Bill C-55 (Historical)

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse, safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of that Act. Notably, the enactment
(a) 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;
(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception; and
(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It should be amended, in that sense.

Thank you, Ms. Guthrie.

I will go back to you, Mr. Fraser.

Could you specify the type of amendment you would like to see to section 487.0195(1), when it is done without authorization or voluntarily? Should people have to be informed in those cases only?

It reminds me of the time when our committee was studying Bill C-55 about electronic surveillance. Perhaps other members of the committee will remember. The Supreme Court said that there was a deficiency in the Criminal Code in that respect because people never knew when they had been subject to electronic surveillance.

What is being said today is all well and good, but a number of cases will not result in charges at all. Information may be circulating anyway. Should there be specific provisions for all the cases in which charges have been laid? In those cases, we would end up knowing because the Crown would be forced to disclose the information. What kinds of provisions should we include in Bill C-13 to make sure that people are informed, within a reasonable timeframe, that they have been under electronic surveillance? If I remember correctly, I think that a period of 90 days was considered.

Should there be an automatic notification so that people find out that their information has been circulated, whether or not it came after a warrant?

[Michael Blais, President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy]

Thank you for the invitation, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen.

First, permit me to express the Canadian Veterans Advocacy's satisfaction that the government has fulfilled their pledge to harmonize war pensions and allowances with the recent SISIP legal decisions.

By definition, those requiring this allowance are experiencing substantial economic duress, and the end of the clawback is certain to have a definitive impact on their financial quality of life. Accordingly, we would acknowledge the government's efforts on these proposed changes.

There are issues, however, that I would like to address today: the harmonization of war pensions and allowances; retroactivity with the SISIP decision; the financial criteria of the allowance; and the allowance's legislated exclusion of thousands of disabled veterans who served this nation in Korea after World War II—veterans who are disabled, veterans who are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada and who, having reached the age of 55 for the ladies or 60 for the men, meet the allowance's age requirements.

The first issue is of great importance, and as no decision has been rendered on the earnings loss benefits retroactivity, I would have you consider both issues, as the war pensioners' allowance legislative changes have been motivated by this government's efforts to harmonize these problems with the SISIP decision.

I am a member of the SISIP class action. I have been a victim of this unjust clawback for 20 years. As such, I cannot tell you how important the issue of retroactivity is to me and my colleagues. Those who have sustained a similar financial discord as a consequence of reductions to their war pensioners' allowance or the earnings loss benefit must be accorded the same level of respect and retroactive compensation as was applied through the SISIP decision if the principles of harmonization are to be attained and—equally important—if justice is to be served.

The second issue is the allowance's financial criteria as they reflect on the establishment of a harmonized foundation determining precisely what level of annual income is required to ensure veterans are accorded the basic tenets of life, such as shelter, food, and clothing. The ELB and the SISIP programs have been harmonized. The poverty threshold has been clearly defined. Yet this threshold has not been applied to the war pensioners' allowance criteria. Consequently, the economically unrealistic financial threshold has been perpetuated, one that denies veterans who, when assessed under the new SISIP or ELB poverty threshold standard and benefiting from the non-inclusion of their Veterans Affairs Canada disability award, would be deemed eligible for this allowance.

The third issue, the exclusion of veterans who served in Korea after World War II is growing particularly problematic. At this time as a nation, we must be cognizant of Canada's military history since the cessation of hostilities in Korea. We must acknowledge, not dismiss, the commitment of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have served at sea, in the air, or on the ground for prolonged periods in Europe during the Cold War and/or on dozens of United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization-sponsored special duty areas. These men and women may not have experienced the same number of catastrophic casualities or fatalities as the nation has sustained in open conflict. However, these multi-generational, high-stress operational deployments have been plagued by a plethora of non-combat injuries very similar to what we have borne witness to in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. The sacrifice these veterans have made on behalf of this nation cannot be dismissed or ignored. Canada's obligation to them must be fully embraced, not discredited through exclusionary protocols.

The budget implementation plan also includes provisions to include the Last Post burial fund allowances to approximately $7,400. This is a positive development, yet regrettably does not address the restrictive issues that have resulted in an unreasonable denial rate of 67% or an exclusionary policy that denies eligibility for a dignified interment to veterans who served in Korea after World War II.

The $12,000 threshold, when put in the context of the government's harmonized ELB, insists its poverty-level determination does not reflect the economic realities impoverished veterans are confronting, and we would encourage the committee to take advantage of this opportunity to amend the Last Post burial fund threshold to respect and reflect the standards the government established and legislated through Bill C-55.

Equally important, the deceased veterans disability pension must be excluded from the Last Post burial fund's means test, as it has been excluded from SISIP and ELB and the war pensioners' allowance. The issue of inclusion of veterans of all eras is similar to our position that we have identified through the war pensioners' allowance, and as an advocacy, our position is resolute: one veteran, one standard.

Thank you.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comment. He could perhaps tell the member for Winnipeg North that, in fact, Bill C-55 was a response to an attack on sections of the Criminal Code that were amended in an exaggerated fashion. The response, given in the form of Bill C–55, met the Supreme Court's criteria. Moreover, as I said earlier, it was a slightly more prudent way of responding in terms of human rights.

We now have Bill S-7 before us, and it will probably be challenged. We will be forced to return with a bill that complies with the Supreme Court's requirements.

Indeed, it would seem that the NDP is the protector of the rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask the member to comment on that. The Liberal Party no longer seems to understand the charter, or may have forgotten it; I do not know which is the case. Perhaps my colleague can shed light on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that when we do the comparison between Bill C-55 and Bill S-7, both of them deal with individuals' rights. Both of them deal with issues related to the charter.

On the one hand, as the party that introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada a number of decades ago, we are very sensitive to the importance of individual rights.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. This particular bill deals with investigative hearings. Both concerns were in regard to individual rights.

When it came time to vote on Bill C-55, every member of the House voted in favour of it. In the case of this particular bill, the NDP will be voting against it. The same arguments the NDP used to vote against it here in principle could have been used for Bill C-55. My question is this: why the inconsistency?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring in the comparison once again in regard to Bill C-55 and Bill S-7.

Bill C-55 deals with wiretapping. I quote what a judge indicated, and this is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's s. 8 Charter rights and society's interests in preventing serious harm.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Bill C-55 satisfied the Supreme Court's demands word for word. For once, the government resisted the urge to go too far. It chose individual rights over all-out accessibility and going after people who might be dealing with certain situations.

So, with Bill C-55, the government showed tremendous restraint. The same cannot be said about Bill S-7.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth and his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did a great job examining Bill S-7 and highlighting how the arrest provisions, which the government would like to see as preventive, were vague. This certainly leaves us wondering. Someone could be accused of being directly or indirectly linked to an act, even though that person may be innocent. As everyone knows, when a tragedy occurs, at some point, well-meaning people see things that might not necessarily be there. Some people might find themselves in truly tragic situations, with extremely vague rights.

The NDP members asked the government another question. I encourage my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North to consult the evidence from that committee and he will see that the Conservative member replied very clearly that, on the contrary, the government wanted to keep this as vague and as broad as possible.

In terms of arrest, detention and interrogation, when people who have been arrested do not know what is going on or what they are alleged to have done, we need to err on the side of caution, while still thinking about public safety. These two aspects can be reconciled in a legal manner that respects our charter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pose a question to the member in regard to his reference to human rights.

As we all know, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought home the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, a document that has been valued greatly by all Canadians ever since.

Bill C-55 was a tool that allowed for wiretapping situations without a warrant. Bill S-7, the bill we are debating today, is a tool that would allow for investigative hearings. In that regard both bills, in essence, will have impact on individual rights. Both those bills had an opinion from the Supreme Court saying that they are indeed within the Constitution, yet on the one hand we had the NDP supporting one bill, that being Bill C-55, and opposing the other, that being Bill S-7. Both bills will have an impact on individual rights, yet the NDP somehow voted in favour of one while it is going to be voting against the other.

I agree that the Conservatives have done a disservice with their cuts, which will have an impact on the research that could be done in combatting terrorism. However, I would ask the member if he would—

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of NDP MPs articulate why they oppose this legislation. I want to bring up Bill C-55, and members will see the relevance to my question.

During my comments on Bill C-55, I stated that:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual’s s. 8 charter rights and society’s interests in preventing serious harm.

On that particular second reading debate, when we were talking about individual rights, it was interesting that on March 20, 294 members of Parliament voted in favour of it.

Does the member see some relevance in terms of individual rights and how the Supreme Court back then made the suggestion about the wiretapping, and equally, in 2004, the Supreme Court made reference to the investigative hearings as being within the Constitution? In fact, we now have the same type of law enforcement officers and experts saying that as in the other situation, it is a tool for investigations. This is another tool to assist in combatting terrorism.

Why would the NDP would vote one way—

[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.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

I understand what you're saying in this regard. Because section 130 speaks specifically of the peace officer, it is because of the fact that it is where it lists these. Therefore, all that one could do at that particular point in time was to try to make a change there. It is Bill C-55 that is seeking to define a police officer in the code in response to the Supreme Court's constitutional analysis of other professions that have certain powers that only police officers should have. There is a discussion, however, that's not in that part. I believe that is in part VI of the code, so that definition only applies there.

Again, I suppose one has to look at the knowledge base of the judges in question who are going to look at it and ask if this is similar. They can make decisions as to what might be an aggravating circumstance when they are going to make their judgments, but this is simply saying that for this case, and for these particular circumstances for these types of officers, there is no question that they must consider it the aggravating circumstance.

I hope that answers that part of the question.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Yes. Thank you, honourable member. These four priorities are just an in-house way—the suggestion came from the personnel—to organize our work because we're constantly bombarded with so much. As you say, there are new technologies and new issues. So what do we decide to prioritize all the questions of privacy that come up? We chose these four.

I'll just, off the top of my head, give you a recent example of each of these. The work can be either prioritizing a complaint or prioritizing an educational vehicle, either a video or publication or a new part of our website, or it could be holding a conference or a publication or a position on draft legislation. So it's the range of all these different vehicles.

As for identity integrity, the example I'll give is that we're soon to release a study on the implications of IP addresses. If you remember in the discussions over the last few years, particularly about draft legislation that has been withdrawn at this time, there was a debate about what you could find out from an IP address if the police had warrantless access to an IP address. Was it just like reading a phone book in the good old days? I don't know if you remember that debate.

In our laboratory we did an online study of what you could find out using IP addresses. We hope to publish that within the next few weeks. To give you a preview—and I think this is going to demonstrate why we kind of stuck to our position that an IP address is more than an old-fashioned phone book—unlike a phone book it leads to other things, other activities and other actions that you may have taken on the web.

In terms of new technology, my goodness, there is a tonne of that. In the coming year we are going to increasingly look at facial recognition analysis. One area that's fascinating and chilling that we've been following for several years in new technology is unmanned aerial vehicles, which we know as drones. How many drones are in Canada? What is the use of them? What are the rules around them? What could go wrong in the use of drones? What are the privacy implications?

As for genetic information, we've funded several studies through our contributions program. We've had some studies done for ourselves. Perhaps the most recent thing we have done is examine draft legislation proposed by Senator Cowan, I believe, before the Senate, Bill S-218, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, which is an issue we've been following for some years.

National security has been a huge file for us over the years. I'll talk about the work we did—I was out of the office and the assistant commissioner appeared—to support the recent Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to implement the Supreme Court decision on cases and conditions for warrantless access.

That's a smorgasbord of what we do.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

The Criminal Code

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not do this often but they need to be given credit where credit is due. To be honest, the Conservatives sometimes get things right. Not often, but if they will allow us to vote in favour of their Bill, then we are going to do so. We are therefore going to support the Conservatives’ bill at third reading. I believe that the bill is balanced, as I have said before.

My colleague from Gatineau, who has been working very hard as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, has carefully studied the bill, which shows a great deal of prudence, respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is constitutional and responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse. We will therefore support this bill.

I do not know how much time I have left, but as my colleagues know, I could go on for hours.

In that respect, I would like to go back to a few quotes made during this study in committee. If memory serves me correctly, two meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were spent on Bill C-55. The study in committee was peaceful and went well.

I would like to list the NDP members who are on this committee. There is my colleague from Gatineau, who does an excellent job, and my colleagues from Brossard—La Prairie, Brome—Missisquoi and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who have also done excellent work, as always.

In the justice committee meetings, a few witnesses mentioned why they supported this legislation. For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association was in favour of this bill. It generally supports modest, fair and constitutional legislation. That is what its representatives said. Bill C-55 does an admirable job of incorporating the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse. However, they said that there were some parts that the committee could have perhaps spent more time on. They also mentioned that Bill C-55 was a positive legislative measure, as I just said, and that it seeks to find a better balance between protection of the public and protection of privacy, which we think counts the most when it comes to Bill C-55.

There was also a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that stated:

The CBA Section supports the proposed changes in Bill C-55 to [finally] comply with R. v. Tse, but recommends further limits on s. 184.4 interceptions.

[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 his question.

Obviously, we can never emphasize too strongly the importance of accountability. Other colleagues of mine have also said the same thing. Clearly, in a democratic society, accountability quite simply helps to preserve our democratic system in which individual freedoms are respected above all else. Safeguards must be put in place and used, but at the same time we must never lose sight of individual freedoms and rights.

As I see it, accountability is critical and is an important part of Bill C-55.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the primary purpose of Bill C-55 is to enable, in a lawful fashion, a police officer or agency to intercept or listen in on a wiretap or a private conversation without a warrant. That is really what the bill is all about.

To be able to do something of this nature without a warrant raises a great deal of concern and that is why the Supreme Court has said that we have to fix this fundamental flaw in the law. Having said that, part of the legislation says that we would now require provinces, or the minister of justice in a particular province, to provide a report on the number of times this clause would have been used without a warrant. We see that as a positive thing. It ensures there is accountability. We believe the number of times it would be used to tap into a private conversation without a warrant should be somewhat minimal. Therefore, that would justify having the provinces provide an annual report.

I am wondering if the member might want to comment on how important it is that we have accountability when we allow for warrantless wiretaps.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question in regard to Bill C-55. We have talked a great deal about it in the last couple of days.

We have indicated that the Liberal Party supports its passage. We share the concerns in terms of the manner in which the government waited for the Supreme Court to put a decision in place with respect to the timeline, that being April 12, which is why it is we have the bill here today. It is fair to say that the government has been negligent in bringing forward the bill in a more timely fashion. Ultimately, as a result of that, we have lost the opportunity we could have had if it had brought it in last fall in September, which would have afforded much more dialogue on the important issue of individual rights and so forth.

Would the member comment on the timing of the introduction of the bill and the lost opportunity?

[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 thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

I want my constituents to rest assured. We must not forget that, despite everything, our institutions are still functioning rather well overall. It is certain parts of our institutions that are dysfunctional.

What is very important about Bill C-55 and the appeal is that the judiciary represents a very strong protection, which opposed the government. That is very reassuring. That is the message I want to send to the people of Drummond. This is a considerable defence against any potential abuse. At the same time, the judiciary is not there solely to force us to do something or to lecture us. It is also there to help the legislative branch be realistic and look at what is possible. I hope that the government will take that into consideration, especially as a preventative measure, instead of trying to fix things after the fact.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his speech.

In his speech, he referred to the R. v. Tse decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rendered on April 13, 2012.

I would like him to say more about how this decision took into account the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would also like him to speak about the impact of this new iteration of the bill, Bill C-55, which complies with the rule of law—whereas Bill C-30 was the very opposite of this new bill.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his excellent speech, which covered all the important points of this bill.

The bill finally restores the balance that had been destroyed by previous bills. Indeed, the integrity of people's privacy was being threatened. This balance is very important when it comes to matters of justice. Balance and some degree of control are absolutely crucial.

This bill finally restores justice. Wiretapping might still be necessary in exceptional circumstances, but it will be controlled. People will be informed of it. It is really important that balance be restored.

It is also important to remember that Bill C-55 addresses one of the Conservatives' failures. They failed when they introduced the previous bill on privacy and its integrity. The new bill finally addresses the matter adequately.

I would like to come back to a very important point I mentioned earlier. Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives should make sure they are respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution before introducing—

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, provides safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Among other things, this enactment 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. This was a glaring omission in the previous bill.

It also provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period, which has yet to be defined. We are probably going to need another case before the Supreme Court to define that period. The bill also narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. I will spare hon. members the hundreds of offences listed in that section.

These measures are the Conservative government's answer to the humiliating failure, for the Minister of Public Safety, of Bill C-30, and to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse. Despite the issues we have raised, we will support this new version at third reading stage, because the Supreme Court response provides enough new parameters to protect privacy, and because we really believe that this bill complies with those standards.

For the NDP, basic human rights are essential to ensuring that justice is done in this country. We are receptive to all initiatives that are in line with that. Unfortunately, Canadians have seen this Conservative government make many errors in judgment since it got, or rather borrowed, a majority in the last election. Consequently, they have good reasons to be concerned and even worried about Conservative bills that deal with their privacy.

The Conservatives' record in this regard is less than stellar. However, we remain convinced that Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, respects the rule of the law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which is more important? Protecting privacy to safeguard individual interests, or invading privacy by means of various provisions in the interest of national public safety? In both instances, where do the limits lie? These questions are essential to understanding today's debate on this bill.

Unfortunately, owing to a shortage of information about certain issues, we will not be discussing section 184.4, particularly its excessive scope resulting from the power it can give peace officers other than police officers. On this point, we do not believe that Bill C-55 contains enough definitions to delineate the scope of certain adjustments to the section in question. Who can be a peace officer? Can it be a private agency? Who precisely can it be? More details should have been provided about this to prevent the Supreme Court from having to redefine a number of matters in a specific case.

R. v. Tse challenged the constitutionality of the emergency wiretapping provisions allowed under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

The presiding judge ruled that this provision breached the right guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. However, the Supreme Court justice in this case also ruled that emergency wiretaps without the authorization of the court could be justified under the charter. Which brings us back to the same question. What is more important, the right to privacy or national public safety? The answer is not clear. Eventually, we will need an answer.

According to the decision, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it does not have accountability measures with respect to wiretapping. That is why the court specified a time limit for us, the legislators, to amend the provision to make it constitutional.

The proposed amendments are a direct response to this decision. The bill would require notification within 90 days to any person whose private communications have been intercepted in circumstances of imminent harm. The bill would also require the preparation of annual reports on the use of wiretapping under the section in question. The amendments would also limit police authorization to use this provision and would restrict its use to the offences listed at length in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

The key question in all of this is whether the power conferred under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code establishes a constitutional balance between an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and society’s interest in preventing serious harm. We know, since 9/11, the Air India attack and a number of other major incidents that many issues have been raised with respect to wiretapping and the disclosure of information through these procedures.

Correctly interpreted, these conditions would ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization can only be exercised in urgent situations in order to avoid serious harm. This clause strikes a fair balance between the rights guaranteed under section 8 of the charter and society's interest in preventing serious harm. The legislation does not provide for accountability though, in that it does not set out a mechanism for oversight of the police use of the power.

A troubling aspect of section 184.4 is the fact that a person does not need to be notified if their private communications have been intercepted. That is why section 184.4 violates section 8 of the charter. However, we feel that Bill C-55 is a sufficient response to Bill C-30 and to all of the questions that were raised.

To conclude, we have long been calling on the Conservative government to introduce a bill that responds to the ruling in R. v. Tse. This response is very last-minute. Why did the government wait so long? Why did it not listen to what all the witnesses in committee had to say about this issue again? Debate must take place here, but also in committee. We have a wonderful justice critic—the member for Gatineau. She does an excellent job on the committee and in her role.

Once again, why the last-minute response? Why not listen to the stakeholders? We know that technology is evolving so quickly that there will still be work to do in the coming years.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and my other colleague who previously spoke to the issue.

They did a good job of illustrating the fact that Bill C-55 finally gives Canadians what they want and corrects a flaw that existed in the previous bill.

Bill C-30, which was introduced by the Conservative government, was horrible and threatened Canadians to a certain extent because it would have invaded their privacy.

Does my colleague not believe that the Conservative government should have shown more leadership and taken more care to ensure that Bill C-30 complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution?

Does he not think that we should from now on always ensure that the Conservative government respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafts legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who very clearly stated the NDP's position on this issue, and explained why we were going to support this much more balanced and much fairer bill.

According to my colleague, how does Bill C-55 offer better oversight and accountability than what was proposed in Bill C-30?

Our strong opposition to Bill C-30 was due in part to the lack of fine detail in comments by the Minister of Public Safety. We had some concerns about the bill. Yet all those who opposed it were regarded as people who almost condoned pedophilia, whereas we were requesting greater respect for the right to privacy.

In Bill C-55, we now find mechanisms for oversight and accountability to ensure respect for the privacy of Canadians.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55 today. I am thankful to my friend, the very hard-working member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, for her kind attention to it also.

The bill is really about striking a balance between personal freedom and public safety that was not achieved with the previous bill, Bill C-30. In the five years or so that I have been here, I cannot recall a topic or bill that has caused so much reaction from constituents. There may be one or two other bills that the constituents in my riding have been very concerned about, but reaction to this one in particular was certainly inflamed by the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety when Bill C-30 was introduced. I am pleased that something is now being done.

I am not sure whether the government is doing this now for political reasons or because the Supreme Court has said that it has until next month to have these amendments ready. In any case, Bill C-55 is certainly a welcome change and welcome difference from the previous bill, Bill C-30.

