Steven Blaney

[Privacy, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As we know, this information is provided voluntarily and is disclosed to agencies under the responsibility of Public Safety Canada.

I would be pleased to provide a more detailed response to my colleague, which is something I have done in the past.

[Employment, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is basic information that is provided voluntarily. That is why the NDP agreed 14 years ago. Today, they have changed their minds and are headed in another direction.

Why not strike a balance between public safety and respect for privacy? That is what we are doing and what the G7 countries are doing. I encourage the NDP to vote against their motion.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. Like him, in a past life I used to work for veterans.

The question he is asking is if it would comply with the law if, when I own a cellular phone, I am willing to share some basic subscription information. The answer is yes, and it is legal. However, if this is to be more detailed information, then a warrant is needed. There is no need to increase the legislation in that matter.

However, yes, there is a need, and that is why the Minister of Industry has brought forward a bill. The Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, has said this about the bill that that has been brought forward by this government: “...there are some very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians...”.

While maintaining safety first, we are bringing forward a bill that would increase the privacy rights of Canadians. This is the answer for my colleague specifically, and I would invite him to support the bill before the House and to continue to work at committee to ensure that the rights of Canadians are even better protected than they were before and that we continue to move on as the technology evolves.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for giving me the opportunity to remind her that a warrant must be obtained if more specific information is required. That is the difference here because, as I indicated in my speech, this information is provided voluntarily in accordance with the law.

What I find surprising is that the New Democrats agreed with this 14 years ago. All of a sudden, they are changing their tune. I am disappointed because this has consequences. The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for enforcing the law, and every year, some 250,000 people from all over the world want to come live in Canada because we have created the conditions for prosperity here. People can have a job, achieve their potential, raise a family. Unfortunately, some people take advantage of Canadians' generosity. That is why nearly 115,000 illegal immigrants have been deported since 2006.

I would like to congratulate the Canada Border Services Agency on its hard work. It has used the information we are talking about today perfectly legally to ensure the integrity of our immigration system.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the important topic of the privacy of Canadians and public safety.

I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Chatham-Kent—Essex.

All governments are responsible for enforcing the laws and protecting national security, and they are also responsible for enabling law-abiding Canadians to live their lives without government interference. The government's role is to protect Canadians and ensure that their privacy is not violated.

It is always important to be mindful of this balance by ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to do its job while law-abiding citizens continue to be free from any form of government harassment. It is with that in mind that I can assure the House that our government and I will strongly oppose the motion put forward by the NDP member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

I will strongly oppose the motion moved today since it does not provide any means of securing Canadians' information and it affects public safety.

Our Conservative government believes that protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians is very important. All government agencies, including those responsible for enforcing the law and for protecting national security, are always required to abide by Canadians laws, and that is what they do.

In fact, these agencies are subject to robust, independent oversight and review.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is subject to thorough review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC is keeping an eye on CSIS. This committee has significant powers to review decisions and compel documents.

Additionally, it is made up of many eminent Canadians, including a former provincial NDP member, and it boasts as a former member the new premier of Quebec.

The new premier of Quebec was a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Just like former members of the NDP, these members are Canadian citizens who are responsible for ensuring that the agency giving information to the government is complying with the law.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is also subject to review by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. These are independent agencies created by Parliament to ensure that public complaints about the conduct of RCMP members are reviewed fairly and impartially.

These two agencies ensure that everyone complies with the law. We even increased the powers of this RCMP oversight agency. Unfortunately we did not have the support of the New Democrats. People can count on our Conservative government to protect the privacy of Canadians and ensure their safety.

Now let us examine the type of information that the motion and the NDP are opposed to allowing law enforcement to access.

Only the most basic information, such as the name and phone number, may be released.

In all cases, this is done voluntarily, meaning that a company could decide not to co-operate at any time if it did not feel a certain request met the expectations of its customers.

This information is essential for compensating victims of wrongdoing and finding viable leads in an investigation. I am proud to be responsible for Canada's public safety. Every year, our department releases its annual report on the use of electronic surveillance.

Let me take this opportunity to clear up a misconception being advanced by members opposite. Any form of invasive surveillance, such as a wiretapping interception or looking at the content of any communication, requires a warrant. That is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about phone numbers, names, and addresses.

Let me be clear. What we are talking about today is voluntary disclosure by private businesses to law enforcement. That is the way this model works. This is a Canadian way, but it is also a standard practice that has taken place for many years. Indeed, it was implemented under the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, and we find it in G7 countries.

While we need to make sure the privacy of Canadians is protected, we must also ensure that those who break the law face the law, and face it with its full force.

That is why, since 2006, we have implemented over 30 measures to crack down on criminals, often without the opposition's support and even despite its interference. We want criminals to stay behind bars.

Unfortunately, the NDP has voted against such common sense measures. Let me provide examples of these measures: giving victims more information about convicted criminals, ending early parole for white collar fraudsters and drug dealers, cracking down on drug dealers who target our children. This is the law of the land, and I am proud to have supported those measures along with my Conservative colleagues. That is why Canadians know that only the Conservative government can be trusted to keep them safe.

We put a high priority on ensuring law enforcement can do its work, but this is not free-for-all information.

A spokesperson for Bell Canada recently said that Bell will provide law enforcement and other authorized agencies only with basic 411-style customer information such as name and address, which is defined as non-confidential and regulated by the CRTC. Any further information, or anything related to an unlisted number, requires a court order.

My colleagues are also going to talk about a measure that we put forward, a bill that seeks to ensure that Canada enters the digital era and that Canadians' privacy is protected while making sure that our security agencies are able to get the information they need to thwart plots and protect Canadians' lives.

It is a bit ironic that, today, we are debating a motion that seeks to restrict agencies' power and ability to protect Canadians, given that they have to follow the law.

I am proud to say that Canada is safer, more prosperous, and a better place to raise a family than it was prior to our government being elected in 2006. Over these years, it has been clear that this government is committed to protecting victims. It is committed to keeping criminals behind bars, but it is also committed to making the privacy of Canadians a target. That is why I will support our bill bringing Canada into the digital era, but I will oppose this motion.

[Justice, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, one missing person in this country is too many. A government-wide effort is helping Canadians to better understand and deal with this issue.

The time for action has come. We are committing an additional $25 million in budget 2014 to tackle this. Status of Women Canada is working on that. We are working as a government and we are committed to bringing more action, as we have done for the last six years.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one missing person in this country is too many. That is why we are acting. That is why we are moving forward regarding the aboriginals. Last year we passed historic legislation that gave aboriginal women living on first nation reserves the same matrimonial rights as all Canadians. We were with them. Where was the NDP?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as a father, I am very proud to have supported more than 30 measures to keep our streets safer, including tougher sentencing for murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping.

I will stand in this House and support a $25 million strategy for aboriginal missing and murdered women. Again, that is $25 million. Why is the member not doing the right thing and supporting budget 2014?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition really wants to make change happen, then I urge him to support the Conservative government's 2014 budget, which allocates $25 million for a strategy precisely to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Rather than talking, he could be taking action and supporting the Conservative budget.

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the people from Don Valley West can be reassured, because today our government listed IRFAN Canada as a terrorist organization.

Listing terrorists is an important tool in preventing horrific terrorist attacks from being carried out.

When an entity is placed on the list, banks and financial institutions are required to freeze its assets, and no Canadians are allowed to have dealings with this entity.

I count on all parties to stand with our government in supporting this security measure.