OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 128 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, October 20, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 20, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 128 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 128 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 128 (Version officielle) 147 128 20 10 2014 2014/10/20 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Care for Veterans Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) moved: Motion That, in the opinion of the House, the government should examine all possible options to ensure a fully unified “continuum of care” approach is in place to serve Canada's men and women in uniform and veterans, so as to: (

a) eliminate all unnecessary bureaucratic processes, both within and between departments, related to service delivery; (

b) eliminate duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports; (

c) further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; (

d) provide continuous support for veterans' families during and after service; and (

e) strengthen the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to kick off debate on private member's Motion No. 532. This motion will address issues of importance in the effective delivery of services to Canada's veterans. The measures proposed in Motion No. 532 are complementary to the 14 substantial recommendations deemed most important by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which were tabled in June in a report entitled “The New Veterans Charter: Moving Forward”.

That report was unanimous, a rare event here in Parliament. Everyone on all sides worked very hard to make it so, and everyone was prepared to put a little water in their wine to move the yardsticks ahead in a substantial way for our veterans. I will address what Motion No. 532 says, describe how it relates to the committee report, and discuss the government response and the way ahead. Serving our veterans has been a stated objective of every government of Canada, and our government is no exception. This objective has always been, and will always be, a work in progress.

No matter what any government does, there will always be more that we would like to do and there will always be those who will find fault. That is because everyone loves veterans for what they have done and for who they are, and that is the way it should be. Canada's development as an independent country with a unique identity stems in no small measure from its achievements in times of war and in other less dangerous but nonetheless important missions.

The Department of Veterans Affairs exists to repay the nation's debt of gratitude toward those whose courageous efforts have given us this legacy and have contributed to our growth as a nation. VAC's mandate stems from laws and regulations.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs is charged with, inter alia , the following responsibilities: ...the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty, of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated and ...the care of dependants or survivors of any person referred to... The department meets its responsibilities through its various programs.

These include programs for disability pensions, veterans allowances, pension advocacy, health care, and commemoration. They provide compensation for hardships arising from disabilities and lost economic opportunities, innovative health and social services, professional legal assistance, and recognition of the achievements and sacrifices of Canadians during periods of war and conflict.

The mission of Veterans Affairs Canada is to provide exemplary client-centred services and benefits that honour the sacrifice and achievements of our veterans and clients and that respond to the needs of veterans, other clients, and their families. I want to go back to what is a key phrase in the quote of the minister's responsibilities, and that is “re-establishment in civil life”. This is the key concept in the overall philosophy of service to veterans by the department.

The aim of veterans' programs is not lifelong financial dependence, unless that is the only option; the aim of the programs is to give veterans every support possible to help those who cannot or do not wish to continue to serve in the military the tools they need to succeed in carving out a good future on their own terms. Motion No. 532 proposes five things.

It says that in the opinion of the House, the government should examine all possible options to ensure a fully unified “continuum of care” approach is in place to serve Canada's men and women in uniform and veterans, so as to do five things: first, eliminate all unnecessary bureaucratic processes, both within and between departments, related to service delivery; second, eliminate duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports; third, further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; fourth, provide continuous support for veterans' families during and after service; and fifth, strengthen the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada.

The veterans affairs committee identified three core themes in its recent study. First was the care and support of the most seriously disabled, the second was support for families, and the and third was improving how Veterans Affairs Canada delivers the programs, services, and benefits under the new veterans charter. Committee members unanimously agreed that the principles of the new veterans charter should be upheld and that these principles foster an approach that is well suited to today's veterans.

This does not mean that improvements cannot be made; however, the legitimate criticisms of various aspects of the new veterans charter should not overshadow the fact that it is a solid foundation upon which to help veterans transition to civilian life when a service-related medical condition prevents them from continuing their military career. While implementing the recommendations in this report would not solve everything, the committee believes that the recommendations represent a major step forward and express more fully Canadians' solemn commitment to veterans and their families.

The committee also hopes that this report will help to foster an improved relationship of trust that must exist among veterans, Canadians, the parliamentarians representing them, and the Government of Canada that must earn their confidence. The story we heard over and over again at committee was that in too many cases when someone left the Canadian Armed Forces, he or she spent time in a no man's land before getting connected to the services of Veterans Affairs.

This gap led to many difficulties of financial, physical, and psychological natures and made it much harder to transition to a stable and productive civilian life.

Private member's Motion No. 532 addresses some of those challenges directly and is in lockstep with the first recommendation of the committee report, which, in abbreviated form, says that military members seriously disabled as a result of service will not be medically released until the individual is in a stable medical condition, medical records have been given to the individual and transferred to Veterans Affairs Canada, applications for services and benefits have been adjudicated, the file has been assigned to a case manager who has already established contact, and supporting health care and rehabilitation professionals have been identified and their responsibilities defined in the area where the veteran is planning to live.

Recommendation 1 also states that an internal committee should be struck by Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to develop an interchangeable and unified list of service conditions to ensure that the service-related condition identified by the Canadian Armed Forces that led to the veteran’s medical release will be recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada for adjudication purposes and that a follow-up protocol should be established for all military members who have been released for medical reasons.

I think members can see how this blends nicely with private member's Motion No. 532 in a continuum of service that this act would provide. Overall, the philosophy of the report and of private member's Motion No. 532 is to ensure that the provisions of the various acts and the veterans bill of rights shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized solemn obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.

There are many other substantial recommendations in the report, and I will abbreviate them. One is that the most seriously disabled veterans receive financial benefits for life, of which an appropriate portion should be transferable to their spouse in the event of death. Another is that the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, and that it be adjusted annually to the consumer price index.

Another recommendation is that all veterans with service-related disabilities, and their families, be entitled to the same benefits and support whether they are regular force or reserve. Another is that military family resource centres be available to veterans and their families to provide additional support in their transition to civilian life.

Another is that access to psychosocial and vocational rehabilitation services be given to spouses or common-law partners, that access to psychological counselling be also given to parents and children of veterans, and that financial support be provided to family members of seriously disabled veterans acting as primary caregivers. Another recommendation is that VAC undertake a comprehensive review of the amount of the disability award to more adequately reflect awards in civil liability cases for personal injuries, and improve support for financial counselling throughout the process.

Another is that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada together, as quickly as possible, eliminate overlap between the service income security insurance plan, or SISIP, programs and those provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. A further recommendation is that eligible vocational rehabilitation training programs be allowed greater flexibility. Another is that VAC establish a more rigorous case manager training program, review the case manager-to-veteran ratio, and provide necessary resources for its adjustment.

Another is that VAC and DND build on existing collaborative efforts to provide adequate resources for research and understanding of known and emerging manifestations of operational stress injuries. Another is that VAC consider moving towards a payment system with one comprehensive and clear monthly payment, while ensuring the net benefit to the veteran is not reduced. Another is that VAC and DND table their official response within 120 days and also table a report outlining the progress made on implementing the recommendations by January 30, 2015.

The first milestone has been met, and I know that there is some very concentrated and intense effort going toward meeting the second milestone in a manner that will give veterans confidence that the government has listened and is acting, because we have and we are. Contrary to some misleading and outright false comments by some hon. members and some people with axes that they just will not stop grinding, the government has not rejected any of the recommendations of the report. It is, in fact, quite the contrary.

Building on these enhancements to the new veterans charter, the government is pleased to indicate that it agrees with the spirit and intent of the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. Many of these recommendations involve potentially complex changes to some veterans programming, and the implications of any potential changes must, therefore, be carefully assessed. Any government would have to do the same thing. Therefore, the government plans to address the recommendations made in the report using a phased approach, and private member's Motion No. 532 will be helpful in guiding that process.

(1110) The first stage is to address those recommendations that can be quickly achieved within existing authorities and budgets of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence, and which will improve the continuum of service provided to veterans and their families when they leave the Canadian Armed Forces. The more complex recommendations require further interdepartmental work, budgetary analysis, and coordination with a wide range of federal departments, as well as with the Veterans Ombudsman and veterans' groups. These recommendations will be considered in a second phase.

This is the only approach that makes common sense. There is no magic wand that any government could wave to bypass legislated requirements for ensuring that processes with taxpayers' money are followed. It just does not happen that way. Anyone with any grasp of the complexities of the financial and regulatory realities of government will understand that this is true. I know and understand why people want everything fixed instantly, but that is just not realistically or practically possible. What we need is steady and measurable progress to achieve our objectives, and that is what we will see.

I know that people want to play politics in this place and that's what this place is all about, but surely this is one area where we can all come together to make a great many of the changes for which people have been advocating. There are many people and organizations dedicated to improving how we look after our veterans. I am one of those people and our government is one of those organizations. Everyone across the floor is that kind of person as well.

We are joined by members of the opposition parties and many stakeholder organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion, ANAVETS, True Patriot Love, Veterans Transition Network, Wounded Warriors, military unit foundations and many more. By working together to pursue progress, we will succeed at what I have already said will probably always be a work-in-progress. There will always be new circumstances and new challenges as Canada continues to play an important role in world affairs. That is no more apparent than in what is happening in the Middle East, in Iraq and Syria, and so on.

We should not let anyone's image of the perfect be the enemy of the very good. I proudly served in a regular force uniform for over 30 years and in an honorary capacity for another five years. I am one of the almost 700,000 veterans in Canada, but I am not one of the approximately 200,000 clients of Veterans Affairs Canada because I currently have no issues that require assistance. At some point, I probably will have need of some service or benefit, and I have every confidence that I will be supported by the people whom I know are dedicated to providing the best service possible.

I would like to go further than Motion No. 532 in terms of the integration of Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence. I would personally like to see an in-depth study of the possibility of merging the departments under one roof. I can understand why that may be a bridge too far for some right now, but I think that this could be an area for further study in a future Parliament.

