Duffy. However, that is also a lie. Last winter, he approved the repayment of Mike Duffy's legal expenses and his inappropriate claims. Senator Gerstein was even prepared to write Mr. Duffy a cheque for $30,000.

Why is Senator Gerstein allowed to lie when Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright are not?

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today.

I will be using the full 10 minutes that I have. It is not that I do not want to proceed to the vote, but I do believe that it is important to highlight my colleague's hard work. This proves to victims that we are here to listen to them and that all we want is to be able to help them get through those extremely difficult times.

All too often, a bill's shortcomings emerge only after a family finds itself in a certain situation. In the case of Bill C-489 introduced by my colleague, the shortcomings and problems related to the role of victims in the justice system will become known only after a particular case that will unfortunately reveal the work that still needs to be done and the steps that need to be taken to improve the legislation and enhance the role of victims in our justice system.

If I am not mistaken, the member who introduced Bill C-489 had the idea after meeting with families and people in his riding who went through extremely difficult situations. I commend him for wanting to change things.

I also commend him for listening to these families and making their voices heard in Parliament, because that is why we are here. Parliament is here to give a voice to the people who are too often silenced, people who are not necessarily heard or who feel no one is listening to them. I want to tell them they were very lucky to have elected a member who could speak up for them here. We are very pleased to be able to support his bill.

I would like to give a brief overview of the bill's provisions and the amendments that have been proposed. I think the amendments made the bill even better. There were a few gaps that we were able to address in committee. That is why we are here today and will support Bill C-489.

The bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I will refer to sections and subsections, but since I do not have their precise wording, I apologize in advance for speaking in vague terms. For example, section 161 deals with the prohibition order and conditions that may be imposed by a judge when someone is convicted. Subsection 732.1(2) addresses probation and section 742.3 concerns the conditional sentence order, commonly called house arrest. This can be thought of as an offender serving his or her sentence in the community. Finally, we have subsection 810.1(3.02), which deals with conditions of recognizance.

Since Parliament has not passed the bill yet, it is currently at the discretion of courts to issue one of these four orders. They have complete discretion as to whether to impose or not impose conditions.

Once Bill C-489 is passed and enacted, it will be mandatory to issue one of these orders, except in certain circumstances. Therefore we are still leaving some discretion to the courts and judges, but they will have the obligation to pay closer attention to this aspect and to issue one of these orders.

This provides the courts with some leeway to not impose this condition in exceptional circumstances.

Nonetheless, it is important to show that we want to fill the legislative gaps in order to protect victims and defend their rights without encroaching on the discretion of the courts. This is a good bill because it gives judges the room to justify their decisions. As legislators, we are telling them to take certain conditions into account, except in exceptional circumstances.

Bill C-489 amends the Criminal Code to that effect, and the second part of the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in exactly the same way. It tells the courts to impose one of these conditions except in exceptional circumstances.

This bill amends the law and gives the courts and judges the discretion to impose certain conditions or not to do so in exceptional circumstances.

It is very important to mention that this bill came out of a number of situations, but one in particular, which received a lot of media attention. In that situation, a family had to live across the street from the person who assaulted their young daughter. They had to deal with this nightmare day after day. Implementing a mandatory distance measure is what this bill is all about.

When an offender is found guilty of a sexual offence involving a minor, the courts will be required to make an order prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of his victim. They will have the discretion to decide whether there are exceptional circumstances making it inappropriate to impose the condition.

I think this is a very important measure. That is why we are passing a bill that defends victims and prevents them from having to deal with extremely difficult situations. We are allowing them to cope with their ordeal in their community without any added stress on their daily lives.

I cannot speak from experience, but I can appreciate how stressful it must be for families who have to live so close their child's attacker. I do not have any children, but I can imagine how I would feel if I did.

This bill helps victims, defends their interests and gives them their rightful place in the justice system, all without unduly restricting the courts. That is what makes this such an excellent bill.

I would like to thank my colleague for bringing the voice of his constituents here to Parliament. However, there is a caveat. It is important that the government invest in our justice system so that victims are given their rightful place. For that to happen, we need funding, we need to lessen the burden and we need to respond to provincial requests.