Bill C-30 (Historical)

Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act

An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, which requires telecommunications service providers to put in place and maintain certain capabilities that facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by telecommunications and to provide basic information about their subscribers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code in respect of authorizations to intercept private communications, warrants and orders and adds to that Act new investigative powers in relation to computer crime and the use of new technologies in the commission of crimes. Among other things, it
(a) provides that if an authorization is given under certain provisions of Part VI, the judge may at the same time issue a warrant or make an order that relates to the investigation in respect of which the authorization is given;
(b) provides that the rules respecting confidentiality that apply in respect of a request for an authorization to intercept private communications also apply in respect of a request for a related warrant or order;
(c) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to report on the interceptions of private communications made without authorizations;
(d) provides that a person who has been the object of an interception made without an authorization must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(e) permits a peace officer or a public officer, in certain circumstances, to install and make use of a number recorder without a warrant;
(f) extends to one year the maximum period of validity of a warrant for a tracking device and a number recorder if the warrant is issued in respect of a terrorism offence or an offence relating to a criminal organization;
(g) provides the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(h) provides new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(i) provides a warrant to obtain transmission data that will extend to all means of telecommunication the investigative powers that are currently restricted to data associated with telephones; and
(j) provides warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake.
It also amends offences in the Criminal Code relating to hate propaganda and its communication over the Internet, false information, indecent communications, harassing communications, devices used to obtain telecommunication services without payment and devices used to obtain the unauthorized use of computer systems or to commit mischief.
Part 2 also amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.
Lastly, it amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and coming-into-force provisions.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. This is a very important debate because the one thing we all share in the House is an abhorrence of the senseless and cruel violence we saw in Boston and elsewhere. We know where the Conservatives are coming from. Their agenda has always been clear.

The issue I have is that earlier I heard the Liberals compare Bill S-7 to Bill C-55. For the last two days, the Liberals have been saying that if the police ask for tools, we should give them the tools. One of the problems with that is there has to be judicial oversight. When we look at Bill C-30, which the Conservatives brought forward and was a widespread bill to allow all manner of intrusions into people's online private interests without warrant, based on the supposition or desire of a police authority, we see Canadians rejected it because it was an unnecessary tool, yet the government came back with Bill C-55, which narrowly defined wiretap provisions under judicial authority.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Liberals think it is okay to have judicial authority and review on wiretaps but allow people and their relatives to be held without warrant without any kind of oversight provisions that we consider important.

[D/Chief Peter Sloly]

I support everything Chief Hanson just said.

When we were all in horse and buggies and didn't have superhighways, when we built those highways we built a Highway Traffic Act that supported the laws. Now we have the information highway. We don't have a legislative framework for the massive amounts of traffic and the speed and volume around which people use that highway. We need that legislation.

My only suggestion is that when you write the next version of it, whatever you call it, you bring in privacy commissioner people who understand the privacy legislation at the earliest point and have a discussion. It relates to some degree to what Chief Hanson is doing in Calgary, and what we're doing here in Toronto, and what Dale McFee did in Prince Albert.

The number one barrier to the success of hub service delivery models—coordinated service delivery, wraparound service delivery, whatever you want to call it—is not the willingness of police and public sector partners and not-for-profits to partner with each other and look at these cases from a prevention standpoint. It's the legislative inability to share information across those silos. Information sharing and the lack of a legal framework around which we can share information about individuals or families or communities that are displaying risk factors stop us from properly analyzing and assessing the risk and deploying the right combination of service interventions to prevent that risk from becoming a real problem.

Information sharing broadly, not just in the concept of Bill C-30, is an area that government and police leaders and community leaders need to put their minds to.

The ultimate solution for Dale McFee was that he didn't need to create new legislation, but he brought in the privacy commissioners and legal people who had expertise, and they realized existing legislation provided them enough latitude to conduct operations at a higher level. They were just ignorant of the law.

[Chief Rick Hanson]

Thank you for that question.

First, lawful access has to be addressed by this country. It has to be addressed by Parliament. We're so far behind the other countries. This is about safety. This isn't about the police wanting to troll, to go fishing in somebody's e-mails. I get it that in Bill C-30, clause 16 was written abysmally. I get it. That was bad. Clause 16 is what killed Bill C-30.

The reality is that if we don't create legislation that recognizes how technology has evolved and allows the police just to do their job.... Trust me. We have way more important things to do than to find out who's sending salacious messages to their girlfriend or wife. We don't care. But what we do need is the ability to get, for instance, ISP information without a warrant so that we can save people's lives.

This is a true story. Somebody died in Calgary because they had an asthma attack. They used their cell phone to call 911, and they couldn't get out. Now, if it's a land line, you get what's called ANI-ALI, the automatic number indicator and automatic location indicator, but because it was a cell phone we didn't have that information. So that person died because they couldn't give their location, even though they were at home. We couldn't get subscriber information for that cell phone in time to get medical help to that person who died. That's just stupid in a technologically proficient country such as Canada.

