Phil McColeman

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say from the outset that in no way, shape, or form is civilian oversight diminished in the current bill we are discussing nor in any other bills that we have placed before Parliament that protect public safety.

I will again take issue with the member saying the opposite to what is actual fact, which is that we have increased the budgets for the RCMP and CSIS by a third. That is a fact and something that again needs to be clarified.

What we are talking about is taking steps to confirm that the existing powers of CSIS are the powers that are under the rule of law in this country. When citizens come to this country, they have to understand the laws of Canada and understand that if they are to live in this country they will need to abide by the laws of this country. That is what we are here for as legislators, to set those laws and make sure that the citizens who come here realize that we all abide by that rule of law.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to discuss the important measures contained in Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Our government has a duty to keep Canadians safe, and the bill contains prudent and responsible measures that give our law enforcement and security agencies the support and tools they need to protect our national security.

Before I begin the substance of my speech today, I would like to reflect on a quote from a constitutional lawyer and author. Phyllis Schlafly once said:

In a world of inhumanity, war and terrorism...citizenship is a very precious possession.

That is a very important part of what we are here to talk about today. Several key measures designed to keep Canadians safe are in this legislation. I will touch on each of them.

However, first I would like to talk about the measures to give effect to legislation recently passed in Parliament. I am talking about the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. The key part of this legislation was about stripping citizenship from Canadian citizens who are engaging in terrorist activity. The bill before us today would expedite this measure coming into force. That is a very good thing. We have seen, sadly, numerous instances in the past several weeks in which Canada has been afflicted by terrorism. These acts have highlighted some of the challenges of keeping our citizens safe in a changing world.

We just saw, this past weekend, some extremely gruesome footage of Islamic State terrorists beheading 18 men, including an American humanitarian aid worker and former U.S. Ranger, Peter Kassig. In cold blood, these terrorists cut off the heads of nearly two dozen fellow men simply because they disagree. This is the definition of barbarism and pure evil. Should any of those terrorists be Canadian citizens, I believe we would all agree they should not have the precious possession of Canadian citizenship.

I know that some of my colleagues opposite, specifically those from the Liberal Party, have previously disagreed with this notion. I hope that recent events will give them cause to realign their thinking.

My constituents do not agree with the leader of the Liberal Party when he says that taking the passport away from someone who is planning on travelling for a terrorist purpose is “an affront to Canadian values”.

The legislation before us today would do more than simply create a technical fix to bring legislation into force. It would also create, for the first time, protection for intelligence sources that is similar to that for law enforcement sources. Individuals on the ground in war-torn countries who work with CSIS are often putting themselves and their families at great personal risk. They do it simply because they know it is the right thing to do. We will not force their identities to be disclosed unless it impedes the right to a fair trial.

I make that point very deliberately. The bill before us today has a specific exemption to protect the rule of law, because we believe in the fundamental protection of individual freedoms, rights, and the rule of law. To do otherwise in the face of a threat would be allowing the terrorists to win. However, we must also strike the appropriate balance. We must not overreact, but we must not underreact to the threat of terrorism. These threats are real and must be taken very seriously in order to keep Canadians safe.

There are many common-sense solutions that can be brought to bear to combat terrorism, including those we are debating today. They include measures in the area of surveillance, detention, and arrest.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and others are working on bringing these tools forward.

However, those tools are a matter for another day. I would like to discuss the next piece of the bill, which confirms that CSIS would have the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada and which confirms that the Federal Court would only have to consider relevant Canadian law when authorizing these activities.

There are two points that underscore the importance of this measure. First, all intrusive activities conducted by CSIS are judicially authorized. There is no freelancing or haphazard violation of privacy. Second, it is important that only Canadian laws be considered in authorizing these warrants. Currently, and bizarrely, the courts consider whether the decrees of a foreign dictator would be broken when CSIS was engaging in an investigation to protect Canadian security. I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is the only relevant document.

