Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55 on third reading today. We will now be able to witness the culmination of this process and, at last, correct a big problem in the Criminal Code.
Something was revealed in a court case. In R. v. Tse, the appeal challenging the constitutionality of the emergency wiretapping provisions under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, police officers simply tried to use a provision in the Criminal Code. They no doubt did so in good faith, pending judicial authorization. They sensed that there was a relative urgency, but that urgency was unfortunately unfounded in the view of the judge who heard the appeal.
First, it must be understood that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is an exceptional provision, which means that it is not to be used under just any circumstances. That is the most important point to bear in mind. Other sections of the Criminal Code—sections 186 and 188, if my memory serves me—make wiretapping options available to police officers so they can monitor communications in other circumstances without judicial authorization. Section 184.4 makes it possible to address the exceptional nature of a really serious emergency with immediate and significant consequences for an individual contemplated by the section. In such instances, it permits police officers to act on their own initiative without that other authorization.
We can all agree that this applies to only a very limited number of cases under the Criminal Code.
In R. v. Tse, as I said a little earlier, police officers had obtained judicial authorization to intercept communications under section 186 of the Criminal Code 24 hours later. Their action was therefore warranted. They had grounds to continue intercepting communications. They were able to show the judge that it was entirely justifiable. However, again according to the judge who heard the appeal respecting the provision's constitutionality, that did not prevent the officers who used section 184.4 when they began wiretapping from violating the right guaranteed by section 8 of the charter to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
The other very important aspect is that this was not a reasonable limit under section 1. This is important because the court ultimately held that the police officers had exceeded the authority granted them under section 184.4. Consequently, there was a problem. The government department appealed the ruling of unconstitutionality directly to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal. That put an end to the debate.
The problem is that the government department had barely one year from that point to remedy the situation. I say “barely one year”, because in a few days’ time, the deadline will be upon us when section 184.4 could potentially be invalidated if the government fails to act. That is one problem. How is it that in March 2013, nearly one year after the government department was presented with the facts, it had yet to take action or introduce a bill like Bill C-55 to remedy the situation? That is the first question I have, one that calls attention to the government’s responsibility in this matter. That is a problem.
Bill C-55 raises another interesting consideration. As it now stands, section 184.4 authorizes a peace officer, in exceptional circumstances, to intercept, using an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication when certain conditions are present.
However, the definition of “peace officer” is quite broad and extends to persons other than police officers. For example, the serving mayor of a municipality could be considered a peace officer. This was another problem that Bill C-55 was set to remedy. We are reasonably satisfied that in the bill, the term “police officer” is defined and that this definition is included in section 184.4, replacing the definition of “peace officer”.
This amendment limits the use of this very exceptional provision to those rare instances where no other measures are possible, for example, where it is impossible to obtain a warrant from a judge and where the situation is urgent. The amendment also limits the use of this exceptional provision to persons belonging to a very specific, authorized category of individuals.
In that regard, the bill is very satisfactory. After receiving some assurances from the government department, we expressed our satisfaction and voiced our support for this measure. The NDP was not alone in doing so. Various groups that testified before the committee also expressed their satisfaction at seeing section 184.4 amended to limit its use and clarify its exceptional nature. This is a significant step forward.
Another consideration raised in the appeal is the question of accountability in connection with the use of section 184.4. A very significant problem was flagged. The exceptional use of this measure can be limited to a very specific category of officers. However, some kind of evidence that this provision has been used must exist. A person who is the object of an interception under this section cannot be totally unaware that this measure is being used in certain instances. This is another important matter to consider. We must not lose sight of the fact that this provision or other means of court-authorized interception can be used in the course of an investigation, before a case goes to court. This means that if there are no accountability measures after the fact, the person who is the object of an interception will never know that his communications are being intercepted or will only find out about it by chance, depending on how circumstances play out.
This is something that the court found to be unacceptable and intolerable and that had to be corrected immediately. This is another measure of satisfaction. That is no secret; I have mentioned it before. Bill C-55 can be used as a procedural model for the government for presenting bills that are in an acceptable form consistent with the charter. This would make it possible for the government to get the approval of all members of the House, and that is the goal after all.
Clearly, the government will never be able to get the House's approval on every debate or every bill it introduces. That is part of doing business here and that is fine. That is not the problem. The important thing is that the government listens to and shows respect for the various opinions that are expressed.