Until that time, I firmly believe that private member's Motion No. 532 is a substantial step in the right direction in conjunction with other measures I have described, and I urge all honourable members to lend it their support. (1115) [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for moving this motion. It is another opportunity to talk about our veterans, who feel strongly—feel certain even, because it is certain—that, at times, this government is abandoning them, especially those who are seriously injured.

I would also like to comment on something my colleague said. He mentioned that members of the opposition are playing political games. It is not so much playing games as critiquing the work of the minister, who is all too often slow to acknowledge that the new charter does not fulfill all of our veterans' needs. Coming back to the motion, I would like to thank my colleague for moving it. I also want to thank him for his service in the Canadian Forces.

Could the member talk about whether he considered including RCMP members in this motion, so that they, too, can have access to this continuum of care that he is proposing for our veterans? [ English ] Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I worked well together on the veterans affairs committee. There is impression and then there is reality. Impression is easy to foster and easy to blow up in the face of reality. That is all I will say about that. We have done a lot more than we are given credit for, and that will continue.

With respect to politics, I am not trying to pick on the politics in this place. It is just a reality. This place is about politics, and that is just what we do. However, we can get beyond that, as we did with the committee report, as we did with the study. We got beyond politics in that committee with the 10 people we had, and we came up with a great report. That is what we can do when we get beyond the politics, which is a function of this place and will always be a function of this place. That is just the way it is. With respect to the RCMP, that is a valid question.

The challenge we have in doing that is that the way Veterans Affairs interacts with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces is quite different than the way they interact with the RCMP. Doing some things within the sphere of Veterans Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces would not apply in quite the same way to the RCMP. It is a valid point, and that is something that could be looked at in another piece of legislation or another motion.

(1120) Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Edmonton Centre on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We have worked collaboratively and effectively. We do not play politics with issues like this. We do try to get beyond politics and while I have no particular axe to grind, it is not enough to say that we all love our veterans. We have to show them. We have to show a commitment to our sacred covenant. Yes, the gears of government turn slowly, but the government has known for years the problems our veterans are facing right now.

It is not a recent phenomenon or recent awareness. The Conservatives closed nine veterans offices across the country at a cost of $5 million. They spent $4 million on self-promoting advertising on a program that only costs about $200,000 for transitional services. That is $4 million on advertising versus $5 million to keep a veterans office open. I want to know from the member why the minister has kicked the can down the road yet again. There were unanimous proposals and recommendations that we thought would tie him in because of the unanimity, but he has kicked the can down the road again.

Please do not give me that it takes time for government to transition. Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, but it does disturb me because he and the Liberal Party know better. They have been in power before and it is not kicking the can down the road. There are legislated requirements for how government spends money. Regardless of what it is spent on, regardless of the obvious merit of that money, there is a process that has to be followed. Any government in power has to follow the same process. This government did not invent that. It has been there for decades and decades.

It involves Treasury Board, involves work between departments, involves the Finance Department and the member behind the member who raised the question knows that full well as a former finance minister. Veterans issues have been around basically forever. It is no different than it was under the Pension Act. There were all kinds of complaints under the Pension Act that were valid. We are making progress and moving forward. It does not happen overnight and the member knows that. I am a little disappointed in the tone of his question. We will continue to work together.

We will continue to make progress, but it is going to take time. People need a little patience. I am not talking about that member grinding an axe; I am talking about other people who do not live in this House. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am clearly quite pleased to be speaking to the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre . This motion calls on the government to ensure that a continuum of care is put in place to help our veterans.

Unfortunately, since they came to power, the Conservatives have not done very much to improve our veterans' quality of life. My colleague was very involved in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs' study of the new charter. I want to thank him for his work. There was a unanimous report calling on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make changes to improve life for our veterans. Certain concessions had to be made so that it would be unanimous. During the study, which took place over the course of 14 meetings, 54 witnesses appeared.

The vast majority of them said that they had had enough of all of the reports that kept piling up over the years but never amounted to anything. No improvements have been made to the new charter, which is supposed to be a living document. Since 2006, one single change—and a pretty minor one considering all of the problems that have cropped up—has been made. That is not good enough at all. Following the report, the minister waited as long as possible to respond, then said that he planned to study the issues again. Veterans have had enough. They want us to take action now.

They do not want to keep talking about all of these problems. People know what the problems are. They have been identified umpteen times already. We need a solution right now. Over the years, a budget shortfall developed and the government made many cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada to balance the budget. Now there is a budget surplus. It was unacceptable for the government to cut Veterans Affairs Canada's budget back then, and it is indecent to start accumulating a surplus at our veterans' expense now.

People are calling on the minister to stop studying the issue and come up with real solutions to help these veterans, especially the seriously injured who are coping with all kinds of problems. The minister responded favourably to the report's conclusions. Now it is time for him to take action and introduce legislation. We believe he is simply trying to stall for time. More time is being given to study this to see how this new charter can be appropriately improved. That is fine with me, but the problems have been well known for quite some time. We cannot wait any longer.

Veterans can no longer wait for better care. The minister needs to come before the House with an action plan immediately. He must not wait until next year's budget before allocating new money to improve veterans' allowances. We are aware of the problems. They have been illustrated once again with this study, with all the situations the ombudsman has described and with the other reports. The minister needs to come up with a solution and with concrete improvements for this new charter, but now, not next year. Anyone who paid attention to the news last week knows that we are heading into an election year.

Is the minister waiting for the budget and then the election campaign? That appears to be the case. Will there be enough time for the budget to go through all the necessary stages and be implemented to improve the lives of our veterans? People should not have to wait any longer. The government cannot continue amassing surpluses on the backs of our veterans, as it has been doing for the past few days and weeks. We know what the problems are; now we need to come up with solutions. I urge the minister to have a closer look at this issue and come up with a report to improve the new charter.

That is my main message today. Another thing I noted about the government response is that it proposes two phases.

(1125) This response suggests that the government is going to keep our veterans waiting for weeks, even months. If the election is called, the bill will not have gone through all the stages. We cannot let another day go by without helping our veterans, especially those who are seriously injured. They have to have better support from Veterans Affairs Canada, and simply adopting a motion is not going to cut it. I commend the hon. member for moving this motion, but if the minister implemented the recommendations that have been made, then we would have solutions that would help our veterans immensely.

That would be preferable, since it is already too late in my books. Here we are debating the motion by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre . I find it ironic, given the Conservative government's refusal to propose a solution to immediately address the most critical problems. It prefers to wait and stall for time. Worse yet, the government is going to vote in favour of this motion and will likely wait for weeks before doing anything with it. We do not need any more motions like this.

We absolutely need a bill from the minister that will change the new veterans charter and implement the recommendations made in the report on the review of the charter. I am pleased to say that we will support this motion because we think it is important to let the government know how important it is to improve care for veterans. After more than 20 years of Liberal and Conservative cuts to the budgets of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, the NDP is the only party left with any credibility and the will to live up to the sacred obligation to improve the quality of life of our veterans.

The motion talks about a continuum of care for our veterans. The fact that our veterans feel abandoned by the Canadian Armed Forces after they leave the military is a major problem. That is why a continuum of care approach is important. The member for Edmonton Centre is absolutely right about the fact that the transfer of responsibility for veterans from the Canadian Armed Forces to Veterans Affairs Canada must be as smooth as possible. Our veterans should not feel abandoned after having given so much in service to our country.

That is why the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that veterans not be released from the Canadian Armed Forces until arrangements have been made to get them all the help and care they need. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board can also be a hindrance to obtaining care. The board sometimes errs when determining whether a veteran has a service-related disability. Those veterans are then unable to receive care until the board recognizes that they have such a disability. I would also like to address the issue of families, who seem to be ignored, particularly in the new veterans charter.

This charter does not really provide for family-centred care. That is obviously a problem. Families need all kinds of support. They are not entitled to full access to Veterans Affairs Canada programs without going through the veteran. Veterans have to request psychological help for their family members. Otherwise, they cannot get it. Families also do not have access to military family resource centres. Many families feel abandoned when veterans make the transition to civilian life. Most families are exhausted, do not sleep enough and do not have time for personal activities.

Not surprisingly, most of them indicated during the study of this issue that their health has been significantly affected. This has a major impact on interpersonal relationships and on the family. Furthermore, RCMP veterans seem to have been left out of this motion when they should also have access to this continuum of care.

(1130) The member mentioned that he was not really open to this possibility. I think that is completely disgraceful. [ English ] Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Motion No. 532 put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre . When it comes to this subject matter, the credentials of the sponsor of this motion are impeccable. It is truly an honour to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I genuinely mean that.

The motion, which calls on the government to examine all possible options to ensure that a fully unified continuum of care is available to our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans, is good. It is self-evident to me and to many other members of this House that the elimination of unnecessary or redundant inter-departmental and intra-departmental practices surrounding the delivery of services, assistance to families, and other programming, is necessary for us to deal fairly with the men and women who have sacrificed so much.

In fact, I would go even further than it being necessary; I would say it is fundamental to fulfilling our sacred obligation. It was another Conservative, our then prime minister Sir Robert Borden, who promised Canadians returning from the battlefields of the First World War that there existed a social covenant between the government and veterans. What former prime minister Borden understood, and what this motion underscores, is that the women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces serve with the knowledge that they are called upon to accept unlimited liability.

There were hundreds of thousands who paid the full limit of that liability with their lives. When they return from theatre, if they return, these men and women should expect their government to honour their side of the bargain and provide the necessary resources for physical or emotional rehabilitation, further education and skills translation, or adequate, sufficient, and accessible compensation for their disabilities.