The last element of the bill that I would like to touch on today is the protection of the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in covert activities. Currently, it is an offence to disclose the identity of an employee who is engaged in these activities, but there is no protection for individuals who are training to become covert operators or those who are in between covert activities. These individuals are just as at risk as individuals actively engaged in surveillance work. They must also be protected, and the bill would fix that situation.

As we debate these measures today, it is important to place them in some context and make note of our Conservative government's strong record of enhancing public safety and national security. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activity. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased the funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, by a third. We introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats in Canada.

These are all important measures, but there still remains more work to be done. That is why I urge all of my colleagues in this place to join me in supporting this vital legislation, which represents another prudent and responsible step forward to protect our national security.

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-247, an act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

[Lansdowne Children's Centre, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise and celebrate a major milestone for an incredible organization in Brantford, the Lansdowne Children's Centre. For 40 remarkable years, Lansdowne has been supporting families and treating children with physical, communication and developmental needs. Last weekend, we celebrated its anniversary at an event entitled “Magic Happens”, a perfect description of the transformational impact that Lansdowne has had on thousands of children's lives.

Because of Lansdowne, we have seen children taking their first steps when it seemed physically impossible, speaking their first words when speech seemed out of the question, and playing with friends when they had been isolated and excluded. Because of the hard work of dedicated staff, supporters and volunteers, young people all across our community have been empowered to realize their full potential.

Magic does happen. It happens in my hometown, inside the walls of the Lansdowne Children's Centre.

[Committees of the House, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to report, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, regarding pension and benefits.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed what this privacy act strives to do, to provide Canadians with protection in the instances the hon. member is talking about, and it puts the onus on the business. In his case, the member used the example of PayPal. It puts the onus on the ethics of doing business, and it puts the consumer in a position of much greater protection as a result. If businesses violate those rules under PIPEDA, which this new legislation is strengthening, they would be subject to very severe penalties.

Really, around the decision-making table of these companies in terms of sharing information, it certainly sets out in the strengthening of this that we are taking Canadians' privacy very seriously. We are saying that companies may make these decisions, but if they are not the correct ones, if they are not ethical, straightforward decisions and they are trying to circumvent in any way, they would be subject to much more severe penalties as a result.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, actually I do not find it problematic because in the business world, which is the frame of reference I would bring to the House on these issues, when we look at the rules and the new tools that the commissioner and the courts would have through the strengthening of PIPEDA through the bill, it warns organizations, more or less, that if they do not report these breaches and it is found that a breach has occurred and they used their own objective decision-making to not report, they would be subject to immense penalties as a result of doing that.

It would clarify for organizations that if there is even the slightest possibility of a breach, it needs to be reported. This would give the commissioner the tools to come in and enforce the rules with a fairly heavy hand.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would provide the foundation on which the government would hold businesses to account on behalf of consumers.

It would establish new rules to protect privacy online and backs them up with more effective compliance and enforcement tools in order to strengthen the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, commonly known as PIPEDA.

Under this bill, the Privacy Commissioner would be provided with a new set of tools that would help him or her perform oversight and ombudsman functions. At the same time, the courts would continue to enforce the law and could impose significant new penalties which have been added to encourage compliance with key requirements.

Through PIPEDA, the Privacy Commissioner has the responsibility for overseeing compliance with the act. He has the power to investigate, enter premises and compel evidence. He can mediate a settlement, make recommendations and publish the names of those who contravene PIPEDA. In short, the commissioner investigates complaints and works with companies to ensure they comply with the act, but enforcement action is left to the Federal Court. Indeed, the Privacy Commissioner and the Federal Court have worked together effectively to administer and enforce the rules set out in the act.

The commissioner or any other individuals can apply to the Federal Court for a hearing on any matter related to the original complaint. It is the court, not the commissioner, that has the authority to order the organization to change its practices. The Federal Court could also award damages to individuals when their privacy has been violated and they have suffered some form of harm as a result. Under the bill before us, both the courts and the Privacy Commissioner would be given new tools, but the responsibility for enforcement action would still remain with the court.

