Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canadian Heritage, September 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, francophone communities, including Quebec, are not very happy that the Liberals signed a secret deal with Netflix without any guarantee that the company would invest in French-language content.

That is completely unfair to our Canadian broadcasters, who have to play by the rules. Even worse, this deal will further jeopardize the culture of Quebec and other francophone communities.

It is simple. The Liberals are going to let an American company decide the future of our culture. Do the Quebec members across the way think it is a good idea to sub-contract the protection of our culture to the Americans?

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know quite well what a fair and equitable tax system is. It is a system in which the CEOs and millionaires of this world, like the minister, pay their fair share of taxes.

Today, however, the rich are still exploiting tax loopholes that save them millions, even billions, of dollars, and the Liberals are still shielding them. There is nothing fair about this situation. The Liberals have yet to table any legislation for cracking down on international tax evasion.

Why has the minister decided to turn a blind eye to the tax havens costing us upwards of $8 billion a year?

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Swiss Bank UBS to help wealthy individuals, including Canadians, avoid paying their taxes.

Believe it or not, 10 years later, the Minister of National Revenue is still refusing to meet with one of the main whistle-blowers in this case. It is completely ridiculous. A former bank employee wants to share information about instances of tax evasion and the minister is simply refusing to listen to what he has to say. Let us be serious here.

Can the minister explain why she is still refusing to listen to what this whistle-blower has to say, even though he made it possible for the U.S. to recover hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Access to Information Act, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to direct a question to my Liberal colleague sitting on this side of the House.

My question primarily has to do with the Liberal Party's new excuse about access to information. One of the last points in my colleague's speech deals with it. He mentioned a new excuse that the government can use to decline requests for information if the requests are overly broad or made in bad faith. I wonder whether my colleague could provide the House with some clarification on the issue in light of an upcoming vote on this bill at second reading.

Could my colleague clarify what the government means by “bad faith” and “overly broad”? Does he have a definition that could add to the debate? That is one of the issues with the bill right now.

[Access to Information Act, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. If I remember correctly, he was on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I used a metaphor earlier involving an elephant giving birth to a mouse. The elephant was pregnant: the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had made 32 recommendations, the Information Commissioner had repeated her 85 recommendations many times, and then there was the mandate letter of the President of the Treasury Board. All of that seemed to indicate that we were going to have a perfectly healthy baby elephant. Unfortunately, what emerged was a sickly little mouse. Everyone was disappointed, obviously.

[Access to Information Act, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I did not say that proactive disclosure was not an improvement. I said that we did not need the Access to Information Act to apply it.

In 2017, proactive disclosure can be done on the Internet. It is the simplest way, and it is already being done in some cases. Some departments disclose the summary of access to information requests that they have processed, so it can already be done. Parliamentarians' expenses are also subject to proactive disclosure. My colleagues know as well as I do that some information can be found on an online portal and that all Canadians can access it.

In conclusion, I did not say that this was not an improvement. I said that it was not what the Liberals promised in the election campaign. The Liberals promised to extend the scope of the Access to Information Act to the Prime Minister's Office, and yet, that is absolutely not what has been presented to us. As I said earlier, the proactive disclosure my colleague is talking about is a smokescreen.

[Access to Information Act, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the so-called modernization of the Access to Information Act. It is high time that this act was modernized.

I had the opportunity to serve as the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for two years, from 2012 to 2014. During that time, I learned first-hand of the major changes that need to be made to the Access to Information Act, changes that have been needed for a long time now. I had high expectations of the Liberal government's proposal to modernize this act, something that they promised to do during the election campaign.

That promise was something very different from what I was used to seeing from the Conservative government. In fact, I cannot help but be surprised every time I hear the Conservatives talk about this issue. During the three years that I worked on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I saw how the Conservatives continually tried to block anything that affected the scope of the Access to Information Act and any attempt to review and improve it in order to bring it up to date with 21st century technologies.