The concerns that we raised with regard to Bill C-55 have pretty much been resolved. In terms of accountability, the Crown used an existing provision of the Criminal Code, namely, section 195, which is two pages long.
This section already provided for the following:
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness shall, as soon as possible after the end of each year, prepare a report relating to
(a) authorizations for which he and agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by him for the purposes of section 185 made application, and
(b) authorizations given under section 188 for which peace officers to be named in the report who were specially designated by him for the purposes of that section made application,
and interceptions made thereunder in the immediately preceding year.
The bill broadens section 195 in order to cover section 184.4 and establish this accountability, which ensures that agents—police officers in this case—do not use section 184.4 whenever and however they want. I am not trying to suggest anything; I simply want to say that this creates a certain amount of self-regulation, which makes it possible to avoid potential abuse, something no one wants to see.
Clearly, the NDP is not alone in expressing its satisfaction with the addition of the section 195 reporting requirements. Michael Spratt of the Criminal Lawyers' Association said that he supported this. He said:
...given the distinction between section 184.4 and the other intercept provisions, something more than the section 195 requirement may be considered by this committee.
We will see how it works out in practice, but at least an essential basic framework has been established to keep the public informed, and for cases in which no charges are laid, those who have been wiretapped will be informed. This protection is perfectly legitimate.
While this is not exactly high praise, I must admit that the government did a good job, even though it was forced to do so as a result of R. v. Tse. There is no hiding the fact that its arm was being twisted. The government is unfortunately not a very good student. I want to remind the House of some unpleasant memories of Bill C-30, which was luckily set aside, but which is not yet completely dead. Sadly, it haunts us still.
Bill C-30 illustrates this government’s errant ways. It is a serious matter. The Minister of Public Safety managed to highly polarize debate by saying that anyone who had any concerns or potential quarrels with Bill C-30 was on the side of the pedophiles. This kind of behaviour on the part of the minister is inappropriate. It is absolutely unbelievable!
Let us hope that the Minister of Public Safety will in due course listen to reason. I hope that he will, because he has regrettably been stuck in a rut for many years now. It is very difficult for a person to change himself and improve his behaviour. It is a serious problem that definitely poisons debate and the atmosphere in the House and the committees.
I witnessed his behaviour first-hand at meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When government members of this committee felt they were losing control of the debate, they would lose their self-control, hurl insults at us and ultimately paralyze debate and consideration of these bills. It was truly unbelievable!
It was really counterproductive and particularly ironic. In 2008, the Prime Minister, claiming that the House and committees were dysfunctional, called a general election, contrary to Canada's fixed date election legislation. The tables certainly turned. It would be funny if it were not so sad. But it was a fact of life and sadly, the people were taken hostage and had to bear the consequences.
I am now going to speak on another matter on which I would like to tip my hat to the government. I have a few compliments once again, but first, some criticism. Sadly, when I sat on various committees, I observed that the government too readily discredited witnesses whose opinions were inconsistent with what the government wanted. This is truly distressing. Fortunately, for Bill C-55, the witnesses were more or less in favour of its adoption, raising only minor details and observations about specific features of the bill.
I want to tell the House that during the examination of private members' bills brought forward by Conservative members, some witnesses were practically accused of crimes for disagreeing. I can tell this House that some witnesses were questioned about the fact that they had donated funds to the NDP, as though that were a crime. How is a lawful political contribution a crime? Can someone explain that to us? I find that completely unbelievable. This is one very specific example of something completely counterproductive that happened in committee. Unfortunately, the government repeatedly uses this kind of tactic to try to get its agenda approved, even though the law is basically a mess.
It is hard to criticize someone for defending their point of view when they are so sure they are right. On the contrary, I admire and respect people who defend their point of view and who are convinced, based on the information they have and their own personal experiences, that they are right, and who try to persuade a political opponent to adopt that point of view. That is completely understandable. Unfortunately, the current government has a tendency to become trapped in its own ideology, to lock itself in a room with just a bare light bulb, to stare at its own navel and try to force other people to adopt whatever opinion it thinks is the absolute truth.
After giving specific examples, after calling out the government on some of its inappropriate behaviour and after saying in good faith that there is a way for us to work together—we reached out to the government repeatedly—I hope it will regard Bill C-55 as an example to follow and that it will finally respect all Canadians, that is, all of the legitimately elected representatives who sit in the House, in order to work productively, rationally and respectfully, to hold real debates in the hopes of achieving better results.