While the current government has instructed its lawyers in British Columbia to argue that this covenant is merely a political promise to get votes rather than it being an inalienable right, Liberals believe not only that our sacred obligation is real, but that we must abide by it. In fact, Liberals from across the country gathered in February to pass a resolution to that effect. We believe that where Canadians have served their country honourably as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, their service requires a personal commitment to put one's life on the line on behalf of their fellow Canadians.

Moreover, this service is not only borne by members of the Canadian Armed Forces but also their families. We will live up to Canada's sacred obligation to our Armed Forces and veterans by allowing them and their loved ones to maintain a quality of life worthy of their sacrifice. Unfortunately, the current Conservative government has wandered away from similar commitments. To start, the Conservatives have cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Veterans Affairs Canada, tying the hands of the department when it comes to delivering the benefits and supports that veterans rely on.

Even more egregiously, the current government has closed nine regional Veterans Affairs offices, making it more difficult for veterans to access these benefits and services in their communities. It is unconscionable that veterans, some of them seniors, might have to drive hours outside of their communities to receive face-to-face help. Conservatives have claimed that veterans can still attend nearby Service Canada centres for services, but front-line staff at Service Canada are not trained to specifically help veterans, and case workers are currently burdened with a four-to-one caseload ratio.

Take for instance the case of veterans in Glace Bay, in the riding of my colleague the honourable member for Cape Breton—Canso . Since the government shut down the Veterans Affairs Canada office in Sydney, volunteer service officers at the Royal Canadian Legion have been working tirelessly in an effort to fill the void created for veterans in the region.

Whereas the VAC staff, formerly located in the Sydney office, knew the forms, the veterans, and the benefits to which these veterans might be entitled, the volunteers at the Legion, well intentioned though they are, simply do not have the expertise or training or resources to cope with the workload that the government should be doing. None of this should take away from the motion before us. I believe that the honourable member, like so many Canadians, also sees gaps in the treatment and availability of resources, which is why he presented this inspired motion. The motion calls specifically for five things to occur to ensure a fully unified continuum of care: (

a) that all unnecessary bureaucratic practices, both within and between departments related to service delivery are eliminated; (

b) that all duplication and overlap in the delivery of available services and supports are eliminated; (

c) that care and support, in particular for seriously injured veterans be improved; (

d) that continuous support is provided to veterans' families during and after their service; and, (

e) that connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada get stronger.

(1135) However, the fact this motion has been brought at all proves that the Conservative government is failing many of our veterans.

Many of these obstacles were highlighted clearly in the testimony before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs by Corporal Mark Fuchko, who when asked upon his return by the parliamentary secretary for Veterans Affairs to elaborate about his experience dealing with the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, answered the following: When I first came home, I was not the first amputee from the war in Afghanistan and I constantly ran into hurdles that really affected my quality of life and my family's as well. Things like aids to daily living were almost impossible to obtain.

Just to get my house accessible took over a year. That was a really long drawn-out nightmare. I'm not the only one who actually experienced that. There seemed to be kind of a battle with what was covered and what was not and who would cover what. That was quite a challenge, and it seems to me that there was a lot of overlap, but people weren't necessarily sure if Veterans Affairs or the military was going to cover it, and things like lead time, house modifications, and stuff like that were a real challenge for sure. I would say that probably the one common thing is housing, especially for the severely disabled.

The military originally took this on but there is a whole group of caveats that make it difficult for the delivery of this in a timely fashion. For example, some people find themselves severely disabled coming back to houses that they can't physically occupy just because their houses are not wheelchair friendly, wheelchair safe. They essentially require a whole new house to live in. I ask the House for its indulgence for that lengthy quote because I believe it demonstrates the current experience of Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans so clearly. Corporal Fuchko lost both legs in Afghanistan.

He should not have to fight with individual departments so he can get the bare minimum of living accommodations suitable to his new reality. It is unconscionable, and from the testimony we heard at committee, not an experience that is exclusive to him. We would support any measure to facilitate this system, instead of presenting veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members with a maze upon their return. The family is another vital element, if not the cornerstone upon which many of these benefits should be built.

In his testimony before committee, former senator, retired Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, highlighted the enhanced roles that families play in deployments and rehabilitation. He said: ...by the time we come back from those missions, we see a family who has also lived the missions. The families are now living the missions with the members. It is not a separated exercise. It is a marriage.

As with Jenny Migneault, the wife of a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, her advocacy highlights that beyond the medical professionals and past the bureaucrats, there are wives, husbands, and children, among other loved ones, who are shouldering the burden of service in the Canadian Armed Forces but without any of the resources or support. It is each of these people, and hundreds of thousands more, to whom we owe the obligation to break down the obstacles that currently exist. To them, we owe the passage of this motion.

However, more than that, they deserve that this motion receives real and concerted consideration by the Conservative government. They do not deserve the same consideration that saw the Minister of Veterans Affairs respond to 14 unanimous recommendations from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that examined the new veterans charter by kicking them down the road to a yet to be determined date, with no concrete action. They deserve the consideration requisite to the severity and significance of the sacrifice made by our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for raising this important motion and for his advocacy on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans. I hope we can all do the right thing by not only passing this motion but by acting on it now.

(1140) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to stand today to speak to this important motion, M-532, which really touches on a number of things our government has already been moving forward in terms of improving and removing unnecessary bureaucracy from veterans care. My colleague's proposal really is to develop a continuum of care, something that recognizes that care will evolve and that there is an important handover for our veterans, which I will speak to in my remarks.

I thank my friend and colleague, the MP for Edmonton Centre . Often in dialogue across the country we hear, can a single MP get much done? Pierre Trudeau's famous quote about MPs being nobodies 30 metres from Parliament Hill is a fallacy. If people are members of this House and they care about an issue, they can advance it remarkably. One does not have to be the leader of a party. One does not have to be a minister. One just has to be a passionate advocate.

That is what we have in my friend, the MP from Edmonton Centre , a passionate advocate for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, and a passionate advocate with decades of experience working with veterans. He noted in his remarks to this House that he is just one of the 600,000 to 700,000 veterans in Canada, but his is an important voice, because he is here in Parliament. I consider myself his understudy in many ways. We represent the Royal Canadian Air Force caucus here in the House of Commons. We are a pilot and a navigator who are aircrew who fly and tease each other relentlessly.

We are here working on issues of mutual concern, namely our men and women who serve this country. What has been discussed a little bit in this House but has never been thoroughly explored in the way it should be is how we can serve veterans within this continuum of care my friend from Edmonton Centre has suggested in a way that recognizes that those 600,000 to 700,000 Canadians are vastly different. We heard my friend from Guelph talk about the offices and things like that again. Veterans are not a unified force who all access services the same way.

We have in Canada right now war veterans in their 20s from the Afghanistan conflict. We also have veterans in their 90s. In fact, my colleague from Edmonton Centre and I met a 101-year-old veteran in Normandy who travelled with the Canadian contingent to recognize the anniversary in France. The 101-year-old veteran parked his walker and walked down to Juno Beach. It was remarkable. Does the 101-year-old veteran access services the same way the 25-year-old veteran does? No, he does not.

Veterans Affairs has tried to realize that, apart from some of the dialogue we hear in Ottawa from so-called advocates who do not even understand how veterans are served, there are 15,000 veterans in their twenties who have signed up for what is called the My VAC account. They can manage their own accounts online. They want to. People from that generation have never had banking chequebooks that they have taken into a branch. Veterans Affairs has worked on apps and on online accounts, because we have thousands of veterans who want to access and learn about their benefits that way.

We also still have veterans in their 80s and 90s who need assistance, and the vast majority of those do not go to stand-alone bricks and mortar Veterans Affairs offices. For decades they have been helped by veterans service officers at Legions, a fact that a Liberal critic did not even appear to know when we were talking about how veterans access services. The Legion was empowered by

an act of Parliament in 1925 to help veterans access their services. That is part of its mandate. My veterans service officer for Branch 178, which I belong to, has personally helped over 500 veterans or their partners access benefits. Service officers are not paid, but their training and expenses are paid for by the poppy fund. A lot of MPs in this House did not appear to know what the poppy fund went to. That is where it goes, directly.

(1145) In a few weeks, Canadians will start wearing their poppies with pride. They know that the vast majority of those funds go directly to veterans support. Of the 600,000 to 700,000 veterans in Canada, 130,000 have case files of some sort at Veterans Affairs. Of that, only 7,500 have an assigned case manager. A case manager is assigned based on an assessment of a variety of needs, including the complexity of the case, the services or support the veteran has or does not have at home, and ongoing illnesses or addiction issues. All of these things are assessed, and a case manager is assigned.

Our most complex cases number in the 7,500 to 8,000 range. We are providing in-home support for some of these veterans. A case manager can visit these veterans in their homes. Thanks to our changes, veterans can now visit up to 700 Service Canada and related offices, including joint personnel support units and mental health centres, to access the same level of service they can also get from a veterans services officer. They can also use the phone and the My VAC online account. We need to serve our veterans in a variety of ways, and we do.

Too often there is discussion about money and it is said that we can never do enough for our veterans. I agree, but let us speak about those numbers for a moment. Today $4.7 billion more is being spent on veterans than when we came into office. The vast majority of that relates to direct benefits for soldiers who were injured in the Afghanistan conflict. We have made sure that they are constantly reviewed and improved.

A supplement has been introduced for the permanent impairment class so that those veterans who will have a very difficult time transitioning out of uniform into civilian employment are being provided for with additional payments. The veterans affairs committee, in a good show of solidarity and of removing politics, came up with 14 recommendations on how to improve the new veterans charter. Many of those recommendations have already been acted on. Most important of these is the fact that a veteran will first stabilize and be assigned a proper VAC file manager before being released from the Canadian Forces.