Every time a witness appeared before the committee on these issues, the Conservatives, who held a majority on the committee at that time, constantly blocked any possible progress on this file, particularly when it came to broadening the scope of the law to include the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices. There was no possibility of doing that under the Conservatives. It was non-negotiable. The answer was a resounding no. Today, they are complaining and saying that the government is not going far enough on this issue. I have been rather surprised to hear the points that have been raised over the past few days during the debate on this issue.

I also want to emphasize how important I think it is that Canadian citizens have the right to access information. They must have the right to obtain as much information as possible regarding all levels of government and the decisions they make, the motives behind those decisions, as well as public policy. It goes without saying that anyone who pays taxes, and some people pay a lot, should be able to access any and all information used by our government, since it is government officials, ministers, and people in positions of authority who use public money to keep the country running.

In publicly-traded companies, shareholders demand information and financial statements that are as complete as possible in order to have the facts they need to make decisions. They have access to information because they are shareholders in those companies. The same is true of non-profit organizations that manage donor money. Obviously, those organizations must be open and transparent when they make decisions and spend donor money.

For the same reason, our governments need to be open and transparent, and provide as much information as possible to our constituents, who pay for the services provided. Therefore, it is essential that our citizens have access to this information. This allows the government to be accountable for its actions, especially when it comes to its expenses, but mainly with regard to its decisions on public policy and the reasons motivating it to choose one course of action over another. To me, this is fundamental, which is why I am very interested in this issue.

Everyone directly or indirectly connected to this had high expectations for the modernization of the Access to Information Act, given the promises of the Liberals during the election campaign. It is almost as if an elephant had given birth to a mouse, if I may use that expression. The expectations were very high, and it is pretty clear now that we are being offered next to nothing and, in some cases, it is just a smokescreen. We are led to believe that this is an improvement but, in fact, it is the status quo that prevails in many cases.

The most disappointing things have been mentioned several times. I will not dwell on them for very long. Obviously, we expected the scope of the Access to Information Act to extend to the offices of the ministers and the Prime Minister, that goes without saying. The ministers make decisions on a daily basis, and Canadians deserve to know what they are based on and what facts justify them.

There is nothing new there. There is proactive disclosure, something that can be done now. The Access to Information Act does not need to be modernized to enable proactive disclosure. It is simply a matter of releasing information.

Obviously, we welcome that and cannot complain about it. People will publish certain hospitality and travel expenses, and some notes that are drafted by government officials for ministers, but we do not essentially have the information to understand and analyze the decisions of our governments, which is highly problematic. We are not asking for access to all the cabinet discussions and to all the positions of the people around the table who arrive at a decision. Simply put, what is being requested is access to the facts, data, and figures that are used in making public policy decisions. This is therefore a great disappointment.

Also, there was no effort to limit what the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices can use as an excuse for denying access to information. Currently, if someone makes a request, the offices can simply say that it is out of the question, that no one has the right to that information, and that it is a confidential document without providing further explanation. The person has no recourse when their request is refused. We have a prime opportunity here to set limits on this exemption so that the Information Commissioner can obtain information and determine for herself whether the documents are truly confidential or whether they are documents that might be subject to the Access to Information Act. If we dropped the ball on this fundamental issue regarding the scope of the legislation, then that is really too bad, because the offices will just continue to refuse access to information requests. There is no oversight by anyone afterward to verify the right to an exemption from the request for access to the information.

I also want to mention our disappointment with what I see as a highly problematic loophole they are creating in the Access to Information Act. They are creating a loophole for departments, not just ministers' offices, but the public service. Departments will have the right not to release information if they deem a request too broad, made in bad faith, or vexatious. Nowhere are these terms defined, and I see that as a big problem.

The government says it wants to broaden the scope of the Access to Information Act to make government more open and transparent, but it is also inventing new reasons to refuse requests. This will result in long-drawn-out procedures, not necessarily in the courts, but beginning with complaints to the Information Commissioner. This will not resolve the Information Commissioner's backlog. She herself has repeatedly told the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that she is overloaded and does not have the budget to address the many complaints she receives. The government is not doing enough to address that.