We get suicide threats where people say they're going to kill themselves. The efforts we have to go through to try to find out where that came from.... This is about saving lives and doing the right thing. Bill C-30 is gone. It's off the table. It's dead. There has to be a new, lawful access piece of legislation that gets clause 16 out of there and is rewritten in a different way, that gets us the authorities we need, the power we need, to go and save lives, whether it's about cyberbullying or anything else. There are certain steps we need to have before we can go to the next step with search warrants and other things, such as production orders.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here. Those were two very good, useful pieces of testimony.

Chief Hanson, I want to start with you. This goes to what we have just been talking about: cyber and social media. Obviously it's used to the disadvantage of law and order. We had something called Bill C-30, which isn't there anymore, that was trying to address using social media to the advantage of prevention, and so on.

Without putting you too much on the spot—I'm not sure if you're familiar with Bill C-30, but I'm sure you are—do you see that as having potentially very useful, positive measures? What do we bump up against with respect to charter challenges, from your viewpoint, or to the judiciary providing a challenge to the use of that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in the House and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay, who put their trust in me to address issues in the House.

Today on the Hill outside Parliament, I was reminded why I love this country so much. I think of Parliament Hill, that great public space where people go to demonstrate, play drums, play Frisbee and, yes, smoke pot to draw attention on 4/20. This is a public space and in that great public space today, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people gathered in support of the people of Boston. It shows that, fundamentally, we are a world community and care for each other in those moments. I watched the crowd go off to the sounds of Sweet Caroline, one of the great songs I used to sing at weddings, but that is another story.

I thought of Fenway Park in Boston, where Neil Diamond showed up and sang Sweet Caroline, showing that Boston has great spirit and that senseless violence will not deter us from being a civil society. Whether it is the horrific killings in Boston or the crazy gun nuts in Newtown or Colorado, a fundamental principle of our society is that we are not going to let them win by growing in fear and undermining the basic principles on which our society has been based. That principle is based on the right of citizens to be protected from terrorists, but also from arbitrary arrest and detainment. That is the principle for which the House of Commons stands.

It is unfortunate that, as we saw the great outpouring of goodwill on the Hill, we see this debate being brought forward again in the House. I refer to The Globe and Mail editorial that stated:

The two-day debate in Parliament on the Harper government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation smacks of political opportunism, and it is regrettable that it will take place. The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings....

It goes on to say:

More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens. A wise course of action would be to postpone the bill’s final reading so that any emotional fallout from the Boston bombings doesn’t colour an important debate about public safety in Canada.

It is incumbent upon us when we see this political opportunism in the face of such tragedy that we do not just bend with the wind when the Conservatives say to bend. Our colleagues in the Liberal Party bent long ago on this issue. We need to raise the fundamental issues that are facing Canadians. We are talking about legislation that takes away basic fundamental rights: that people can be detained without trials and be made to go before special investigative judges without the right to remain silent. Those are fundamental principles.

If Parliament is going to undermine those basic rights on which democratic freedoms are based, there have to be some damn good reasons for it to take place. These original measures were brought forward by the Liberal government in the post-9/11 era. In the horror after 9/11, many people said that our traditional freedoms were outdated, that in the 21st century, torture, rendition and detention without trial were what we needed to do to protect society.

We saw many abuses of citizens' rights in the public realm under this sense of fear and panic, and the Liberal government at the time went along with that George Bush analysis and brought in the provisions that are being brought back. However, even at that time they were so unpalatable to the Canadian public that it had to guarantee there would be a sunset clause, that they would only be in effect for a period of time. Within that period of time, those provisions were never found to be necessary; not once. Yet the Liberals still want to break the promise they made to Canadians when they said they would sunset these clauses because they were such a threat to basic democratic and legal rights.

Now the Liberals are saying, “Let us do it; let us forget that sunset clause; let us forget the debate that happened in 2007 when the House of Commons said that those kinds of provisions would take away from people the fundamental rights of legal protection”. The House of Commons rejected that in 2007 and the Liberals voted with New Democrats. Now they are going back to where they wanted to be.

This is the party that always wraps itself in it. It was them; they represented the charter. However, these are fundamental charter issues.

They used the word "terrorism". It is certainly a very loaded word and a very dangerous issue we are facing. However, the issue with this bill is that, as parliamentarians, we have to make sure due diligence is done so that innocent people will not be drawn up into this net.

It was really telling that we brought forward a number of amendments to try to fix the bill and to work with the government to fix the bill, yet the Liberal members brought zero amendments. They just went along to rubber-stamp it. One of the motions we tried to bring forward was the issue of recognizance with conditions, where a person could be held by preventive arrest based on the word of a peace officer. That person could be held without a warrant and without charges. A person who knew somebody who may be a threat could also be held.