That is an important improvement. Another improvement is that certain benefits, particularly related to mental health, will be extended to families. In the coming weeks and months, more of those 14 recommendations will be acted on. I hope that all members of the committee, including a couple who spoke in the House before me, try to keep the politics removed from this. Interestingly, the new veterans charter was created by the last Liberal government but was implemented by the Conservative government. It needs to be a living document that is improved upon.

It was improved a few years ago with the permanent impairment allowance supplement. Now it is being improved to address some of the shortcomings of the new veterans charter. My friend from Edmonton Centre talked about the concept of a continuum of care. He would like to one day see all of these services housed under one administrative department. I agree wholeheartedly with him. This is not a partisan issue. Retired Senator Dallaire, the lieutenant-general my colleague from Guelph spoke about, supports this same approach, in principle.

I will tell the House why it makes sense, and hopefully it is not a bridge too far. I enrolled in the Canadian Forces at 18. I was recruited. There is a department in the forces for recruiting. When I left, I was transferred to a different department. I left the uniform, and suddenly I was no longer part of the DND or Canadian Forces bureaucracy. I was transferred to a new one. That is not how they do it in the United Kingdom, where veterans services are part of defence services under the Ministry of Defence.

In giving speeches across the country I have met veterans from the Devil's Brigade, World War II, and Korea who have complained about problems that were caused when they left the uniform and their records were transferred to Veterans Affairs. That gap needs to be closed. People should not fall through the cracks. I hope that the motion today about a continuum of care, brought forward by my friend from Edmonton Centre , starts this dialogue so that we can reduce the number of people who may be falling through the cracks now.

Hopefully, in the future, we will see all of this in one ministry so that from enrolment and recruitment to retirement and becoming a veteran it is all in one family.

(1150) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to Motion No. 532, from the member for Edmonton Centre , as I did on the motion by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant , debated earlier this year. That motion called for immediate action to address the mental health crisis facing our soldiers and veterans due to the closing of veterans offices. I am surprised by the comments by the MP for Durham . His comments appear to contradict the findings of the standing committee and the very motion by the member for Edmonton Centre calling for further action.

I would certainly agree that this is not a partisan issue and that all members in this place are proud to stand and speak on behalf of our Canadian veterans. Motion No. 532, tabled by the member for Edmonton Centre , calls on the government to examine all possible options for a fully unified continuum of care for the men and women in uniform and veterans.

He calls for the elimination of all unnecessary bureaucratic processes; the elimination of duplication and overlap; further improvements in care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans; continued support for veterans' families; and strengthened connections between the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and Veterans Affairs Canada.

This motion, in perhaps a less specific way, appears to mirror the official opposition calls, as stated unanimously in June 2004 by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, for specified enhancements to the veterans charter and repeated calls by injured veterans for more long-term supportive services. While I commend the member for Edmonton Centre , a retired and honoured armed forces member, for tabling this motion and for calling for greater action in support of Canadian war veterans, it is unclear if he is now mirroring the opposition's calls for action by the government.

These questions arise: Is the member similarly decrying the wasted taxpayer dollars spent in forcing our veterans into a five-year court battle to end the clawback of the service income security insurance plan, or SISIP, benefits? Is he also now joining the opposition in supporting the RCMP call for the government to drop its court proceedings contesting the claim by the RCMP disabled veterans to end the clawback of their benefits?

Third, is the member perhaps now regretting this past February having voted against the motion by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant calling for more government support for veterans and military mental health services? That motion stated: That, in the opinion of the House, the men and women who bravely serve Canada in the armed forces should be able to count on the government for support in their time of need, and that the government should demonstrate this support by (

a) immediately addressing the mental health crisis facing Canadian soldiers and veterans...(

b) reversing its decision to close veterans' offices; and (

c) prioritizing and concluding the over 50 outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides.... I was proud to stand in support of that motion by my colleague. It is clear that the member for Edmonton Centre is proud of his role in the armed forces. Can we hope that he is now publicly joining our call for the government to support the government's sacred and fiduciary duty to our veterans, contrary to the position presented on behalf of the government in the Equitas court case?

It is unclear if the intent of Motion No. 532 clause (c), which says, “further improve care and support, particularly for seriously injured veterans”, is intended to also include mental health conditions. We can hope so. If so, it is encouraging that the member is now speaking in support of calls for greater federal support for veterans suffering mental conditions as a result of their service and for suicide prevention interventions. It is also encouraging that the member has brought forward this motion seeking greater action on a continuum of care for our veterans.

Action is needed, and it is needed now, to strengthen the veterans charter, as recommended by the standing committee. I fully support and stand behind the member's call to eliminate any unnecessary bureaucratic processes put in the way of timely access to veterans' benefits and supports. For those already suffering physical or mental challenges, the support should be front and centre and readily available in the community to facilitate a timely response. Certainly toll-free phone service is neither sufficient nor appropriate.

I would remind the House that we, on this side of the House, have stood repeatedly to call on the government to invest more time on support and services for those who are suffering mental distress and to prevent any further suicides.

(1155) Increased financial support is needed and is needed now. The government response to look into this is not an acceptable response. On this side of the House, we appreciate that the member has brought forward this motion. However, I am troubled that the member's response to some of the questions posed to him are that it would have to happen in a phased manner. Yet, here we are with the government projecting that there will be a surplus. Surely, this matter should be front and centre and somewhere high on the list of priorities for increasing services.

The veterans charter is a step forward, but based on actual experience and the significant frustrations experienced by veterans, further actions are now required, as clarified by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The member for Edmonton Centre has called for phased improvements. We would say that the ball is in the government's court. It can bring forward changes and move forward bureaucratically both within the reassembling of the various agencies and between Veterans Affairs and the armed forces. It can also make services available in a more timely fashion in our veteran communities.

The New Democrat calls for improved health support to our veterans are not new. In 2006, we called for the immediate elimination of the unfair reduction of the veterans disability pension benefit from the SISIP benefits. Sadly, the government opposed this action. Here we are almost a decade later and this action was finally only taken in response to a court order and the expenditure of resources by our proud veterans. We are asking for an immediate response to the critical needs of our injured veterans, not reform over time.

As per the standing committee, we must address the personal injuries of soldiers before they depart or are dismissed from the forces to civilian life. As many members have said, it is important to merge the veterans and military services and benefits as recommended by the committee but in an expeditious manner. There is a clear covenant and undertaking that when Canadian men and women serve in our armed forces and are sent off to war, we will ensure their care on their return, whether for physical injuries or mental disabilities, including PTSD.

Canadians expect that the federal government will ensure that full benefits and services are provided in a timely manner as physical disability is often accompanied by emotional and mental health challenges. I can share that a very close friend and neighbour of mine, not through war service, lost one leg below the knee and then a second. It was an extremely difficult time both with respect to the physical recovery as well as adjusting to life in a new and different way. Our members of the armed forces tend to be the most physically fit, energetic and determined of Canadians.

That is why they step forward to serve. When they suddenly face a mental or physical disability, it is incredibly challenging for them and the family then bears the brunt of that. I am proud to say that the city of Edmonton has brought forward fantastic health and other services to assist those who are returning and facing physical disabilities. I am proud that we have the services available for veterans housing.

However, it is important that the government steps up to ensure that when members of the armed forces return from serving, they are given every care, consideration and support, so that they can move forward and adjust to society, not just at retirement when they go into a retirement home but at the height of their young lives.

(1200) The Deputy Speaker : The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Digital Privacy Act (Bill S-4. On the Order: Government Orders) June 17, 2014--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology of Bill S-4,

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act --the Minister of Industry. Hon. Bernard Valcourt (for the Minister of Industry) Motion moved that Bill S-4,

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act , be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4 , the digital privacy act. The purpose of the digital privacy act would be to strengthen our private sector privacy laws and to increase protection for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online.

The digital privacy act would provide a foundation on which the government would hold businesses to account on behalf of consumers. It would establish a new framework and new rules for how private businesses handle, use, and collect the personal information of Canadians. This past April, the Minister of Industry launched Digital Canada 150, a comprehensive plan for Canada to take full advantage of the digital economy. It is a plan that has clear goals for Canada to be a competitively connected country by the time we celebrate our 150th anniversary in 2017.

Our government understands that when Canadians shop online or make purchases with their credit cards, they want their information to be safe. That is why we introduced the digital privacy act which would improve Canada's private sector privacy laws. It is the unfortunate reality, in today's digital age, that we need to be more and more wary of hackers and electronic data theft. Just this past year, businesses like Target, Home Depot and Kmart in the United States, had the credit card information of millions of people lost to hackers.

It is surprising, but under our current rules, it is not mandatory for companies to disclose the theft of this information to their clients. Under the digital privacy act, companies would now be required to tell their clients when their personal information has been lost or stolen. In addition, businesses would now need to report these harmful breaches to the Privacy Commissioner. Further to this, companies would need to keep a record of all privacy breaches that have occurred within their organization and the Privacy Commissioner would now have the ability to request information on any of these breaches.

The digital privacy act would also set out hefty penalties for companies that deliberately break the rules and try to cover up a data breach. Organizations would face fines of up to $100,000 per client they fail to notify that the data breach has occurred. Let me now outline a few more ways the bill would help protect Canadians. The digital privacy act would introduce stronger rules to protect vulnerable Canadians, like children and seniors, when they surf the web. Many websites are focused on children, like educational online playgrounds or learning websites.

Many times these websites, for marketing purposes, ask to collect personal information from the person using the website. Under the digital privacy act, we would establish stronger rules and clarify that the wording that these companies use to request personal information needs to be simple enough that a child, or any target audience, could understand. This means that if the consent required is too difficult for a child to understand, the consent would not be valid.

In addition, the digital privacy act would introduce limited and targeted exceptions where personal information could be shared without an individual's consent. An unfortunate factor in our society is financial abuse. Currently, banks and financial institutions do not have the ability to alert the appropriate authorities when they suspect a senior is a victim of financial abuse. The digital privacy act would now give an exception to banks and financial institutions to be able to alert law enforcement when they suspect someone is a victim of financial abuse.

