Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Petitions, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and my great privilege to present a petition about service cuts at Canada Post signed by several thousand people from Sherbrooke.

Many people condemn these service cuts. They want quality, accessible service from their federal government, and that includes home mail delivery.

It is an honour and a privilege to present this petition on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, every time the Conservatives rise in the House to speak to this debate, they think the magical solution is to bomb the area. After six months of air strikes, the problem will be fixed and our forces will be able to come back home. That is what I hear every time I listen to a Conservative.

Things are not that simple. The Conservatives also need to be aware of the collateral damage to civilians that these air strikes could cause. One of my colleagues mentioned this earlier. A number of experts have also shared their concerns about how air strikes can be counterproductive. This may not be the best solution to fix the problem.

What does the member think about these concerns that air strikes are not the best solution in these circumstances, when terrorists can hide among civilians and—

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

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

There is probably only one thing in his speech that I agree with: that voting on sending Canadians to risk their lives abroad on behalf of our country is one of the most important decisions for parliamentarians to make.

I have a more specific question for him about the concerns that some experts, not just members of House, have raised. Some people in the know are concerned that the bombing will not have the desired effect. Bombing is not the sole solution to all problems. It seems that every time members from the governing party stand up, bombing is provided as a solution, while many experts say that it is probably not the best solution. It would even be counterproductive.

What does the member say to the concerns that simply bombing areas of Iraq will not have the desired effect?

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-247 on behalf of the residents of Sherbrooke. I would like to commend the hon. member for Guelph, the sponsor of the bill, on his initiative. In a nutshell, the bill seeks to provide a single point of contact for people who are acting on behalf of a Canadian citizen or resident who has passed away. Essentially, the bill would provide people who have lost a loved one with a single point of contact with the federal government. This single point of contact would fall under the responsibility of Service Canada.

Rather than contacting a number of departments when a loved one dies, Canadians would have a single point of contact, which would help them to do what they need to do more easily and efficiently. Departments have difficulty talking to each other. I think that the least we can do is provide quick and efficient service to Canadians who have lost a loved one. Canadians who are dealing with this type of situation should have the best service from every level of government. It is imperative that those who are grieving and dealing with emotional or financial stress get the best service possible from the federal government.

I believe that a government's first duty is to serve the people. Given that people pay income tax and other taxes every year, they expect to receive reliable, high-quality service, especially when they find themselves in a situation as difficult as losing a loved one and they have to inform the Canada Revenue Agency, for example. If the deceased was receiving a federal pension as a veteran, then Veterans Affairs also must be informed. These examples illustrate everything that grieving loved ones have to do when someone dies. I think it is important to commend the initiative to create a single point of contact, which would make things easier.

As I mentioned, these services are essential, and the government needs to pay more attention to them. I unfortunately need to remind the House that services have not been a priority for successive governments in recent years. I am pleased to see that the House, or at least my Liberal colleague, wants better services from the government.

Over the past three years, Sherbrooke has seen many cuts to services. The Canada Revenue Agency closed all of its offices in Sherbrooke. The office is still there, but many employees have been the victims of these cuts. The office is now closed to the public. No one can go there to ask questions or meet with a CRA agent. The only thing that happens when you go to the CRA office in Sherbrooke is that you get a door slammed in your face. They will give you the 1-800 number, but you could have called from home. People have to figure things out themselves, because there is no one there to help them.

The same is true at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which has closed its office in Sherbrooke for good.This is causing problems for newcomers who are looking for service from the federal government, specifically Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They have to go to Montreal, which is about an hour and 45 minutes away by car, depending on traffic, to write their citizenship exam or even for their swearing-in ceremony.

There has been a dramatic cut in services in Sherbrooke in recent years. That is why I am emphasizing the need for better service to Canadians.

I believe this bill is a step in that direction. We will be able to examine some of the little details of this bill in committee, and I am certain that all of the parties will work together to do that. For example, the name of the department in question has changed since this bill was introduced. This is a small amendment we could make. The committee will certainly have other suggestions as to how to improve this bill, which has a laudable objective. We want to help people who are grieving to get the best service possible from their government.