For those folks who might be watching at home, I want to talk about the bill for a second and give a bit of background.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse in order to provide safeguards relating to authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4. Notably, the enactment 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 that section. It also provides that a person who has been the subject of such interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. As well, it narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. On one hand it has been narrowed, but it is also now putting in the safeguards that Bill C-30 did not have to ensure that the personal freedom of Canadians is not infringed upon unduly while public safety is served.

This does strike a nice balance. That is why the NDP and I will certainly be supporting the bill at third reading.

In its simplest terms, this new legislation is simply an updated version of the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court has ruled to be unconstitutional. The court has established new parameters for the protection of privacy. We in the NDP believe that this legislation complies with those standards.

Canadians have good reason to be concerned about Conservatives' privacy legislation. It seems to not be front and centre or at least top of mind when legislation is put together, so the ruling of the Supreme Court was certainly welcome, and Bill C-55, which is a result of that ruling, is also certainly welcome.

The proposed amendments appear in direct response to the Supreme Court decision. They add safeguards that constitute notification and reporting under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the legislation would require giving a person 90 days' notice—although there could be an extension made by a judge—after his or her private communications have been intercepted in situations of “imminent harm”, which are two very important words.

The bill also requires the preparation of annual reports on the use of wiretaps. These amendments appear to be in direct response to the court's instruction in this matter.

As a result, we support the bill. It is essential that such investigative measures include oversight and accountability.

We have certainly heard, and my constituents have heard, over and over again from this government those terms “oversight”, “accountability” and “transparency”. Certainly Bill C-30, the original incarnation of this bill, did not include any of those things. This new bill, Bill C-55, does, and as I said before, it is welcome.

When New Democrats look at the bill, we look at the public interest of the bill and respect for the rule of law. That is why Bill C-30 was a bill that we simply could not support: it failed on both of those counts. Bill C-55, after we have studied it, certainly would appear to do that, and we will be supporting it at third reading. Most importantly, it would meet the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not expect that there would be a further Supreme Court case on Bill C-55.

I will talk about section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court decision stated:

Section 184.4 recognizes that on occasion the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society — here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

With regard to Bill C-30, the court also stated:

In its present form however, s. 184.4 contains no accountability measures to permit oversight of the police use of the power.

I quote that because that is essentially what Bill C-55 would do. It would ensure that there would be safeguards for the public good, while at the same time protecting public safety.

A number of experts have indicated that they are pleased with Bill C-55 and the changes that have been made, and it comes just under the wire of when the Supreme Court said the changes needed to be made. I take it on faith that the government is presenting Bill C-55 in good faith, that it is not for political reasons, that it has listened to the Supreme Court decision and has made the changes accordingly. I do not yet know how the Liberals feel about this particular bill and I certainly look forward to hearing what they have to say on it.

I look forward to any questions members may have for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am very happy to take part in this debate on Bill C-55, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code following the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is refreshing to see that the Conservative government is today proposing a bill that is balanced and reasonable, for once. It is true that we have become accustomed to the opposite, in recent months. It is also rather encouraging to see that this time, the government is respecting the Supreme Court’s decision.

We are therefore pleased to support this Bill at third reading. Bill C-55 corrects some shortcomings in the Criminal Code. The effect will be to strengthen the right to privacy of all Canadians, without impeding the delicate work done by police officers and law enforcement agencies.

I would like to point out, however, that Bill C-55 follows the now famous Bill C-30. I say “famous”, but Bill C-30 is mainly famous for the fire it drew.

I will take the liberty of returning briefly to this famous, or should I say “infamous”, Bill C-30. Officially, it was designed to protect children against online predators. In fact, it gave law enforcement agencies the power to request personal information about telephone and Internet service subscribers, without a warrant.

The indignation was general, beginning with that of Canadians as a whole, who rightly saw it as a threat to their privacy.

On the pretext of tracking down pedophiles, the government was giving itself authority thenceforth to treat all Canadians as criminals. Without the commission of any offence, the private lives of thousands if not millions of Canadians would have been made public.

People thus no longer have control over the protection of privacy, since intrusion is achieved by such underhand means as their use of the Internet and of telephone services, the most commonplace communication media most widely used by Canadians.

The government was also criticized by Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and her provincial counterparts. According to Ms. Stoddart, if Bill C-30 had been passed, it would have enabled police officers to establish a picture of Canadians' online activities. For example, police officers could have identified individuals' interests based on the websites they visited, the organizations and associations to which they belonged and their geographic location. That is a bit much.

The government's initial reaction to the criticism is equally disturbing. The Minister of Public Safety responded to individuals who had expressed concerns about privacy protection by saying that they had a choice whether to stand with the government or with the pedophiles. That is completely ridiculous and disrespectful.

This government has the unfortunate habit of reducing all debates to a conflict between good and evil, without drawing any distinction. Listening to it, one would think that all Canadians who doubt the effectiveness of such an intrusive bill simply sanction the acts of pedophiles. That is a highly simplistic view.

When I stop and think of all the implications of that bill, I get chills down my spine. I do not believe I am the only one who does. That bill clearly made many members on the other side of the House very uncomfortable. As a democratic country, Canada long ago established that citizens' right to privacy is not negligible or alienable. The government's paranoia does not justify destroying that fundamental right.

Although it took a long time, the government ultimately decided to abandon Bill C-30 to everyone's great relief. Members on all sides of the House were delighted when the bill was dropped.

The day after Bill C-30 was scrapped, the member for New Brunswick Southwest said he was pleased with the government's new direction on this file, and I quote: “There is no justification in a free country with judicial oversight to force Internet companies to disclose information about their customers without a warrant.”

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert said, and I quote, “The government went too far.”

Bill C-55, which is before us today, is much more balanced. It updates provisions respecting wiretapping that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to provide for measures to protect the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization. In concrete terms, Bill C-55 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. That was not required before Bill C-55. That was therefore a shortcoming of the other bill.

Bill C-55 also provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specific period. It narrows the class of individuals who may make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

We therefore support this bill because it is essential that these investigative measures include oversight and accountability mechanisms, which the Conservatives are not necessarily in the habit of applying and including in their bills. That is the court's view, and we expected nothing less.

Moreover, the requirement to notify people whose communications are intercepted would in no way impede police operations in emergencies, since it will be done after the fact. On the other hand, it would increase the ability of those targeted to track and object to infringements of their privacy, and obtain genuine redress if that was the case.

I have dwelt at length on the fact that Canadians have excellent reasons for apprehension about the Conservatives’ bills relating to privacy. Their track record in this area is not very impressive. We are therefore greatly reassured that Bill C-55 respects the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must nevertheless remain vigilant. Political pressure recently led to the defeat of Bill C-30, but some of the measures it contained have reappeared in other federal bills. Canadians, and defenders of civil liberties, have won a fight against lawful access, but they are still on alert. There is no way of knowing if and when the government will try once again to attack Canadians’ rights to privacy.

The government was stubborn in its protracted pursuit of passage for Bill C-30. After that fiasco, can the government tell us whether its justice priorities will be based on the charter and the Constitution, rather than the Conservatives’ political program?

Because that is definitely what concerns us: Bill C-55 merely resolves one very simple issue, yet the Conservatives took a long time to introduce it. Other measures initially included in Bill C-30 may now be placed beyond the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.

The opposition parties must stay alert. We must ensure that Canadians are not threatened once again with the loss of their right to privacy through another Big Brother-style bill introduced by the Conservatives.

We therefore say yes to Bill C-55, but we must take great care to ensure that in future, all bills presented that relate to justice and public safety are consistent both with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution in order to be passed by the House of Commons.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read a third time and passed.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the government has to be led kicking and screaming into the arena of accountability and transparency. This was one of the many reasons that Canadians had such profound disagreements with the government over Bill C-30.

With regard to the piece of legislation we have before us, Bill C-55, in light of the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had to take the government to court to get documents, in light of the fact that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has complained that the government has been slow to release documents and in light of the fact that in the 40th Parliament the government was found in contempt of Parliament, I am wondering if the member for Timmins—James Bay has concerns about the reporting mechanism in the bill. Does he feel confident that the government is going to be forthcoming with the reports the legislation requires?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent work as chair on the ethics committee, which has been dealing with some of these issues. These issues are very timely for the Canadian Parliament and for members from all parties to actually begin an open debate on them.

We have a situation now where more and more of our lives are spent online. We do everything online. The economic, social and democratic potential of living online is an unprecedented opportunity in the history of our civilization. However, at the same time, the unprecedented threats and international cybergangs that are beyond the rule of law are able to hack and steal information.

We need to ensure that police have the tools, but the balance goes to this test in Bill C-55 of what is reasonable and unreasonable. It is reasonable to ensure that we craft legislation that provides police with the tools needed to go after criminals and stop these kinds of activities. However, it is unreasonable to say that because people now live in the age of Facebook and Google their right to privacy and to maintain who they are is wide open and the government should be able to spy on them at any given time, whenever and however it wants. That is the unreasonable test. The reasonable test is crafting narrowly defined legislation to provide the tools necessary to address the changes in the cyberworld.

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

Mr. Speaker, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was struck down by the Supreme Court because the lack of definitions was seriously problematic. To put it in context, we were dealing with a criminal activity that was brought to the court. This was not about spying on ordinary Canadian citizens, which some of my colleagues on the other side would like to be able to do. This was about a criminal act and still the Supreme Court said that even in the case of a criminal act, the rule of law must apply. Therefore, the government had to define who was eligible to get that information.

In order for Bill C-55 to be charter compliant and compliant with the Supreme Court, the government has to define who is eligible and under what circumstances this breach of personal information is going to be allowed. We do not have that same standard on Bill C-12 yet. The government wants to be able to force telecommunications companies and other private businesses to turn over data and subscriber information, but it does not define who is eligible to gather it. That is very disturbing because under Bill C-30, which was the other piece of this triad of puzzles we had before us, a minister was able to designate inspectors. Who were the inspectors that he was designating? That was a very bizarre and wide loophole the government was creating for itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay, who have put their trust in me to work on the issues of legislation before the House.

I am going to speak today on why the New Democratic Party is supporting Bill C-55 and what works about this bill, but also on the issues we need to look at and the prism that needs to be applied in terms of how the legislation was crafted, what it was in response to and how it ties into two other key pieces of legislation that this House has been asked to deal with.

One is Bill C-30 and the other is Bill C-12. Within each of the bills are key issues that reflect on the ability of the government to move forward with legislation and on how legislation is actually brought forward.

What is striking already, off the top of Bill C-55, is that it is a very narrow bill. It is simply addressing a section of the Criminal Code, section 184.4, that the Supreme Court struck down.

What we find is that legislation that is limited is usually more effective than legislation that is broad. Legislation is a very a blunt tool. Unfortunately, we have seen that the government likes to throw in all manner of legislation, often without thinking of the consequences or with very little regard for the consequences. We have seen one omnibus bill after another brought before the House without proper review and without a proper understanding of how they related to basic issues like charter rights.

I would like to say that I think the government is doing the right thing with Bill C-55 by having very narrowly defined legislation that addresses a major problem. I would like to think that the government thought this approach up on its own and that this is how it is going to start dealing with criminal matters and the reform of the criminal justice system, but that is not really what has happened here.

The government is responding to the fact that the Supreme Court struck down section 184.4 of the Criminal Code and gave it a deadline of April 13, which is only two weeks away, to address the problem.

I am going to speak a little about Bill C-55 and then explain how the implications of the Supreme Court legislation tie in to Bill C-30 and Bill C-12.

Under section 184.4, the Supreme Court ruled in R. v. Tse that police use of a warrantless wiretap to secure the safety of an individual is a correct step to take. If a life is at stake, law officers have the ability within Canadian jurisprudence to go in, get the evidence and secure a life. That is a long-standing practice within the Canadian law system.

However, the problem with section 184.4 is that there are no accountability mechanisms. What I find very interesting about the Supreme Court decision is that it says that even in the case of criminal activities—and what we were dealing with in this case was a kidnapping, a very horrendous attack against a citizen—basic charter rights still remain and have to be balanced.

The Supreme Court took the larger view and recognized that the spectre of criminality cannot be used to undermine the basic rights of citizens in this country. This is a concept that seems absolutely foreign to the Conservative Party, whose backbenchers jump up whistling and dancing every time they can come up with some extreme case of a criminal activity as a cover to allow them to undermine all manner of privacy rights, all manner of basic citizen rights. They have done it time and time again.

The Supreme Court has said no. The test of law in this country is what is reasonable versus unreasonable. What is reasonable is that if law officers know someone is at risk and need to get that information immediately, it is reasonable to go for the warrantless wiretap to gather that information without the judge's warrant, which can then be obtained later. What is unreasonable is to do that without any oversight mechanism.

Section 184.4 will clarify this, because it defines—and this is a very important thing again in dealing with Bill C-12 and Bill C-30—who is eligible, the police; how it is to be used, under specific circumstances; and why it is to be used, to protect the rights of citizens balanced against the right to bring safety to people who are perhaps under threat of criminal activity. The definition of how this breach of law would be allowed is crucial to Bill C-55.

When we look at Bill C-30, which was the bill that this was supposed to be a part of, we see that none of these definitions of the who, the how and the why are there. In fact, it is so broad that the privacy commissioners from across Canada, in an unprecedented response to the government, wrote against the government's attempt to undermine the basic civil rights of Canadian citizens.

Whenever the Conservative government attempts to do something that it knows will not pass a charter challenge or attempts to pull something that it knows the Canadian public will not stand for, it uses a bogeyman. The minister used perhaps the most baseless attack that has ever been uttered in the House of Commons when he said that anybody who was concerned about privacy rights or the individual rights of citizens in this country or who dared raise a question to him was on the side of child pornographers.

That was about as ugly as it can get. Of course, now we see who is on the side of child pornographers: Mr. Tom Flanagan, who said that it is a victimless crime. We see the right-wing media is concerned about Mr. Tom Flanagan, a very famous and very rich right-wing white man. It was his rights, we are now being told, that were somehow trampled upon. One reporter said that he thought it showed the fundamental shallowness of Canadians that they were outraged that Mr. Flanagan was defending the rights of child pornographers.

However, that was the kind of language being used by this minister to cover up the fact that there were major flaws in Bill C-30. If we tie it back to Bill C-55 in terms of the Supreme Court, the government must have known that none of its provisions would have passed the charter challenge because they did not meet the basic standards of jurisprudence.

Let us look at the lack of the who, the how and the why in terms of Bill C-30 as compared to Bill C-55. Bill C-30 may be brought back by the government; we are not yet sure. Under clause 33, the government would be allowed to designate an inspector to go into a telecom to demand information for being in compliance with Bill C-30.

The minister may designate inspectors, that is his choice, but there is no definition of what those inspectors are. Are they police? Are they private security? Are they political staffers? We do not know. Bill C-30 would allow the extraordinary ability of the minister to appoint inspectors. Under clause 34, these inspectors would be allowed to go into public telecoms to gather information on private citizens. That is clearly something that would never pass the charter challenge.

In contrast, in Bill C-55 we see that they have defined the right to ask for warrantless information to just the police, which is the proper place it should be. We should know who is able to gather that information on us.

What they wanted to do under Bill C-30 was allow warrantless access to subscriber information on the data use of anybody with a cellphone or an ISP address, which would pretty much mean 95% or 96% of the Canadian public. Unspecified persons could gather that information.

The privacy commissioners of Canada spoke out against this. They said that contrary to the Conservative Party's claims, it had nothing to do with being just like a phone book. Ann Cavoukian said that this was “one of the most invasive threats to our privacy and freedom that I have ever encountered”. About being able to demand and being forced to turn over this information, she said:

...customer name and address information ties us to our entire digital life, unlike a stationary street address. Therefore, “subscriber information” is far from the modern day equivalent of a publicly available “phone book”. Rather, it is the key to a much wider, sensitive subset of information.

That is what the Conservatives wanted to be able to gather.

The abuse of privacy rights did not end there. Under Bill C-30, they also wanted to force telecoms to basically build in back-channel spy communication, so that as they expanded their networks, they would have to build in the monitoring system to keep track of any citizen the government felt it should be able to look at at any time, again without any oversight and without citizens knowing they would be spied upon.

Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, said that what they were in fact doing, although they perhaps did not realize it, was creating a hacker's paradise. If we allow wormholes throughout the telecom system to allow police to spy on it, then certainly the hackers, who are usually about three steps ahead of everybody else on this—and we see massive international gangs using sophisticated cyberhacking—would be able to benefit much more than the police or security services.

In terms of the how, Bill C-55 limits the ability to get a warrantless wiretap based on the possibility of a threat to a person. Afterwards there would have to be oversight mechanisms and reports would have to be published and reported to Parliament so that we would know how these warrantless wiretaps are being used. Bill C-55 defines and protects this breach of the private rights of citizens, whereas under Bill C-30, the door was kicked down and all the basic rights of citizens were thrown out.

Of course we know that Bill C-30 was responded to in a massive and very exciting and positive response from the public, a backlash that said that we demand that our privacy rights be protected and defined under the rule of law in this country. It was an unprecedented backlash against the government. The Minister of Justice has been pretty much hiding under his desk publicly ever since. It is a good sign that we have a engaged citizenry here that knows the difference between what is reasonable and unreasonable.

In Bill C-55, the government is limited to gathering information under the reasonableness of protecting an individual who is facing threat compared to the unreasonableness of doing away with all manner of privacy rights whatsoever. In this manner, I would say that the Canadian public are foremost across the world in standing up for their rights, much more than the government, which has very little respect for the privacy rights of Canadians. In other democracies with privacy rights in the digital age and the age of big data and CCTV cameras, other citizens are steadily having those rights eroded, whereas in Canada we want to maintain those rights.

In Bill C-12, which is the other piece of legislation to compare Bill C-55 to, again we see the government showing no respect for the privacy rights of Canadians. There is no understanding of the importance of privacy rights. We certainly saw that with the massive data losses of private financial information on over 500,000 Canadians at HRSDC. We have seen other data breaches. We saw the government's cavalier attitude when, rather than warning citizens that their personal financial data may have been breached, its only desire was to protect the minister, and it kept the breach quiet for two months. Any manner of international gangs could have had that data, gone after people's credit and created massive widespread fraud, because that is what can happen if the public is not alerted.

Under Bill C-12, the government wants to change the reporting threshold for private business when these privacy breaches happen. This is very important in terms of defining how we protect the rights of citizens. Under the changes the government is bringing in Bill C-12, private companies that have our data, whether a bank, a Sony PlayStation, or all manner of online transactions, would only have to report the breach to the Privacy Commissioner if they thought there was a significant risk of harm. “Significant” is an extremely high bar to set. Meanwhile, all manner of abuse could happen underneath it.

Also, private businesses would be very wary about the idea of going public with the fact that they may have lost Visa card information or personal data information for 100,000 or 200,000 or 500,000 people, because it affects their basic online business model. Everything is now done online. However, we see the government telling private businesses that they only have to report a privacy breach if it might cause significant harm. That completely fails the basic test and the understanding of the importance of privacy rights in this country.

We believe that there has to be a very clear rule that if companies fear they have been hacked and that privacy data has been breached, it has to be reported to the Privacy Commissioner, who has such an extraordinary role to play in protecting and reviewing the evidence and deciding whether action must be taken.

However, we see that again the government is undermining the role of the Privacy Commissioner and we have to ask why. As more and more Canadians operate their businesses online and as our financial transactions occur online, the last thing we want to do is create a hackers' paradise in Canada, while the rest of the world moves further ahead of us. Ann Cavoukian has spoken about this.

It is extraordinary that Canada was once seen as the world leader in privacy data. Our Privacy Commissioner is definitely seen as a world leader, but our legislation is falling further and further behind where the Europeans and the Americans are going. As our Privacy Commissioner is asking for the tools to update, to deal with the cyberthreats and to deal with the protection of personal information in the age of big data, the current government is undermining the legislation.

How does that relate to Bill C-55? There are direct connections in the language among Bill C-12, Bill C-30 and what we have seen in Bill C-55. Bill C-12 would allow organizations and companies, including telecommunications companies, to disclose personal information to government institutions, perhaps the police or perhaps not, without the knowledge and consent of the individual when performing policing services. This is under subclause 6(6), but there is no definition of what “policing services” are.

Again, it is the language of Bill C-30, the lawful access and online snooping language, that would allow some undefined security person or force to obtain information on private individuals from telecommunications without defining who would be eligible to gather that information, whereas Bill C-55 would limit it to the police so that is very clear.

I agree with my colleague on the Conservative side and I am telling him that they are going to need to bring Bill C-12 to the same standard, where we define who is eligible to ask for that information. Without doing that, we will end up going before the courts again. If we define that it is the right of the police to ask for that information, then that would meet the test that would be laid out in Bill C-55, but Bill C-12 would not meet that test right now. The issue is that there is no oversight mechanism in Bill C-12. If they did ask for this ISP information on individual users, there are no mechanisms under Bill C-12 for reporting what was happening, and that would fail the test of Bill C-55.

It is clear that what the Conservatives had been attempting to do was to take Bill C-30, which was their desire to be able to snoop on as many people as they wanted as often as they wanted and however they wanted, and build in a number of other subsets in other legislation to make that operable. Bill C-12, which includes changes to the Privacy Protection Act, would certainly allow them to do that. However, being that we have had the public backlash on Bill C-30 and being that we now have defined Bill C-55 very clearly regarding the who, the how and the why of this being allowed, we would need to clarify the same mechanisms under Bill C-12.

We see that the Conservatives are on the straight and narrow right now. They did not want to come. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, and it is our job to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow. We want to work with them. It is hard for them and we will do our part to keep them on the straight and narrow. We will do that 12-step program of accountability and I want to work with my colleagues on that, but they just keep sliding off that wagon. They want to go after personal freedoms. They want to go after individuals. They want to do that spying thing. However, they cannot do it because we have the rule of law in this country.