The complaints are piling up on the commissioner's desk, especially those about absolutely absurd delays for certain types of information requests, which can take years to be processed. These requests are on the commissioner's desk because a complaint has been made that no good reason was given for the refusal or because the processing times are too long.

Thus, the commissioner is swamped and will have even more complaints with the new excuses being created. The commissioner will have to examine the refusal of departments to answer a question because they claim that a request is too broad. The commissioner will have to determine whether there was cause to reject the request.

In my mind, we are going backwards. Experts are saying that we are going backwards; we may be taking one step forward, but then we are taking two steps back. Thus, we are no further ahead than before the act was modernized. That is one of the major problems that I wanted to mention, in addition to the issue of the Prime Minister's and ministers' offices.

I will close on a positive note as we should give credit where credit is due. We accept the recommendation to give the commissioner the power to order.

This process can be long, time-consuming, and costly for the government and taxpayers, but once it is complete, the commissioner will at least have the right to order that certain documents be published. Unfortunately, we are not talking about cabinet documents—I mentioned my disappointment about that earlier—but at least the commissioner will have the power to issue orders, which is something that has been requested for many years. It was also one of the 32 committee recommendations and one of the 85 recommendations of the commissioner.

Members of the NDP have been fighting for this for many years, well before I held a seat on the committee. The Conservatives always refused to give the commissioner that power, so at least that is a win. The commissioner will have access to documents and be able to order that they be published if she thinks that the refusal was unfounded.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

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

The danger is obvious. There is a risk that the Americans and their President will use this information to discriminate against Canadians who simply want to go to the United States to participate in a sporting event. These Canadians will be refused access to the country for no reason other than an impression the authorities have of them based on the colour of their skin, their parents' country of origin or religion, or even their sexual orientation.

This is a very real danger. It happened to a man from Sherbrooke and it will likely happen more often if we continue in the same direction by giving more and more information to the American authorities and their President, Donald Trump.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her question.

The problem is that Canadians are ill-informed about the circumstances in which their information is shared. They do not know when local or foreign governments get their information, how long they keep it for and with whom they share it. This goes to the heart of the problem, namely a lack of transparency. As the House is considering this bill, what we ask is to increase transparency in order to ensure data protection, and also to make sure there is accountability, so that we can see tangible protection put in place as time goes by.

Transparency is therefore one of the fundamental aspects of protecting personal information. It allows citizens to know when their personal information has been shared and their right to privacy has been breached, so that they can act accordingly. This is very important and must be done as similar bills are being passed which require increased transparency.

[Customs Act, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome you back to the House along with the rest of my colleagues. I would also like to welcome this session's new pages, who will be with us for the next few months.

I am pleased to speak to a bill that will definitely have an impact on my Sherbrooke constituents. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned that her region is on the border. Sherbrooke, which is in the Eastern Townships, is too. We have three neighbouring states: Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. The fact that our neighbours to the south are so close to us is part of our everyday reality. Some of our communities even straddle the border. We hear some good stories sometimes about communities where there are houses or libraries right on the border between both countries. A lot of people have dual citizenship because of this.

My constituents are quite concerned about this issue. For one thing, lots of people cross the border, and for another, there is a lot of trade between Sherbrooke and the United States. Many of our businesses depend on the U.S. market. They are very concerned because they are so close and their business depends heavily on what is going on in the United States. That is why trade issues in general are really important to my community, especially now that we are talking about renegotiating the trade agreement between our two countries and Mexico. While I was in Sherbrooke this summer, I heard a lot of people talk about the negotiations under way and the upcoming third round of negotiations with our partners, which will be happening here in Canada. They want to protect their trade with the United States. If possible, they would like to grow that partnership. This issue got a lot of people talking this summer.