This is a problem that my constituents in Sherbrooke and I are familiar with. People have to call a number of different departments to inform them of changes to their personal information because the departments at the same level of government do not talk to each other. That is a problem for grieving Canadians who have to settle the affairs of a deceased loved one.

This single point of contact is a good solution that should be adopted by the entire federal bureaucracy. People would have to notify only one public servant of any changes, and that information would be shared with all of the departments.

However, we must ensure that this single point of contact is not just accessible online, so that it is not difficult to access. In most cases, seniors are the ones who will need this service, and not all of them are comfortable using the Internet.

If this bill is passed, it will be important that this service not be limited to a website because not everyone has easy access to the Internet and not everyone feels comfortable using new technologies. It is important to think about those people.

The federal government is already heading in that direction. It is trying to put everything online. That is a problem for people who do not have the resources or the ability to handle these things online. The government will have to remember that if this bill is ever implemented.

In closing, I would like to thank the member for Guelph for his initiative. It is good to think about service to the public, which should always be the government's main purpose. The government must provide quality service for people who pay their taxes every year and expect that kind of service from the federal government. The least the government can do is provide a single point of contact to grieving people who have to settle the affairs of someone who has passed away.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on the bill.

I would like to ask her why it would be important for the government and the other opposition parties to adopt an approach as balanced as ours. As we know, the Conservative and Liberal approaches are not as balanced.

Sometimes, free trade agreements are signed with somewhat questionable countries. Other parties approve some free trade agreements without knowing all the details.

Why is it important to have a balanced approach and to read all the details of an agreement before voting on it? How important is this for Canada's economy?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

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

Why is it important to have a coherent position based on facts and principles, unlike other parties that support any free trade agreement, without even looking at its terms? They are ready to fully support any proposed free trade agreement. That is why it is important to have a coherent position and see all the details of an agreement before we support it. Some agreements are bad for Canada and some, such as this one, are good. Sometimes we support free trade agreements, and sometimes we do not; we always have good reasons.

Why is it important to take such positions instead of just agreeing with any random proposal without even seeing the details?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it seems our colleague is having some difficulty understanding the concept of parliamentary debate. He seems to think that we are trying to delay the bill just because we want to debate it. All we want is to hold a democratic debate in this institution since that is its reason for being. The fact that the opposition wants to debate a bill does not necessarily mean that it wants to further delay it. We simply want to do our job here in the House.

If I am not mistaken, like me, my colleague was not a member of Parliament before 2006. At that time, his government, which was then in opposition, was strongly opposed to this type of time allocation motion, and Conservative members rose to speak out against them.

What has changed since 2006?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an interesting question, particularly since I did not participate in the meetings held by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this bill.

I am rather surprised to hear that no witnesses from telephone companies, telecommunications companies or Internet service providers appeared before the committee. I am rather surprised that these types of companies were not called upon to testify given that they share vast amounts of information. They have the power to collect that information. I find it rather strange that they were not called upon to testify when they are the ones who will be passing the information on to law enforcement upon request.

I was not aware of this. I am rather surprised and disappointed that the government refused to hear from such important witnesses. They could have shared expertise that was particularly relevant to the committee's examination of the bill. I am very surprised and disappointed to hear that.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that clarification.

In light of his explanation, I believe that a door has been opened. Perhaps it has been opened too wide in that it allows telecommunications companies and Internet service providers to voluntarily provide more information. In my opinion, the door has been opened too wide. My colleagues on this side of the House share that opinion.

The door has been opened too wide. In 2014, we must be very careful about this kind of measure and new provisions that may threaten Canadians' privacy. We have to be very careful in this regard. In this case, a line has been crossed. The government should have been more restrictive and more careful. The work is not finished. The bill is still being examined, and the Senate also has to look at it. Perhaps some improvements will be made there.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13, which has already been debated for three hours today and has just come back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

A lot of hard work has been done on this bill. I am thinking, in particular, of the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. I am happy to hear that good work was done in committee.