We are asking them to come work with us and learn from some of their colleagues who might have a little more experience in some of these matters. Certainly the Supreme Court has laid down the test that has to be met. Now that Bill C-55 is in place, the problems with Bill C-12 are too clear to ignore. Then, what we need to do with Bill C-12 is to ensure that Bill C-30 will never come back and that the online snooping provisions of the current government will not come back.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I appreciate that members are enjoying a rather spirited debate today. Having said that, I would like to remind all hon. members that the rules exist for a reason, and that is to make efficient use of the time in this place. It is also to show respect for their colleagues, both those who have spoken and those who are here listening to or participating in the debate.

The question period we have just gone through clearly strayed well beyond anything that had anything to do with Bill C-55, the bill before this House.

I will point out that on a couple of occasions when related pieces of legislation such as Bill C-30 were referred to, in the opinion of the Chair that was relevant in the context of Bill C-55, but many of the other matters have not been.

The time for questions and comments is complete. Resuming debate related to third reading of Bill C-55, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the member for Winnipeg North, the issue of relevance has been raised a couple of times this morning. The hon. parliamentary secretary has put a question. I will give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to respond to that comment. I remind all hon. members that the matter before the House is Bill C-55.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-55. It is important right from the beginning to mention why we are debating the bill today. On April 13, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada sent a very strong message to the House of Commons, in particular to the Prime Minister, that section 184.4 needed to be amended. It made a sunset by saying that the Government of Canada would have one year to pass the necessary legislation to validate the Criminal Code.

What is section 184.4? It talks about a police officer's ability to intercept a private conversation in some fashion without having to get a warrant. That is what this is all about. The government has been aware of it for a number of years. The Supreme Court of Canada having made its decision on April 13, 2012, and having put a time limit on it has now forced the government to act on it.

I will talk about the lack of the timely fashion in which the government has made the decision to bring in the bill. However, prior to doing that, I would like to reflect on what I believe is very important to all Canadians.

All Canadians believe in private rights and want to ensure their rights are protected. At times we might get a little spooked. We see cameras popping up all over the place, whether it is photo radar cameras, speed cameras, cameras at high density intersections, or even nowadays on sidewalks or public buildings and public areas where people gather. Every so often I hear from constituents who want to talk about private rights. It is important for us to recognize that as individuals we do have private rights that need to be protected at all times.

I was a very strong advocate for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for many years. This year we celebrated 30 years of having the charter, which has stood the test of time. A vast majority, 90%-plus of Canadians, have grown to respect and believe in the charter as something that protects them.

I remember when my girlfriend, now my wife, and I watched the signing ceremony between Pierre Trudeau and the Queen in 1982. It was a special moment and it was something my girlfriend appreciated. It was important to me and I believe it was important to her. It is because we recognized how important it was that individuals had rights. That is why Bill C-55 is very important legislation.

I have had the opportunity to speak about it at second reading. Unfortunately, I was unable to be at committee, but I did to get to speak very briefly yesterday because we were limited to 10 minutes to the amendments brought forward. However, it is important legislation that needs to be addressed.

If we look at it from a historical point of view, whether it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, or Jean Chrétien or one of Canada's best Attorneys General, the member for Mount Royal, it speaks so well on individual rights and the need to protect them. Quite often when individuals of that calibre stand and talk about individual rights, we need to listen because it is a very important aspect of being Canadian.

We turn on the news and we watch throughout the world where individual rights are virtually walked all over. There is a general lack of respect for individual rights throughout the world. I believe Canada has a leadership role in demonstrating to the world that we value the Charter of Rights.

A number of years ago I had the privilege and the opportunity to travel to Israel. When I met with one of the politicians there, he made reference to Canada's Charter of Rights and how he thought it was an important thing that Canada did in 1982. What we are doing here has an impact that goes beyond our own borders. That is why there is an onus and a responsibility for us to be very careful in behaving and acting on important legislation in a more timely manner.

Before going into some of the details of the bill, I will talk about why we have the bill. I made mention of the Supreme Court of Canada and also that the government knew about it well before that. The Supreme Court of Canada has in essence said to the government that it really has messed up. It did not have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to deal with the issue previously. Many parliamentarians here today will recall Bill C-50. I was not here at that time. That bill was an attempt to deal with what the Supreme Court of Canada was forced to deal with, but because the Conservatives prorogued the session, in essence killing all legislation before the House, that attempt was defeated.

That was not the first or second time. The most recent time would have been Bill C-30 from last year. That bill came with a great deal of fanfare. A lot of allegations were made and the overwhelming reaction was quite significant, to the degree that we saw the Government of Canada push the hold button, and that bill has never seen the light of day.

The bill was introduced almost a year ago, and it would have dealt with this issue, at least in part. It also would have dealt with other things, which raised the ire of hundreds of thousands of Canadians and opposition parties, definitely the Liberal Party of Canada. However, we saw the Conservatives failing to address what was a very important issue, and I will comment on that issue very shortly. Instead of doing the right thing, which would have been recognizing that Bill C-30 was going nowhere back in June, the Conservatives could have introduced this bill last fall, in September or October, and reviewed some of the other legislation that we were talking about then.

There were opportunities for the government members to deal with this legislation. It is not like there is overwhelming opposition to Bill C-55. In fact, the members of the Liberal Party have been very clear that we support the passage of the bill. We have done nothing to slow down its passage. We recognize that the bill has to be passed through Parliament by April 12 or 13 of this year. We have committed to working to do that.

However, we also believe the legislation needs to go through due diligence and through the process in a timely fashion.

What does that mean? It means the government and, in particular, the government House leader. This is another wake-up call for him. He needs to get his legislative agenda in order. He needs to perhaps meet with the Prime Minister and some of his other ministers and get a sense in what kind of legislation is coming down the pike into the House of Commons. If he did his homework, then at the very least the legislation we have today could have been, and should have been, introduced back in October last year, give or take a month. Had the Conservatives done that, there would not be this sense of urgency we have today to pass the legislation.

That decision, many of my caucus colleagues would say, was intentional. The government continued to hold back on introducing this legislation. I cannot blame them for thinking that. All we have to do is take a look at all the legislation that has been brought forward and the record number of time allocations on a wide variety of legislation. Remember those huge budget bills containing dozens of pieces of legislation amended through the backdoor of a budget. We can understand why members of the Liberal Party are a little skeptical in how the government chooses to bring in legislation.

The timing is a very important issue.

We have Bill C-55 today. It is expected the bill will pass. As I say, it does have the support of the Liberal Party and we will assist the government allowing the bill, ultimately, to pass.

However, we ask the government to take responsibility when it brings forward legislation, to take into consideration that the House of Commons has a very important role to play. When it brings a bill in for second reading, members of Parliament of all political stripes are should be afforded the opportunity to provide their contributions, whatever they might be. Even if it is a sense of repetition speaker after speaker, it has to provide for that and then allow for it to go to committee in a timely fashion where we can bring in different stakeholders.

I would like to think that under Bill C-55, in a normal process, there might have been a higher level of interest from the different stakeholders from coast to coast to coast with respect to what type of legislation they wanted to see. That would have been very productive.

There was an attempt. It could be very discouraging to move amendments inside the House since there has been a Conservative majority, a different type of Conservative Reform Party going back to the old Reform roots, possibly. However, there has been a different attitude. Even I have detected that. It can be a challenge to move amendments inside the House. I have seen amendments stonewalled. I remember when the member for Mount Royal attempted to move amendments in committee and, ultimately, at third reading and the government turned them down. It took the Senate in order to pass it.

If Bill C-55 were provided the opportunity that it should have been in allowing for not only that fulsome debate within the chamber but equally an opportunity to have stakeholders from across Canada contribute to the debate, I believe we would have had more of a contribution at that point in time.

It is important to allow for that. We are talking about are private communications that can be interrupted or listened to by the police without any warrant. That is very serious. I think many Canadians could have made presentations if it was felt that we had the time to listen thoroughly to our stakeholders or even affording opposition parties or individual members to consult on the legislation in advance.

From committee, we come now to third reading. The bill has been here for a couple of days. We in the Liberal Party want to see the bill pass. I suspect that the New Democrats will support us. However, the timing is a huge concern.

The bill requires appropriate ministers in Canada to report whenever they have an intercept. That means that a minister of justice in a province, such as Manitoba, Ontario, or wherever it might be in Canada, would be notified when an interception occurred in their jurisdiction. Those provincial entities would then be obligated to report to the House of Commons, through the Minister of Public Safety, and ideally, to have it tabled it in some form in the House. It is a very important measure.

We would like to think that the frequency of any police agency having to use clause 184.4 without a warrant would be very low. There is nothing wrong with trying to find and accumulate information that allows us to make valued opinions regarding its usage. We should be reviewing that, because we are talking about individual rights.

Where a person's rights have been overlooked because it is believed that it is in the public interest, that individual has the right to know that a wiretap was done without a warrant. We are not saying that we should give a person a call to say that the telephone is going to be tapped. Once it has been done, there is an obligation to let that individual know that it has taken place. From what I understand, that is being done within this legislation.

The bill would provide more accountability and oversight. It would narrow the number of individuals or offices that could actually use clause 184.4. Today, one could be a mayor of a municipality and have the authority to listen to a private conversation without a warrant. The legislation is saying that this is too wide. We need to narrow the number of individuals who can do that. Bill C-55 narrows it down to police officers.

It also limits the types of interceptions. It should be used very rarely. For example, in a situation where someone's life is at risk or a child has been kidnapped, we need to ensure that police officers have the ability to save that life or ensure that a child is not molested. Bill C-55 moves in that direction.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their moral support. I hope that my comments on Bill C-55 will stay on point. I would also have liked to hear my Conservative colleagues speak out about this important bill that their government has brought forward. Their silence today is deafening, aside from a few points of order that can be construed as attempts at badgering.

Fundamentally, the debate on Bill C-55 takes us back to the history of Bill C-30. Finally we have a Conservative government that has backed down and admitted the error of its ways, a government that has been forced to go back to the drawing board. This is not the first time the Conservative government has been taken to task, but it should happen more often. Unfortunately, we have a government that delights in improvising most of the time. It is guided by its ideology and completely blinded by certain libertarian or conservative principles, so much so that its actions are not guided by the facts, by science or by reality, but rather by personal views, as the justice minister pointed out.

Members may recall that Quebec’s justice minister had asked the federal justice minister some questions about a bill on minimum sentences for young offenders and in that instance, personal views had specifically come into play. In my opinion, Bill C-30 was also based on personal whims. It is a shame, really, because the privacy of our country’s citizens was threatened by the Conservative government, which adopted a very hostile attitude toward all those who dared call its bill into question.

Members may recall that the Conservative minister accused the opposition parties of siding with pedophiles simply because they criticized and opposed Bill C-30. Highly ideological stances like this adversely affect debate in Parliament as well as in our democracy.

It is important that I mention the employment insurance reform, which should have been based on impact studies illustrating the impact of the reform on a number of regions, on workers, and their families. It came to our attention that no impact studies were conducted. All’s well that ends well, however, when it comes to Bill C-30 because the bill was scrapped. This proves that when there is public outcry, and when people mobilize, the government can be forced to backtrack, even the Conservative government.

Let me come back to Bill C-55. It is fortunate that we still have courts in this country. It is fortunate that we have a Supreme Court of Canada to tell us which provisions need to be amended, because the Conservatives do not respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I said this in my previous remarks. I also know full well that the private member's bill, Bill C-377, which is a direct attack on unions and workers’ associations, also appears likely to end up in court.

It is good that the courts are reviewing these Conservative bills as they are probably unconstitutional, invade privacy and violate the right to organize. It is fortunate that we still have courts in our society that force the government to amend legislation that is unconstitutional so that it complies with section 8 of the charter, for example, which is the case currently with Bill C-55.

We need to remember that the reason the bill is before us today is because a judge determined at trial that section 184.4—which is the section that is being amended—violated the right, guaranteed under section 8 of the charter, to be protected against frisking, searches, abusive seizure, and that it is not a reasonable limit under the first section.

Today, the situation is being addressed and our legislation is being amended to ensure that it is consistent with our values and principles as a society, which not only seeks to ensure the safety of its citizens, but also to protect their privacy.

In this debate, it is important to remember what section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is about. It reads:

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.

It is important to know exactly what we are talking about but, for members of the NDP and most people of good faith, oversight and accountability mechanisms are also important. That is why the official opposition finds the provisions of section 195 and Bill C-55 acceptable; they give police officers less arbitrary power in certain situations.

In terms of public safety needs, we are aware that police officers must have these tools and access to them. However, such interception should not then be forgotten about. There must be follow up. That is why we are pleased to have these oversight mechanisms. We understand the concerns of those who were upset about the Conservative government's Bill C-30. This bill was a real attack on privacy given the authority it gave police to intrude on people's private lives.

We also must find a balance between the protection of privacy and the police forces' ability to do their work and maintain public safety. This balance has to exist even when the police are wiretapping and intercepting communications in order to protect the physical integrity of our constituents and prevent people from committing wrongdoings that could endanger the lives and safety of Quebeckers and Canadians.

It is all a balancing act. For once, we must admit that the bill before us is reasonable and balanced. I do want to reiterate that it was the court that twisted the government's arm and forced it to make changes. There is a deadline. Today we are debating this bill because we no longer have the choice. The court said that we had to resolve this issue by the beginning of April. We are lucky to even have this.

I would like to quote some testimony from committee. It demonstrates how the New Democratic Party feels. On March 6, 2013, Raji Mangat, the counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said the following at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

...the BCCLA [her organization] is pleased to see that Bill C-55 will limit the use of section 184.4 to police officers. This is in our view a sensible and necessary amendment that supports the rationale behind the provision, to provide a means by which law enforcement can prevent serious and imminent harm on an urgent basis.

On that note, the BCCLA is also pleased that Bill C-55 limits the application of warrantless wiretapping to circumstances in which the goal is to prevent the commission of an offence. The addition of a notice requirement to individuals who have been subjected to warrrantless wiretapping brings section 184.4 in line with other provisions in the Criminal Code. The notice requirement provides transparency and serves as an essential check on this extraordinary power to intercept communications without judicial authorization.

The reporting requirement in Bill C-55 is also a welcome amendment, as it will enhance police accountability. Together, the notice and reporting requirements bolster accountability and oversight in the use of warrantless wiretapping, and the BCCLA [her organization] supports amendments to gather more data.

If I may, I would like to digress and speak about safety, particularly the safety of people in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie when it comes to the railways and pedestrian crosswalks. It is important to have measures that encourage active transportation so that people can safely cross the railways we have in Montreal. I support all the groups and elected officials who are lobbying for this. It is important for improving the quality of life of the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I would also like to correct what my colleague opposite said. My colleague has always talked about the process the bill had to go through to get here, about the reason why we have reached third reading of that bill and about the fact that the government took so long. I very much respect your decision, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for my colleague. Before Bill C-55 got here, the government spent a great deal of time drafting Bill C-30 and demonizing all those who opposed that bill.

The Conservatives subsequently admitted their mistake, reversed course and drafted Bill C-55 at the last minute. That bill is nevertheless a step in the right direction, since it is consistent with what the Supreme Court requested. I would like my colleague to comment on the process the government used to table Bill C-30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates the intervention from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake and once again reminds all hon. members in this place that given that there is a matter before the House, speeches, questions and comments should be related to that. Having said that, it is also the practice of this place that a significant amount of latitude is offered to members. Secondly, from time to time, hon. members seem to take a circuitous route to their point. However, the Chair trusts that there is a point.

Specifically regarding the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake's reference to the rules related to third reading as distinct from other matters that may be before the House, I would again thank him for his intervention and hope that it might serve as a reminder to all of us that when we are speaking in the House, we should be dealing with the matter at hand.

We are today dealing with Bill C-55 at third reading. I trust that the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle will proceed in that fashion.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating third reading of Bill C-55. I have been listening quite intently to the member and to the opposition members speaking before him, and their comments have not been relevant to the issue at hand.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 13, page 626, states:

Debate on third reading is intended to permit the House to review the legislative measure in its final form and is therefore strictly limited to the contents of the bill.

I would also like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that also in chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, on page 623 under “The Rule of Relevance”, it says in a ruling made back in 1882, J.G. Bourinot, then Clerk of the House, felt the need to add this comment to his overview of parliamentary practice. It states:

A just regard to the privileges and dignity of Parliament demands that its time should not be wasted in idle and fruitless discussion; and consequently every member, who addresses the house, should endeavour to confine himself as closely as possible to the question under consideration.

Only once have I heard the member from across the way mention the amendment to section 184.4, which we are debating and for which the government has brought forward a bill in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling. I ask that he get down to the discussion at hand rather than editorialize.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his speech.

I would like to ask him a very simple question. I know that he has a legal background and training, and I believe he is still a member of the Barreau du Québec. I would like to know why it is important that laws presented to Parliament comply with the charter and that they first pass the test of the justice department's officials.

Why is it important for parliamentarians to be assured that the legislation they debate respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in view of the fact that Bill C-30 was introduced in the House and that Bill C-55 is the response to an unconstitutional provision of an existing law, namely section 184.4 of the Criminal Code?

Why is it important for our laws to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is my question for my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague, and what struck me was the fact that within Parliament it is the role of parliamentarians of all parties to work toward the development of good legislation and legislation that will stand a test in the courts.

Unfortunately, the government has time and time again ignored input from the other parties and also tried to defy the courts. With Bill C-30, the Conservatives were completely slapped back because it was such an intrusive, invasive attack on the basic civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians. We see with Bill C-55 that the Conservatives have gone for a much narrower range in terms of legislation that would actually pass the charter test.

Does my hon. colleague not think that the Conservatives would have been wiser, and may be wiser in future, if they actually learned the lesson that at the end of the day they are not supreme in this land, that it is still the Supreme Court, that they still have to work with other organizations and other parties to ensure that legislation would be to the benefit of all and not just for their attack ads?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the correction. The government could do so much better. It could not do any worse than what it is currently doing.

Instead of systematically rejecting any amendments or proposals made by key witnesses, the government should work with the opposition to improve these famous bills, like it did, as though with a knife to its throat, for Bill C-55.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau and official opposition justice critic, as well as all of my colleagues, in particular the members for Brossard—La Prairie and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who have been working diligently to bring these matters forward.

I want to start by saying that we support this bill because we have the public good at heart. Respect for privacy, accountability, proper oversight, the rule of law and respect for the Constitution and the charter are extremely important to us.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek noted that the government has moved time allocation close to 30 times. Time allocation is not used in committee, but causes that we espouse are systematically rejected along with many amendments that we bring forward. A climate of co-operation does not usually prevail.

Things were different this time as far as co-operation goes. However, the government had a knife to its throat, so to speak, because of the looming April 13 deadline. In R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court directed the government to provide safeguards related to the authority to intercept communications. The Court declared that interceptions made under section 184.4 without a prior court authorization were unconstitutional.

The bill requires the Minister of Public Safety and the attorney general of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. It furthers provides that any person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. It narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

I would remind the House that this new Bill C-55 is simply an updated version of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. New privacy safeguards have been put in place. We believe the bill meets the standards in this area.

The Conservatives have a less-than-stellar record when it comes to privacy. That is why we took steps to ensure that this bill respected as much as possible the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill comes on the heels of the Conservatives’ abject failure with Bill C-30. This piece of legislation failed to meet the charter test because it was not properly crafted.

The Conservative government is making a desperate attempt to comply by the April 13, 2013 deadline with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse.

Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code provides for safeguards, notifications and reports. Firstly it would require that a person whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified within 90 days. Secondly, it would require that annual reports be produced on the use of wiretapping under section 184.4. These amendments would limit the authority of police officers to use these provisions and would limit interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

The problem is that the current section 184.4 violates section 8 of the charter. Not enough thought went into it. It does not contain accountability measures to ensure proper oversight of police officers as they exercise the authority conferred upon them.

The court therefore called for some accountability measures which were introduced in Bill C-55. Among other things, this is the reason why we support this legislation.

I would now like to turn my attention to the prior notification requirement. The bill also requires that persons who are the object of interceptions be notified. Section 195 also makes it a requirement to report to Parliament, including producing reports on the use of interceptions under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

For all of these reasons, we will be voting in favour of the bill because it attempts to strike a balance between personal freedoms and public safety considerations. However, the question is why it took the government so long to act. Bill C-55 is a step in the right direction, but why is the government not working together with the opposition at all times to resolve problems and improve proposed legislation?

Where justice is concerned, our priority is ensuring respect for the rule of law, for Canada’s Constitution and for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not for any political agenda.

Michael Spratt from the Criminal Lawyers' Association testified in committee in March 2011. He supported this bill. He felt that it was fair and constitutional and did an admirable job of incorporating the Supreme Court of Canada's comments from R. v. Tse. Mr. Spratt confirmed that the recurring theme is the balance between the protection of the public and the protection of privacy.

The Canadian Bar Association submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also indicated that, overall, the CBA is in favour of the amendments the bill proposes to comply with the ruling in R. v. Tse.

A representative of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Raji Mangat, also said that this is a sensible and necessary privacy bill. She is pleased that Bill C-55 limits the application of warrantless wiretapping to circumstances in which the goal is to prevent the commission of an offence.

The notice requirement provides transparency and serves as an essential check on this extraordinary power to intercept communications without judicial authorization. This bill also includes reporting requirements in order to increase oversight in the use of warrantless wiretapping by police.

For all of these reasons, we agree with the committee witnesses that this remedies the problem. The government missed the mark with Bill C-30, but has made the necessary changes.