We tried to clarify the language so that we were really clear about what was intended, so that it was terror suspects and not just average citizens who were out there protesting in the streets or would get caught up in a sweep. The government refused that amendment, because it said it wanted a broad sweep. That is something that my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party are supporting. They are saying that would pass a charter challenge. I certainly do not think so.

What preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions really mean is that we have to look at where it has been done. In the post-9/11 era, Maher Arar was arrested without any real evidence, went through rendition and was tortured. That was done under the nose of the then Liberal government, which thought that was the price we had to pay for freedom. We found out later that Maher Arar was completely innocent.

The Liberals are saying this does not mean that, if individuals serve a meal in a restaurant to a supposed terrorist, they will be arrested without a warrant. That is a ridiculous example. A more telling example would be to look at England during the 1970s and the horrific bombing campaigns that hit London and Birmingham. The Parliament at that time felt it had to get rid of the basic principles of habeas corpus and detention and trial. They arrested numerous innocent people, including Annie Maguire, whose story I have already mentioned today. She was just a housewife.

Not only Annie Maguire but seven members of her family were put in jail for 15 years based on no evidence, because they were thought to somehow be associated with people who were terrorists. The people they were associated with, their cousins, were innocent. We saw that a great miscarriage of justice was done with the Guildford bombings. People's lives were ruined, but it was considered okay at the time because they were all a threat. The crime then, of course, was that they were Irish in England.

However, civil society is based on the rule of law. It is based on ensuring that those situations do not happen.

I want to just talk about the term "terrorist". I was called a terrorist. I was denounced by the government of Mike Harris as an eco-terrorist because I was standing up against a massive garbage dump that many of the frontbenchers supported. As a citizen, when I was speaking up and protesting, I was being called an eco-terrorist. We see that the government uses that word all the time. If a person does not like a pipeline, he or she is an eco-terrorist.

What about all the young aboriginal activists who are on the streets? What about the people at the G20, who came from all over and got off the buses to participate in their demonstrations at the G20, which is their fundamental right? Under this law, a peace officer could believe that these people are possibly thinking of terrorist activity, and they could be held in detention for 24 hours without charges. Then, the peace officers could decide whether to let them go.

We saw what happened at G20 and that is exactly what they were doing. They were detaining people. They were kettling people. Of course, they missed all the bad guys who were running up and down Queen Street with black masks on. I do not know how they missed them, but they managed to run from Queen and Spadina all the way up Yonge Street, and a lot of innocent people were detained.

We have to be careful and we have to define exactly what we mean.

If police officers or people in authority are allowed to decide that they do not like a person and they think he or she poses a threat, then that person could be detained without a trial. In this bill, a person could be held for 12 months without a conviction.

The government says it needs this. However, in the years that these provisions were in effect, they were never used once. Under article 495 in the code, already, an order can be brought to have people appear before a judge, and a judge already has the ability to detain them, without releasing them on bail if he or she feels they are a threat. Those powers already exist.

We are talking about new powers that are much more arbitrary, that are much more subjective, that allow for people to be picked up and held without charges. That is a fundamental threat.

I would like to quote Paul Copeland, a lawyer with the Law Union of Ontario, who said in his opinion the provisions we were examining in committee would unnecessarily change our legal landscape in Canada. He said we must not adopt them. In his opinion they are not necessary. Other provisions of the code provide various mechanisms for dealing with such individuals.

It is unfortunate that within the opposition, the Liberals did not think to even challenge, not even clarify. There are some other amendments that are very much needed but that the government refused. For example, Bill S-7 is a law of general application. It cuts right across. The Young Offenders Act does not supercede Bill S-7. That is very concerning.

What happens to people who are under 18? Can they be detained? Can they be held? That happened in the case of Annie Maguire in Ireland. To say it would not happen is absurd. It has happened. Canada has legal obligations under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect children.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children proposed amendments to the bill to ensure that the implementation for children under 18 would consider the convention on the rights of children, including detention as a last resort. The government did not accept those amendments, and neither did the Liberal Party. That is serious.

What we are told here, and I have been here for a number of years, is that we are soft on this. What I find the government is soft on is the basic principle of the rule of law. If someone says “Hey, let us get rid of the rule of law; it will be more effective”. Certainly it would be more effective. Totalitarian states are always very effective in a certain thing because they do not have the rule of law.

We are different because we have the rule of law. I will point to Bill C-30 in this last Parliament, where the government came in with massive provisions to allow it undefined legal authorities to demand personal information on Internet users and cell phone users without warrants. The government thought that was perfectly okay. It needed this, and if we did not support it, then it said we were soft on child pornography.

What an ugly statement, considering the fact that the one who came forward, who was very soft on child pornography, was the architect of the whole Conservative revolution, Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan was soft on child pornography.

However, average Canadians who wanted to protect their privacy rights were attacked by the government. The other provisions within Bill C-30 at that time were forcing telecoms to put in spyware so that they could track people whenever they wanted.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party said nothing about it, because those were actually provisions that were brought forward under the Liberals.