However, the results of that work are perhaps not quite what we on this side of the House expected. Unfortunately, the amendments that were made to this bill were not sufficient for us to be able to support it at report stage.

I must first say that this bill may be a rather sensitive subject for some people. It may hit close to home and be a sensitive subject for some people because it involves bullying and there is often mention of the unfortunate incidents that were reported in the media. It is vital that we remember the importance of the work we are doing as parliamentarians to try to address this issue, which sometimes has tragic consequences. Bullying is a problem in our society that has evolved over the past few decades. Obviously, the Internet is one of the elements that has changed the problem of bullying. It is becoming easier to bully someone online today because we can easily access the Internet with our cell phones and computers.

This problem has evolved and has become quite a significant issue for our youth and also for adults. As parliamentarians, we must discuss this problem and try to solve it, even though there is no magic solution. We have to consider the underlying causes. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île often talks about the underlying causes. Furthermore, we must not believe that the solution to the problem is to create a Criminal Code offence and that all of a sudden there will be no more bullying. It is never that simple. It is therefore important to discuss this problem and other ways of dealing with it.

We were also somewhat disappointed with the process that led to the drafting of this bill. Members will remember that Bill C-30 was also introduced in the first session of the 41st Parliament and that there was significant opposition to that bill from civil society and the different political parties. It is unfortunate that Bill C-13 contains some of what was widely rejected in Bill C-30. I am talking about the provisions concerning the electronic surveillance of Canadians.

My impression is that the government is taking Bill C-13 and the issue of bullying—which is a very important and sensitive issue—and integrating certain parts of Bill C-30, which was very controversial, as I said. It was abandoned by the Conservatives after the uproar that followed its introduction. It is sad that they are using this tactic and are trying to do indirectly what they said they would not do. It was abandoned. It is disappointing to see that it is now being included in Bill C-13.

This issue could have been settled quickly, or at least more quickly. I do not think that we are going to solve the problem of bullying overnight. However, we could have at least moved in the right direction.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a worthwhile bill. Unfortunately, it did not receive the Conservatives' support. However, one part of his bill did find its way into the Conservatives' current bill. I find that somewhat curious.

If I understand correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice seems to have an explanation. He says that it is all well and good to add an offence to the Criminal Code, but it is also important to grant investigative powers to the police.

I do not remember when exactly during the process of studying the bill this happened—it may have been the day after it was introduced—but the Spencer decision provided some clarification. Unfortunately, the bill did not change, even in light of the decision, which defined the limits that can be placed on electronic surveillance and the amount of personal information Internet service providers can share about Canadians.

I believe that the government should have complied with the Spencer decision, but that is not the case, unfortunately. That is the main reason we are opposing this bill.

I would like to clarify the court's decision in Spencer, which had to do with providers sharing information. The decision clearly established that Canadians had the right to online anonymity and that the police had to get a warrant to find out Internet users' identity.

However, Bill C-13 creates a new policy that allows access to personal information with or without a warrant. This opens the door to obtaining personal information without a warrant even though the Spencer decision said the opposite. It said that a warrant was absolutely necessary to get personal information about a Canadian citizen on the Internet.

Internet service providers have access to that information. They can find that information and share it with law enforcement to investigate bullying cases, for example. The Spencer decision set boundaries for getting information by requiring a warrant. However, Bill C-13 opens the door to getting personal information without a warrant.

All of this is unfolding in an era when people have growing concerns about electronic surveillance because the government is monitoring our actions more and more. Not long ago, groups met peacefully to talk about issues or met in the streets to demonstrate. We know that the government, which has thousands of employees who monitor Canadians, would watch what such groups were doing during those completely peaceful meetings and demonstrations that could not have given anyone any reason to believe there was a threat to Canada's security.

This is unfolding in an era when people feel that the government is collecting more and more information about Canadians. We also have to set clearer boundaries about how this information is obtained and about Canadians' right to privacy.

I would be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.