I am wondering about something and I will end on that note. Why does the government not work with our committee to improve other bills? The government should not just work with the opposition only when the Supreme Court puts a knife to its throat. The government must work with the opposition in the months and years to come. This would be a win-win situation for Canadians, as well as in terms of the rule of law and respect for the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his very good overview of this bill, Bill C-55, particularly the context in which this bill came forward.

I guess the comment and the question I have is that it is really shocking to me that the original bill, Bill C-30, which was brought forward in the House, finally had to be withdrawn because of the massive opposition, both in the House from us, the NDP, and also out in the broader community. People across the country rallied against that bill. It was commonly known as “spying on the Internet”. It was a bill that was way over the top and, of course, we all recall the remarks from the Minister of Public Safety at that time.

To me, the bill that is before us today serves as a very good example of why an opposition, and Parliament itself, is so important. If we had not been here, that original bill would have been rammed through by the government. It did everything it could to try to put pressure to put the bill forward. However, because of the massive public reaction, the government had to finally stand down.

I wonder if the member would comment on that. To me, it serves as an example of what the role of this Parliament, and the opposition, is all about.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi. I know the member well because I serve on two committees with him.

I am very pleased to speak again in the House on the NDP's views on this piece of legislation, Bill C-55. It would amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court ruling referenced several times here this morning in previous speeches.

The point that has to be reiterated is that this is all coming about with a very few days remaining to meet the deadline that was provided to the House by the Supreme Court. It stayed a decision for a year to give the government the opportunity to bring forward an improvement to legislation that is much needed. We have supported this legislation throughout the process, although we found the process daunting because of the delay that took place in getting it here. We supported the government because it is an important tool for our police services in this country.

However, on the counter side of that, it is very important for the official opposition to look cautiously at any legislation that authorizes people to look into people's lives in the manner that this would. This enactment seeks to amend Canada's Criminal Code, and the Supreme Court ruling talked about the need for safeguards for Canadians, because this allows for authorized, and I want to stress the word “authorized”, interception of private communications, done prior to judicial authorization as foreseen in section 184.4 of the act.

It is worth noting that the enactment states that 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;

and

provides that a person who has been the object of such interception must be notified...within a specified period;...

The assumption is that those persons have not been found to be taking part in any criminal activity, and thus they have every right to be informed; and if they were involved with criminal activity and are part of an ongoing investigation, there could be an extension.

It narrowed the class of individuals who could actually make such interceptions, and those limited interceptions to particular offences are listed.

I was speaking a few moments ago about the fact that we are within three weeks of a deadline supplied to us by the Supreme Court. There was the benefit of a year from the Supreme Court to act on this, and the government has not done so until the very last minute. I have to question what the delay is. Why did it take close to a year for the government to respond to this? This was not a great difficulty, from the standpoint that the Supreme Court identified the areas in which the government had to make changes.

I would go so far as to say that when any government or any party in government looks to put forward legislation, a significant part of the process is debate in this place. Another significant part is the opportunity for all parties to come together, which we did in the instance of Bill C-55 at committee, to look at it, to hear witness testimony, to do those things necessary to offer any piece of legislation the due diligence necessary to make it as good as we possibly could. That is the concern over the timeframe, the concern over the fact that we had a couple of days to try to do things that could have well extended beyond, had we brought in more witnesses. It is troubling because that impedes the due diligence we have to administer on behalf of those people who sent us to this place.

I tend to repeat myself in my remarks, because that troubled me to the degree that I felt it was worth repeating.

There have been other times in this place that the opportunity to debate and to consider various bills has been impeded. I would ask how many times the Conservative government has moved time allocation on bills. It is not the delay just in this particular bill, but in other bills. We must be closing in on 30 times that it has occurred in this Parliament. It has to be close to that by now. I hear other members agreeing.

We have seen budget bills and other legislation affecting services, which Canadians rely on, shut down or extremely limited by the Conservatives, at what appears to be almost every opportunity. It stifles the opportunity for us to make those bills better. It stifles the opportunity we have as members to point out what they have done well and what they have done not up to the standards Canadians expect. We get to do that in this public forum. That has been curtailed too many times.

Once again, that is part of my concern with this bill, Bill C-55, and how it got to committee after such a delay. It has the potential of impacting ordinary Canadians in a very negative way if the protections of which the Supreme Court has spoken to us were not put into place.

Bill C-55 is simply an updated version of wiretapping provisions the Supreme Court previously deemed unconstitutional. That is quite a statement when we think about it. Fortunately again for the House, the Supreme Court set the parameters of what it saw as the need to protect Canadians' rights.

I have to say that Canadians have good reason to be concerned about privacy legislation that comes out of the government. To date the government has not had what I see as a good record in that area. It is not encouraging at all.

There is an obligation on the official opposition to work for the public good in upholding the rule of law, our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was in February 2012 that the Conservative government tabled Bill C-30. Members will recall that gave authorities the power to access personal information in a way to which the Supreme Court responded.

It raised very serious concerns across the country, as I recall, about personal privacy and fundamental rights. That was due to the manner in which it was constructed and the powers it was seeking to give out. I will add that it was kind of a compilation of previous bills that have been before this House, Bill C-50, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 from a previous parliamentary session. The Conservatives were attempting to build on the original legislation from 1999 to provide public safety authorities with extensive surveillance powers over digital information. As I said a moment ago, there was a significant backlash from the people of Canada in regard to this.

Now we have the government with these much-needed changes, I will commend the government. It reached across to us in the committee. We did work better on that bill than we did on some others in the past. If we did not meet the deadline or the provisions required by the Supreme Court, then these emergency powers would be thrown out.

I began my remarks talking about the need for police officials of our country to apply these. In this particular case, these provisions are intended to happen at the worst possible time, when somebody is under physical threat of injury or harm. It was important for us to go a little deeper into it.

I am looking for what really needs to be summarized here, and that is the fact that our role is to ensure that the privacy rights of Canadians are balanced with the police officials' needs to investigate, particularly in a time where someone is under the threat of physical harm. I have to say that, working together, I believe we accomplished that. Thus, we will be supporting this bill.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, these are important measures, and it is vital that police officers have the tools and measures they need to take action in situations where they could save a life. At the same time, when the need to obtain a warrant is removed, it is truly important to have a system of accountability in place to ensure that those powers are not abused.

Bill C-55 also requires that within 90 days, people be informed that their messages or private communications have been intercepted.

Personally, I would not like my messages to be intercepted without my knowledge. I think this is a serious problem. We need these measures to ensure that section 184.4 is consistent with what is in the charter.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know this government has very little respect for privacy. We have seen this in the speeches made by my colleagues here, and in the bills this government has introduced. We also see that it has little respect for the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to Canadians. From time to time, it introduces bills that are at odds with the Constitution.

I am very happy that this time, it decided to comply with the provisions of the charter and amend the Criminal Code so that section 184.4 protects individuals’ privacy, as guaranteed by the charter.

We know that section 184.4 applies to the interception of private communications, and the Supreme Court recently ruled on this subject. Bill C-55 adds measures that would require persons whose private communications have been intercepted to be so informed at least 90 days after the interception, and reports to be produced annually.

These measures are essential. The fact is that when you take away the need to obtain a warrant in order to intercept private communications in extreme situations where a life is in danger, it is important that there be oversight, with a system in place so that we know what happened and why someone found it so important to intercept those private communications without a warrant.

The NDP understands how important it is for the police to have the tools to respond appropriately in dangerous situations, but at the same time, we cannot neglect the rights entrenched in the charter. Even in cases involving criminals, even in extreme cases, we have to respect the law as it stands. We have to respect the principles of Canadian law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. It is essential.

While I am happy that this government is finally respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in adopting these measures, I should emphasize that this government, given the espionage agenda we saw with Bill C-30 and with Bill C-12, amended this bill to make it consistent with the charter only after being compelled to do so by a Supreme Court justice. So this was not something it decided to do on its own; it was an obligation flowing from the Supreme Court decision. If this government truly had the interests of Canadians at heart, it would have done this itself, instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

It should also be noted that this bill was introduced as the government was announcing the death of Bill C-30, which enabled designated persons, who were none too clearly defined, to gain access to personal information without a warrant and without judicial oversight.

Once again, this government tried to go after personal information, and to treat all law-abiding Canadians as criminals, with no warrant or judicial oversight. If this government wanted to, it would have said that it is important, when looking for information without a warrant, to have a reporting mechanism or something of the kind, so that people are accountable, that personal information is sought only in extreme cases, and that law-abiding people are not treated as criminals, in contrast to what Bill C-30 proposed.

While Bill C-55, following the Supreme Court decision, ensures respect for section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when private communications are intercepted, Bill C-30 introduced measures that were inconsistent with the right we are guaranteed under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be protected against unreasonable search or seizure.

There were two bills. The first was withdrawn, and I am very happy about that. Canadians are also very happy that the government decided not to continue with Bill C-30. The second bill says that Bill C-30 was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hope the government will realize to what extent its own bill, its espionage agenda—I am going to call it that because this is not the first time we have seen attempts of this kind—seriously affected the protections Canadians are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The people of Canada were opposed to the measures contained in Bill C-30. The government accused its opponents of siding with pedophiles. I was myself accused of being a friend to pedophiles because I opposed that bill, like millions of Canadians right across the country. It has nothing to do with being friends to pedophiles, and everything to do with believing in the protection of Charter rights and in the content of our Constitution. It is absolutely essential to protect the provision set out in section 8 of the charter. We cannot go against it, and the Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that.

If Bill C-30 had been passed, it would have empowered designated persons, again not specified, and selected by the minister, to require Internet service providers to supply names, IP addresses and email addresses without a warrant and without judicial oversight. The Supreme Court decision demonstrates the necessity at all costs of protecting the privacy of Canadians, and shows that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter are not negotiable, contrary to what this government thinks. I trust it has learned its lesson.

I mentioned this already, and I would like to say it again. It seems that a little more reflection is needed on this. The government introduced Bill C-12, which still has not been debated, but which also contains measures regarding surveillance without a warrant. Instead of explicitly saying that it would allow the collection of personal information without a warrant, this bill expands the definition of people who have access to that information and who can consult Internet service providers, based on a vague, sketchy definition. The Privacy Commissioner even raised some concerns about that clause, which was included in the bill.

The mandate for online spying that the government has given itself is not finished. I hope the government has learned its lesson and that, in light of the Supreme Court decision regarding the proposal in Bill C-55, it will drop any attempts to spy on Canadians online, when they are obeying the law.

I want to emphasize that the government cannot cast such a wide net and treat all Canadians like criminals when they are online. Of course, there are criminals and people who disobey the law, and it is important that police officers have the tools they need to intervene. That said, the government cannot contravene the charter. It must respect all rights and liberties guaranteed in the charter.

Once again, I really hope the government has learned its lesson and that it will scrap its plan to spy on people online.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. I will be splitting my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Finally, we have a helpful, useful intervention by the government, a crime bill we can support, not one laced with poison pills. That owes to the circumstances under which the bill comes before the House. It is really the force of circumstances in the form of a Supreme Court imposed deadline operating here, serving in a sense to take the matter out of the government's control.

It is the Supreme Court that has forced this amendment by way of its ruling in R. v. Tse, a case that dates back to April 2012. The case involved the issue of unauthorized wiretapping and, in response to the constitutional challenges raised, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that such a practice could be considered constitutional if the matter were authorized properly by way of legislation. Therefore, the Supreme Court gave the government some time to figure this out, a year in fact, and Bill C-55 is the response. It represents the government's effort to ensure such unauthorized interceptions of private communications be done constitutionally, and it succeeds.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide required clarity, oversight and accountability to the rules with respect to wiretapping in circumstances alleged to be too urgent for prior judicial authorization. Oversight and accountability do not come easily to the government, so it is encouraging to see the bill in Parliament. In fact, it is something just short of a miracle perhaps in light of the progenitor to this bill, Bill C-30.

The history of Bill C-55 is interesting and worthy of comment. Indeed, it explains why the bill is before us at the 11th hour, and indeed the last minute thereof, to boot.

The Supreme Court decision that we are discussing today was rendered a year ago, and yet here we are rushing this through before the April 13 deadline, which is looming. I will not be too critical of that because the timing of the bill is very much linked to the content of it and, frankly, what would make it succeed and be worthy of our support. It is the urgency of the circumstances that seem to have rendered the bill uncharacteristically brief and straightforward. It is in a twisted and counterintuitive way that we perhaps owe the Minister of Public Safety some thanks for his tendency to a debating style that is reductionist in the extreme and that very often ends up posing distorted binary options. It is usually some framing of the issue that places sympathy for victims in opposition to a respect for civil liberties and constitutional freedoms. The case in point today was the minister's claim that people were either with the government or with the child pornographers.

That was the framing for the now dead Bill C-30, the so-called “lawful access bill”. I call it the case in point because Bill C-30 was really the government's first crack at responding to the Supreme Court's invitation to put in place a legislative framework that would render constitutional the unauthorized interception of private communications. However, it was both and alarming and cynical overreach that attempted to exploit all of our disgust and abhorrence for terrible crimes against children in an effort to bully Canadians into giving up their right to privacy in online communications.

It was dubbed the “protecting children from Internet predators act”. That bill would have allowed law enforcement agencies to access Canadians' personal information without a warrant at virtually any time for virtually any reason. It would have given the minister and the government unprecedented powers to access information and to force telecom, Internet, telephone and wireless providers to allow the government to spy on customers. Bill C-30 would have effectively criminalized all Canadians.

That is the legislation the Minister of Public Safety brought to Parliament a little over a year ago when he thought he had a bit of time to play games with the legislation. That is what the Conservative government thought was reasonable: unlimited and unaccountable access to private communication. Luckily, Canadians, Canadian privacy commissioners and civil society organizations were watching, and they did not like what was being proposed. Also lucky was the minister exceeded even himself with offensive hyperbole and sabotaged his own bill in the process. Yes, it is for that and that alone in a strange way that we owe the minister some thanks.

The lesson of Bill C-30, of course, is not lost on anyone. It is that with time to play and left to its own devices, the government will gladly snatch from Canadians their right to privacy. Therefore, we can be sure that Canadians are watching and guarding that right very closely, as are we. Thankfully, this bill is a far cry from Bill C-30. It stands in contrast and, in fact, is short, simple, direct and straightforward.

The task to be accomplished by way of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to comply with the Supreme Court's 2012 order to change section 184.4 of the code to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to lose it. Section 184.4, as it is currently written, allows peace officers to intercept private communications in emergency situations where the officer or officers have reasonable grounds to believe the situation is one of imminent harm to life or property. The urgency of such situations necessitates actions before the proper judicial authorization can be obtained. There are times when this is an appropriate action that can prevent crime and protect Canadians and for this reason section 184.4 exists.

Where it has fallen short up to now is in the area of accountability, largely. Two things have been missing: first, a system of oversight to inform Canadians of when and how this legislation is used; and, second, a requirement to notify individuals whose communications have been intercepted within a period of time defined within the bill. The court found in the R. v. Tse decision that this gap in the legislation constituted a violation of the charter.

Bill C-55 would close this gap, perhaps not perfectly but through the use of four mechanisms. First, the bill would require that the Minister of Public Safety and provincial Attorneys General to make public a report on the use of section 184.4 to intercept private communications on an annual basis. Second, the bill would require that persons whose communications had been intercepted must be notified of the interception within a given period of time. Third, the bill would narrow the definition of who could conduct this surveillance and would change it from “peace officers” to “police officers”. Finally, the bill would specify the list of offences for which section 184.4 could be invoked to those offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

These four will result in an improvement to the section of the code that serves to both limit the use of warrantless wiretapping to certain individuals, circumstances and offences and to increase the accountability in cases where it is invoked. The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken on the issue and Bill C-55 is Parliament's answer and, in the our view, the right one. Enhanced accountability and transparency is something the NDP will always support.

We know from experience where a lack of oversight and accountability takes us. We get massive omnibus bills, tax bills and omnibus crime bills passed at the last minute, with no time for parliamentarians to vet legislation, as our constituents rightly expect us to do. We get bills like Bill C-30, which outraged the public, and the minister managed to shame himself in that process.

Bill C-55 would revive at least a bit of what the government had run over and left for dead, which is accountability, by requiring the Minister of Public Safety to report annually to Parliament on the use of section 184.4 and the frequency of warrantless wiretaps in emergency situations. It would also require provincial Attorneys General to make this information public as well.

This is the kind of legislation we need, not the kind that gives cabinet ministers or other officials unprecedented powers but one that upholds Canadian law and increases accountability of police to the public. This why my colleagues and I in the NDP will support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is very interesting about the Supreme Court decision is that it says that the rule of law still applies in this country, even when dealing with criminal matters, despite the Conservative government's attitude sometimes. The Conservatives seem to believe that if they throw the word “criminal” out there, they can suspend all manner of civil liberties and due process.

In the act on the issue of warrantless wiretaps, the reasonable choice is that if police officers believe that a life is at stake or that a crime is being committed, they can obtain that data. However, they are accountable. Later on there has to be a written record of how it was used so that we know that this was not some personal vendetta or wild goose hunt.

Bill C-55 is very narrow in its definition. I think the Conservatives were forced to be narrow in their definition, because the Supreme Court held them to account. Compare that to Bill C-30, with which the government was looking to obtain all manner of information on Canadians on the Internet. The Conservatives would have allowed the minister, under section 34, to designate persons as inspectors who could go to a telecom operation, but they did not describe what those inspectors were. They could be police officers. They could be political staffers for all we knew. They were writing into the bill a wide variety of opportunities to throw as wide a net as possible to go after ordinary Canadian citizens.

The Supreme Court says that even in the case of dealing with criminal activity, the rule of law has to be in place. Whether on this bill or on deporting landed immigrants with crimes of six months without any due process, what does it say about a government that is that uninterested in the basic rule of law that has made Canada the democracy it is?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, alternatively cited as the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse Act.

My colleague and our public safety critic, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, outlined why this bill is necessary in his original remarks in the House. I will not go back and quote those reasons, but he certainly outlined very extensively why the bill was necessary and why we are now supporting Bill C-55 to overcome the problems that were actually created by the government itself in bringing in Bill C-30 and by the remarks of the minister at the time, which the previous speaker talked about, which created such great controversy in the country.

I might mention as well that about two weeks ago the member for Winnipeg Centre spoke at length on the fact that government bills are not reviewed by legal counsel to see if they meet the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He raised raised a point of privilege, in fact. What he was talking about, and I agree with him, was this regime's lack of testing legislation against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have a Senate made up a majority of senators appointed by this Prime Minister. More senators have been appointed by this Prime Minister than any prime minister in Canadian history. It has become as if the senators who are appointed are loyal to the Prime Minister, and they are not doing their work as a sober second thought. The Senate is almost a rubber stamp to the government.

The next safeguard, as the member for Winnipeg Centre said, is the courts in the country, not only the Supreme Court but other courts as well. Legislation passed in this place, which we as members assume has been tested by Department of Justice legal counsel and others to see if it meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in fact has not been. Then legislation is in fact tossed back, and that is in part why we are dealing with this particular bill today.

We know we have a problem with the way the government operates in introducing legislation without first having it tested by legislative counsel on how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to it, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your role as speaker you will be coming forward with a decision on what the member for Winnipeg Centre raised in his point of privilege on that matter.

I will get into the specifics of the bill in a moment. This bill, or rather the need for this bill, is symbolic of what is wrong with how this place is now functioning under the guidance of the current regime. I would call it the undermining of our democracy.

There are several areas that I have to mention. First, as noted, the government brings forward legislation that we know now has not been tested, as it is supposed to be tested, in terms of how it applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, without that application, it is definitely going to make more unnecessary work for the courts further down the line.

Second, in this place we see omnibus bills put forward with almost everything in them but the kitchen sink. As a result, parliamentarians are unable to take all the parts of a bill to the appropriate committee where members of Parliament who have taken on the responsibilities for specific issues—and I would not call them experts, but they are knowledgeable in those areas—can test that legislation. Instead, these omnibus bills coming forward cover so many areas that Parliament is not given the proper discourse, discussion and debate to find any problems, as we have seen is needed in this specific bill.

Third, another aspect we have seen all the time with this regime in the undermining of democracy is the use of closure. The government only allows a bit of debate and prevents the representatives of the people from doing the proper analysis and research and coming forward with amended legislation. It has introduced more closure motions to limit debate in its short term as a majority government than any government in Canadian history.

Our critic for justice has put forward all kinds of amendments for justice bills, but because they are coming from an opposition party, the government ignores them. It does not accept amendments mainly put forward by opposition parties, even when the amendments make improvements to the bill. That is a problem.

I see the parliamentary secretary for international trade shaking his head over there.

There is another undermining of democracy that does not necessarily show in the bill but that is clearly a problem around this place: at the committee level, when we move motions in committee, whatever they may be, the Conservative regime moves the committee in camera, in secret, so that Canadians cannot even see the simple debate on a motion as simple as asking the minister to come before a committee. What do the Conservatives have to hide? It is another aspect of the undermining of democracy.

The last point I want to make before I get to the specifics of the bill is with respect to the Senate. As I said a moment ago, the Senate has become a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister, because he has appointed most of the senators. I know that my senator is not even a resident of the province and region that he is supposed to be representing, which is a constitutional requirement. However, my key point with respect to the Senate is this: it is no longer the body of sober second thought; it is almost a rubber stamp to what the government does.

I make all those points on the undermining of democracy to point out that for bills such as Bill C-55, it is the undermining of democracy that allows a bill that does not meet the tests of the courts to be passed and become law in this country.