At that time we saw a huge backlash, publicly. It was very impressive. Canadians care about their privacy rights. Canadians are not soft on child pornography. Canadians are not soft on terrorism. However, they were not going to sit back and allow the government to undermine basic rights, including the issue that if individuals are going to wiretap, they need warrants.

Recently we have seen the government come back with Bill C-55, which is on wiretap provisions. The government recognized the need to have warrants.

None of this precludes the issue that already within the court system of this country, if officers believe a life is danger, they can act. They can act without a warrant. That is a reasonable provision. If something is an emergency, if a child's life is at stake, they can act and they can then explain to the judge.

However, we are talking about something different. We are talking about someone who feels that a bunch of young activists from Montreal who come to Toronto for the G20 and get off the bus could be up to no good, and it is perfectly okay to grab them and put them in detention for 24 hours and then decide to maybe let them go. Maybe the demonstration will be over by then.

CSIS has been keeping tabs on young, aboriginal activists. Will they be drawn up in this because CSIS wants a broad sweep? Those were their terms: they wanted a broad sweep.

I tell people back home to really reflect on what the House is being asked to push through. The provisions of law have served us for hundreds of years. They are not arbitrary. We did not just come up with them. They exist because we have seen the abuse of civil rights. We have seen the abuse of individual rights, and we need the clear rule of law.

Even in the case of terrorism, we in the New Democratic Party say that we need the tools. If the government wants tools to go after cyber-terrorists, it should bring in a bill that goes after cyber-terrorists, but it should not bring in a bill that allows it to grab any information on anybody it wants at any time just because. Just because is not good enough.

I find it unfortunate that in the wake of the Boston bombing, that incoherent, horrific act, the government has been widely seen to be trying to force this through. It is wrapping itself in the grief of Boston to push through a bill, with its friends in the Liberal Party, that is undermining the basic rights of Canadians without having ever proven just cause.

In the years these provisions existed under the Liberals, before the Liberals agreed to a sunset clause, they were never used. We see that within the Criminal Code we have numerous provisions to give police the powers they need to go after the bad guys.

We as parliamentarians do not need to be frightened, told by the Conservatives that we all have to jump when they say jump, otherwise we are soft. We are not soft, and we are not soft-headed, unlike our colleagues over in the third party. We stand for the rule of law in this country, and if the government tries to fundamentally alter the political landscape of this country, it needs to prove it.

Second, it needs to stop politicizing it so that when amendments are brought before the committee to ensure, for example, that children are not drawn up in this wide sweep, the Conservatives will say that it is reasonable and that they will protect children.

We asked for amendments to clarify what are terrorists so that a guy in a uniform is not just picking some kid out of a crowd because he looks like he is about to do something. That is not the rule of law. That is what exists in totalitarian countries, and it is the difference between us and them.

Paul Calarco, of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, put it very clearly at committee. He said:

There is no question that the prevention of terrorist action is vital to preserving our society. This requires effective legislation, but also legislation that respects the traditions of our democracy.

Unfortunately, the bill fails to meet either goal.

The issue is the investigative hearings. Someone could be brought before a special judge, and the right to remain silent, which is a fundamental principle, would be taken away without any justification, without a necessary explanation as to why the individual was being stripped of these rights. It would just be on the subjective word of a legal authority.

As well, there is recognizance with conditions and preventative arrest, not just of the people who are suspected but of people who may know them, people who may be their relatives. A peace agent could arrest an individual without a warrant if he or she believed it was necessary and could hold the person for 24 hours. People could then be held for up to a year.

It is incumbent upon us, in the aftermath of this horrific and senseless act in Boston, to say that in civil society, we will not give in to knee-jerk reactions. We will not give in to fear. We will stand with the victims, but we will ensure that they are not used to undermine the very basis of what makes us a civil and progressive and democratic society.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the usual Thursday question about what is on the agenda for the rest of this week and for next week.

This week's calendar has once again shown the utter lack of a plan from the government. Of the five days the House was sitting, four have been assigned as opposition days.

Yesterday, the one day the Conservatives actually chose to debate government legislation, they demonstrated once again their total lack of respect and fundamental disregard for Parliament and democracy by shutting down debate after only a few hours.

This was, in fact, the 31st time, in this Parliament alone, the government used the guillotine of shutting down debate, setting the all-time record for any government in Canadian history, in only two years.

The pace the Conservatives are on right now is that once every seven days, the government moves a motion to shut down debate on some bill or another.

Perhaps we will have a chance to discuss the new bill announced earlier this week. This bill has to do with the NDP motion presented on a previous opposition day calling on the government to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit tactics like the ones used in Guelph in 2011 aimed at suppressing votes.

As soon as the Conservatives announced that this new electoral reform act was coming, they had to immediately announce that they had to scrap that same plan, as they discovered so many flaws in their own legislation.

