Robert Aubin

[Employment Insurance, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have essentially gutted Service Canada. One result is that now, one in four unemployed workers does not receive a response to their EI claim within the 28-day deadline. Think about it: four weeks without income is huge when rent, grocery and hydro bills are piling up.

Yesterday the minister asked the parliamentary secretary to find out how he could shorten wait times. I have a very simple suggestion for him: hire more staff.

Does the minister understand that the time to do more with less has passed?

[Employment Insurance, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the inevitable. As reported in Le Devoir this morning, and as the NDP has been saying since the employment insurance reform was implemented, the most recent assessment report indicates that only 38% of the unemployed qualify for benefits. What a sorry record.

Before the Liberals and the Conservatives took an axe to the program, 85% of unemployed Canadians had access to employment insurance.

When will the government improve the employment insurance program so that workers who have lost their job can get assistance?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her interesting question which echoes the case of one of my constituents.

A citizen of Trois-Rivières was refused entry to the United States because of information that he had never provided. He came to my office and the first question he asked was where had that come from and who had gained access to his medical file. I am not certain this is the case in every situation, but it is obvious that the disclosure of personal information and people's files is a growing problem.

On the Internet, you can look up an address or telephone number using Canada 411. However, I have the impression that an increasing number of organizations, including mayors and customs officers, now have an “Ottawa 11” that gives them a citizen's complete background. That is completely unacceptable because very often the information is completely unrelated to a criminal record or any kind of offence that should be disclosed.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that good question. It allows me to talk about something I did not have time to get to in my speech.

Since this morning, I have heard a number of parliamentarians on the government side talk about this notion of balance. I admit that I have great difficulty with that because when we talk about balance, we mean the two sides of the scale. For the scales to be balanced, each side must have equal weight. It is like saying there are just as many reasons to request personal information without a warrant as there are to request personal information with a warrant, but that is not true.

We have to put in place privacy protection and make exceptions where necessary. I think everyone can agree on that. However, everyone will also understand that we are not in the process of balancing the scales and that the times when it is acceptable to obtain personal information without a warrant will be the exception, not the rule based on a balance that we must find.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I have the pleasure of sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

One day—yes, I said one day—is not really enough time to debate such an important issue. That is why I feel it is so important that the government listen to as many viewpoints as possible, from as many regions of the country as possible, so that it can hear and understand that beyond those telecommunications companies, there are real individuals. Those individuals did not necessarily give permission for their personal information to be shared.

I do not know if it was because the news about the amount of data that had been passed on came as a bombshell, but when I was preparing my speech, I was transported back in time, almost to the days of my youth. Like many MPs in the House, I presume, I had the sublime pleasure of reading George Orwell's 1984, which won an award as one of the best science fiction novels. At the time Orwell was, in a way, telling us about what we are discussing here today.

Since I read the book rather than seeing the movie, I had to imagine the setting myself. I never imagined a setting that looked like Quebec or Canada. I imagined a futuristic world that did not really exist. However, that is exactly what we are seeing with the topic we are discussing today. The fact that, right now, the government does not really know how big a problem this is, what data are being disclosed and the reasons why that is happening makes us think that Big Brother must have lost control somewhere along the way. In the book, things seemed to be a lot more under control. Things were not necessarily being done more intelligently, but they were a lot more under control.

We have often heard the government say how important it is to respect private companies and that the federal government has no business getting involved in companies' internal affairs. That position could make sense ideologically if it was consistently applied, but it seems that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

We have now learned that the Conservative government no longer follows that rule. Not only does it frequently intervene in collective bargaining processes, for example, but it also solicits the support of telecommunications companies in obtaining Canadians' personal information. The Conservatives have been saying that the companies are not required to respond and that if they refuse to provide the information requested, then the government has to get a warrant.

That is all well and good, but I should have a say when it comes to my own personal information. The same is true for all Canadians. The telecommunications company should not be deciding willy-nilly, depending on its mood or which way the wind is blowing, whether it will agree to share my personal information with or without a warrant on the pretext that I have a service contract with that company.

Telecommunications companies have said that they disclosed personal information to the federal government 1.2 million times in 2011 alone. Based on the exponential growth of our means of communication and the huge increase in sales of telecommunication tools, one can only imagine that the 1.2 million instances of disclosure in 2011 have now reached an unimaginable number. However, one thing is for certain: that number is definitely higher than the bar set in 2011.

It is not the government's role to interfere in people's private lives. What is more, this practice has become so routine that one has to wonder whether it is not simply a nation-wide spying system set up for all sorts of reasons. As the employment insurance critic, I also have to wonder about this when I see the type of investigations being conducted by many EI investigators.

This information reveals the government's appalling approach to forcing telecommunications companies to disclose information, often without a warrant, as was mentioned earlier. For a government that claims to respect law and order, this is deeply hypocritical.

What is really happening? On April 29, 2014, the Interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, revealed that telecommunications companies had disclosed vast amounts of information to government organizations, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Canada Border Services Agency, as well as to certain provincial and municipal authorities that are unknown and cannot be named. The list would be even longer if we could get the information we do not have.