I will now go to the specifics of the bill. I would like to quote from a Library of Parliament report. As the House knows, the Library of Parliament does very good research. I want to quote from its report, because it is the best there is in terms of a summary.

Its report on the bill states:

On November 18, 2011, the SCC heard an appeal in the case of R. v. Tse concerning the constitutionality of the emergency wiretap provisions. In this case, police used s. 184.4 to carry out warrantless wiretaps when the daughter of an alleged kidnapping victim began receiving calls from her father stating he was being held for ransom. Approximately 24 hours later, the police received judicial authorization to carry out the wiretaps. The trial judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that s. 184.4 contravened the Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.... The decision was appealed by the Crown directly to the SCC.

The Supreme Court then believed in its decision that section 184.4

...strikes a reasonable balance between an individual's right to freedom from unreasonable searches and society's interest in preventing serious harm, insofar as it allows warrantless interceptions to be used only in exigent circumstances. However, the Court found that in its present form, s. 184.4 violates s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It was the lack of any accountability measures, particularly notice to persons whose communications have been intercepted, that proved fatal. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the SCC suspended its declaration of invalidity for 12 months

—in other words, giving time for this place to deal with it appropriately—

to allow Parliament to make it constitutionally compliant by adding safeguards.

That is the background on what happened. The Government of Canada had previously passed legislation allowing those warrantless wiretaps, and the Supreme Court is basically saying that safeguards need to be put in place.

To summarize what the safeguards in the bill are and why we support it, the safeguards are basically these: the bill 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. That is a good step.

The bill provides that a person who has been the object of such interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period, and I will get into that in a moment as well.

The bill narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception.

Finally, the bill limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, Bill C-55 adds three major safeguards to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. It first restricts the use. It narrows the offences for which the wiretapping can be used, and they are spelled out in sections in the bill. Second, it names specifically the category of the people who can use those measures. Basically it narrows the category of people who can use it to police officers only. Previously it was debatable as to which people with authority could introduce wiretaps. It might be fisheries guardians or others who do not have formal training in the law or on the seriousness of wiretapping measures. The third point is that wiretapping measures could only be used to prevent an offence as listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

One of the most important questions for our party, for Liberals, going into committee consideration of this bill was why the use of section 184.4 would be limited to the offences listed in section 183. It was done despite the Supreme Court of Canada's advice to the contrary.

The Supreme Court specifically said:

There may be situations that would justify interceptions under s.184.4 for unlawful acts not enumerated in s.183.

However, the minister, to his credit, and department officials testified that this change was necessary to bring section 184.4 more in line with the rest of part IV. The change was also supported by a witness from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, who said that the narrower any provision of the Criminal Code can be, the better.

The definition of “police officer”, which we had a concern about, was also discussed at committee at length. The term “police officer” is obviously preferable to “peace officer”, for reasons that I think are pretty clear. It is not as broad. It is narrow.

However, committee members sought assurances that the definition of “police officer” in Bill C-55 could not be construed to include private security guards or mall cops, as they are called, for example. The minister clarified that this term has been interpreted a number of times by the courts. Therefore, it is not security guards, mall cops or commissionaires; it is Sûreté du Québec, Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP, and provincial law enforcement agents.

We accept the interpretation by the minister. We think, therefore, that the bill should be allowed to pass, because the minister, in his interpretation, is quite narrowly focused on what a police officer is. They are the only ones, in our understanding, who would have the ability to authorize the use of this power.

In the time I have left, it may be important, I think, to go back and review one of the key points, which is why the Supreme Court of Canada made the decision it did and to look at the safeguards put in place as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

Clearly, the Supreme Court, in its original ruling, basically said that there was a serious lack of accountability in the use of the warrantless wiretaps. It recommended that notice be given to the subject of an interception and that the notice be provided after the fact. That is kind of standard procedure. It happens in other areas with wiretaps.

Bill C-55, therefore, would require that either the Minister of Public Safety or the relevant provincial Attorney General provide notice of the interception, in writing, within 90 days of the day the interception occurred.

Extensions could be granted, but those would certainly be, in the case of ongoing interceptions, if it related to organized crime or to terrorism.

The other important point, and I will close on this point, is that reports from ministers at the provincial level or at the Attorney General level within the province, or from the Minister of Public Safety, ultimately—whoever is responsible—on the number of interceptions made under section 184.4, the number of notifications given and a general description of the methods of interception used for each of those interceptions must be tabled in the House and in others if it is their jurisdiction, outlining what those are.

For all those reasons outlined above, we, as a party, will be supporting Bill C-55, which we believe overcomes the concern of the Supreme Court of Canada as it relates to warrantless wiretaps.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with his question, my colleague from Sherbrooke put his finger on the problem that resulted in the introduction of Bill C-55. It is very clear; it is obvious. The government can indeed say that Bill C-30 was withdrawn as a result of public pressure because that is true. I hope those who are watching us right now are happy realizing that it is possible to take action together when something is as absurd as Bill C-30. The problem was so obvious that it was extremely easy to raise a public reaction.

I cannot repeat it enough: section 184.4, which the government is trying to save following the decision in R. v. Tse, appears in a part entitled “Invasion of Privacy”. This is an exception provided for in the Criminal Code for extremely specific cases.

When the government, through the Minister of Public Safety, introduced Bill C-30, it launched an attack against anyone who would dare say anything against the bill. We were off to a very bad start. That behaviour triggered a popular movement such as we rarely see in matters concerning the federal government.

I said that my colleague from Sherbrooke had put his finger on the problem. For several hours now, we have been debating that deficiency, which was reported by a government employee, a Department of Justice lawyer concerned about the orders he was receiving from his superiors and his department. When a compatibility analysis of government or Senate legislation is needed, public servants are asked to cut corners.

This is an allegation. As a lawyer, I take note. Thus far, it is strictly an allegation, not a proven fact. However, it has to raise serious doubts. If we take our role as legislators seriously, this should immediately raise red flags.

Make no mistake about it: the problem with Bill C-30 was so obvious that the government decided to reverse course. We are not used to that with a government such as the Conservative government. The government is not very humble when it comes to admitting its mistakes. This is a major admission, and I believe a mea culpa is absolutely in order.

However, this situation raises the question that my colleague from Sherbrooke asked. Bill C-30 should never have passed the charter compatibility test. Is that clear enough? The government was bent on saying that that bill was the way to solve all surveillance-related problems, pedophilia-related problems and whatever other problems. It had cast a wide net.

It did not take a brilliant legal mind to realize that there were serious problems of invasion of privacy. It did not take a brilliant legal mind to realize that the government had to be stopped and told that Bill C-30 would not pass a court test. It did not even solve the problem raised in R. v. Tse. It was very broad. Thank goodness the government reversed course.

However, the question remains: how did this bill pass the compatibility test, which is mandatory? It is not the official opposition, the NDP, that says so, but rather the Department of Justice Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They provide that no legislation shall be introduced in the House where there are serious and reasonable doubts as to its constitutionality or compatibility with the charter. Bill C-30 is the most striking evidence that there is a problem somewhere in the Department of Justice in transmitting this analysis which has been conducted for the benefit of the Minister of Justice. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I am not saying that his intention is to mislead the House. Telling us that this is the way things have been done since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force is not a compelling reason to say everything is fine. It is not fine at all, and no one seems very concerned about it. They just coast along, hoping that cases will not wind up in court.

I moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to strike a committee that would analyze the question and assess the kind of directives that could be given so that legislators in the House could determine whether their role was being properly fulfilled. The question was discussed for two days, and I have to say that a Conservative colleague considered siding with us because he agreed that this was important. It does not matter whether we are left-leaning or not, everything must be done properly and we must take the time to examine the bill, failing which we may cast doubt on all bills introduced in the House.

Every colleague who sits on a committee must question the minister on the kinds of studies that have been done to ensure compatibility with the charter and the Constitution of Canada. We have some doubts that this is being done properly. Even a Conservative nearly gave in. Probably two days elapsed before he was intercepted by the party's higher powers, who told him not to get involved. The official response was that it had been done like that since the time the Liberals were in power. To me, it is no excuse to say that we can do something wrong because someone else did it just as wrong. I believe there has to be a readjustment, and Bill C-30 was a good example of that.

Bill C-55 has been introduced. I want this to be clear in people's minds: Bill C-55 is much more limited than Bill C-30, and it caused a shake-up when it comes to wiretapping and invasion of privacy.

Why did the official opposition go along with the minister and the government, who had to pass Bill C-55 at the eleventh hour? The decision in R. v. Tse is like Damocles' sword. The Court gave the government until April 13, 2013, to make the changes required by the ruling in R. v. Tse. As a result of the decision, section 184.4 had to go.

Some people, like me, truly believe in human rights and the importance of privacy and rights that are protected by the charter. I also believe that we must have this kind of provision in a free and democratic society such as ours. At the time, section 184.4 stated:

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;

Therefore, he must have reasonable grounds to believe that the urgency of the situation is such that it is impossible for this peace officer to obtain an authorization on the basis provided for in this section.

I will continue reading section 184.4:

(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.

This section is very important in the context of police work. In addition, it is applied in exceptional circumstances. However, in R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court of Canada held that there were problems of accountability and that it was very likely, when applying section 184.4, that there was no reference to the fact that the person who has been the subject of a wiretap must be notified. A person could have been wiretapped without ever knowing it because they were never taken to court or charges were never laid against them.

That was the only way individuals would know they had been wiretapped and a communication intercepted.

The Supreme Court said:

In its present form, the provision fails to meet the minimum constitutional standards of section 8 of the Charter.

The Court was referring to minimum standards, minimum constitutional standards to bring section 184.4 into compliance with section 8 of the charter.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

An accountability mechanism is necessary to protect the important privacy interests at stake and a notice provision would adequately meet that need, although Parliament may choose an alternative measure for providing accountability.

The Supreme Court of Canada also considered whether section 184.4 was meant for not only police officers, but also what are known as peace officers.

Once again, I encourage people to read the definition of “peace officers”, which is several pages long. It includes municipal mayors, meter readers, and much more. Pretty much anyone who moves and has an official public service title falls under the definition of “peace officer”.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on this because it was not the subject of the argument or evidence before the court.

I am glad that the Minister of Justice took this matter off the Minister of Public Safety's hands. That is one good thing because then he spent some time reading and trying to understand what the Supreme Court of Canada said on April 13, 2012, even though there was not much time left for that.

As an aside, when the parliamentary secretary said that they had done a thorough job of ensuring their bill was constitutional, I had to laugh because, up until February 11, the government's response was Bill C-30. That left very little time to come up with Bill C-55. Maybe that is why the government did not want to take any chances. For once, they figured that they could not be too careful, so they limited the definition of “police officer” and even removed the notion of “peace officer”. They also added accountability mechanisms with respect to the people whose communications are intercepted and to reporting to the House of Commons.

Is it perfect? No, as my Green Party colleague said. That is the conclusion we came to in committee. Much more could have been done. If I had been in charge of drafting this bill, I would probably have added a few things.

However, the House will have to answer this fundamental question. Would we rather get rid of section 184.4 and end up with no provision, or do we think that Bill C-55 answers the questions and carries out the orders of the Supreme Court of Canada?

To us, the answer was very clear. Some witnesses even came to tell us that they supported the bill. The Canadian Bar Association, the CLA, the groups that sent us briefs: they all agreed. Would they have added some additional provisions regarding the reports? The Supreme Court of Canada never said that Parliament should receive reports regarding the attorney general of Canada or the provinces. However, we looked into it and examined this issue. It is not easy, because it is difficult to move forward if there is no discussion.

This bill was rushed. Normally, if things were done properly, we would have taken the year that the Supreme Court gave us to consult and see what could have been done better, to see whether the provinces were with us and whether they had a problem with sending us the reports that they will have to provide. All of this was clear to us.

People in committee were clearly asked whether Bill C-55 in its current form was a suitable response to R. v. Tse.

The context in which the court only asked the person whose communications were intercepted to provide notice within a certain time, without specifying that time limit, fully meets the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada. Furthermore, time limits were specified and the concept of a peace officer dropped.

For once, things were properly anticipated. This does not mean that there will not be any challenges. On the other hand, the witnesses we heard said that these kinds of provisions are not applied often.

Yesterday, the Green Party member said that it would perhaps be necessary to withdraw the proposed amendment. I am relieved to hear this, because we were told the same thing in committee. A 24 hour time limit was suggested. It becomes difficult when you begin to examine these criteria. The danger is the tendency to treat situations that are not dealt with consistently in every part of the country the same.

Here in Gatineau, it is probably much easier to obtain the authorization of a judge than in a more remote part of Canada where a judge may not be present at all times.

Clearly the provision is only applicable if it is impossible to obtain authorization within a reasonable time period. The basic rule in terms of interception of communications will still be to obtain authorization and to have reasonable grounds for the wiretap. Furthermore, the person doing the wiretapping will have to explain why.

As a result of the amendments, there is now an obligation to inform the person under section 184.4. If a person, whether or not that person has been charged, feels that his or her privacy has been completely invaded, recourse is possible and the police agency in question will have to defend its decision.

However, even the experts tell us that this provision is not used frequently. The expert on the committee reported that there had not been any requirement of this kind for almost six years. Sometimes things need to be placed in perspective.

While I do not want to lecture anyone, I am going to do so anyway. I seriously believe that the government should be aware of just how dangerous a game this is. The provisions of section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act and section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which anticipate this exercise, are designed to prevent these situations as much as possible.

All lawyers know very well, as I do, that it is sometimes difficult to tell a client that their case is a sure thing. However, if our priorities include decency, prudence and the public good, then we would be reasonably satisfied that this law met the criteria and principles of the charter and the Constitution. We would not raise a point that had only a 5% chance of meeting our constitutional obligations and tell people, as I was told in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that if they are not happy they can take legal action. It really bugs me when I hear things like that.

We are here to help the public and yet we tell them that if they are unhappy about our laws, they should take legal action and claim that there was an infringement of human rights. We already have some serious problems with access to justice. Not everybody is in a position to take legal action.

The government is grateful that we worked with it. However, we did not necessarily work with the government. We worked for Canadians, for the people and for the police forces that have to make use of section 184.4, an essential factor in the exercise of a police officer's duties in investigations. This section could not be allowed to simply disappear solely because the government stubbornly decided to introduce Bill C-30.

I am not at all unhappy that the government backtracked on that. We hope that things will work out better with Bill C-55. This will no doubt not be the last time we have to discuss these invasion of privacy provisions.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

What process must a bill go through in order to obtain the constitutional approval of public servants? Some would say that this process is not as clear or as effective as it should be.

How did Bill C-30 manage to get through that process and make it to the House of Commons, where we immediately saw that it was unconstitutional? How did that bill make it to this House, only to be withdrawn by the Conservatives, who then introduced Bill C-55, which is before us here today?

What was the process and why was such a process needed, when it probably cost taxpayers money since this had to go before the Supreme Court?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague some questions.

I would like to know why the minister waited so long between introducing Bills C-30 and C-55 if we are in such need of a bill like this in Canada.

I would also like to ask him if, like the NDP, he also disagreed with the minister when the minister made very disgraceful comments to the effect that anyone who opposed the original bill was siding with pedophiles.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse act.

Bill C-55 is essential in maintaining the ability of police to protect Canadians from serious harm. It aims to ensure that the police retain their power to conduct wiretap without prior judicial authorization where it is needed immediately to prevent tragedy from occurring. The exceptional authority under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code allows police to proceed to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization when an interception is urgently needed to respond to an imminent threat, such as kidnapping, a bomb or a hostage situation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held, in R. v. Tse, that the authority under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. However, the court suspended its declaration of invalidity until April 13, 2013, in order to allow Parliament to address the constitutional deficiencies of section 184.4. The amendments in the bill would respond to this decision, make 184.4 constitutionally compliant and add some additional limitations and accountability safeguards to use as exceptional authority for situations of imminent harm.

The authority to intercept private communications, under section 184, must be carefully tailored to balance the competing interests of the protection of privacy and the need to act quickly to protect persons and property from serious harm. The amendments to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-55 would ensure needed accountability and transparency, while maintaining essential capability for police to respond swiftly in a critical situation.

Bill C-55 was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has been returned to the House without amendment. I would like to signal that the government greatly appreciates the assistance the House has provided in moving this essential bill forward as quickly as possible, while giving its important proposals due consideration.

To assist in its deliberations, the committee received written submissions from the Canadian Bar Association's national criminal justice section and heard from witnesses representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. I am happy to report that these witnesses expressed support for the main elements of Bill C-55 and made very positive comments on the value and importance of the bill.

I would like to take a few minutes to go over the major components of Bill C-55. As indicated by the bill's title, and as I previously mentioned, the amendments proposed in the bill are needed to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse. In the decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the authority under section 184.4 was unconstitutional, due to the lack of an accountability safeguard such as an after-the-fact notification. Bill C-55 would remedy this constitutional deficiency by adding requirements to the Criminal Code for after-the-fact notification to persons whose private communications have been intercepted under section 184.4. The notice would need to be provided within 90 days, unless an extension was granted by a judge.

In the decision of R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court also suggested that the government might wish to consider adding a reporting requirement, although it was not needed for constitutional compliance. The government is implementing this suggestion in Bill C-55, which proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require detailed annual reporting by the federal minister of public safety and the Attorneys General of the provinces on the use of section 184.4. This requirement essentially mirrors the existing reporting requirement under section 195 of the Criminal Code, which has always been considered an important mechanism to increase transparency in the use of wiretaps. Such annual reports are intended to form the basis for a public evaluation of police use of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-55 also proposes to limit the availability of the authority to wiretap under section 184.4 to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code in place of the broader reference to “any unlawful act”. This limitation was not seen as necessary by the Supreme Court, although it was favoured by the lower court in the Tse decision. The amendment was also commented on favourably by the witnesses who appeared before the committee to discuss the bill. The proposed change to the term “offence” makes for a narrower category of unlawful acts and is consistent with other wiretap authorities in part VI of the Criminal Code, which are also limited to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada also indicated in its decision in R. v. Tse that the government might wish to consider whether the broader category of peace officer under section 2 of the Criminal Code was too broad and whether to restrict the use of section 184.4 to a narrower group of individuals, such as police officers. The Supreme Court observed that this might be beneficial from a constitutional perspective, although it did not rule on this issue. The government agrees with the Supreme Court's suggestion. Accordingly, Bill C-55 restricts the use of section 184.4 to police officers instead of peace officers. As the law presently stands, section 184.4 powers can be used by peace officers, which is a broader category of persons that includes officials such as mayors and reeves as well as fishery guardians and customs and excise officers.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that the proposed definition of “police officer” already exists in the Criminal Code in the context of dealing with forfeiture of proceeds of crime. It also exists in other statutes. It has been judicially interpreted as only including those who are statutorily appointed to carry out duties of preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

Privately hired individuals, such as security guards in shopping malls or office buildings, do not fit within this definition, as they are not statutorily appointed. I should also mention that in looking at section 184.4 of the Criminal Code and the additional restrictions on its use proposed in this bill, it is important to remember that section 184.4 already provides a number of important limitations on its use. It can only be used where other powers are not available due to the urgency of the situation. The interception must be immediately necessary to prevent serious harm, and the communications that are to be intercepted must be those of the victim or the perpetrator. These restrictions, together with the amendments proposed in this bill, would ensure that the use of this exceptional authority is appropriately circumscribed.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has carefully reviewed the bill and supports it. The proposed safeguards and requirements in the bill not only meet but exceed the court's directives for constitutional compliance under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-55.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

moved that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Nuclear Terrorism Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. We have a much better understanding of the scope and importance of this bill, which will finally allow us to sign these international agreements. They should have been signed years ago. This is a good start.

I find it astounding that this bill comes from the Senate. Where was the government all this time? What was it doing? Why did it wait so long, especially since this affects the safety of all Canadians? Thus, it is really important.

This morning someone mentioned an important problem with Bill C-55 and the fact that the Conservative government did not make sure it was complying with the Charter and the Constitution before introducing a bill. In this case, the government made the Senate do the work that it should have done.

I would rather talk about the process of this bill, rather than the essence of the bill. I agree that this bill is very relevant and useful. However, why did it take so long? Why did the Senate have to do all the work? What is the government doing?

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the House appears to be ready for the question, and I will keep my remarks relatively short.

We recognize that Bill C-55 is an interesting bill. I did have the opportunity to speak to it at second reading. It is important we recognize, especially when we look at what has been debated, the whole issue of the Supreme Court and the role it plays and what happens inside the House.

I thought maybe what I would do is reflect a bit on why we have Bill C-55 before us today. Many would argue that we would have to go back to a Supreme Court decision that was made back in April of last year. It was pointed out at that time that section 184.4 was unconstitutional, it infringed upon the rights of particular individuals or had the potential to infringe upon the rights of individuals. It essence, it demanded that the Government of Canada make amendments to the legislation that would allow for things such as due diligence or a better sense of accountability and a better time frame when wiretapping was used.

In listening to the speeches on this, one could easily conclude that it was the Supreme Court of Canada that raised or profiled the issue and as a result of that we now have to make the change. In fact, this is something we have known about for a while now. People could talk about Bill C-31, which was actually introduced back in May 2009. I was not around at the time, but many members were.

That is when the Prime Minister prorogued the House, thereby collapsing and killing the entire legislative agenda. That included Bill C-31. One could talk about Bill C-50. More recent, one could have talked about Bill C-30, another attempt by the government to deal with this issue.