This may be reminiscent for Canadians, because they had to change fundamental mistakes in their own immigration bill, Bill C-31. They never even got to Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill. It never saw the light of day. The Conservatives had to wait until its omnibus crime bill got to the Senate before they could fix the fundamental flaws, because they so rushed it through this place with closure.

The government is totally out of ideas and out of gas. I beg the hon. House leader across the way to give us something, anything, that shows us that the Conservatives are doing something for hard-working families and Canadians in our economy.

The Criminal Code

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which has been introduced in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

This bill is now at third reading and the NDP will support it. The bill finally corrects a number of previous errors. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Code. The bill makes three provisions in particular.

First, it requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. Second, it provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. Third, it narrows the class of individuals who may make such an interception and, lastly, limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

We are genuinely pleased that the Conservative government has finally introduced Bill C-55. I say "finally" because the government has dragged its feet on this matter.

This bill refers to the obligation set by the Supreme Court, which revealed a deficiency. There was an imbalance between the right to privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to security. There was thus an intrusion of privacy. That is why this bill now strikes a balance between the right to privacy and the right to security.

We now have accountability. Now no one may engage in wiretapping at will, without being accountable. A person who has been wiretapped must be notified within 90 days. Why is this aspect important? Now if an individual who has been wiretapped believes that his or her right to privacy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been violated, that individual may institute legal proceedings against the individuals in question and seek redress. That will help limit overzealous peace officers.

In addition, the number of individuals who may conduct wiretap will now be limited, a fact that also helps strike a balance.

However, the bill is also a response to a total failure by the Conservative government after it introduced its infamous Bill C-30. That bill constituted a direct attack on people's right to privacy and certainly violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was also drafted by the Conservatives in a wholly improvised manner.

It is very important that the NDP remind the Conservatives how crucially important and even essential it is for them to scrutinize all new bills they table in the House of Commons in future. Those bills will have to be well analyzed and checked, and reviewed by lawyers to be sure that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

As a result, the Supreme Court will not be required to hear lengthy and costly cases that waste the precious time of all Canadians. That is essential, and I want to recall that point so that the Conservatives learn a good lesson from it.

It is very important to go through all the stages in a democratic process properly. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have a bad habit of wanting to do everything at lightning speed without due regard to the democratic process.

I need only recall its bad budget implementation legislation, Bills C-38 and C-45, omnibus bills of 400 pages each that prevent us from doing our democratic job and from getting to the bottom of things, just as the notorious Bill C-30 did.

In that case, the bill does not make it through the process to committee stage and is neither examined nor evaluated. If there are any deficiencies or aspects that do not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or are unconstitutional, we wind up with a botched job and have to turn to the Supreme Court to assert our rights.

That is why the judgment in R. v. Tse is important. I hope it will finally teach the Conservative government a lesson so that it acts in a systematic and democratic manner in future in order to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada.

I will go into slightly greater detail on the subject of Bill C-55. This bill requires that an individual whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified of the situation within 90 days, subject to any extension of that period granted by a judge. The bill would also require annual reports to be prepared.

The preparation of annual reports on interceptions of telephone surveillance is truly important in determining whether abusive wiretap has taken place and in being able to monitor such wiretaps. The requirement to prepare an annual report will help keep an eye on all that. The reports will also enable other authorities, such as the Office of the Auditor General, to monitor what is being done in that regard to ensure that the act and the spirit of the act are complied with, that there are no abuses of justice and that the privacy of Canadian citizens is respected. Annual reports must be prepared on the manner in which information intercepted under section 184.4 is used.

These amendments would also limit the authorization that police officers are granted to use this provision. As I mentioned, all peace officers currently have access to it. Its use would thus be limited to the offences set out in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

It is very important that there be accountability for this wiretapping. We know that there may be threats or moments when a security breach can suddenly call for warrantless wiretaps. At that point, however, there must be accountability because there must be no serious abuses or violations of citizens' privacy.

On that point, I consider it important to note again that the NDP believes it has a duty to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that public safety is not undermined.

To sum up, it is important to remember that this new bill is no more than an update of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The court also set new parameters for the protection of privacy.

We believe that the bill meets the standards, and that Canadians have good reasons for apprehension about the Conservatives’ bill with respect to privacy. As I said, their track record in this area is not very impressive. Fortunately, this bill brings balance to the earlier imbalance. We must continue to be vigilant, however.

The NDP will continue to be vigilant with respect to the Conservatives’ bills. In the past, we have seen abuses. We saw abuse in the infamous Bill C-30. We have also seen the familiar dichotomy that the Conservatives love to present, whereby everything is either black or white, but there is no grey, so that is completely false. Bills must be referred to committee for study.

I am happy that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has returned to hear my comments, because he quite rightly mentioned just now the importance of committee work, and how essential committee work is to a sound democracy. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Like my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I know how very important this little-known work is. We meet with experts, and we propose amendments and additions to bills to ensure that they are as close to perfect as possible, that they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, and that they will be worthwhile and improve the well-being of Canadians in our wonderful country.

