Hélène LeBlanc

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sudbury.

He told us about the mission of service animals, particularly for autistic children and young adults. I would like him to expand on that. Could he explain how it all helps the community in general?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government member who just spoke to Bill C-35.

After yesterday's events, this bill seems very appropriate, since it deals with safety and with services provided by law enforcement animals.

The government often updates the projected order of business, as it has done in this case, so that we could study Bill C-35, which we support.

However, I do not understand why more government members will not speak to this bill. If it is on the agenda, it must be important to the government. However, from what I can tell, few government members will speak to this bill.

Could my colleague tell me why?

[Democratic Values, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, may we be instruments of peace. Where there is hate, may we bring love. Where there is despair, may we find hope.

Today, my thoughts go out to the mothers who are suffering in silence and whose pain cannot easily be soothed.

We are fortunate to live in a country where peace and freedom reign. May we never take those privileges for granted, and may we protect them against any harm.

As members of Parliament, we are privileged to sit in a place where democracy prevails and where harmony does too—sometimes, though not always. Let us strive to be in agreement more often. We all share these values. Let us make Canada a voice for peace, compassion and solidarity.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who is our digital issues critic.

I would like to congratulate the official opposition for taking initiative and appointing a digital issues critic. We understand the complexity of these issues, which require an approach that balances rapid technological advances and the protection of privacy.

Her bill, Bill C-475, was a commendable initiative. The legislative summary that was prepared stated that the bill aimed to improve the protection of private information. We have to wonder why the government did not support such a worthwhile initiative.

We continue to point out that the government sometimes lacks a balanced approach. It sometimes freely grants the authority to monitor people without a warrant.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I read the bill and from what I understood it refers to private companies. However, there are some aspects that I will have to examine more closely. As my colleague mentioned, there are also concerns about the protection of taxpayers' personal information within the government.

Does the government use this bill to exempt itself from certain privacy requirements? That is an excellent question. From what I understood from reading the bill, it deals more with the protection of personal information by private companies. However, it is important to remember that the government also has a huge responsibility to protect personal information.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion to refer Bill S-4 to a committee before second reading.

Bill S-4 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I will talk a little more about that, but first I want to take a moment to talk about the motion itself, which aims to send the bill to committee before second reading. This is somewhat strange; this is the first time the current government has done this in recent memory.

It is rather interesting and makes me wonder. Why this measure right now? Why did the government decide to do this, when there were other bills? Is it because the government has its doubts about Bill S-4 and wants to send it to committee, we hope, to solve the problems in the bill? That is what I am wondering.

Although we requested that some highly contested bills be sent to committee before second reading, such as Bill C-23 on election reform, Bill C-33 on first nations education and Bill C-3 on transporting oil along our coasts, the government refused. I have to wonder why it refused to do so and why it is now making the rather unusual—or at least uncommon, in recent history—move to send Bill S-4, a bill that comes not from the government, but from the Senate, to committee before second reading.

Procedure is not one of my strong suits, but there are experts here who can clear this up for us. I find it rather interesting that when we send a bill to committee before second reading, as this motion would do, the scope of the proposed amendments can be much broader. In other words, we could make more extensive amendments since the study in committee is not restricted by the principle of the bill, which has not yet been approved by the House. That is interesting. We can hope that Bill S-4 will be amended and that we will end up with a more polished product, if I can call it that, so that it will be more acceptable as we go into second reading.

Bill S-4 makes a pretty significant change to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I took a look at this act, which received royal assent in April 2000. As members know, 14 years is an eternity in the digital world. A lot of things have happened in the past 14 years. This act was the result of an extensive consultation with a wide range of experts at all levels.

This work was accomplished through broad consultation in 2000. It is clear that since 2006, with this government, consultations are restricted to very specific groups. It is interesting to see that in 2000, there was a broad consultation that culminated with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Here is what that legislation does:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

That is the legislation that is being amended now. Another interesting part of this law is schedule 1. Certain principles were set out in the legislation about to be amended, and they are particularly interesting because they were set out in the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. The 10 principles are as follows: accountability; identifying purposes; consent; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure, and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.

I went to the trouble of reading those principles. I found them very interesting and I urge all members to read them. Like it or not, as members, we receive personal and confidential information in our riding offices. That is why we too have a responsibility to respect these principles of personal information and electronic document protection.

Right now, we are talking about a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before second reading. I mentioned that this has not happened often in recent parliamentary history. In the time I have left, I would like to take a quick look at what Bill S-4 will change.

This bill will make major changes to to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which I just mentioned, by allowing personal information to be shared without the knowledge of the person concerned or without their consent under some circumstances. To me, that is a questionable way of protecting personal information. Companies would be allowed to share personal information under certain conditions.

As I read the bill, I really thought that there needed to be a better explanation of these conditions and some examples. For example, in a business transaction, when should personal information be shared without clients' consent?

Some aspects of the bill are positive, such as requiring organizations to take various measures when a data breach occurs. Even the current government has some transparency problems in this regard. The third aspect seeks to create offences in relation to the contravention of certain obligations respecting breaches of security safeguards. The fourth aspect would allow the the Privacy Commissioner, in certain circumstances, to enter into a compliance agreement with an organization.

Those are the four main aspects of Bill S-4 that raise concerns. Other aspects of the bill are positive and constitute a step in the right direction. That is why I support the motion to send Bill S-4 to committee to resolve the problems it contains that could result in a breach of privacy.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

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

Why does she think this bill is being referred to committee before second reading? We asked for the same for other rather problematic bills such as Bill C-23 on electoral reform or the bill on tanker traffic.

In her opinion, why is this bill being sent to committee before second reading?

[Petitions, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present some petitions that have been signed by hundreds of my constituents.

Today we learned that thousands of Canadians will be losing home delivery service. These people are denouncing the cuts to Canada Post. They are calling on the government to review these cuts so that they can receive home delivery, since the elimination of this service will have a negative impact on my constituents and Montreal's highly urbanized areas.

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleague for her speech. She brings a great deal of expertise to the House of Commons on parks, the environment and the best way to tackle this issue.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment mentioned that it covers 75% of a watershed. A watershed must be protected in its entirety, and as my colleague was saying, there must be protected areas.

How would my colleague improve this bill in order to protect our parks and recognize them as national treasures?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for taking the time to visit the far north, as I did last summer. It is a wonderful region of Canada, full of natural beauty. It was also interesting to meet the people who live there.

What does my colleague think the bill is lacking? For example, if we are talking about surface area, does she think the bill contains rules that are strong enough to create a real park with an ecosystem approach that will be truly protected, a park that will focus on conserving and developing flora and fauna habitats?