Information provided to the commissioner's office in late 2011 shows that wireless telecommunications companies responded to 784,756 government requests for information about customers. Surely that all happened very respectfully; surely companies had the right to say no. All the same, the government made 784,756 requests for information about Canadian cell phone customers. Nowadays, there are very few Canadians who do not have a cell phone.

Most of the requests were made without a warrant or judicial oversight. Telecommunications companies have refused to reveal how, why and how often they provided information to government organizations because they say that the government provided no guidelines or specifics about the rules. Somebody must have those answers.

I thought that this debate would help clarify some of these questions. Today, we heard in the news that the Prime Minister's Office was investigating to assess the scope of the problem. This is a huge mess. It is as though chaos has taken over in the departments and everyone is doing what they want, and as though the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, which means that no one—or virtually no one—is held accountable.

The very first question we have is, why did the government make all of these requests? I do not understand why the government needs so much information. What can it do with all that information? I can obviously understand why certain government agencies or the police would need that information. We heard about that earlier. There are some excellent examples of situations on which everyone quickly agrees, and where information is needed to track criminals. However, it makes absolutely no sense that the government is requiring telecommunications companies to provide personal information on Canadians 1.2 million times a year, possibly without a warrant—and, as I mentioned earlier, probably even more times in 2014 than in 2011.

I want to compare this to the stigma associated with EI recipients, who are treated like fraudsters before their file is even opened. I get the impression that this way of looking at Canadians is becoming more common. The government starts by assuming that people have something to hide. It asks for information and then decide. That is not how it works in a lawful society.

Is the law so permissive that the government has the right to monitor Canadians and to invade their privacy so easily? I would like to learn more about this. Unfortunately, the government has not provided any clarifications today. If it wants to track Canadians, it needs to have a good reason. If it has one, then it should go about things the right way and enact legislation. If that is not the case, we will have to find better ways to protect Canadians' privacy and personal information from the government's prying eyes. Without specific legislation, anything goes. I do not think that is how the rule of law works, nor do I think it is how a democratic government should operate.

What this motion is calling for today is quite simple and totally reasonable. We are calling on the government to listen to the Privacy Commissioner. Already we have a problem, because this government is not in the habit of listening to commissioners, but that is what we are asking for nonetheless. Commissioners are impartial officers of Parliament who provide a neutral perspective on situations and deserve to be heard, not to mention listened to. We are therefore calling on the government to listen to the commissioner and make public the number of disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments. We are calling on the government to tighten the rules governing the disclosure of personal information without judicial oversight and to update the privacy protection laws.

The NDP believes that we can effectively prosecute criminals and give them the harshest sentences under the law without treating Canadians disrespectfully, as though they were criminals, and without infringing on their rights.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to my colleague's speech because I had been worried all day that the Conservatives would take no interest in this debate, which is critically important. However, I have to admit that some elements of his speech left me dumbfounded, to say the least.

Each and every speech from the government side has downplayed the importance of the data, which includes addresses and telephone numbers. Given that we live in an IT world, it is just easier to proceed in that way, or so they say. However, all it takes is two clicks and one can find phone numbers on the Internet.

I am having a hard time understanding why the government is paying $1 to $3 per piece of information that it then claims to be of little consequence. Millions of dollars are being spent on obtaining information that could be found free of charge on the Internet.

All of that is being lumped in with serious examples that strike me as more important. We can all agree when it comes to breaking and entering, saving lives and national security. However, those examples cannot justify more than 1.2 million requests.

There is a huge difference between what is being downplayed and the real issues, which justify requesting information without a warrant in exceptional cases.

Could the member clarify?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague from Pontiac. He was right about everything in his speech except for when he said that Pontiac is the most beautiful riding in the country. I believe that Trois-Rivières is, but all kidding aside.

This morning's papers informed us that the Prime Minister's Office seems to have launched an internal investigation in order to measure the appetite of the various government departments or agencies for the requests for information that we have been talking about for the past few hours.

According to my colleague, is the government unaware of the situation, or does the right hand have no idea what the left hand is doing?

[Champlain Bridge, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that since the Champlain Bridge is not an international or interprovincial structure, Montreal motorists should pay.

As far as I know, the existing federal bridge is not an international bridge or an interprovincial bridge and there is no toll. The same goes for the federal Jacques-Cartier and Mercier bridges, which do not cross any borders.

Unless the government plans on profiting from the work to move the Champlain Bridge, why is it claiming that because the bridge is local, those who use it daily should have to foot the bill?

[Supreme Court Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the first question that came to mind when preparing this speech was the following: should I be pleased or disheartened by the prospect of speaking to a bill that, for the third time, is attempting to introduce common sense? We agree that the bill introduced by my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst is based on common sense.