In closing, we find Bill C-55 well constructed. We appreciate it, because it finally brings balance between privacy and the need for security. That does not mean that we support all of the Conservatives’ bills. On the contrary, they have introduced abusive and infamous bills in the past. Bill C-30 was a horror—need I say again— because it was an absolute threat to people’s privacy. It was a purely conservative bill in the ideological sense of the term. It was an ideological vision.

I know that members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights criticized Bill C-30 repeatedly. I further believe that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou was a member of the committee at the time. No, not quite. However, I know that other colleagues, for example my colleague from Gatineau, worked very hard to criticize the infamous Bill C-30, which was a genuine threat to privacy.

Bill C-30 regrettably demonstrated that the Conservatives can often say outrageous things. Truly outrageous things were said in the House when Bill C-30 was introduced. There were incredible dichotomous comments such as “either you are in favour of security and safety or you are on the side of the pedophiles”. It was a horrible speech with no room for grey areas or other comments. After all that, they backed down on Bill C-30 and introduced a bill that made sense—Bill C-55. I do not often congratulate the Conservatives. They should make the most of it today.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Obviously I agree with what she says. In the case of Bill C-30, there was a lack of vision, a lack of consultation and a lack of transparency. Fortunately, this piece of legislation was scrapped.

As far as Bill C-55 goes, it took the Supreme Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the bill for the government to once again set about doing its homework.

Unquestionably, the invasion of privacy is a critically important consideration. Since this bill respects the rule of law and strikes a balance between privacy concerns and investigations that can be carried out, I think it is a step in the right direction and that is what is important.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent discourse which once again was imbued with a certain sense of social justice. Speaking of justice, is she not concerned that this bill was drafted in reaction to Bill C-30 which was scrapped because it violated the right to privacy, further to a Supreme Court decision?

In point of fact, this bill prompted cries of outrage from civil society, even from members on the other side of the House. Consequently, 11 months were needed to produce Bill C-55 because the Conservatives were slow to introduce provisions in compliance with the Constitution and with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is my hon. colleague concerned that the Conservatives are tabling bills without first ensuring that they are in compliance with the Constitution and the charter?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

First and foremost, this legislation will make it possible to comply with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse, dated April 13, 2012. Our highest judicial authorities have thus determined that wiretaps in situations of imminent harm can be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms without judicial authority, provided law enforcement is governed by an accountability mechanism.

Section 184.4, which became law in 1993 and allows wiretapping without a warrant, did not meet this requirement. For that reason, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and her colleagues declared it unconstitutional.

In their judgment, they emphasized that in certain circumstances, the interests of individuals may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society. However, the Supreme Court justices deplored the fact that section 184.4 fails to provide a mechanism for accountability, and more particularly, notice to persons whose private communications have been intercepted, and contains no accountability measures to permit oversight of the use of the power.

It is important to note that this judgment gave the government a year in which to comply with their decision, which means three weeks from now. I wish to point out that the NDP has been urging the Conservatives for months to take action in this matter. I have some difficulty in believing that it took the minister’s officials eleven months to produce this bill. I rather tend to believe that, once again, instead of taking the lead, consulting interested parties and gathering suggestions from the opposition, the Conservative government decided to wait until the last minute to introduce its bill.

Be that as it may, we are assured that Bill C-55 meets the requirements of R. v. Tse. We found it necessary that this legislation should comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and respect Canadian legal principles. We also wanted it to address the concerns of Canadians about respect for privacy, and the balance between public safety and individual rights.

Bill C-55 will limit the warrantless interception of private communications to the offences specified in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the practice will be restricted to offences such as high treason, the possession or use of explosives, terrorist activity or corruption. We believe this section will make it possible to meet the requirements of R. v. Tse, to the extent that it provides a more restrictive framework for the application of section 184.4.

This bill will also limit the kinds of person authorized to conduct interceptions of this kind without judicial authority. Only police officers will be able to do so, which again places limits on aspects involving the privacy of Canadians.

Another very important aspect is that Bill C-55 requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province to report on the interception of private communications made under section 184.4. A number of things will henceforth be made public that are not, as matters stand now. These include the number of interceptions made, and the number of persons targeted. We will also be able to obtain information on the offences in respect of which interceptions were made, the methods of interception used and the results of the interceptions.

The NDP supports this aspect, which has been put forward in response to the Supreme Court judgment. We have always argued in favour of healthy privacy practices and we constantly ask the government to be transparent in many respects. Clause 3 of the bill clearly addresses that position.

Lastly, Bill C-55 provides that any person who was the object of an interception shall be given notice in writing within 90 days. This last measure will also respond to the imperatives identified by R. v. Tse. We believe it goes without saying that individuals whose privacy has been affected by the application of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code are fully entitled to be informed of that state of affairs.