We can recall what took place last year in regard to Bill C-30, and the public outcry that became very apparent because the government had gone too far in terms of politicization and the manner in which it was trying to get into computers, or websites or Internet hookups. The public reacted quickly on the issue.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, the government put its legislation, Bill C-30, on hold, even though there were components in the bill, such as what we are talking about today, that really did need to be addressed. The government had gone somewhat, and I am putting it conservatively, overboard on the legislation. As the result, one could argue, and I would be one of those individuals, that the government has lost an opportunity to deal with other types of crimes that take place.

We talk about the Internet and child exploitation. There is a need for government to do more on that front, but at the end of the day the bill was stopped in its tracks because of the manner it was introduced and the degree to which it would invade the privacy of individuals who wanted to ensure that their rights were protected. As a result, that bill was on hold.

We waited and we waited, as I pointed out. We did not have to wait for the Supreme Court to make a decision, but in essence that is what it has taken for us to see Bill C-55 today. When the minister brought it forward for second reading, I posed the question as to why it took so long to bring forward Bill C-55.

In short, Bill C-55 was deemed necessary because of the government's failure to bring in the appropriate legislation in a more timely fashion. Because it went overboard on other pieces of legislation, it ultimately prevented the need we have today to have it passed. Therefore, the government had to bring in another piece of legislation, which is Bill C-55.

I have two very important quotes that came from the court in the Tse decision.

The first states:

Section 184.4 recognizes that on occasion, the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society — here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

I continue to quote from the court in the Tse decision, which states

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual’s s. 8 Charter rights and society’s interests in preventing serious harm.

This case, which was brought to the Supreme Court, was an appeal by the Crown of the finding of a trial judge that section 184.4 in its current form did in fact violate the charter. As a result, we have the legislation before us.

It is important for us to make note of what the legislation would do in a very real and tangible way. As has been made reference to, it would narrow the scope in terms of individuals who would be able to act on it. For example, the previous legislation allowed a peace office, which would include mayors of local municipalities, to intercept communications. This bill narrows that to say it has to be a police officer.

There is general consensus that police officers are well trained to meet many different needs. One would argue they have an excellent understanding of where and when it would be most appropriate to use this special wiretapping measure.

We could talk about the types of cases that might occur. When someone's life is in danger or there is a kidnapping, there is an argument to be made that if the time required to request authority from a judge to acquire a warrant for this measure puts into jeopardy someone's life, these are exceptional circumstances which would not require a warrant. Under this legislation, a designated police officer would have the authority to allow wiretapping to take place.

The other thing that is fairly significant is it would allow for more accountability. When individuals, provinces or jurisdictions use this method, there is an annual reporting mechanism to report back to the House. We see that as a good accountability aspect.

The time has expired, and we will be looking at passing the bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's speech.

Indeed, the members of the committee carried out an extremely serious review of Bill C-55 since it has to do with intrusion into privacy. It is clearly an extremely important issue.

It is a tad ironic that, under normal circumstances, the government should have conducted this kind of review before being forced by the Supreme Court of Canada to do so. Since this morning, I have said again and again that the reason Bill C-55 is before us is because the Supreme Court of Canada gave the government a grace period of one year to amend section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, which is unconstitutional.

Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act obligates the Minister of Justice to carry out such an exercise before introducing any government legislation, so someone, somewhere, dropped the ball.

My colleague is right to say that public pressure played a big role. Having said that, the bill complies with the Supreme Court decision.

My time has run out and I am not sure that my colleague will have the time to respond. The court, therefore, forced the government to act. Unfortunately, that seems to be too frequently the case.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, today's discussion on Bill C-55 gives me another opportunity to congratulate the government for scrapping its ridiculous Bill C-30. The infamous Bill C-30 claimed to solve all the world's problems, but it showed that the Conservatives are unable to come up with a well-thought-out policy. It has now been replaced by the much more balanced Bill C-55.

The NDP feels that Bill C-55 is a suitable response to the court's demands, because it:

(a) 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;

(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;

(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception; and

(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Of course, we in the NDP support this bill. However, I would like to point out a couple of things to this House. First of all, the Conservatives are forcing us to pass this bill in record time because the Supreme Court gave them until April 13 to amend the legislation. Yet the Supreme Court issued that request a year ago. So why did the minister wait until 20 sitting days before the Supreme Court's deadline to introduce the bill? That is not the most responsible way to treat such an important bill, nor is it a responsible way to govern.

Once again, the Conservatives are clearly trying to do whatever they can to project an image of competence and rational planning, but what we are really seeing in this House is the exact opposite.

The press release on this bill issued by the Minister of Justice states that, “the introduction of this legislation is part of the government’s plan for safe streets and communities....”

The Conservatives must really take Canadians for fools. Everyone knows that this bill is the result of a request from the Supreme Court. They did not really have a choice, and this is not the result of government policy. In fact, the government revealed its policy in Bill C-30, which was not at all what Canadians wanted, and the government had to back down.

It is nice to see that a good plan has been put forward, since the previous plan was so flawed.

In addition, the minister has the audacity to ask for our unconditional support of this bill.

I am sorry, but I am proud to say that my NDP colleagues and I will never give our unconditional support to a bill without thoroughly studying it first. We know just how irresponsible this government can be and we have seen its lack of respect for laws and justice. We also know that it is not very good at prior consultation.

Contrary to this government's irresponsible attitude, the NDP always wants to study anything, like this bill, that will have an impact on society, unlike the minister who views the formalities and procedures for complying with the Constitution and charter as luxuries. The NDP and I are aware of the public's concerns about wiretapping. We understand that very well, given that this government bases its position on vengeance and punishment rather than on justice.

After a rigorous study, we believe that this bill complies with the Supreme Court's decision. It even goes beyond that and strikes a genuine balance between personal freedom and public safety. This is a refreshing finding, particularly when we see how the Conservatives improvise here in the House from day to day. So this is a breath of fresh air, and the result of everything the public has done to combat Bill C-30. That was utterly incredible.

This also shows that, when the public mobilizes, it can force the government to do its job right.

The power to wiretap in emergencies is important for police officers. That is an undeniable fact. However, it is also true that these kinds of measures must be subject to an oversight and accountability mechanism.

Some Conservatives indiscriminately accuse us of trying to block the bill. I would like to remind them that the NDP submitted no amendments to this bill in committee because it was well drafted. The process was diligently followed. We examined the bill and we realized that the work had been well done and that no corrections had to be made. A number of amendments should normally be brought forward to make a bill acceptable from both political and constitutional standpoints. We in the House are often unsure whether bills are lawful.

In conclusion, although we deplore the way in which the debate was disrupted, the NDP has ensured that Bill C-55 respects, as far as possible, the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The NDP will therefore support the bill.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-55 is of great interest to me, particularly because it reveals and illustrates the extent of the Conservative government’s failure. The government always wants to move too quickly without showing any concern for our country’s most democratic and most important documents, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.

On this topic, I would like my hon. colleague to explain how the failure of Bill C-30 and the recent introduction of Bill C-55 show that it is important, when drafting a bill, to take the time to ensure that it is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's Constitution.

The fact that the Conservative government wanted to do everything in its power to push through Bill C-30, even though it respected neither the substance nor the spirit of the charter, is indicative of the government's lack of interest in and sensitivity to the importance of Canadian institutions.

That is the question I would like to ask my hon. colleague, particularly in view of omnibus bills like C-38 and C-45, which were put together very quickly and did not comply with the prescribed time limits.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely correct about what she just alluded to.

What I fail to understand is that we have a charter and it is very easy to check whether a bill is unconstitutional before introducing it and moving on. There are people who can check this out from a legislative standpoint.

I cannot understand why it took two bills, Bill C-30 and Bill C-55, to achieve this result and for people being wiretapped to be protected, like our system.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate on C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

As many of my colleagues pointed out during the previous debate, Bill C-55 is, I believe, a fair legislative measure that strikes a balance between protecting people’s privacy and preserving public safety.

The bill now before us at report stage amends the Criminal Code to provide safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

Among other things, the bill 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. It also provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified within 90 days. Lastly, it narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

In the decision in R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a wiretap authority without a court authorization in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the court declared that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it contained no accountability measures.

Specifically, the court found that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the charter because it did not contain a safeguard such as the requirement to notify persons whose private communications had been intercepted. The court therefore asked Parliament to adopt the necessary legislative measures to make this provision constitutionally compliant. The court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013 to amend the provision in question.

Therefore, I am delighted to attest to the government’s efforts to comply with the court’s decision by bringing forward the requested safeguards within the prescribed time frame. The Criminal Code amendments that are being debated today will therefore directly respond to the guidance from the court by adding the safeguards of “notification” and “reporting” for section 184.4.

As I mentioned earlier, this amendment appears to achieve a reasonable balance between respect for Canadians' privacy and the security that the state must provide through its laws.

The bill proposes giving notice within 90 days to a person whose private communications were intercepted in a situation of imminent harm. It also requires the preparation of annual reports on the use of wiretaps under section 184.4. These amendments will also limit police authority to use this provision.

Like the experts who shared their views with the committee, I am of the opinion that the bill strengthens public safety while clearly limiting invasions of privacy. It also sets out a very strict framework for the use of wiretapping methods under section 184.4 and the related accountability.

The NDP believes it is absolutely essential that these investigation measures include oversight and accountability mechanisms that are clear and specific. We also have deep faith in our judicial institutions. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the interests of all Canadians, and it goes without saying that Parliament must comply with the ruling that was made according to our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are the very foundations of our democracy and we must respect them.

I join with my hon. colleagues in supporting this bill, responding as it does to a need in our society. In light of all the evidence heard in the House and in committee, there is no doubt that the proposed text is a fair compromise that reflects the expert opinions heard during the drafting and consideration of the bill.

Canadians have the right to be protected in extremely serious situations, such as abductions, bombings or other similar incidents. They also have the right to be protected from abuse by a poorly thought-out legal system, which may cause them harm.

The only thing I would like to point out is the fact that the government waited until the last minute to comply with the court's decision, when the official opposition has been calling for these changes for some time.

We all know that certain provisions were proposed in the now-defunct Bill C-30, but it was obvious that the government was going much too far in its desire to impose a law and order agenda on Canadians.

The opposition strongly criticized the flaws in Bill C-30 and its potential to create abuse when it was introduced in the House, and Canadians did not take kindly to this invasion of privacy in the name of Conservative ideology that panders to the Conservatives' electoral base.

As a result of political, media and public pressure, the Conservatives had no choice but to retreat and go back to the drawing board, consulting the players concerned. They came back with Bill C-55, a bill that is more thoughtful, more balanced and more likely to find consensus among the public.

However, it would have been more judicious and quicker to propose legislation like Bill C-55 from the start, in order to comply as quickly as possible with the court's decision.

Bill C-55 is proof that consensus, compromise, consultation and healthy debate in our institutions are not enemies of our democracy or of progress in Canada.

To conclude my remarks, I would like to invite the government to take the same action in all the bills it proposes and listen to the people, our fellow Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about Bill C-55, I would like to add something important. In Bill C-30, and in the former act, the problem was the imbalance. We support Bill C-55 because it helps to restore balance. In the past, people were able to intercept telephone conversations without having to be accountable or needing to warn the person being spied on, which was inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why it is important to do things properly. It is also why the NDP will always take these matters seriously and respect the charter and the Constitution.

I would like my honourable colleague to comment on the fact that the balance between the charter and justice is being restored.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent speech and the comments that she made about Bill C-55.

Throughout this early afternoon, I listened to what the other members had to say about the importance of this bill, which will remedy a flaw or close a loophole that the Conservatives left in Bill C-30, which is truly an aberration. The Conservatives ended up abandoning this bill because public pressure put them in their place.

The Conservatives are in the bad habit of doing things too quickly, without worrying about respecting the charter and the Constitution, for example. This is a problem that we do not mention often enough and a Conservative shortcoming.

I would like the hon. member to comment on omnibus bills such as Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, two bills that are nearly 800 pages long and that were examined very quickly. The government does not take the time to check whether it is abiding by Canada's key pieces of legislation, namely, the charter and the Constitution.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to add my remarks to the debate on Bill C-55. As we have seen, the Conservatives are learning a hard lesson about the proper consideration that should be put into drafting a bill. Unfortunately, this is being learned at the expense of the taxpayers.

Hard-working Canadians know that to save time and money, it is important to do things right the first time. As the old saying goes, and my mom was a seamstress, so I heard this a lot, “measure twice and cut once”. That is a phrase I hope the Conservatives will keep in mind when it comes to drafting legislation going forward.

It is important to assure Canadians that this chamber gives proper consideration to any and every bill before the House, especially those that affect some of the rights and freedoms most cherished by the Canadian people. While I am thankful that the judges of the Supreme Court are able to reinforce our charter rights and declare legislation unconstitutional if it violates these rights, I am in agreement with my extremely knowledgeable colleague from Gatineau, who expressed concerns in her speech to this bill at second reading about sending people to court. Again, it is not because I do not have faith in the courts. I have every belief that our courts work to protect Canadians and defend the Constitution. In fact, the need for tabling bills like Bill C-55 reinforces my statement. However, the process of this roundabout way of making legislation is costly, and there are problems accessing justice.

If we do our job properly the first time, if we give a bill the proper consideration when it is drafted and make sure that it complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the concerns of Canadians, we will avoid many of these issues. If we do our job to the best of our ability, then I have no issue with having to redraft legislation at the request of the court. It is the job not being done right the first time that I, along with hard-working Canadians, take issue with.

Before I speak further to the content of Bill C-55, we must reflect on its history. In 2012, the Conservatives introduced Bill C-30 as an attempt to resolve every conceivable problem related to surveillance. Thankfully, Canadians were not afraid to speak up to ensure that their rights and freedoms were protected from a government that sought to unreasonably limit them. Public opposition to this bill erupted in a swarm of online campaigns and a general backlash. To quote the B.C. Civil Liberties Association:

It incorporates many, many people into a web of suspicion that shouldn't be there. The growth of the database nation presents a grave danger to democracy.

It incorporates many, many people into a web of suspicion that shouldn't be there. This is what we are seeing over and over again from the Conservatives. They are basically trying to say that people on EI are criminals, because now they are sending police there. They are treating seniors with disrespect. They are trying to label people as if they were not abiding by the rules, and they are. It is the Conservatives who are not.

A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion demonstrates that the majority of Canadians felt that the bill was too intrusive. The bill was not only very unpopular among members of the Canadian public, but it piled onto elements of the Criminal Code that are unconstitutional, as noted by the Supreme Court. This is reflected in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse. In that decision, the judges of the court ruled that the emergency wiretap provision in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. The judges stated that accountability measures must be put in place. The court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013 to amend the provision to make it constitutional.

It is clear that Bill C-55 was drafted to respond to the concerns expressed by the courts, and at the eleventh hour, I must say. Specifically, Bill C-55 would require reporting on the interception of private communications made under section 184.4. It would narrow which individuals can intercept private communications. People who have been wiretapped would have to be notified. It would also limit the use of wiretapping to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Finally, we would have some consideration given to accountability and notification. Both are necessary to protect the important privacy interests at stake. I am glad that Bill C-55 would consider the concerns expressed by the courts. We have to thank the Canadian public, which voiced its opinion on this.

It is a shame, however, that instead of considering these issues and trying to fix legislation that is already in place, we get bills like Bill C-30 that seek to further limit our rights and freedoms that are protected under the charter. Instead of ensuring that what we already have is working, the Conservatives attempt to pile on legislation that would further limit our rights and freedoms. This is the most ineffective and inefficient way to enact policy.

On this side of the House, New Democrats will continue to hold the Conservatives accountable with respect to the rights and freedoms of Canadians at every stage of the legislative process and will ensure that things are done right the first time. That is why I want to express my concerns about elements of Bill C-55. While the recommendations of the courts are being implemented, we must ensure that the bill is not simply an updated version of the wiretapping provisions the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional or the surveillance bill that the Canadian people so rightly opposed.

When considering this type of legislation, we want to make sure that we are equipping our law enforcement professionals with the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. We want to do this in a way that limits the rights and freedoms of Canadians as little as possible. We want to ensure that the voices and concerns of the Canadian people are reflected in the legislation that is ultimately meant to protect them. As discussed by the Supreme Court, it is a matter of striking a reasonable balance between an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures and society's interest in preventing serious harm. At every stage of the process, we must consider these conditions.

This is no easy task and is not one we can simply glance over. The Canadian public expressed its concerns about the former Bill C-30, and we are committed to having those concerns reflected in Bill C-55. As stated by the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Dr. Michael Geist:

Bill C-30 may be dead, but lawful access surely is not. On the same day the government put the bill out of its misery, it introduced Bill C-55 on warrantless wiretapping. Although the bill is ostensibly a response to last year's...decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, much of the bill is lifted directly from Bill C-30.

Of course, all members are aware of the campaign that helped Canadians share these concerns with their MPs and challenged members to defend privacy.

My office is always receiving inquiries regarding the protection of privacy. Canadians jealously guard section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under which everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

However, no voter has ever come to the office to request that unreasonable limits be imposed on Canadians' right to privacy. With a government that is trying to pass laws that would allow it to spy on its citizens, Canadians have the right to be concerned.

On this side of the House, we will continue to oppose unreasonable search and seizure. The Conservatives must respect the reasonable limits that have been set out by the courts.

It is ironic that the Conservatives, who claim to want to reduce government intervention, are seeking to pass a legislative measure that will turn Canada into a country that is monitored in a Big-Brother-like fashion. Canadians are right to be wary of any legislative measure put forward by the Conservatives that limits the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

As we saw during the uproar in response to Bill C-30, Canadians are paying close attention on this front. Now it is time for the government to listen to Canadians as well as to the courts.

The NDP will continue to fight to uphold the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It is important that these rights and freedoms are given proper consideration before drafting and tabling legislation to ensure that things are done right the first time. We must ensure that the guidelines set out by the courts regarding this new bill are followed. We must ensure that it strikes a reasonable balance between an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures and society's interest in preventing serious harm.

Finally, we must ensure that all of this is done right the first time. We owe it to Canadians to ensure that anything that goes through the House is given proper consideration, especially when it involves the rights and freedoms of the Canadian people. Given the history of Bill C-30 and the Supreme Court decision in Tse, we believe that the current bill, Bill C-55, strikes a balance between personal freedoms and public safety. We expect that consideration of this sort be implemented in all bills passed before the House so that we do not get more bills like Bill C-30.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak about Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the government's response to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse.

As my colleague explained, I now have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Before that I sat on the Standing Committee on Finance. Now, I have the pleasure of working with our justice critic, the member for Gatineau. Since becoming a member of this committee and working with her, I have discovered that her knowledge of the justice field is incredibly broad and that she does extraordinary work. As with all the files on which she has worked, she led the team very capably and clarified our position on Bill C-55.

Our position is clear: we are in favour of Bill C-55 because it is a step in the right direction. We have supported the bill at every stage because it resolves one of the legal problems in the Criminal Code. The R. v. Tse ruling made it possible to tell the government that the Criminal Code, as enacted in 1993, with the wiretaps provisions, was unconstitutional. I will discuss this unconstitutional aspect a little later on.

I believe the bill is a step in the right direction. It updates the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled unconstitutional. In the R. v. Tse decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found that an emergency wiretap authority without a court authorization in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Certain amendments therefore had to be made. Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was enacted in 1993 and was unconstitutional, primarily because it contained no accountability measures. I repeat, section 184.4 must be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is an emergency measure. Wiretapping is an infringement of privacy. However, in certain cases, such as in the cases discussed, it is a necessity, as it also involves public safety.

We as legislators must balance the two aspects: public safety with freedom and the right to privacy. Fortunately, this is what the bill does. The law as it was in the past made it impossible to achieve this balance.

The Supreme Court made a rather pressing and important point in its decision. According to the Supreme Court, the Criminal Code, as it stands, is unconstitutional. The court therefore directed the government to introduce a bill to address the problem. The Supreme Court gave the government until April 13, 2013, to enact amendments to ensure that the justice system can function legitimately. Unfortunately, when the government took power, it introduced many bills that it felt were more important, but did not really do what the Supreme Court asked of it.

I will return to Bill C-30, but I would like first to discuss Bill C-55 in more detail. The issue here is the reporting requirement for interceptions of private communications. This is important. We need to know what is going on and we need accountability. This bill concerns the requirement to report, which is important.

Bill C-55 provides that any person who has been the object of an interception must be advised within a period of 90 days to three years. Several questions were raised about the three-year time period, but after hearing witnesses, in particular those from the Department of Justice, we understood that there were reasons that made this acceptable. Of course, the time period will not always be three years. We hope that it will be shorter. However, we are reassured by the fact that those who have been under electronic surveillance will be advised thereof. The bill also restricts what categories of people can make such interceptions.

One of the problems with Bill C-30, which I would like to discuss further, is that it allowed almost anyone to do so, and placed certain obligations on telecommunications companies and so on. Now that has been clarified somewhat. The bill says that the police have the right to intercept communications. Witnesses raised questions about whether this should be clarified and whether it should go still further. Should it be a higher-ranking officer, such as a police supervisor? When we heard the witnesses and thoroughly analyzed the question, we found the definition adequate in terms of being understandable, particularly when applied more broadly to the Criminal Code.

I would like to say more about Bill C-30, because the Supreme Court requirement told the government to come back with a bill that was not unconstitutional by April 13, 2013. We are aware of the fact that it takes a great deal of time for a bill to work its way through the parliamentary legislative system.

The government began by introducing Bill C-30.

Bill C-30 required telecom providers in Canada to monitor user data and be prepared to hand over personal information to authorities without a warrant or judicial oversight. We saw that as a big problem, and a lot of members stood in the House and said that, including my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who is the NDP critic.

He is an incredible colleague who fought very hard. The public also helped us by expressing its opposition to this bill.