Finally, the digital privacy act would give the Privacy Commissioner new powers to help enforce the law and make companies accountable when the rules are broken. The Privacy Commissioner would now be able to negotiate compliance agreements with organizations that break the law. This would keep organizations accountable to their commitments to correct privacy issues. In addition, the commissioner would now have one year, instead of 45 days, to take organizations to court if they do not play by the rules.

The digital privacy act would also give the commissioner a new ability to name and shame organizations that are not co-operating either with an investigation or with their commitments to fix their privacy issues. This would also allow Canadians to become more knowledgeable about issues that affect their privacy. As technology and the marketplace evolve, we need to be more and more aware of how we can protect ourselves and our information.

The digital privacy act is common sense legislation that would help update our private sector privacy laws and would hold organizations to account when they lose personal information. The Privacy Commissioner would now have increased power to help enforce the law and would also hold companies to account when they do not play by the rules. I look forward to the continued debate in this House and to when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology where we will hear from expert witnesses as we continue to discuss how to best protect Canadians in our digital world.

I hope all hon. members will join me in supporting Bill S-4 .

(1205) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's speech; however, today we are debating a motion to send Bill S-4 to committee before it is even debated in the House of Commons. That is a rather exceptional measure. This is the first time this measure has been used since 2011. However, the parliamentary secretary did not provide an adequate reason for why the government wants to speed this process up.

I hope it is to fix the mistakes in the bill, and to fix the fact that this bill violates our privacy by allowing organizations to share personal information with each other, without a warrant and without consent. Can the parliamentary secretary provide a better explanation of why the government wants to send this bill to committee? If it is to make changes, what kinds of changes does the government have in mind? [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake : Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity to discuss privacy issues in the past. As the member knows, the privacy legislation is very complex.

By going down this road, we are giving parliamentarians and expert witnesses the opportunity to weigh in on this important legislation before the committee process, which is open to the public, open to comment, and to have a dialogue on how to best protect the privacy of Canadians moving into the future. It is a unique process, but one that is designed to ensure that we get the best possible outcome in this piece of legislation. (1210) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, no one else seems to be interested in the debate today. I hope that will change in the future. I have another question.

Time and time again, this government has outright refused all proposed amendments, changes or modifications to a bill. In committee, the government often does not even listen to what the witnesses have to say. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether it is truly a gesture of good faith to study this bill in committee before it is passed at second reading? Will there finally be at least a basic amount of co-operation for once? [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake : Mr. Speaker, I am sure that while there may not be that many members taking

part in the debate today, I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians watching this live on CPAC, riveted by the discussion. Obviously, the entire process here is designed to ensure that we come up with the best piece of legislation possible. I look forward to the hon. member debating this at committee where she will have the opportunity to bring up any points that she deems relevant. I am glad to meet with her at any time to have a conversation on how to come up with the best piece of legislation possible. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the two previous speakers. My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville had some good questions for the parliamentary secretary. She even introduced Bill C-475 , which proposed a number of provisions that can be found in Bill S-4 . Why did the Conservatives not vote in favour of the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville , even though several of the provisions in her bill are in Bill S-4 , which they want to pass? [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake : Mr. Speaker, obviously, the hon. member oversimplifies the situation. We are talking about two different pieces of legislation.

The government feels that this is the best way forward to get the most balanced result to the best benefit of Canadians possible. My hon. colleague, across the way, has the opportunity to come before committee. As a member of the committee he can ask questions, move forward amendments and hopefully, we can work together to ensure that we have the soundest bill we can at the end. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the motion we are looking at today is unique in that it is the first of its kind in Parliament.

We have to wonder whether it is worth sending this bill to committee before it is passed at second reading, since that is not in keeping with the usual legislative process. While I have numerous concerns about Bill S-4 , I still plan on supporting today's motion because I think that we can work together to improve the bill. However, that does not mean that I support the bill, and I must make that distinction. As parliamentarians, we have been elected to work together and find effective solutions. That is what I am hoping to do today.

I want to reach out to the government in the hopes of improving this bill because some of the elements are a step in the right direction. As the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said, I introduced Bill C-475 in the House. That bill was designed to make significant changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to ensure it reflected the reality of the digital era. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against it. There could have been better protections in place, but we were unable to work together. This time around, I hope that will be possible.

It is extremely important that PIPEDA be updated, since it has not been updated since the very first iPod was introduced. Technology has evolved. Facebook did not even exist yet at the time. Things have really changed, and the law must reflect the current reality. This bill is a good first step, but it does not go far enough. For instance, it is important to introduce a mandatory system for notifying users of data losses and data breaches. However, the model proposed by the government is subjective: organizations can decide whether the data breach is significant enough to report.

In some situations, these organizations will not have the best means or knowledge to do this, especially the really small organizations. Is it really in their interest to disclose such data breaches? Probably not. Bill C-475 proposed a model that was objective. That is one aspect that must absolutely be improved in order to better protect Canadians' privacy, and I hope this change can be made in committee. It is important to implement a system that will ensure greater compliance with PIPEDA.

With international digital mega-corporations in the picture, our laws are too frequently broken because there are currently no penalties. That is why we need a system of penalties to enforce corporate compliance with PIPEDA and Canadian privacy laws. Unfortunately, Bill S-4 does not go far enough in this respect. It creates the option of putting together a committee that will act in good faith. Sometimes everyone acts in good faith and is happy, but that is not always how things work. The commissioner has to be able to issue orders earlier in the process, but that is not what the government has proposed.

That is what I proposed in Bill C-475 , and that is another change that will have to be made to Bill S-4 before we can support it. However, what really bothers me about this bill is the provision that would allow organizations to share personal information without a warrant and without the consent of the individual concerned. That is a huge problem. Even though this bill is called the digital privacy act, it contains a provision that could really interfere with the protection of privacy. I find that deeply contradictory.

(1215) It is also extremely important to point out that between the time that this bill was drafted and the debate today, the Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling that information such as data from Internet service providers on their clients, including their IP addresses, email addresses, names, telephone numbers, and so forth, are personal information and cannot be obtained without a warrant. Obviously, I am paraphrasing, but that is more or less what the Supreme Court ruled. I have major reservations about the constitutionality of this provision of the bill.

I asked the government to reassess it and withdraw it. Unfortunately, my request was not favourably received. I think we could work together during review in committee on withdrawing this provision, which may violate the Canadian Constitution. I hope that is why the Conservatives want to send this bill to committee. Obviously this is a Senate bill. During review in committee, a number of witnesses shared their concerns over this very provision.

The Privacy Commissioner said the following in a brief: Allowing such disclosures to prevent potential fraud [as provided for in clauses 7(3)( a .1) and 7(3)( a .2)] may open the door to widespread disclosures and routine sharing of personal information among organizations on the grounds that this information might be useful to prevent future fraud. Indeed, the government wants to protect personal information, but allowing access to that information without a warrant, without consent, without any judicial oversight and without transparency is very problematic.

On many occasions, the government has used PIPEDA and its loopholes to call on Internet service providers and ask for Canadians' personal information. Why? We do not know. We do not even know exactly how many requests have been made, because this information is not available to the public. However, based on what the Privacy Commissioner revealed, we know that in a single year, government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests to Internet service providers to obtain personal information about their customers. That is a huge problem.

The government could have taken this opportunity to truly protect Canadians' privacy and to fix the loopholes in PIPEDA that allow this kind of information to be transmitted without legal oversight, without consent and without any transparency. It could have done that. I hope it will do so during the study in committee. That is very important. I am just making a suggestion. We are debating the motion today. We are prepared to agree to study this bill before it passes at second reading, as is usually the case.

I hope that this will be a gesture of good faith, and that the Conservatives will take this opportunity to fix the loopholes in PIPEDA and to eliminate the clause allowing organizations to share information without a warrant. We cannot support a bill that contains provisions that violate Canadians' privacy. (1220) [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has concerns about Bill C-13, the recent anti-bullying bill that was passed in the House, and the implications to Canadians' privacy when the two bills are combined. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr.

Speaker, that is a rather peculiar question coming from someone who supported Bill C-13 at third reading. Together, these two bills strengthen the parallel system for accessing personal information. Of course, there is the traditional system under which a warrant is needed to obtain personal information about someone. However, as a result of flaws in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there is also a parallel system under which a government agency can simply pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and ask for information about that company's clients.

That is something that the government does not seem to want to correct. In fact, the government wants to do the opposite. It wants to increase its ability to do this sort of thing by giving itself legal immunity under Bill C-13 and by now allowing organizations to share Canadians' personal information among themselves without consent and without a warrant. Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the digital age, the Internet and communication and information systems are at the heart of our networked society.

The ubiquitous interconnectivity and growing exchange of data thus create a host of new possibilities, some worse than others. Since, like me, my colleague is part of the Internet generation, could she speak about the dangers associated with this interconnectivity and the security of personal information? Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, in the digital age, there are many new risks. I offer a computer security course for seniors at a seniors centre in my riding. This helps me to see just how concerned people are about the risks they face in the digital age.

These individuals do not necessarily know what happens when they enter their personal information into the vortex of Facebook, Google or any other network. People often think about the two examples that I just mentioned, but this goes even further than that. Phishing emails are often sent to people who do not necessarily know how to distinguish between a phishing email and a legitimate email. I want to share some key figures that show just how concerned people are about this issue.

A total of 70% of Canadians feel less protected than they did 10 years ago, 97% of Canadians would like organizations to inform them in the event of a data breach, and 91% of Canadians say that they are concerned or extremely concerned about the protection of personal information. That is huge. The NDP has taken action on this file. We introduced Bill C-475 .