However, we are concerned about the procedures that could extend notification periods to up to three years. This is an aspect that will clearly be discussed in committee in order to preclude any judgment that would require parliamentarians to redo their homework.

In light of these aspects, I believe that parliamentarians in the House should pass Bill C-55 at third reading. First of all, this legislative framework addresses the loopholes identified by the Supreme Court judgment. As the notice issued by the highest judicial authority in the land will expire in three weeks, it is also essential that we move forward quickly with this updating of Canada's Criminal Code. Bill C-55 also strikes a fair balance between security imperatives and respect for privacy.

Lastly, the proposed amendments were supported in committee by several representatives, including the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. However, the Conservatives' obligation to move forward with Bill C-55 must send a clear message, particularly after Bill C-30 on the interception of electronic communications was withdrawn.

The security of Canadians is essential, but the right to privacy is also important. Our duty as parliamentarians is to strike a balance between those two things. Bill C-55 is a good example, one that proves it is possible to guarantee the security of our fellow citizens while providing an effective framework for the powers conferred on our security services.

However, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives defend purely ideological decisions until they are backed into a corner by public opinion, the players on the ground or judicial authorities. That is the real problem with this government. Our duty as the official opposition is to monitor the government's actions to ensure that measures such as those contained in Bill C-30 or section 184.4 are not secretly brought forward by regulation.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are rushing to do this.

Earlier in her speech on the bill, my colleague from Gatineau likened this to students preparing for a final exam at the last minute and then getting the results. This is what has happened here.

The point is what has happened has happened. We should have had more time. However, we are here and will support the bill because it certainly is an improvement on what we saw in Bill C-30 that had been introduced.

The member's observation is very important.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Lambert.

The way I understand this bill, it is a reaction to Bill C-30, which was introduced previously, and although it was thought that it would solve problems related to wiretaps, it did not, and proved to be a mistake. Therefore, we now have another bill, which tends to have a more balanced approach to this whole issue, as many of my colleagues have said.

I know we have heard it before, but I will reiterate that what this bill would basically do is amend the Criminal Code to provide a response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse on safeguards related to the authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4. In other words, it would provide safeguards for when this kind of action takes place.

It would require the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. I am not a lawyer, but I am a Canadian citizen, so I understand that when this type of thing happens, it is important for people to know. If somebody is wiretapping my phone, then I should certainly know it has happened, whether it is justifiable or not. At least I would know and could react appropriately. That is a good point in this bill.

It would also provide that a person who has been the object of such an interception be notified of the interception within a specified period.

It would narrow the class of individuals who can make such an interception, which obviously makes sense, and would limit those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

In my analysis of this bill, it is very sound. This legislation is an updated version of the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court has deemed to be unconstitutional. It would establish new parameters for the protection of privacy, and my party believes this legislation complies with those standards.

In the R. v. Tse case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that authorization of the emergency power to intercept without authorization by the court in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it did not include any accountability measures, and it gave Parliament until April 13, 2013, to amend the provision to make it constitutional. It seems we are sort of just under the wire, but it looks as if we will make it, as it is not yet April 13.

I would like to refer to some of the comments that my colleague from Gatineau made when she spoke on the bill a while ago in the House. She mentioned that the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the R. v. Tse case and urged colleagues in the House to read the decision before voting on Bill C-55. She said there is no real need to read all 50 pages of the decision, but at least the summary, because it gives a good explanation of the problem arising from the section on invasion of privacy. She said that, believe it or not, that is what it is called. In the Criminal Code the section concerns invasion of privacy.

Just as an aside, as a concerned citizen, I say it is important that if there is an invasion of privacy, there is justification for it and the person whose privacy is invaded knows exactly what is going on. Once again, this bill tackles that concern.

My colleague from Gatineau went on to say that the section on invasion of privacy pertains to very specific cases that must be considered within the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She said the authorities must ensure that the circumstances in question actually constitute an invasion of privacy.

We live in a democratic society, not a totalitarian state. There has to be justification when there is an invasion of privacy.

She went on to say that most of the section provided some checks and required the Crown and the police to obtain certain authorizations, and that section 184.4 had proven to be problematic in this regard because it was rather unclear about wiretapping and that unless an indictment were filed against the people in question, they would never know they were being wiretapped. The way I understand it, this would be meant to fix that loophole in the Criminal Code.

What does section 184.4 of the Criminal Code address? It states:

A peace officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where

(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;

(b) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

The details of R. vs. Tse are as follows:

This appeal [concerned] the constitutionality of the emergency wiretap provision, s. 184.4 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the police used s. 184.4 to carry out unauthorized warrantless interceptions of private communications when the daughter of an alleged kidnapping victim began receiving calls from her father stating that he was being held for ransom. Approximately 24 hours later, the police obtained a judicial authorization for continued interceptions, pursuant to s. 186 of the Code. The trial judge found that s. 184.4 contravened the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure under s. 8 of the Charter and that it was not a reasonable limit under s. 1. The Crown has appealed the declaration of unconstitutionality directly to [the Supreme Court].