Canadians must not forget what the Minister of Public Safety said at the time.

On February 13, 2012, the minister, in answer to a question on Bill C-30, said:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to tell him that every province unanimously supported moving forward with the legislation that was introduced first under the Liberal government, by his party. As technology evolves, many criminal activities, such as the distribution of child pornography, become much easier. We are proposing measures to bring our laws into the 21st century and to provide the police with the lawful tools that they need. He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.

When we look at history, we know the government made a huge mistake with the bill, and it knows it. Bill C-30 was wrong. The fact that a minister could speak that way and then come back and say that maybe it was a mistake and the bill went too far, it was not maybe, it really did. When he spoke like that, it showed narrow-mindedness. If Conservatives want to collaborate and work on better legislation, especially after the Supreme Court told us to do it, we hope there will be better preparation by members opposite in the future.

The NDP was very pleased that the minister and the government admitted their mistake and realized that they had gone too far. There was no reason for them to attack the protection of privacy. The scope of their legislation was too broad and they were asking telecommunications companies to obtain information without a warrant. Canadians and my constituents were outraged. I heard this from many of my constituents.

OpenMedia came up with a campaign to go against it. Once in a while, the government actually listens to what people have to say, and I am glad it did. I wish the government would have done it before coming up with such a bill, but coming back with Bill C-55 is a good thing. The government has looked at what needs to be done. The Supreme Court was pretty clear that we needed to amend the law so that we followed what the charter said, which the government did. That is why we support it. It is really important that the rule of law, the Constitution and the charter be respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.

I think that there is cause for some legitimate concern. I did not talk about the case of the former Department of Justice jurist who said that, unfortunately, the groundwork was not being done at the department. That case is obviously running its course.

What is very disappointing is that the government continues to deny it and insists on fast-tracking flawed bills at all costs.

Bill C-30 was particularly disappointing. Fortunately, public pressure made the government back down. Bill C-55 fixes some things that Bill C-30 would not have fixed. Bill C-30 would have unfortunately created more problems than solutions.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech.

I would like to point out that Bill C-55 is the Conservatives' latest attempt after their Bill C-30, if I am not mistaken, failed.

Why do the Conservatives have these kinds of failures? It is obviously because they try to fast-track everything. They want to move very quickly and not allow debate. The two omnibus budget bills are indisputable proof of that.

Does my hon. colleague think that the Conservative government should now ensure that all justice bills are in line with the charter and the constitution, instead of simply basing bills solely on its political agenda and short-sighted ideology?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-55.

I did not work directly on this bill as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights because I unfortunately left that committee, although I fortunately have the great privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance. However, I have excellent memories of my time on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, despite the problems the members the New Democratic Party are facing on that committee.

In reference to the question I put to my colleague who previously spoke with regard to the rule of law and basic protections, we have moved a motion in the context of Bill C-55. That is why the member for Mount Royal spoke on the subject. He shared the same concerns when he was Minister of Justice. This is an excellent example of the reconciliation of imperatives. We can reconcile certain imperatives even though we belong to different parties. I remember some good exchanges I had with the member for Mount Royal over the fact that he approved of a number of measures we had taken.

Like all of my NDP colleagues, I support Bill C-55. However, I am going to be quite harsh. Objectively, Bill C-55 was a pleasant surprise. I think the government was compelled to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. Yet, even today, as reported in the Globe and Mail, the justice minister continues to reiterate his full support for Bill C-10, the omnibus bill that unfortunately was passed and will create many problems.

Portions of certain sections of the Criminal Code and other acts that were amended by Bill C-10 could eventually be invalidated. Moreover, this bill has created an excessive amount of work for Parliament. This situation could have been avoided if the government had been open and much more rigorous that it generally is. I would remind the House that Bill C-55 is the exception.

Of course, reinventing the wheel or showing too much originality was not possible, because the decision was very clear and compelled the government to find solutions that meshed perfectly with the Supreme Court’s observations.

This brings us back to our duty as elected representatives and as members of these important and fundamental committees known as the standing committees of the House of Commons.

We have a responsibility to stay informed and adapt to today’s realities on an ongoing basis, all the while complying with immutable principles. We have a responsibility when it comes to passing legislation.

In this regard, I hope that Bill C-55 will serve as a model for the government and will prompt it to be more disciplined and especially to show more respect for all of our country’s institutions. The government must start by showing respect for the Canadian justice system, for Canada’s Parliament, a fundamental institution, and more especially for the House of Commons.

Understandably, there can be differences of opinion, and the government may not always agree with the views expressed by members of the opposition parties. However, the government has a responsibility to respect these views and the fact that people have different opinions. It also has a duty to respect the principle of accountability, which unfortunately is too easily flouted.

In the case of the committee that I had the privilege to serve on last fall, too often the government denied the obvious and rejected the opinions of experts whose positions were quite clear. It is truly a shame. After all, while it may be possible to some extent to defend ideological stances, these have absolutely no place when it comes to governing and establishing conditions for a just and fair society.

The government has made that mistake over and over again.

I repeat, Bill C-55 is a pleasant surprise. In the wake of what my hon. colleague from Gatineau said, I will come back to some important points related to section 184.4. They may seem like minor details, but these changes are important. They do not affect the essence of section 184.4.

The bill defines the term “police officer”, which applies to section 184.4. The bill then continues:

A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) 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 interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence 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 commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

My colleague from Gatineau accurately explained the special nature of section 184.4. Let us not forget that sections 186 and 188 cover virtually every case that would justify a warrant to breach a person's privacy. There are, of course, cases in which the imminence or urgency of the situation, when it is a matter of minutes or hours, would permit someone in authority under the Criminal Code to act quickly without permission to provide genuine assistance and intervene to prevent mischief or a crime.

This is perfectly reasonable. The only problem is with the consequences of such an action. The amendments made to the various parts of section 195 are particularly important. We strongly support them simply because they provide a form of transparency and openness that allows for self-discipline and generally avoids any abuse of police power. First of all, no one wants abuse of this kind from the police. Police officers who possess this extraordinary power ought not to be exposed to situations of potential abuse by themselves or others against anyone here in Canada because it could lead to serious breaches and the public's loss of confidence in police departments.

We believe that section 195 is a step in the right direction in terms of accountability, and that it would set out clear guidelines for the application of section 184.4. In my view, this constitutes significant progress. It is a fundamental and necessary improvement. It would deal with the problems inherent in R. v. Tse that were before the Supreme Court.

I would like to end by saying that it was a pleasure to be able to comment on Bill C-55. I think, and especially I hope, that it will be passed relatively quickly. It is nevertheless deplorable that the government took so long to allow us to review it in this House.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It seems to me that the pattern in this particular case, which is similar to what the Conservatives brought about with the Senate reform, is to push it to the very last minute to seek opinion.

What is most bizarre is that the Conservatives introduced Bill C-30, which caused the most trouble, yet they knew that the decision from the Supreme Court was pending. If they had that decision, they would probably have had a better launching pad for Bill C-30. Unfortunately for them at the time, Bill C-30 became a hornet's nest of opposition across the entire country. They had to scrap it, step back and then wait for the Supreme Court decision to move ahead with Bill C-55, which by the way, may point out that the current legislation is better than they had imagined. It has been tested with the fixes we are doing here today, such as with section 184.4. It points out that the current laws in place were sufficient with a few tweaks here and there, and that is what we are doing with Bill C-55.

Therefore, the hornet's nest created around Bill C-30 was not really necessary. Apparently, because they pulled the legislation back, I guess they did not even agree with what they wrote, as bizarre as that may sound.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in general, we on the opposition benches are supportive of the revised Bill C-55. However, as the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor noted at the beginning of his remarks, the government had since April of last year to make the changes to sections of the Criminal Code dealing with emergency wiretaps without a warrant. Would the member care to speculate as to why it is that we find ourselves here at the last moment trying to get the bill through the House?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating a lot of what has been said here today, I want to elaborate on a few things, notably part VI of the Criminal Code, which deals with the activity of intercepting communications and thwarting crime as a result of that.

The reason we are here is the decision in R. v. Tse. When it came down, it seemed kind of odd at the time. It was just on the other end of the fiasco we had with Bill C-30, when it was introduced in the House. At that time there was a huge public campaign to thwart Bill C-30 because of the overarching measures contained within it and how it went against the spirit of privacy. When it comes to section 8 of the charter, and the charter itself, the charter challenges would have been ad nauseam for a lot of this bill.

Why the government did not wait in this particular case until after the decision is beyond me. It knew it was coming. Nonetheless, as a result of that it brought the bill into the House and then took it back out because of the public campaign against it, I would assume. As a result, we now have this bill, which complies with the judgment that came down from the court case in April 2012.

Here we find ourselves at the last minute on the eve of April 2013. We were given ample notice and yet here we are, up to the last minute. Why the Conservatives would push the envelope like this, I am not quite certain. However, in doing that, Bill C-55 now looks at the decision that came down and how it goes against the Constitution.

Many of my colleagues have already brought up section 184.4, which in this particular situation allows the police officers to intercept imminent communications. In other words, in any particular situation they do not need the paperwork to get that done.

Section 184.4 was originally composed as follows:

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;

It goes on to state:

(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;

The final point under (c) of section 184.4 states:

(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....

Here we have a situation where some people may feel we are circumventing the privacy issue for the sake of the immediacy of what is happening; we are able to intercept without certain legal authorities.

There is no doubt that for us and for millions of Canadians, on the surface this would cause a lot of concern, certainly for privacy. Police officers do not need that particular authorization under certain circumstances in order for them to intercept the communications, and therefore this is what we are struggling with right now.

The question was put forward and an opinion is now with us regarding this particular case.

The principal amendment addresses the fatal flaw identified by the Supreme Court. In this situation, Bill C-55 provides that after-the-fact notice be sent, as is the case for other forms of interception. That is what this is coming down to. The court decided this is not congruent with the charter because of the fact that the after-notice was not present in this particular situation. This is where the court has asked us to have a look at it and this is why we have Bill C-55. I certainly agree and voted in favour of it during second reading.

Essentially, this comes down to part VI of the Criminal Code. At the very crux of this is how we deal with the centrepiece of federal legislation on electronic surveillance by law enforcement agencies.

The court summarized the current scheme of part VI of the code as follows, and I would like to thank the Library of Parliament for providing some of this information, the legislative summary:

Part VI of the Code makes it an offence under s. 184(1) to intercept private communications. Sections 185 and 186 set out the general provisions governing the application and the granting of judicial authorizations for the interception of private communications.

There we have it. The interception of these private communications, electronic surveillance of a potential unlawful act, is written in part VI, and it talks about the legal authority to do so, whether it be authorizations or judicial authorizations. Section 184.2 is the other part of that, providing for judicial authorization with the consent of one of the persons being intercepted for up to 60 days.

Let us get to the crux of what we are talking about today. In 1993, Parliament introduced two provisions to permit interceptions without judicial authorization in two exceptional cases. Those would be section 184.1, which permits interception with a person's consent, and what we are talking about here today, which was ruled upon, section 184.4, which authorizes the power to intercept private communications in an emergency for the purpose of preventing serious harm. Neither of these two sections is subject to the requirement to report to Parliament or to provide after-the-fact notice.

This bill is going to change this, so that after-notice is sent to the particular people involved in the investigation, which is incongruent with other sections where other people were surveyed under judicial authorizations or had their communications intercepted.

The other part they got into on this particular case, which was very interesting, was about reporting to Parliament, as well as changing “peace officer” to “police officer”. As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, within the code itself, the idea or definition of a peace office as described is very broad indeed. We are talking about, as my colleague from the NDP pointed out, mayors, reeves and court officers. It is a very broad description. What has happened here is that the bill has taken it and defined it down to a police officer.

I will get to the amendments from my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands in a moment.

In doing so, the other part would be that the court examines the text of section 184.4 closely, with particular attention to phrases that limit its scope. The court concluded that Parliament had incorporated objective standards and strict conditions into the provision itself. That part was fine. The onus would remain on the Crown to show in any particular case that the conditions for the use of section 184.4 had been met. Nonetheless, as I pointed out, the court was concerned that there was no requirement that authorities notify individuals after the fact that their private communications had been intercepted. That is not congruent with other means of judicial authorizations to find and intercept people's private communications.

The final thing was whether to report to Parliament or not. In other places and in other sections, the court considered reading in a notice of requirement, but determined that this would not be appropriate. That is one of the measures it considered. However, because of the notification, the court ruled it to be against the charter. The section on reporting to Parliament was something it added. In it, the court says that “electronic surveillance under the Code is an effective investigation technique used especially by law enforcement agencies” and therefore requires a reporting to Parliament from the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General of Canada. Currently, they prepare an annual report on law enforcement's use of warrants for video surveillance and certain authorizations to intercept private communications pursuant to part VI. The ruling here is, and this particular bill addresses, that incongruent with part VI, it allows the reporting within Parliament procedure to continue as well.

I did not have much of a chance to talk about the amendments currently here. My colleague talks about the record keeping, which I have some trouble with, particularly because of the machinations involved. This is an immediate situation, in cases of using section 184.4, and I will therefore be voting against this particular measure, as well as other measures, which I am sure I will get into in questions.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who just asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice the question, hit the nail on the head. The problem with Bill C-55 is that we find ourselves passing this bill at the last possible minute. As we say in English, time is of the essence. If this bill is not passed by April 13, we will have a legal vacuum.

I would like to make some clarifications so that we know what we are talking about.

Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is very clear. It talks about interception of communications in exceptional circumstances. If Bill C-55 is not passed in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision, rendered last year in R. v. Tse, section 184.4 will no longer exist. Currently, this section states that, in exceptional circumstances:

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

People are concerned about their conversations being intercepted and heard. Under section 184.4, which was at the centre of R. v. Tse, the conditions for the officer are that:

(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;

In other words, there was absolutely no other way to obtain authorization for this type of interception.

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

This means that, after all due diligence, there is no possibility of obtaining authorization. That is a little difficult in the city. In Gatineau, for example, justices of the peace are available practically 24 hours a day for this type of authorization. The chances that it would be impossible to obtain authorization and that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code would not apply are great. These are truly exceptional cases, and it is important to put that into context.

There must also be reasonable grounds to believe that such an interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm. Serious harm must be more than just a possibility; it must be imminent.

The third condition is as follows:

(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.

It should also be said that the ruling in R. v. Tse did not require a review of interception in its entirety. I appreciate what my Green Party colleague was trying to do with her amendments. But since time is of the essence, we should be concentrating on what the Supreme Court has asked Parliament to do. We were not asked to review the entire reporting process and so on. Yet the majority of the member's amendments address those topics, which were not even mentioned in the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court said the unless a criminal prosecution results, the targets of the wiretapping might never learn of the interceptions and would be unable to challenge police use of this power. There is no other measure in the code to ensure specific oversight of the use of section 184.4.

After all that I have said about this section, if that were the case and a person was never criminally prosecuted, it would be quite possible that he would never know that he had been the target of a wiretap or that his conversations had been intercepted. That is the crux of the issue in the R. v. Tse ruling.

The Supreme Court said that in its present form, the provision fails to meet the minimum constitutional standards of section 8 of the charter. I would like to emphasize the word “minimum”. The NDP is not saying that Bill C-55 is a legislative model when it comes to wiretapping, interception or invasion of privacy as set out in part VI of the Criminal Code. Those are exceptions.

Still, before voting on my colleague's proposed amendments and on Bill C-55, we should consider whether the measures and changes proposed by Bill C-55 respond to the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada:

An accountability mechanism is necessary to protect the important privacy interests at stake and a notice provision would adequately meet that need, although Parliament may choose an alternative measure for providing accountability.

Those who take the time to read Bill C-55 will see that it calls for an accountability mechanism. People whose communications are intercepted will be notified of the interception.

Still according to the Supreme Court:

The lack of notice requirement or some other satisfactory substitute renders s. 184.4 constitutionally infirm.

That is all the Supreme Court of Canada said in R. v. Tse. Without sufficient information, we still do not know whether section 184.4 is excessively broad in scope because it confers power that may be exercised by peace officers as well as police officers. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did indicate that it considered the matter. As always, the Supreme Court will not rule until the matter has been debated, nor will it rule on the matter debated unless it goes before the court. With respect to the issue of who would be given permission to carry out the kind of interception set out in section 184.4, the Supreme Court did not discuss it and made no decision on the matter.

One good thing about Bill C-55 is that, even in the absence of a decision by the Supreme Court, it restricts the scope of section 184.4 to police officers and other persons employed for the maintenance of the public peace by removing the term “peace officer”.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code lists just about every category of public officer, from mayor to meter reader. Indeed, virtually every type of public officer was covered, giving the impression that the scope of the provision was fairly broad. The power conferred under section 184.4 is one that should not be given to just anyone. In that regard, I am pleased that the government brought forward a bill that addresses one of the issues that the Supreme Court raised but did not rule on. As I see it, in matters of criminal law, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The rights of persons subject to trial are at issue here. Insofar as providing an opinion is concerned, Bill C-55 is the Conservatives’ response to the Supreme Court’s request.

The bill also contains some things that the Supreme Court did not request. All of the provisions amending section 195 of the Act and the requirement for various types of reports have been added to ensure greater accountability. Who would not want that? Certainly more can be done at some point in the future.

However, as to whether Bill C-55 will respond to the questions and guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada before April 13, 2013, all of the witnesses who testified before the committee were of the opinion that it will.

All of the witnesses, whether they represented the Canadian Bar Association or the CLA, were unanimous in their support of Bill C-55. They made a number of minor suggestions. However, since it was not their job to resolve all of the problems concerning interception but rather to address the issue of the constitutionality of section 184.4, I am reasonably satisfied with the responses provided by departmental officials.

All of the questions which the member raised in her amendments have been answered by the minister or by Department of Justice officials. In this regard, there is no need at this point in time and given the context of Bill C-55 to go forward with what my hon. colleague is proposing. We received the answers to our questions when the bill was studied in committee.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse act. This bill responds to the Supreme Court of Canada decision that found section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. Section 184.4 provides authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization in dangerous situations such as kidnappings, in order to respond to an imminent threat of harm when the time constraints do not permit obtaining a judicial authorization.

The purpose of Bill C-55 is to ensure that the critical preventive tool that I have just described remains available to police officers in life-threatening situations while offering the appropriate accountability and privacy safeguards in compliance with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse.

The court declared the provision unconstitutional on the sole basis that it does not provide sufficient accountability measures and indicated that constitutional compliance could be achieved by the addition of a requirement for after-the-fact notification to persons whose private communications have been intercepted under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, similar to the notification requirements for other wiretaps. This bill proposes to add this safeguard.

Bill C-55 also proposes additional safeguards that, while not required for constitutional compliance, would enhance the privacy of Canadians by increasing transparency and ensuring appropriate limits on the use of section 184.4. The bill proposes a reporting requirement that would require the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorneys General of the provinces to report annually on the use of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. This requirement already exists for other wiretaps, so it seems logical to extend it to wiretaps used in exceptional circumstances as well.

Another safeguard proposed in this bill would limit the power to wiretap without prior judicial authorization in situations of imminent harm by restricting the availability of this power to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. Currently, the Criminal Code makes this authority available for any unlawful act, which covers a broader range of conduct.

Lastly, the government is proposing to limit the availability of this extraordinary power to police officers only. Currently, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is available to peace officers, which, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, includes not only police officers but also mayors, immigration officers and fishery guardians.

Now that I have given a brief overview of Bill C-55 and its proposals, I would like to address what are now the five report stage motions that were tabled by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Motion No. 1 proposes to amend Bill C-55 to further restrict the class of persons for which the section 184.4 wiretap power is available.

This proposal is problematic. The definition of “police officer” that is included in clause 2 of Bill C-55 was taken from the existing definition of “police officer” in the Criminal Code. It is carefully tailored to ensure that it includes all persons who need access to the authority to intercept private communications in exceptional circumstances without a judicial authorization.

I would like to take this opportunity to again repeat that the proposed definition of “police officer” already exists in the Criminal Code in the context of dealing with the forfeiture of proceeds of crime and that it also exists in other statutes. It has been judicially interpreted as including only those who are statutorily appointed to carry out duties of preservation and maintenance of public peace. Privately hired individuals, such as security guards in a shopping mall or an office building, do not fit within this definition, as they are not statutorily appointed.

The removal of the category of “other person” from the definition of “police officer” as proposed in Motion No. 1 is unnecessary. For these reasons, this amendment is not advisable.

I will address Motions Nos. 3 and 5 together, as the change proposed in Motion No. 5 is a result of a change proposed in Motion No. 3.

Motion No. 3 proposes to add a requirement in the bill that a police officer make a record of the reasonable grounds that formed the basis for his or her decision to intercept private communications without a judicial authorization in exigent circumstances under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Motion No. 5 proposes to add this record to the annual report that would be made in relation to the use of the section 184.4 wiretap power.

Creating a record-keeping requirement as proposed in Motion No. 3 would undermine the goal of section 184.4, which is to enable a rapid response in cases of imminent harm. As was recognized in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse, it would be impractical to require the police to create contemporaneous records in exceptional situations in which the police need to act very quickly.

The Supreme Court of Canada was satisfied that an after-the-fact notice provision for those persons whose private communications were intercepted in exceptional circumstances, as envisaged by clause 5 of Bill C-55, would adequately meet that need.

An additional reason for not supporting Motion No. 5 is that the creation of an additional reporting requirement would be inconsistent with what it is currently being reported in relation to other wiretap powers.

The creation of a divergence from existing reporting practices is equally a problem for the proposals in Motions Nos. 4 and 6, which propose to add new reporting requirements with respect to the number of interceptions in relation to which no proceedings were commenced or no arrests were made in the offences that the police sought to prevent in making these interceptions. The proposals in Motions Nos. 4 and 6 are, therefore, not advisable.