On one opposition day, we moved a motion to close the gaps in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to enhance the transparency of the parallel system for information sharing between Internet service providers and government agencies. We took action. Unfortunately, the government took an extremely long time to propose amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and debate them. We are happy to be doing this today. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal bill. It needs to be improved.

(1225) Mr. Dany Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent response. Members of my party and I are aware that in some emergency situations, there has to be access to information without a warrant. The problem with sharing information that way is that it seems to happen more often than circumstances can justify. The government has to strike a balance between protecting privacy and security. Bill S-4 does not strike that balance. Can my New Democratic colleague tell me about her concerns with respect to that failure to strike a balance? Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

It is important to strike a balance. Yes, there are emergency situations, but things should be handled case by case. What we are seeing now is an abuse of this whole parallel system in which a phone call to an Internet service provider is all it takes. The Supreme Court has taken action on this file. It ruled on the matter. Now the government has to abide by that ruling. I hope that is what the government will do during the committee's study of this bill. [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be on my feet, adding a few comments on my concerns with Bill S-4 .

I have to begin by saying that I am disappointed that the bill had to come from the Senate, rather than being introduced in the House as part of the ongoing committee work that we would have been doing. The government chose to have it introduced in the Senate and brought in through the back way. On this side of the House, we will support sending the bill to committee.

We have some very serious concerns when we combine the impact of Bills C-13 and S-4 , but in order to ensure that we are being open and fair on this issue, that we understand it thoroughly, and that it does keep Canadians' interests in mind, we will support it going to committee. Hopefully, at that point, we will have sufficient time to get answers to the various questions of concern. We are back discussing the Conservatives' type of approach, which is that one is either with them or against them.

If we vote against the bill, it means that we are not interested in privacy rights, and if we vote for the bill, there is another side. It is another one of those bills that continue to be very divisive in the House at a time when these are the kinds of privacy issues that we should be trying to work out together. I do hope that when we get to the industry committee, we have a good group there so that we can do some serious work in a non-partisan way. Maybe we can strengthen the bill in the end, by listening to some of the experts who have sincere concerns about it.

I do not mean to start out on a negative, but the truth is simple. We all need to be part of the debate today. The way that the government looks at personal information, protection and privacy has already been subject to a Supreme Court ruling, and we have to give consideration to that. It is one thing to play partisan politics in the House and think that we are playing to the political base, but it is important that we listen to the rulings of the Supreme Court on privacy issues. There are clearly those who have tried to make it sound like anyone who does not support the government is supportive of criminals.

We have heard that before. However, the discussion is not as simple as that. The government's record on information protection has been embarrassingly negligent, so forgive me if I am not convinced that the recent scheme is worth passing without intense scrutiny. We should all remember the matter of that lost hard drive, which held the social insurance numbers, medical records, birthdates, education levels, occupations and disability payment information of about 5,000 Canadians. That was lost. Perhaps the government wishes to plead incompetence on that side, or maybe it was an accident.

We always like to be fair, so maybe it was an accident. Either way, the way that the government manages information needs extra study, which is why I am speaking on this today. We are now looking at Bill S-4 , but one cannot look at Bill S-4 without considering the implications of its companion legislation. Bill C-13 , which is also before the House this week, would make it a crime to transmit pictures without consent, and it would remove barriers to getting unwanted pictures removed from the Internet.

The stated intent of the bill is positive, but I have serious concerns with the provisions that would grant immunity to telecom companies that provide subscriber information to the police without even so much as a warrant. I raise the issue, given that last April, Canada's interim privacy commissioner revealed that nine telecommunications companies received an average of 1.2 million requests from federal enforcement bodies for private customer information every year. That amounts to nearly 3,300 requests each and every day.

Those are shocking numbers, and it could be argued that the bill has, in effect, already been rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Last June, in an unrelated case, the court declared that law enforcement requires a warrant to get even basic subscriber data. Bill S-4 would allow private companies to share telecom subscriber data between themselves, something that would seem to contravene the Supreme Court's ruling. How could that possibly be? Did the Senate miss this detail or did it fail to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling?

The truth is that the Senate passed Bill S-4 just days after the Supreme Court ruling, without even studying the implications. I guess the government is less concerned with that than pushing ahead with both Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 . It is a lack of respect for the Supreme Court as well as Parliament.

(1230) Put simply, the legislation represents a paradigm shift in the way we deal with the release of private information. Traditionally, privacy laws outline the rules and procedures needed to protect information and personal data, but in this case, the legislation sets out circumstances under which that material can be released. Clearly, the implications of this change have not been fully considered and should be explored by the committee prior to passing final judgment on the pros and cons of the measures contained within Bill S-4 .

My party and I will be voting to send it to committee for what we would hope is a thorough examination. Liberals want to ensure that law enforcement officials have access to the information they require to keep us safe, but a blank cheque approach is inappropriate. A blank cheque approach has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and promises limited success in advancing societal protections when considered holistically. Why not take the time to do this right? In a world where crimes involving data theft, identity fraud and online stalking are on the rise, protecting data is crucial.

Data is not simply information. It is a commodity, it is power, and it is the doorway into the private lives of so many people. Liberals are deeply concerned that the government's commitment to safeguarding the personal information and privacy of Canadians is less than absolute. I am not suggesting the government is malicious. I do not believe that, but I fear it just does not understand the implications of Bill S-4 .

Notwithstanding certain faulty or short-sighted legislative measures introduced by the government in the past, Canada is facing a genuine paradigm shift with respect to privacy protection, but privacy protection cannot be taken lightly. Whether protecting personal information from unscrupulous business interests, Internet stalkers and identity thieves, or rogue states bent on economic espionage, information security is crucial.

With these concerns in mind and as a leap of faith and confidence that our committee will have a chance to thoroughly examine this, I will be voting in favour of sending the bill to committee for further study. However, in return, I am also asking the minister to allow the committee to do its work honestly and freely without the involvement of the leadership so that the committee is allowed to really examine it thoroughly to ensure that if this goes forward, it goes forward with what I would hope would be unanimous support in the House on something as important as Canada's privacy rights.

I believe that is quite doable, because at the end of the day we have the same objectives, to ensure Canadian privacy laws are strong and that Canadians are protected. (1235) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for her speech. I am pleased that she raised some of her concerns about Bill S-4 , in particular the negative impact it may have on the privacy of Canadians. All of the concerns that she mentioned were also raised by the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-13 .

However, in the end, the Liberals supported the government bill designed to spy on Canadians. I would like to know if we can expect the same thing from the Liberals this time as well? [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro : Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as is the case with much of the legislation that the government puts forward, it puts two or three good things in that we want to see happen, especially issues such as cyberbullying and so on, the issues that Canadians truly care a lot about, but it also throws in a bunch of other things that we equally have concerns about.

It comes down to weighing the pros and cons of which parts are the better parts to deal with. Cyberbullying is an important issue right now. It is in the headlines. It is important that we do everything we can to protect our young people from cyberbullying. Not passing Bill C-13 meant it would have taken another year or maybe two, by that time another election, and other young people would have continued to be exposed to some of those issues. We had to close our eyes, say a prayer, say half a loaf is better than none and that we would be able to protect some children from this.

Taking one step forward is exactly what we had to do. [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her response. She said that the Liberals hope to make a real difference by examining the motion in committee. In her speech, she also mentioned that it is somewhat difficult to trust this government when it comes to information protection. We have seen how little regard the various departments have for the privacy of Canadians. They have no issue with picking up the telephone and asking Internet service providers for personal information about their clients.

Is my colleague worried that instead of moving ahead and fixing the problems and flaws in this bill, the government is going to take a step backwards? I would like to hear her comments on that. [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, as we were with Bill C-13 , but hopefully we will do a thorough examination of it at committee. We will not support the legislation if we do not see some changes and some clarifications when it comes out of committee. I am much more hopeful.

We have been able to do some good non-partisan work at the industry committee and I look forward to continuing to have that opportunity. We must keep in mind that this is about protecting Canadians' privacy rights, especially given the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that the Senate chose to ignore. I suspect that will be front and centre and it will be our job as opposition to continue to remind the government at committee that there is a Supreme Court ruling on Canadians' privacy rights and it should be reflected in the final recommendations that come back to the House. (1240) [ Translation ] Ms.

Charmaine Borg : Mr. Speaker, I have one last question. We know that the Senate has already examined this bill. I do not like when bills come from the Senate, but that is how it is. The Liberal Party has Liberal senators or senators who are Liberals—who knows what to call them? My question is this: did the Liberal Party senators try to improve this bill? They had the chance to do so. I am curious to know how hard the Liberal senators tried to improve this. [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, some extensive work was done at committee but not enough.

I have a real problem with the Senate introducing bills that should have come through our committees, which would give our committees the time to discuss and work on these bills. I do not support bills coming through the Senate, or through what I call the back door. This is the first House that legislation should come to and it should be done at our committee level. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill S-4 , the digital privacy act.

Bill S-4 is an essential part of Digital Canada 150, our Conservative government's plan to confirm our leadership in Canada in the digital age. Bill S-4 proposes a number of important changes to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, that will strengthen the protection of Canadians' privacy. The digital privacy act would also set new rules on how personal information is collected, used, and disclosed. Most importantly, this legislation requires organizations to tell Canadians if their personal information has been compromised.

Companies who fail to inform Canadians about privacy breaches would be subject to severe fines for breaking the rules. The digital privacy act is a balanced approach that protects Canadians' personal information. It allows for information sharing when the law has been broken. This balanced approach confirms our Conservative government's respect for personal privacy.

Let us now address any misunderstanding by individuals who have not read our legislation, particularly when things are read into this bill that clearly do not exist, such as claims that this bill expands warrantless disclosure When all parties in this House agreed to enact PIPEDA over a decade ago, we recognized that there were certain limited circumstances where an individual's right to privacy should be balanced to assist the public interest.

