Larry Maguire

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has put forward a similar bill at some point in the past. What we are bringing forward here is clarity in the kind of bill that she had brought forward to ensure that we can eliminate much red tape and still ensure that we protect the privacy of Canadians with respect to the electronic digital messaging that would be interrupting their lives and making it known at that point.

With regard to other issues on enforcement, it is imperative that we put the responsibility in place and have penalties to discourage the bad apple companies that I talked about earlier from continuing their activities. We are looking at an opportunity to ensure that does not continue to happen.

From a constitutional point of view, I would urge members to support this bill so that we can move it forward and try to eliminate as many of the discrepancies as we can from that kind of debate.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act.

Last April the Minister of Industry announced Digital Canada 150, an ambitious plan for Canadians to take full advantage of the opportunities of the digital age. It is a plan that sets clear goals for a connected and competitive Canada in time for our 150th birthday in 2017.

One of the five pillars of Digital Canada 150 is protecting Canadians. Our government understands that in order for Canadians to take advantage of opportunities in the digital age, we must protect Canadians' private information in the digital world.

Previously our government has taken action to protect Canadians by introducing Canada's cyber security strategy and Canada's new anti-spam law. Bill S-4 adds to our record of standing up for Canadians in the online world.

This bill introduces measures to update PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, by setting out specific rules that businesses and organizations would have to follow whenever personal information was lost or stolen.

I was pleased to see that the member for Terrebonne—Blainville supports this bill and I am looking forward to her support when the bill comes to a vote in the House. In fact, the member said about the bill, “We have been pushing for these measures and I'm happy to see them introduced.”

Data breaches continue to be a major challenge to the privacy and security of citizens around the world. For example, this past summer JPMorgan Chase & Co., one of the largest banks in the U.S., was the victim of an attack that affected the accounts of 76 million households and seven million small businesses. Home Depot recently confirmed that 56 million payment cards were impacted in a breach of its payment card systems that lasted for five months.

Worldwide, there were between 575 million and 822 million data breaches in 2013. In the U.S. alone, nearly 92 million records were compromised in 2013.

Currently PIPEDA contains no obligations for businesses or organizations to tell customers when their personal information has been lost or stolen. I am pleased to tell the House that Bill S-4 introduces measures to address this issue. The bill creates new requirements under PIPEDA for reporting losses, theft, or other unauthorized access to personal information that may result from accidental or malicious activity.

These provisions would ensure that Canadians can take action to protect their personal information in the event of a privacy breach, while also encouraging businesses to adopt better information security practices. Organizations that deliberately ignored these requirements would face penalties of up to $100,000 per offence.

Let me explain how the new provisions will work.

Under Bill S-4, an organization that suffers a privacy breach would be required to notify affected individuals if there is a risk of significant harm. The organization would also have to report the breach to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

In fact, the interim Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, said that this bill contains “...very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians”. She was pleased that the government had addressed issues such as breach notifications.

The bill identifies the factors an organization would have to consider when determining whether or not there was a real risk that some form of significant harm would occur as a result of a privacy breach.

First, the organization would have to consider the sensitivity of the personal information. Second, the organization would have to consider the probability that the stolen information would be misused—for example, whether the data was encrypted, how much time had passed between the occurrence of the breach and its detection, and whether the cause of the breach was a malicious attack or was accidental.

Let me say again that by law, an organization would be required to notify individuals as soon as a breach was confirmed. If an organization determined there had been a breach, it would also have to notify other organizations in order to reduce the potential risk for the individual whose information was compromised. For example, if a store experienced a breach of its customer records, it would have to notify the relevant credit card companies or financial institutions.

Let me draw the attention of the House to a key element of these data breach requirements, which is that the bill would require organizations to keep records of all data breaches and provide this information to the Privacy Commissioner upon request. This would give the commissioner the ability to oversee data breach reporting and notification requirements. The Privacy Commissioner would be able to request these data breach records at any time. There would be no need for him to be conducting an audit or investigation when he requests them.

Bill S-4 includes heavy fines for companies that knowingly contravene these new requirements. Companies that deliberately failed to report a data breach to the commissioner or failed to notify individuals would face fines of up to $800,000. This could be up to $100,000 for every individual not told. Similarly, companies that deliberately cover up a data breach by not keeping these records or by destroying them could also face fines of up to $100,000.

Some might ask why there is a need for penalties related to data breach notification, given that most organizations comply with the Privacy Commissioner's guidelines for voluntary notification already. The government recognizes that many organizations already notify individuals of data breaches in a responsible manner; however, some do not. These penalties would target the bad apples, those organizations that willfully and knowingly disregard their obligations or, worse, cover up a breach.

Canadians know that our government takes their privacy concerns very seriously. I look forward to the continuation of this debate as we work with the opposition on how we can best protect Canadians in our digital world.

[International Trade, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our government has always stood with the livestock industry in opposing the United States discriminatory country of origin labelling. After a successful WTO challenge by our government, the U.S. refused to alter its country of origin labelling to make it fair to our Canadian livestock producers. Canada was once again forced to put another challenge to the WTO.