At a time when politicians sometimes have a bad reputation for being opportunists, making promises that they do not keep and changing their tune depending on which way the wind is blowing, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is just what is needed to counter these hasty judgments or preconceptions. He is feisty and persistent, and he is not the sort of person to give up on his ideas when difficulties arise. Therefore, I wish to congratulate him for his efforts on behalf of the people he represents, the people of Acadie—Bathurst and especially, today, for his long fight for our country's two official languages and recognition of bilingualism in the federal government and Canada's major institutions. I am not referring to recognition just on paper, but in actual practice.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has been a source of inspiration ever since I arrived in the House. When I was first assigned to be a member, with him, on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he showed me everything that remains to be done in order to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act becomes part of Canadians' reality. It is because of my colleague's efforts and his example of perseverance, that I have finally chosen to say that I am honoured to rise today to defend, with all the courage of my convictions, his bill, Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

His bill would change the Supreme Court and create a new requirement for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. It is a very simple requirement, if it is one at all: to be able to listen to and understand anyone who appears before the Supreme Court, in the language of their choice, whether English or French, without the assistance of an interpreter.

As I just mentioned, this is my colleague's third attempt at seeing this initiative through. This legislative measure was introduced for the first time in June 2008 and the same bill was introduced in November 2008. Those who have been here for a while will probably remember that it was then Bill C-232, which was passed by the House of Commons. I want to emphasize the fact that it was passed by the House of Commons. Today, here we go again. Something is not right.

The bill was passed on March 31, 2010, but the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block it until the election was called in March 2011. This is another example of unelected people blocking a bill that was passed by elected parliamentarians in the House of Commons. I think this needs no further comment.

Let us leave the Senate aside for now and come back to the essence of the bill. Why is it so essential for a judge to understand both official languages? There are many reasons, but I will focus mainly on the two that I consider to be the most important.

The first is equal justice. The Supreme Court, as we all know, is the highest court in the land and its nine justices are sometimes called to sit for the same case. It is rather unthinkable that some of them might not have exactly the same understanding of the arguments being made as the others who listen to and understand both official languages. The witnesses and other participants can speak in the language of their choice. That is a recognized and properly applied right. There are no problems there.

However, it is important that the judges understand the nuances of the testimonies. In law, often everything lies in the nuances. Simultaneous interpretation has its limits. We realize that every day in the House of Commons. The House interpreters do a tremendous job, but it is never as good as being able to listen to each speaker in their own language and understand all the subtleties.

Judges being bilingual, therefore, helps ensure that francophones and anglophones have equal access to justice. It gives them the assurance, not only that they will be heard, but above all, that they will be understood. When a case is in its final stage in the legal process, the assurance of that right should be guaranteed.

The second reason rests on the duality of our body of law in Canada. In Canada, all legislation exists in both official languages. Let us understand each other clearly. No statute adopted by this Parliament is first written in one language and then translated into the second. Statutes are drafted in both official languages at the same time, with the subtlety of each language's vocabulary and with neither language taking precedence over the other. If we have therefore considered it to be right and proper to have that kind of legislation in Parliament, those called upon to sit in judgment in support of that process must have the same ability.

Why are we proposing this bill? The bill introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is not before us in order to make the task of a Supreme Court judge even more complex. At the outset, I understand the traditional objection that we have heard each time this bill has been debated in the House. The question is always: will we be depriving ourselves of an eminently competent judge, who happens to have the disadvantage of being unilingual, given that simultaneous interpretation has all the limitations I mentioned just now?

My answer is very simple: yes. We should have to deprive ourselves of the services of a unilingual judge. To my recollection, we have never witnessed the appointment of a unilingual francophone judge. Please understand me. I am not saying that francophones have been treated differently. However, we have to recognize that, for a francophone, a knowledge of English is an essential part of legal training. It is precisely this fact that anglophones who aspire to a seat on the highest court in the land have to recognize. In Canada, French is an essential skill to qualify for that position. Period.

A prime minister who does not speak Canada's two official languages? Unthinkable. Well then, what about a Supreme Court judge? Should that not be just as important? Every time this bill comes up for discussion, it receives plenty of support across Canada. For example, the Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support for the bilingual Supreme Court judges bill. Here is what it says:

Bilingualism [it says] should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec's position in this regard is categorical.

Those words are strong, clear and precise. That says it all. Some might say that, obviously, Quebec, with its francophone majority, would want this. However, the same goes for other groups all over Quebec. For example, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne also supports this bill just as categorically:

The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice...

It is really the notion of being understood that is at the heart of my colleague's bill.

Lastly, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual.

What is the NDP doing when it comes to official languages? Not only is the bill sponsored by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst an eloquent demonstration of the NDP's defence of the French fact, but we could also mention Bill C-315, which I had the pleasure of sponsoring and which deals with French in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, or that other bill that passed in the House and that now requires officers of Parliament to be bilingual before being appointed to the position.

In closing, I would say that, based on all the evidence, it is quite clear that the NDP is more than just the official opposition; it is also a party that makes proposals. We are a party full of proposals that, as I said in the beginning, make a lot of sense and speak not only to the spirit but also to the letter of the Official Languages Act.

The Supreme Court exists to serve Canadians, whether their first official language is French or English.

Unfortunately, I have to end it there, although I have so much more to say.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, concerning its participation at the bureau meeting of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which was held in Rabat, Morocco, from February 5 to 7, 2014.