For example, PIPEDA ensures that the right to freedom of expression is respected by allowing for information to be collected and used for journalistic or artistic purposes. Another example is that PIPEDA allows people to freely share information with their lawyer, even if it includes the personal information of another individual, to ensure the proper administration of justice. PIPEDA allows private sector organizations to disclose individuals' personal information in order to conduct investigations that help protect Canadians from wrongdoing. This provision has always existed within PIPEDA.

Bill S-4 does not expand this practice. Rather, our legislation would place tight rules and strict limits on when and how private organizations could share Canadians' personal information. I would like to emphasize to the House the role of private organizations and how they can play an important role in creating a safe and secure society for Canadians. Consider, for example, self-regulating professional associations, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the Law Society of Alberta, or the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia.

These bodies have the legal authority to investigate their members and take disciplinary action where required. This may be because a physician is performing procedures that he or she is not qualified to perform; it may be because a lawyer is charging inappropriate fees to clients; or, it may be because an engineer is approving the drawings for a new building without actually reviewing them.

It is not difficult to see there is a real public interest in making sure that these professional associations have the ability to investigate complaints against their members and to ensure they are meeting high professional standards that benefit Canadian society. In order to do so, investigators must be able to obtain personal information that is protected under PIPEDA. For example, when investigating a complaint against a lawyer, the law society may request that the lawyer's firm provides access to his or her client lists, financial records, or calendar.

All of these records could include personal information which normally could not be disclosed to investigators without the individual's consent.

(1245) Under PIPEDA as it now stands, investigators who want to access personal information without consent must be listed as an investigative body by Industry Canada. This involves coming forward to the department and justifying the need to access the information. This is an onerous process for organizations and for the government. For example, a simple name change by an investigative organization may lead to a year-long regulatory process before the change is reflected in the law.

During the first statutory review of PIPEDA, the House of Commons committee recommended that PIPEDA be amended to change the rules for private investigations and adopt a system that is consistent with both Alberta and British Columbia. Under these regimes, there is a general exception to consent for information sharing purposes of private sector investigations. In essence, these provincial laws regulate the activity of private investigations rather than the organizations who conduct them. Bill S-4 would introduce similar rules to those that already exist in Alberta and British Columbia.

By placing tight rules and stricter limits on when and how private organizations can share a Canadian's personal information, our government is complying with the recommendations made by the all-party committee. Upon Bill S-4 being enacted, private organizations would be required to abide by four strict rules when sharing a Canadian's private information for the purposes of an investigation. It is important for Canadians to appreciate that despite these rules, private organization information sharing is voluntary.

These rules only apply in the event that an organization agrees to disclose information for the purposes of an investigation. These rules are as follows: First, the information can only be provided to another private organization, not the government and not law enforcement. Second, the information that is requested must be relevant to the investigation. For example, there is little reason that a social insurance number would be released for the purposes of investigating professional misconduct. Third, the investigation must pertain to a contravention of the law or breach of a contract.

Finally, it must be reasonable to believe that seeking the consent of the individual to disclose the information would compromise the investigation. To be clear, organizations that share information would continue to be subject to all other requirements of PIPEDA. The Privacy Commissioner and the Federal Court will continue to have oversight on this matter, and if an organization is found to be using the exemption provisions where it is not necessary, action would be taken by the commissioner or by the court. The Conservative government always takes the privacy of all Canadians very seriously.

Our fundamental beliefs, such as democracy, the right to own private property, and the right of freedom of association, are complementary. They are why we introduced the digital privacy act, to protect Canadians' private information in the digital age. I look forward to the remainder of the debate and working with the opposition for all Canadians on how we can best protect individuals in the digital world. (1250) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have repeatedly shown how little respect they have for the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have seen various examples of their contempt for our justice system. Why do they not remove the parts of Bill S-4 that are likely to be considered unconstitutional in light of the Spencer decision? [ English ] Mrs. Cheryl Gallant : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the statements made were false and totally unrelated. Today in Ottawa we are celebrating Cyber Security Day.

We have a unique situation, which hopefully will be the model for the rest of Canada, where two private sector companies, Fortinet and Willis College, are going together, with funding from the Canada job grant, so they can have a special program called the advanced network security professional diploma program to help Canadians protect themselves. There are two types of Internet users: those who have been hacked, and those who know they have been hacked. This is why we need legislation to ensure that individuals' privacy is protected in this digital world. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I am sure we share equal concerns on some of these things. Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, certainly has flagged a few issues that we will have to deal with at committee, but the idea that many of these organizations can release Canadians' information if requested, without informing the individual that this information has been requested and is done in secret, cannot help but set off a few alarm bells. I wonder if my colleague is equally concerned that this is the case, as Dr.

Geist has referred to, and will we have an opportunity at committee to look at how to tighten that up? Mrs. Cheryl Gallant : Mr. Speaker indeed I enjoy working with my colleague across the way at the industry committee, probably one of the most interesting, non-partisan committees that the House of Commons enjoys. I look forward to Dr. Michael Geist coming to committee, and it should be noted that overall he supports this act.

I recognize the hon. member's concern, but I would like her to remember that it must be reasonable to believe that seeking the consent of the individual to disclose the information would compromise the investigation. That is the rationale for the gathering of information without a person's knowledge. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that this legislation is so important, and I know nobody likes to be hacked, why is the bill coming from the Senate and not the government? Why are Conservatives bringing this bill to the House of Commons through the back door? Mrs.

Cheryl Gallant : Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that the bill is being brought forward. I certainly understand why the member opposite is concerned about where it came from, in that his party does not have any members in the Senate, although secretly they each harbour the desire to become a senator. In the past we have had bills from the Senate come through the House of Commons. This is simply a more efficient way to go.

The members of the House of Commons will have an opportunity, both in this debate as well as at committee, to put forth their concerns and contribute to any amendments to ensure that we get the bill right.

(1255) Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will begin by refuting the claim by the member regarding New Democrats secretly harbouring these strange desires to become senators. For the entire 50-year history of the New Democratic Party, we have called for abolishment of the Senate. We believe in Canadian society and we do not need to have a House for people who consider themselves above the rest of us, which is often what has happened. Certainly there are currently cases before the courts regarding Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and Mac Harb.

This is certainly not a group that any New Democrat wants to become a part of. It flies in the face of democracy. As my colleague for Nickel Belt pointed out, if the bill is so important, why is it coming from the Senate rather than the government? The Conservatives have formed government for nearly eight years now, and they are finally getting to this matter. Hacking is not new. Invasion of privacy is not new. Why were these changes not brought before us years ago? I would also like to address the fact that the bill is being referred to committee before second reading.

I actually applaud the government for this move, but my next question is to ask why this did not happen before. Why was this approach not taken regarding electoral reform? Why was this approach not taken regarding some first nations' issues that have come before the House so that we would have a broader scope of study within committee and an attempt at working together? When the parliamentary secretary first rose to speak on the bill, he said that bringing the bill to committee before second reading would help to ensure that the best bill would be brought forward.

I think it demonstrates that perhaps the current government is not always interested in bringing the best bill forward, because we are three years in, and this is the first time that the Conservatives have chosen this approach. We have had numerous instances of bills being brought forward by the government and then being overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. We potentially could have prevented that from happening had we taken this approach with other bills or had the government listened to opposition amendments and suggestions to make sure that the bills conformed with the law.

Traditionally, of course, adoption at second reading amounts to approval of the principle of the bill by the House. This can often restrict the committee's ability to make changes and amendments, which is something we would avoid with this bill. I hope that the industry committee takes the proper amount of time to study this issue before referring it back to the House. I certainly think the capacity is within the industry committee to do so. We have an opportunity to fix the parts of the bill before us that are lacking.

With regard to the rationale given by the member across the way for some intrusions into privacy, it is not so cut and dried. It is not a black-and-white issue. These are issues that need to be explored further, and the committee setting is the appropriate place to do that. The question is, will that in fact happen? Most of us are surprised and a little confused as to why the government is taking this approach. The Conservatives have had many opportunities to use this approach in the past, but have never chosen to.

It will be very interesting to follow the proceedings in the industry committee to see where this goes. Is it because government members want to make substantive changes that their brethren in the Senate missed, avoided, or did not put in? Perhaps that is why the Conservatives are bringing it forward, but only time will tell. One of the very important lessons I have learned here is not to believe it until it happens, which can be said of so many different things we do in the House. There are a lot of rumours out there, but it would be good to try to stick to fact as much as possible.

Since the committee will have the opportunity to properly consider and make necessary changes to the bill, we are supporting the motion to send the bill back to committee. I think it makes a lot of sense, and it is an approach that should be used more often.

(1300) That this was done without a warrant raises questions. I would hate for court cases to be moving forward in which evidence might be thrown out because warrants were not obtained. The result would be an increased cost for the judicial procedure, and there is the potential as well for letting some criminals off the hook when they should be facing prosecution. We definitely need to beef up those aspects. There is a provision within the bill that would make it easier for companies to share personal information without warrant or consent from clients and with no proper oversight mechanisms in place.

Following a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, this provision will most likely be considered unconstitutional. The government must respect the Supreme Court ruling by withdrawing all clauses relating to warrantless disclosure of personal information from the bill. That is a very reasonable position. Canadians would expect that if law enforcement agencies are seeking people's personal information, they would have to follow a process, and obtaining warrants is a very important part of our system. It has to be proven that the information is needed before a warrant is obtained.

That is a minimum standard when seeking this information. Currently, with these warrantless provisions, requests can be made without any oversight. That is troubling to many Canadians who are concerned about their privacy. We are also concerned about many of the negative consequences that certain provisions in this bill might provide. It is also interesting to note that the bill was largely inspired by Bill C-475 , which was tabled in 2012 by my colleague, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville .

Rather than wasting time and avoiding creating better protections for Canadians, the Conservatives should have simply supported the NDP's bill, which would have done more to protect Canadians' privacy. Privacy has been a thorny, low-priority issue for the Conservatives, who have been incapable of adequately protecting Canadians' privacy. Their own departments have been responsible for allowing thousands of breaches of personal information while citing privacy considerations and decrying heavy-handed government.

The Minister of Industry argued that the long form census was intrusive to Canadians' privacy, and it was eliminated. However, the government sees nothing wrong with invading Canadians' private information without a warrant and without telling them. It is bizarre that these things would be happening and that nobody knows about them until it is too late. Now I look forward to questions from colleagues.

(1305) Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments of the previous speaker that New Democrats want to be senators, as I guess is what she said, and that we are envious of senators, could the member elaborate on how many New Democrats he knows who want to be senators? I do not know any myself. I have been around for a lot longer than you have and I have never met any, so could you tell us if you know of any? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : If the member is asking the Chair, the answer might be different from his colleague's answer.

Could he direct his questions to the Chair rather than to his colleague? The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest. Mr. Dan Harris : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That intervention gave me a bit of time to think about it, and to my knowledge, I do not remember ever meeting a member of the New Democratic Party who wanted to become a senator or who had that as their ambition in life. The member said he has been around a fair bit longer than I have, but in political terms, maybe not so much. I might only be 35, but I will be celebrating my 20th anniversary as a member of the New Democratic Party just next spring.

It is something that is completely counter to what New Democrats believe in. We have never believed in having our own version of the House of Lords. We have never believed that people of privilege should be given even more privilege, and then not even really be held to account. There are terrible transparency and accountability issues within the Senate. I do not think it is a part of our democratic institutions that we want to keep. Therefore, the answer is no. I have never met a New Democrat who wants to be a senator. Mr. Claude Gravelle : Mr.

Speaker, this young gentleman is so far behind me that he will never catch up in seniority. However, I would like to ask him the same question I asked the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke . If this is such a good bill, why is it coming through the back door? Why was it not presented by the government? Mr. Dan Harris : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that my colleague is not interested in becoming a senator either. It is perplexing that the bill is coming from the Senate.

It is supposed to be such an important issue that the government should be dealing with it itself, yet it has let the Senate take the lead on it. Who knows why? Perhaps it is bringing it forward to committee before second reading because the Conservatives think the senators have done a really bad job with it and it needs a lot of work. We will certainly be asking this question repeatedly to members of the governing party over the course of the day to try to determine why they have let the Senate take the lead on this bill and why they have abdicated the responsibilities of government yet again. Mr.

John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-4 , the digital privacy act. I support the bill. The purpose of the digital privacy act is to strengthen the rules for the safeguarding of Canadians' personal information when they shop online or surf the web. The digital privacy act would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, more commonly known as PIPEDA, which provides a legal framework for how personal information must be handled in the context of commercial activities.

Last April, our Conservative government introduced the Digital Canada 150, an ambitious plan for Canada to take full advantage of the digital economy as we plan to celebrate our 150th anniversary in 2017. Digital Canada 150 has five pillars and 39 new initiatives that will allow Canada to be a leading nation in the digital domain. One of the most important pillars in Digital Canada 150 is the “protecting Canadians” pillar, which is what we are talking about today. The digital privacy act would introduce new amendments and stronger rules to help protect Canadians' personal information.

As we live in an increasingly digital age, the need to protect our personal information becomes stronger. We use credit cards to purchase items online. We use the Internet to browse websites that may ask us for our personal information, and so on. Just last month, Home Depot was the victim of a massive data breach. The information of 56 million debit and credit cardholders was stolen. It is surprising that, under the current law, it is not mandatory for companies to disclose to their clients that they have been the victims of hackers or if they have lost personal information.

That means that if someone's credit card information was stolen, under current laws, that person may never know his or her information was compromised. It may be surprising to some, but it is not currently mandatory that companies inform their clients if their personal information has been lost or stolen. Under the digital privacy act , however, if a company fails to notify its clients of a data breach where their information has been compromised, it can face a fine of up to $100,000 for every client it fails to notify.

In addition, companies are now required to keep a record of all data breaches, and all documents must be handed over to the Privacy Commissioner upon his or her request. The digital privacy act would also put in place new provisions that would allow the limited disclosure of personal information when it is in the public interest. One such example is the unfortunate reality of financial abuse. As it stands now, banks and other financial institutions are prevented from reporting suspected financial abuse to the proper authorities.

The digital privacy act would give the exception to allow banks to alert law enforcement when they suspect that a senior is being financially abused. The Canadian Bankers Association has endorsed these amendments. It said: We were pleased to see that Bill S-4 includes amendments that would give banks and other organizations greater ability to assist their clients to avoid financial abuse. As our society spends increasingly more time online and on the Internet, it is important that we have the proper safeguards in place for our children.

Educational websites and virtual playgrounds are becoming more and more popular with young children. Sometimes, for marketing purposes, these websites will ask for the users' personal information. Under the digital privacy act , there is a clearer set of rules for when companies ask to collect personal information from a child. The request for information now must be written in a way that a child can understand. If the wording is too complicated for a child to understand, the consent is not valid.

The digital privacy act would also ensure that online privacy laws reflect the realities of business, such as allowing businesses to share employees' contact information and information necessary to manage an employment relationship. Businesses also need to be able to use the information employees produce at work as well as the information necessary to conduct due diligence during a business transaction such as a merger.

(1310) The digital privacy act also puts forward rules that align with provincial privacy laws. For organizations, it is important that consistent rules for the protection of personal information apply and that wherever they operate their businesses, their obligations would be the same. Consistent rules also provide individuals with confidence that wherever they conduct their business in Canada their information will benefit from the same level of protection. The bill before us takes steps to align our privacy rules with provincial laws. The bill before us is a much needed update to privacy laws in Canada.

It is a balanced approach that includes stronger rules to ensure companies are held to account, exceptions to allow for seniors to be protected from financial abuse, and new rules to ensure our children are protected online. Now is the time for these measures to be passed into law through the passage of the Bill S-4 . I hope hon. members will join me in supporting the digital privacy act.

(1315) Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member the question that was asked of me with regard to why the bill came from the Senate rather than from the government itself. It is an important issue because we are talking about the privacy of Canadians. This would be an important update to the law and it is critical that we get it right. Why did this legislation not come from the government rather than its brethren in the Senate? Perhaps as a member of the governing party my colleague might have some insight he could share. Mr. John Carmichael : Mr.

Speaker, we have had a lot of opportunity at committee to deal with issues such as this and to deal with them in a collegial way and in a way that ensures results and good legislation. How the bill came to the House is fairly significant. There are several ways by which a bill can come to the House. It can come either through the Senate or directly through the House. The important element today is that we are spending all of this day debating the elements of the bill.

In my riding of Don Valley West, I have had the opportunity to hold many senior and elder abuse seminars where we focus on issues around digital fraud. I for one am very pleased to see the legislation coming to the House where we are going to debate it and send it to committee where the right solutions for future generations will come out. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 give access to personal information without a warrant or any oversight mechanism.

Why does the government want to allow snooping without a warrant by creating these deficiencies with no oversight to prevent abuses in the system? [ English ] Mr. John Carmichael : Mr. Speaker, the legislation would provide a tremendous amount of protection to consumers and to government to ensure that the right solutions and the right oversight are in place. The digital privacy act would not force companies to hand over private information to the police, copyright trolls or anyone else.

These new measures would place strict limits and tight restrictions on companies that lawfully share Canadians' private information for investigative purposes. Organization to organization information-sharing already exists in Alberta and British Columbia. These changes were recommended by the access to information and privacy committee in 2007 with the agreement of the Liberals and the NDP and these provisions are well entrenched in this new legislation. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I heard the hon. member justify the bill on the grounds that it would prevent fraud, but let me quote the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications: Allowing such disclosures to prevent potential fraud may open the door to widespread disclosures and routine sharing of personal information among organizations on the grounds that this information might be useful to prevent future fraud. That seems to blow a hole in the rationale that the member provided to us for the bill. I am wondering if he could respond to that.

(1320) Mr. John Carmichael : Mr. Speaker, the bill is a new generation from the original PIPEDA. It was back in 2001 that we found a solution to protecting private information. Today we are introducing a whole new series of guidelines. We have heard from the opposition and the third party that they are in support of this bill. I thank them for that and it is important that they do. However, as to the member's comment with regard to the Privacy Commissioner, let me read a couple of quotes. I disagree with him clearly that, in fact, there are holes in the bill.

The Privacy Commissioner stated that she welcomed proposals in the bill and that the bill contains “some very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians”. That is very important. She further stated at the time, “I am pleased that the government...has addressed issues such as breach notification”. The bill would clearly protect Canadians and provide new legislation to address technologies that have moved very quickly over the past 11 years. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-4,

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act . As members know, today's debate turns not precisely on Bill S-4 but on a motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading. The concerns that I will raise with respect to the bill itself, which go as far as to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, would likely be fatal to the bill at second reading, but we need not concern ourselves with that today. We need not arrive at a conclusion about how fatal these flaws are or how injurious they are to the bill.

The motion before us today would allow us to visit the scope and principle of the bill at committee and make, as required, amendments to those very principles and scope of the bill. Today, I would argue that this motion warrants support, so that we have the flexibility to properly study, examine and propose amendments to the bill at committee before the principle and scope are set. Let me set out a few reasons why this is particularly important in these circumstances and relating to this particular legislation.

First, let me address the issue of public opinion that sets the context in which this bill and more broadly the issue of privacy concerns exis