Today, the WTO released its latest report. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture please inform the House of the latest decision of the World Trade Organization?

[International Trade, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Canada's Minister of Agriculture is in Chicago today to meet with American and Mexican representatives to highlight the importance of free and open trade. This is a unique opportunity for all three NAFTA countries to promote the integrated nature of our agriculture and food industry.

Since NAFTA came into force, North American agricultural trade has quadrupled to over $1 billion a week. However, U.S. country of origin labelling continues to be a serious roadblock against Canadian cattle and hog exports.

Our government has challenged COOL at the WTO, and the WTO has made it clear: COOL is a blatant trade discrimination. That is why the minister is sending a clear message to our friends in the U.S. that it is time to fall into line with its obligations to the global trading community.

We continue to stand with our farmers and ranchers, and we are prepared to seek authorization from the WTO to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports if COOL is not resolved.

Trade is what drives our economies, and we must continue to work together to grow our agriculture industries and operate our markets under science-based rules that reduce barriers to trade.

[Special Olympics World Golf Cup, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable young man from my constituency of Brandon—Souris.

Danny Peaslee, who lives in Souris, Manitoba, and is of the young age of 18 years old, became the first-ever Canadian to compete in the Special Olympics World Golf Cup this summer in Denmark.

Danny is no stranger to competing in international golf tournaments. Time and time again he has made all of southwestern Manitoba proud. It was just in 2011 when he won the intercontinental golf tournament, and he has competed in the Special Olympics Canada national tournament.

Through grit and determination, and with the support of his family, coaches, and community, Danny has broken down barriers and proven there is no glass ceiling that those with difficulties cannot shatter.

I wish Danny the best of luck in his future endeavours and thank him for being such a tremendous role model for those who struggle day in and day out with disabilities.

[Royal Canadian Air Force World War II Memorial, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House about the unveiling of the Royal Canadian Air Force World War II memorial in my constituency of Brandon—Souris.

Last week, veterans and community members alike gathered on the grounds of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan Museum to partake in the solemn ceremony that paid tribute to the over 19,000 airmen and airwomen who died while in service to the Commonwealth during World War II. They answered the call on behalf of our nation when we needed them most. They brought glory to themselves and Canada while fighting to make this world a better place. Now their names, etched in granite, will stand as a lasting reminder of their sacrifice for their country.

I also want to highlight and thank all the volunteers and donors who made this memorial possible. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Archie Londry, the memorial chair and visionary of the project and honorary fundraising chair, Reg Forbes.

Now, together and forever more, everyone who visits the RCAF memorial will remember our nation's heroes of the skies.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what I was referring to was the hundreds of thousands of high-paying and in many cases union jobs that would be available to workers in Canada. We continue to promote the growth of those jobs. I use those as two examples of the impact that could be seen as negative from the implementation of the program proposed here.

However, many of those jobs are high paying already. It is an example of the training we need in our community colleges and universities to have skilled labour to put into those areas. That is why we are looking at the Canada jobs grant and a number of other apprenticeship programs that I outlined to improve the ability to have people who can work in those fields.

These are only two major job areas that I mentioned. There are many others. I would urge my colleagues to come on side for the development of many of those projects because they will positively impact on the Canadian economy and the potential for high-paying jobs for many of our sons and daughters in our country.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of my hon. colleague is right. We have one Canadian dollar, we are one country, but we also have ten provinces and three territories. His argument goes off the rails when we look at the fact that there is a cost-of-living difference in the different regions of our country, if not, within each of those provinces and territories, as I and my colleague from B.C. pointed out earlier.

I have personal experience in dealing with the Manitoba government. We have looked at opportunities there and made other suggestions besides the minimum wage increases that Manitoba has had. However, to do the leap that New Democrats have looked at to take it to $15 across Canada, as I said in my discussion and presentation earlier, is a situation where it may provide impacts deleterious to what the member is asking and may impact negatively on the creation of jobs in those communities.

[Business of Supply, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today to respond to my fellow member's motion and debate the NDP on an actual policy proposal, unlike the third party who, unfortunately, have a habit of talking in platitudes.

The hon. member is asking the House to approve a hike in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. As the NDP knows, the federal minimum wage is pegged to the minimum wage of the province or territory in which the work is carried out. Provinces and territories are best able to assess and respond to the requirements of the local labour markets and establish whatever they deem an appropriate wage. That is why I cannot support this motion.

Allow me to explain why I do not support this motion.

Our government is focused on improving our country's economic prospects and performance. We remain focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and policies that support good, high-paying, quality jobs. Our record of supporting Canadians' economic well-being is the envy of the developed world. We are proud of the over 1.1 million net new jobs that have been added since the worst of the recession, and two-thirds of all jobs created have been in high-wage industries. We have helped over six million youth obtain the skills and experience needed to obtain better jobs.