The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

After debating this matter in the House, we sent the bill to committee. A number of witnesses spoke about the bill at a meeting held on March 6 of this year.

I would like to share what Michael Spratt, of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, had to say:

...the CLA is in favour of this legislation. The CLA generally supports legislation that is modest, fair, and constitutional, and Bill C-55 does an admirable job of incorporating the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada from the case of R. v. Tse. However, there are some areas that the committee may wish to examine and may wish to have some further reflection upon.

He added that:

Bill C-55 is a positive step forward in that it seeks to provide a better balance between the protection of the public and the protection of the public's privacy.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

Obviously, with Bill C-30, which fortunately was trashed, there was outrage from the public, who relayed their concerns about wiretapping and individual freedoms. However, Bill C-55 strikes a certain balance between personal freedom and public safety. He very eloquently talked about the importance of accountability. The bill sets out the duty to inform individuals targeted by interception and also the duty to report to Parliament, including on the use of interception under section 184.4.

Could my colleague comment on those two seemingly very important points?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-55 on behalf of our party and on behalf of the constituents of Parkdale—High Park. We are glad to see that the government is finally responding to an important obligation, as illustrated not only through our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is ironic that based on a Supreme Court decision, the government has until April 13, 2013, to comply, and it is scrambling to get this legislation passed. It is ironic, because I am the NDP's finance critic, and I have seen over the last year how the government has brought closure and time allocation time and time again to limit debate. I have seen how it has rammed through legislation on a whole range of Conservative priorities and how it has bundled seemingly disparate pieces of legislation into omnibus budget bills and has pushed them through the House with amazing speed.

Yet here is an obligation to protect civil liberties, an obligation to comply with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an obligation to protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of Canadians, and we have seen the government dragging its heels over the last year. I can only conclude that when it comes to protecting the oil industry, the government works with amazing speed, but when it comes to protecting civil liberties, it seems to not have the same amount of speed.

Nevertheless, we are glad to see Bill C-55 before the House, and we believe that it is essential that it be passed. The bill is about wiretapping. It addresses the public's concern that the ability of our security and police forces to engage in wiretapping is a right that is balanced between personal freedom and the need to ensure quick action when public safety is at risk. It is the ability of citizens to not have undue surveillance of them or to at least be informed if they are the targets of such surveillance.

What are we talking about with respect to wiretapping? This goes to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Under that section, a peace officer would be allowed to intercept and essentially wiretap private communications if the peace officer believed, on reasonable grounds, that the urgency of the situation was such that authorization could not be sought with reasonable diligence or obtained under any other provision, meaning that a delay would cause serious harm to public safety. It would also be allowed in a situation where the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that wiretapping, or an interception of private communications, was necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to persons or property and that the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication was the person who would perform the act that would be likely to cause or harm the intended victim.

We are talking about a potential situation where a crime or public harm could take place and where there would not be the normal ability to seek proper approvals from the proper authorities.

This dates back to a 1993 law that has been tested by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that, in fact, the law was overstepping the rights of Canadians under the charter. It gave the government a year, up until April 13, to correct the legislation. That is what we are dealing with today.

It is important that electronic surveillance, or wiretapping, is a measure that must include oversight and accountability so that the public is protected. The court has now said that we should expect nothing less.

We have studied the bill in the public interest and with respect to the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We note that the government had intended with a previous bill, Bill C-30, and with other pieces of legislation to extend the rights of the state to intercept private communications. I remember one quote from the public safety minister, which became rather famous, which was that if we did not support the bill on that matter, we were with him or with the child pornographers. That, of course, was horrifying to many Canadians who just wanted to make sure that their privacy rights were protected.

We believe that these changes are reasonable and that they are compliant with the Supreme Court decision. We note that there are many who have validated this position. They were heard at the committee studying the bill. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and other organizations all testified that the bill would lead the government to comply with the Supreme Court decision, and they all supported these changes.

In essence, the changes would require the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4, which I outlined earlier. They would provide that a person who has been the object of such an interception would be notified within a specified period. They would narrow the class of individuals who could make such an interception and would limit those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-55 is an updated version of the wiretapping provisions the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. The court has established new parameters for the protection of privacy, and we believe that the legislation complies with those standards.

Canadians have good reason to be concerned about other measures the Conservatives were putting forward that would expand the government's ability to intercept communications. Their record has not been terrific on this.

We are in favour of Bill C-55 in that it upholds the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We support these measures.

We are concerned that the government left the introduction of the bill for so long while it was gutting environmental provisions, changing the Navigable Waters Protection Act and cutting food inspectors and CRA investigators. These provisions were rammed through under its budget implementation act. Yet something the government is compelled to do through a Supreme Court decision it left until the 11th hour.

I see that my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this and to defend the human rights and civil liberties of our constituents and Canadians.