As has been mentioned, new offences and penalties would be created for three areas relating to the new data breach rules contained in this legislation. The courts can assess penalties for: deliberately failing to report a data breach to the commissioner, as prescribed by the act; deliberately failing to notify an individual of a data breach, as prescribed by the act; and deliberately failing to maintain or deliberately destroying data breach records, as prescribed by the act.

In keeping with existing offences under PIPEDA, these offences would be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction and up to $100,000 on indictment. I would point out to the House that the organization can be assessed a penalty for each and every individual it fails to notify. Given the large number of individuals who could potentially be affected by a data breach, this is a very serious penalty indeed.

At the same time, the bill would give the Privacy Commissioner the tools he or she needs to monitor the impact and efficacy of these new rules and serve as an ombudsman to help reduce the number of cases that go before the courts. The Privacy Commissioner would be given the authority to negotiate compliance agreements with organizations.

Let me give the House an example. Let us assume that following an investigation or audit, the commissioner determines that an organization should take certain corrective actions to remain compliant with the law. Under Bill S-4, the organization could agree to take these actions in exchange for the assurance that it would not be taken to court over the previous breach of the rules. However, the organization would also be legally accountable for any commitments made under the corrective action.

Compliance agreements are an effective mechanism for holding organizations accountable. They allow the Privacy Commissioner and organizations to avoid costly court action and provide flexibility to suit the particular circumstances that an organization finds itself in.

I would remind the House that compliance agreements are already being used by the Commissioner of the CRTC under the anti-spam legislation and the Minister of Health under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

By adding compliance agreements to the tool box of the Privacy Commissioner, we would strengthen consumer privacy protection without fundamentally changing the framework of PIPEDA or the role of the commissioner.

However, in order for this provision to work effectively, further changes to the regime are required. For example, under PIPEDA as it now stands, the commissioner has only 45 days after he or she reports the results of an investigation to make an application to the Federal Court to seek an order to take corrective action. Experience has shown that this is not enough time for the commissioner to work with companies to implement his recommendations and there is the risk that companies would simply stall in implementing the required changes until the 45-day period runs out.

On top of these challenges, 45 days is likely not enough time to negotiate and implement a compliance agreement. That is why the bill would increase the period of time to make an application to the court to one year from the time the commissioner reports the results of his or her investigation.

Finally, I would point out that the bill would give yet another tool to encourage compliance with the data breach provisions. It would give the commissioner the power to publicly disclose wrongdoing of an organization, if he or she considers it to be in the public interest to do so. Under the current act, the commissioner has limited provisions that involve the right to make public information concerning the personal information handling practices of the organization.

However, currently, he or she cannot publicly report when, for example, organizations fail to co-operate with an investigation or repeatedly stall implementation of the recommendations to fix privacy problems. Bill S-4 would broaden the types of information the commissioner could make public concerning non-compliant organizations. This is an important tool in encouraging compliance with the act.

As technology and the marketplace evolve, the commissioner and the courts need more effective tools to help hold organizations accountable for their handling of personal information, for the protection of Canadians and their privacy.

The bill before us addresses this need with four new tools. First, it would assign significant penalties for wilful disregard of the important new data breach notification requirements. Second, it would give the commissioner the authority to negotiate compliance agreements. Third, it would extend the length of time the commissioner or individuals have to bring matters before the court to one year. Fourth, it would give the commissioner greater authority to share more types of information about non-compliant organizations with the public.

I hope honourable members will join me in supporting these new tools for the courts and Privacy Commissioner by supporting Bill S-4.

[Digital Privacy Act, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. Bill S-4 would provide a foundation on which the government would hold business—

[Social Development, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and Jim Flaherty, this government is a world leader in providing support for Canadians living with disabilities. It was this government that introduced the registered disability savings plan, the first plan of its kind in the world, to assist Canadians with disabilities and their families in saving for the long term.

Could the minister of state please update the House on the steps our Conservative government is taking to support parents in providing for their children with disabilities?