Under our Conservative government, Canadian families at all income levels have seen increased wages of about 10% in their real after-tax incomes, and the most vulnerable Canadians have seen an increase of 14%. In fact, the number of Canadians living below the low-income cut-off is now at its lowest level ever. Additionally, the low-income rates have improved by 20% for female, single-parent homes.

These are just some of the reasons why I do not support this NDP motion.

Another reason is that the Canadian Labour Code ensures that workers in federally regulated businesses receive a minimum wage that is matched to the provincial or territorial general minimum wage rate where they are employed. The minimum wage is adjusted automatically whenever a province or territory increases its general minimum wage. Our government believes that the provinces and territories are best able to assess and respond to the requirements of their local labour markets and to establish appropriate minimum wage rates.

I commend the member's desire to ensure all Canadians are paid a good wage for the work that they do. The fact is that the proposed solution is merely a band-aid that would help very few Canadians in the short term and would potentially put the jobs of many more Canadians at risk in the longer term.

If my hon. colleague wants to support higher wages for Canadians, why does he oppose Canada's oil sands, which are providing high-paying unionized jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians? If my colleague wants to support higher wages for Canadians, why does he oppose the Keystone pipeline, which will provide high-wage jobs for thousands of Canadians? If my colleague wants to support higher wages, why does he oppose the reforms that the Minister of Employment and Social Development has made to the temporary foreign worker program to put Canadians first?

However, there are many additional reasons why supporting this motion is simply bad public policy.

According to the Department of Labour, there is a growing body of evidence that increasing minimum wages in an abrupt manner could have negative effects on the employment of youth and inexperienced workers, the very people who need work experience to move on to better paying jobs.

Studies suggest that increasing minimum wage rates as a means to reduce poverty is a very blunt tool, which sometimes can hurt the very people it is aimed at helping.

Finally, the focus on minimum wages ignores the fact that they do nothing to help self-employed Canadians or persons who are facing unemployment or underemployment. Our government is focused on long-term fixes, not short-term band-aids.

We recognize the need for all Canadian workers to have jobs that provide them with a good living wage. Jobs paying well over minimum wage are available, with many more to come, and we are continually helping Canadians get them.

Let me discuss the government's skills agenda.

With our current skills shortage in certain regions and sectors, hundreds of thousands of highly paid jobs will available over the next 10 years for those who have the skills for which employers are looking. Canada is going to need more than one million people in the skilled trades to work on major initiatives in the mining and energy industries. Even if a relatively small fraction of these prospective investments proceed, we are talking about the creation of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, high-quality jobs, primarily in the skilled trades and vocations.

To help Canadians get the skills they need for these jobs, we are investing in the skilled trades through a range of measures.

For example, we are ensuring that apprentices get the financial support they need to complete their training. The apprenticeship incentive grants and the apprenticeship completion grants together provide up to $4,000 in support to apprentices in a Red Seal trade. In fact, the Government of Canada recently celebrated awarding $500,000 apprenticeship grants across the country. We also increased measures such as the Canada apprentice loan, which will provide apprentices with interest-free loans of up to $4,000 to complete their training. We have also made it easier for apprentices to find employment where they can gain on-the-job experience in conjunction with the apprenticeship job creation tax credit for employers.

Another key pillar in our plan to help Canadians get good jobs in the long term is the Canada job grant, an innovative, employer-driven approach to help Canadians gain the skills and training they need to fill available jobs.

We have negotiated these arrangements with provincial and territorial governments to put a greater emphasis on ensuring employers are involved in training decisions. By involving employers in training, we are ensuring people will be trained to get a real job at the end of that training period.

We have now finalized agreements with all of the provinces and territories. Six provinces are now accepting applications from employers with a plan to train people for a job they require. This is a critical step in ensuring employers can find the employees they need to keep our businesses open and growing, and it is a critical step in ensuring Canadians are equipped and prepared for the jobs that are out there.

Through these and other measures our government is working hard to strengthen the labour market, support workers and employers and ensure Canadians have the skills they need to find jobs that provide them with a good standard of living.

This is why I will not be supporting this ill-advised motion that does nothing to help the majority of Canadians get better-paying jobs. Our plan is working, and if New Democrats were serious, they would have supported our budgets that have been improving the lives and livelihood of all Canadians.

[International Peace Garden, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the International Peace Garden, which lies on the Canada-U.S. border south of Boissevain and Brandon in southwestern Manitoba.

The International Peace Garden was officially opened in 1932 and continues to welcome visitors from across the continent and around the world. It represents the incredible relationship we hold with our southern neighbours and has flourished as a centre for students to share their ideas and to participate in international music or the Royal Canadian Legion athletic camps.

The Peace Garden spans over 2,300 acres and now has over 75,000 perennials that continue to grow and develop each and every year. The sheer beauty of the Peace Tower surrounded by the natural prairie landscape is a sight to behold. Visitors will feel a sense of calm and welcome. While they walk the garden grounds, they will in fact be in the United States and Canada at the same time.

I welcome all members and Canadians from across the country to visit the International Peace Garden if they are ever in friendly Manitoba. It will be a visit that will be long remembered.