The main focus of Bill C-21 is people who are crossing the border. The matter of goods has already been addressed rather thoroughly in Bill C-23. Bill C-21 completes the circle in a way, even though there are a lot of problems with the bill. We are talking here about people, individuals, who are crossing our borders. I am therefore pleased to talk about this issue not only because I live in a border area but also because I care a lot about personal information and privacy, and I am sure that many of my constituents care about this topic too.

From 2012 to 2014, I had the honour of serving as chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was therefore quite aware of privacy issues. I often had discussions with the Privacy Commissioner. These are the subjects I am most interested in.

What worries me the most about Bill C-21 is the issue of privacy. In Canada, year after year, agreement after agreement, we agree to share more and more information, not only with Canadian governments but also with foreign governments. Information sharing is becoming increasingly common. Of course, it is governed by written agreements. Information sharing is not done randomly, but it is becoming increasingly common. Bill C-21, which we are discussing today, is about sharing even more information with foreign countries, in this case the United States.

There is good reason for Canadians in particular to question the protection of privacy in the United States. I mention this mainly because of the infamous presidential order that was recently signed in the United States and that we have heard so much about over the past few months.

The title of the January 2017 executive order was:

Executive Order 13768, entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.

The order excluded people who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States from the protections provided by the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, invited all federal ministers involved, including the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, probably the minister most involved, who also happens to be this bill's sponsor. He invited federal ministers to ask their American counterparts to tighten the rules around protecting the privacy of Canadians.

In the letter, the commissioner pointed out that Canada should be included in a list of countries targeted by the American Judicial Redress Act. It has to do with rules that exclude non-Americans from the protections provided under the law regarding how federal agencies use personal information. The commissioner indicated that Canadians enjoy certain protections regarding their personal information in the United States, but those protections are relative, since they are based on purly administrative agreements and are not given force of law.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada certainly sounded the alarm in January 2017. Now here we are a few months later, debating Bill C-21. We need to be really cautious about this new order, which allows Americans to shirk their obligation to protect the privacy of Canadians to the same degree that they protect the privacy of Americans, their own citizens.

It is therefore deeply troubling to see that American federal agencies can treat Canadians' information differently from that of their own citizens. This discrepancy is extremely concerning, as it seems to put our fellow Canadians' data at risk. The worst part is that if this information ends up in the hands of a foreign country, such as the United States, there are very few options for recourse.

If we give information to the Canada Border Services Agency and this bill is passed, the Agency will have to hand over that information to the Americans. The Americans will then have the information in their possession, but it could fall into the wrong hands. These things happen. We have seen many cases of hackers successfully accessing data that is valuable to organized crime groups. Such data is considered extremely valuable because it can sometimes be used to scam ordinary people who think they are doing the right thing by answering phone calls or emails that seem to come from a government agency. This data is highly valuable to scammers. As a result, many Canadians may be alarmed to learn that foreign governments that use different protection systems may be getting access to more and more of their personal data.

I am very concerned about that; it is the main reason for which I must oppose Bill C-21, as several of my NDP colleagues did earlier today. What worries me even more is the fact that this information is now in the hands not only of American federal agencies, whose protective measures are less effective than the ones we have in place in Canada, but also in the hands of a president who made an executive order that is even better known—the one that bans persons who have travelled to certain target countries, mainly in the Middle East.

This raises more concerns about the way this information may be used by the American government, and by its president, who issues directives to his government and to its security agencies.

It is truly worrisome when we see stories like that of my friend Yassine Aber, an athlete at the University of Sherbrooke, who simply wanted to go compete in the United States. I believe this happened last May. Unlike his six or eight colleagues, he was arrested. He was arrested because of his name and he was questioned for a number of hours before being told to go back home.

Some of the questions, referenced already in the House, were on his religion, his parents' religion, places he had travelled to, and on his friends in Sherbrooke. They even searched his phone to access information, photos, and his social networks. It is very worrisome that the government wants to give even more information to the Americans through Bill C-21. We can all agree that the Americans do not seem to make good use of the information they have. They seem to use it only to discriminate based on race, religion, or gender.

My time is up, but I would be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions if they want to know more about why the NDP is against Bill C-21.