The reforms proposed in Bill C-55 are designated to protect the safety of Canadians in a way that is appropriate, proportional and respectful of privacy interests. I am confident that the bill would achieve the correct balance in this regard.

Furthermore, although I appreciate the efforts of the member opposite, the report stage amendments proposed to Bill C-55 that are currently before this House for consideration are ineffective, ill-advised and inappropriate.

For these reasons, I urge the House to defeat the motions tabled by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

As well, I hope that all members will support the timely enactment of the bill as it was introduced. The Supreme Court of Canada suspended its declaration of invalidity in R. v. Tse until April 13 to allow the need for Parliament to ensure the constitutional compliance of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. As it now stands, if the bill does not come into force before the suspension expires, section 184.4 would not longer be available for police to do wiretaps in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in section 184.4, which are designated, of course, as circumstances in which lives are at risk.

I urge this House to pass the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

,

seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-55, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 1 with the following:

““police officer” means any officer or constable employed for the preservation and”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-55, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:

“tion if the police officer has reasonable grounds, a record of which is subsequently made,”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-55, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 3 the following:

“(d.1) the number of interceptions in respect of which no proceedings were commenced and, for each such interception, the offence that the police officer sought to prevent in making the interception;”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-55, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 3 the following:

“(f.1) a description of the reasonable grounds recorded by the police officer in accordance with section 184.4 for each interception;”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-55, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 3 the following:

“(g.1) the number of interceptions in respect of which no arrests were made and, for each such interception, the offence that the police officer sought to prevent in making the interception;”

She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, for seconding these motions.

As the House will know, this legislation was brought forward in place of or at least after Bill C-30 was withdrawn. It was the so-called protecting children from Internet predators act. I do understand the reasons for urgency.

This legislation, Bill C-55, is in direct response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Tse, in which the court found that the current emergency wiretap provisions failed the charter test. The court suspended its ruling for 12 months to allow the House to remedy those sections of the Criminal Code such that they would conform with the charter. The clock started ticking when the Supreme Court rendered its decision, which was April 13 last year. We have a small amount of time to correct those mistakes.

I want to start my discussion of the amendments I am putting forward by stressing that I also support Bill C-55. It is, overall, well crafted and meets the challenge of ensuring that this extraordinary power of the state to obtain emergency wiretaps without a warrant—and this is what we are talking about—which is quite an egregious invasion of the privacy of the individual citizen, is balanced and only justified in exigent circumstances when certain standards have been met. It is only charter compliant, according to the Supreme Court decision in R v. Tse, if there are adequate oversight mechanisms put in place.

My amendments go directly to the point that we do not want Bill C-55 to be struck down by a future court because we failed to put in place the adequate oversight provisions and because we failed to get the balance just right, based on the advice of the Supreme Court.

I am just going to take a moment to go back to the ways in which the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions around these matters have evolved in very recent years. It was not long ago that our major authority, the precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada that governed in this area, was a 1990 case, R v. Duarte, in which Mr. Justice La Forest found that:

as a general proposition, surreptitious electronic surveillance of the individual by an agency of the state constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

It takes quite a bit of evolution within court decisions to ask how we justify sections 183 and 184 of the Criminal Code in allowing the state, without access to a warrant or even judicial review of any kind, to go forward and wiretap private communications.

That process is now settled in a new precedent of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Tse, in which the court ruled in the majority that yes, in these exigent circumstances, where, for instance, there is a kidnapping or another criminal event where a life is at stake and there legitimately is not time to get to a judge for a warrant, it is now going to be acceptable under the charter.

What is not acceptable under the charter is when these powers are not adequately supervised. I think that needs to be a foundational point that is stressed here. These are intrusions into the private lives of Canadians that in any other circumstance would be viewed as charter violations. This House must craft, very carefully, that rare exception when we are going to let the state intrude on our personal communications.

I am troubled, sometimes, when I hear the comment: “Why would we worry if people want to wiretap criminals? The only people who would be worried about that would be people who have something to hide”.

We need in this country to constantly remind ourselves why we prize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms why western democracies, the British Empire, our common law, and centuries of practice and respect for the rule of law recognized that the state has no business knocking down a person's door. It is literally pushing through doors and breaking into houses and invading our privacy, which in an electronic era includes wiretapping.

We have to remind ourselves why civil liberties matter. We have to remind ourselves of this fairly constantly, because in not just this instance but in other laws passed through this place, we are seeing an erosion of our respect for the idea of civil liberties through resort to such rhetoric as “Well, only criminals need to worry” and “We shouldn't be so worried about criminals as we should be about victims.” A victim of an injustice of the state invading our civil liberties is no less a victim than the person mugged on the street. We need to pay attention to civil liberties. That is why I am putting forward my amendments.

The court ruled very clearly in R. v. Tse that the failure of the current Criminal Code provisions was a failure to have adequate accountability measures. The court did not set out what the accountability measures should look like with any degree of specificity, so Bill C-55 attempts to, and does, put forward accountability measures; however, will they pass the charter test in a future Supreme Court case? My submission to the House—and I urge other members to vote with me—is that we make the bill much safer and more secure against being struck down later by improving the accountability measures.

The amendments I put forward would ensure, for instance, that the intercepted communications would require an Attorney General report, which would include records of all those wiretaps for which no charges were ever laid and would require the police officer in question to memorialize the reasonable grounds he or she had at the time for seeking warrantless wiretap evidence. We would record and report as much information as possible to ensure that the oversight statutory process in Bill C-55 would meet any future charter challenge.

My amendments are based on recommendations primarily from three groups that testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Association. Those three bodies recommended, in the language I have used, the amendments I am putting forward today.

They strive to ensure that there be a requirement to publicly report the numbers of persons whose communications were intercepted but who were not subsequently charged. They include a requirement for the police officer's justification for the interception to be recorded and memorialized and would also ensure that if subsequent judicial authorizations were obtained on the same grounds as for the interception under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, evidence obtained by a further section 184.4 interception may be ruled inadmissible.

The other piece I want to mention briefly is something that was not part of the res judicata of R. v. Tse but that was certainly significant obiter dicta, and that was the court's concern that the definition of “peace officer” was overly broad. I cite the decision of the court on this matter, and there was not a dissent. At paragraph 57 of R. v. Tse, the court noted it would agree that:

We, too, have reservations about the wide range of people who, by virtue of the broad definition of “peace officer”, can invoke extraordinary measures permitted under s. 184.4. That provision may be constitutionally vulnerable for that reason.

I am not saying that the Minister of Justice has not taken account of this obiter dicta. The revised Bill C-55 no longer uses the term “peace officer”. The revised Bill C-55, in clause 2, changes the term “peace officer”, which was overly broad and could include anything from mayors and reeves and so on, to “police officer”, but then in the definition adds an element of overly broad definition by saying:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace

I remain concerned despite the quite interesting testimony, and I thank the justice critic for the official opposition, who pursued this point with the Minister of Justice. I am less sanguine about leaving in the term “or other person”, so one of my amendments would remove the term “or other person” to further clarify the act and ensure that it is not constitutionally vulnerable.

I will conclude by saying that my amendments are put forward in the interests of ensuring that Bill C-55 will survive any future charter challenge and I recommend them to my colleagues.

(The House resumed at 12 noon.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Nuclear Terrorism Act

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act.

Before I begin, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau, who is also the official opposition's justice critic. In my role as deputy critic, I have had the privilege of working with her. She is an extraordinary person and has done extraordinary work on this file, as well as on all the others she is responsible for. She is a true role model for hard work and I hope to emulate her.

Now, with regard to this bill, I agree that nuclear terrorism is a real threat to all countries, including Canada. It is important for us to consider it carefully and take the necessary measures. Thus, we are pleased to see the introduction of Bill S-9. I sat on the committee and I can say that, this time, we have been able to work with the government—I admit it—and with our Liberal colleagues.

Members of the official opposition have been able to work together to move the bill forward. When there are matters of importance to Canada, I think we can work together, and this is a fine example.

I would now like to speak more specifically about this bill. We must not forget that it leads to the eventual ratification of two international anti-terrorism treaties.

They are the 2008 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The latter defines the categories of nuclear terrorism offences and the procedures for bringing offenders to justice. The purpose of this bill is to incorporate all these provisions into Canadian law, so that the treaties can later be ratified. One of the problems is that Bill S-9 comes from the Senate.

It was strange to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence ask his question and tell us that it is a priority for them, and so on. When we see that this comes from the Senate, we realize that it is not necessarily the government's top priority. We must keep in mind the dates of the treaties I mentioned: they date from 2005 and 1980 and came into force in 2007. There has been quite a delay in government action on this matter.

I will speak now about the bill's details: it is an attempt to eliminate legal loopholes when launching proceedings against those who commit acts related to nuclear terrorism. There is also an extraterritorial aspect to this bill, to extend the reach of Canadian law.

In the past, legal proceedings could fail because of a lack of legislation; this will solve that problem. Bill S-9 also provides for extradition in cases of nuclear terrorism, even where there are no bilateral treaties between countries, so that legal tools can have a longer reach.

Moreover, new Criminal Code offences are being created. It would be illegal to: possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to cause death; use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations, with the intent to compel a person, government or organization; and commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material or devices.

Because we are establishing certain international conventions to which Canada is a signatory, all hon. members will agree that this bill will update the Criminal Code and other Canadian legislation. That is why we agree with and support this bill. We have always supported it. When we hear members on the other side say that the official opposition does not work with them and does not move things forward, they really ought to look at the way this has worked.

This is an excellent example of something that should move forward.

Bill S-9 makes other changes to the legislation. Anyone who commits any of the new offences outside Canada can be prosecuted in Canada. This new provision will help ensure that we address the problem. As we have mentioned, nuclear terrorism poses a real threat, and we need to take the necessary steps in that regard. That is why we supported this bill and studied it extensively in committee. We asked some serious questions and obtained some good answers, particularly from people who work on nuclear issues at the Department of Justice. The examination was very interesting and informative.

Nevertheless, we have another criticism of this government. Since it said that this bill is important, and I myself have pointed out just how important it is, we have to wonder why it took so long for the government to introduce this legislation. The treaty was signed in 2005 and came into force in 2007, yet the government is only starting to talk about it now. It blames the opposition, as usual, but it is important to remember that this government has a majority and it controls the agenda. Since everyone agrees on this bill, it could even have introduced it when it had a minority. This file could have moved forward, and we could have resolved these issues. Unfortunately, this government has acted in bad faith.

In fact, when the Minister of Justice appeared in committee, he openly admitted that this was not a priority. Here is what the minister said:

On this particular legislation, this was part of the enumerated bills that I wanted to get to, but yes, most of the focus of the last year or two has been concentrating on cracking down on drug dealers and going after people in the child pornography business and people who sexually assault children. I know most of the efforts of this committee, and certainly of the government, were to push that, but this was always important to us. Again, because most of the activity was already criminalized, I wanted to get it through.

It is a priority, but if you're asking me what I've done with my time, my time has been pushing all the legislation that we have had.

Keep in mind that Bill C-30 made us waste a lot of time. The government had to backtrack so much that the bill was poorly done and was inconsistent with the intent. The government is not moving in the right direction and is not putting its priorities in the right place. We suffered because of that yesterday in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had to whip through Bill C-55 without really being able to take the time to study it. We knew that we had a deadline because of the Supreme Court decision.

The government is not managing its time well. It improvises by introducing bills that, like Bill C-30, are purely ideological, have no legal basis and waste our time. Meanwhile, we have other bills waiting for us. We could tackle nuclear terrorism, but the government refused in order to move other bills forward, bills that ended up being called into question. The government realized its mistake and backtracked.

What does the NDP want? We are committed to multilateral diplomacy and international co-operation especially in areas of great concern, like nuclear terrorism.

We need to work together with other leading countries that are moving toward ratifying these conventions. Canada has agreed to be legally bound by these conventions, so it is important to fulfill our international obligations. Unfortunately, it took a long time for the government to act on this. Therefore, we must seriously address the issue of nuclear security and comply with our international obligations in order to better co-operate with other countries on countering nuclear terrorism.

Many issues have been put forward, and we would have liked to take action. Once again, the government took its time.

This is what Sabine Nolke, the director general of Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, said:

Furthering nuclear security, enhancing the physical protection of facilities, installing radiation detection equipment, especially at border crossings, reducing the use of weapons-usable materials, is one of the key tools to prevent these materials from falling into the wrong hands.

Those are all things we should act on.

Fortunately, Canada did sign these treaties, but the government once again took too long to update Canadian legislation to include all these offences. It is difficult to understand why the government held back a file that all parties agreed on.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our focus as a government is on an agenda that puts at the forefront job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity, with a very clear focus on making our streets and communities safer. With regard to that clear agenda, we have several items to propose for the time ahead.

Today we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. That is a cornerstone in making our communities safer. After that, we will return to second reading debate on Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

Tomorrow we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, again resulting in a more stable and secure economy.

After we return from our constituency week on Monday, March 18, the House will consider Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse act, at report stage and third reading now that it has been reported back from committee. This is an important justice measure. I must remind the House that this legislation responds to a Supreme Court decision that takes effect over the Easter adjournment, so it is very important that we be able to pass it here and get it to the Senate for it to deal with before that time.

Once the House deals with Bill C-55, it could then consider Bills S-9 and S-12, if they are still held up in the House; Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, at report stage and third reading, since that bill has now been reported back from committee; and Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, at third reading.

All these bills are necessary and important for Canadians' safety.

Wednesday, March 20, shall be the seventh and final allotted day. As a result, the House will then consider the usual supply motions and appropriation bills that evening. We will give priority to debating Bills C-15 and S-12 on Thursday and Friday, March 21 and 22.

I hope that makes clear the agenda that the opposition House leader has apparently been unable to perceive of the government, our clear agenda of delivering on job creation, economic growth, long-term prosperity and safe and secure communities for all Canadians.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

[Raji Mangat]

I think the bill does respond to the specific criticism that the Supreme Court set out in its decision. The Supreme Court provided Parliament with some minimum guidance on how to make the provision constitutional.

I think it's up to this committee and to Parliament more generally to seek to make the legislation as clear as possible. I take your point that there are many aspects to Bill C-55 that narrow the scope of the use of this warrantless wiretap provision, and that now there will be notice provided and there is a reporting requirement. These are all things that the BCCLA is very happy to see in this bill.

Our concern is that in those cases where someone is not tried and not brought to court to face charges but has been intercepted, we would like to see some guidance for the police about what would be an appropriate amount of time. We don't know how often and for how long people have been intercepted using this provision because, as you know, there was no reporting requirement before now. We do know about one case.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

My next question is for Madam Mangat.

Thank you very much for your patience. It is one of those crazy days here on the Hill, and we have to finish the study of Bill C-55 today.

I understand the points you are making about warrantless interceptions under section 184.4. However, we can see Bill C-55 as a response to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse.. The Supreme Court's main difficulty was the following:

Unless a criminal prosecution results, the targets of the wiretapping may never learn of the interceptions and will be unable to challenge police use of this power. There is no other measure in the Code to ensure specific oversight of the use of s. 184.4. In its present form, the provision fails to meet the minimum constitutional standards of s. 8 of the Charter.

Bill C-55 expressly provides that people be informed that they have been the object of surveillance or that their conversations have been intercepted. Perhaps all the problems surrounding interceptions and electronic surveillance will not be solved. Let us focus on Bill C-55. Does it not address the problem raised by the Supreme Court in that respect?

We have to keep in mind that it deals with very specific cases. According to the wording, conditions must be met.

“A police officer may intercept, by means of any”—whatever means—“(a) the urgency...”. They'll have to prove it at some point in time in court if somebody is sued: (a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained

The officer must prove that he could not obtain the so-called authorization and that:(b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and (c) either the originator

There are some boundaries. Am I correct in saying so? The person will be notified also, so if at some point in time they think it was

…counter to their fundamental rights under the Charter, there could be challenges.

Does the bill not expressly address the Supreme Court's concerns and its request for a correction?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

For Mr. Spratt I have just one quick question, which I asked you off the record, but I want your answer on the record, because we will be addressing an amendment, and I don't know yet whether it's going to be deemed receivable or not, to modify the text to read “to prevent an unlawful act that would cause”. It would go back to “unlawful act” instead of “infraction”, as it is now called.

I would like your view quickly on this matter. Is that amendment not broadening things for the state a bit more? Would it not be better to have it a bit more restrictive, as it is written right now in Bill C-55?

[Raji Mangat]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Raji Mangat. I'm counsel at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The BCCLA is a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Vancouver. I am pleased to be here today to speak with you about Bill C-55. Thank you for this opportunity. The BCCLA supports the committee's work in carefully and narrowly framing the process for the use of these exceptional powers being discussed today, and we agree with many of the amendments.

Subject to the concerns raised by Mr. Spratt in his presentation, the BCCLA is pleased to see that Bill C-55 will limit the use of section 184.4 to police officers. This is in our view a sensible and necessary amendment that supports the rationale behind the provision, to provide a means by which law enforcement can prevent serious and imminent harm on an urgent basis.

On that note, the BCCLA is also pleased that Bill C-55 limits the application of warrantless wiretapping to circumstances in which the goal is to prevent the commission of an offence. The addition of a notice requirement to individuals who have been subjected to warrrantless wiretapping brings section 184.4 in line with other provisions in the Criminal Code. The notice requirement provides transparency and serves as an essential check on this extraordinary power to intercept communications without judicial authorization.

The reporting requirement in Bill C-55 is also a welcome amendment, as it will enhance police accountability. Together, the notice and reporting requirements bolster accountability and oversight in the use of warrantless wiretapping, and the BCCLA supports amendments to gather more data.

I appear before you today, however, to alert you to an inadvertent oversight in the amendment that might have unintended consequences. The absence of clear timelines for the use of warrantless wiretaps suggests that there is a genuine risk we may see this provision used to undermine the normal wiretap regime. As the committee's intention with these amendments is to provide the police with a stopgap measure by which to prevent serious harm in urgent circumstances and not to create an alternative to the normal wiretapping regime, it will be clear to the committee that the provision requires the inclusion of a maximum time limit for the duration of a warrantless wiretap.

Section 184.4 is unique. It is one of only two sections in the Criminal Code that permit interception of private communications without a specific time limit and without judicial authorization. The only other provision that allows for this, section 184.1, permits it only with a person's consent in order to prevent bodily harm to that person. So section 184.4 is truly exceptional. It allows for the interception of private communications without judicial authorization, at the sole discretion of officers, prior to any offence or unlawful act having been committed.

As it is currently drafted, Bill C-55 grants police officers a broad and invasive power to intercept personal private communications for an indeterminate period of time. Bill C-55 does not provide guidance to police officers about how long they are permitted to exercise this extraordinary power.

The type of emergency situation contemplated here, one that is so urgent that the police have no time to seek any other form of warranted interception, not even a telephone warrant under section 184.3, is one that will necessarily be brief. If it truly is to be used in exigent circumstances, then by nature its duration must be short. No time limit capping the use of section 184.4 means that the interception could be indefinite and still be perceived as lawful.

For there to exist a power to intercept that is supposed to be based on exigent circumstances but that provides no upper limit on how long that interception may continue would inadvertently undermine the normal wiretap regime already in place in the Criminal Code. A wiretap is by its nature indiscriminate. It captures all communications taking place on the tapped device, including all manner of private, personal, possibly even privileged, confidential communications; communications that may have no bearing on the serious harm that is sought to be prevented; communications with third parties who may have no knowledge of the offence that is possibly going to be committed. Yet these are people who retain a significant interest in their privacy being protected.

Interceptions under section 184.4 are preventive, and therefore in some manner they are also speculative. We must remember that they are being sought without judicial authorization and are intended to be used in the narrowest of circumstances when the police have to act immediately with no time to spare. They are the warrant equivalent of the police entering a home in hot pursuit. But unlike cases of hot pursuit, these cases display no inherent time limitation for the use of the wiretap, and they carry the risk of capturing all sorts of information that is highly personal and private.

A limit to the discretionary power conferred by section 184.4 is necessary to protect privacy rights. Clear wording providing a time limitation on the use of this provision is necessary to support the committee's vision of a carefully and narrowly crafted process for the use of these extraordinary powers. Other wiretap provisions in the code, such as subsection 184.3(6) and subsection 188(2), both of which require a prior judicial authorization, limit the interception to a maximum of 36 hours. In evidence at the lower court in R. v. Tse, the RCMP's “E” division was stated to have a policy whereby warrantless interception was limited to a 24-hour period.

A warrantless interception should be more limited than one in which there is a warrant and prior authorization must be sought. In cases in which there is no warrant, it is all the more imperative that the power not be exercised indefinitely. An inadvertent result of a lack of a time limit in the legislation is that it could result in the de facto operation of two parallel wiretap regimes, one in which prior judicial authorization is sought and one in which the need for a warrant is disposed of in urgent circumstances.

As the committee is aware, the Criminal Code already consists of a thorough regime governing the interception of private communications. A time limit to the use of the warrantless wiretap provision would make it clear that, after the urgent circumstances in which police officers are appropriately empowered to make use of this special power, they are required to revert to the normal regime concerning wiretaps for any continued interception.

The BCCLA urges the committee to explicitly adopt a 24-hour maximum time limit on the use of warrantless wiretaps, as this will support your efforts to craft legislation that appropriately empowers the police to use these powers only in the exigent circumstances within which their use is intended. That will sufficiently protect the privacy rights of Canadians.

Thank you for your time.

[Michael Spratt, Member, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you very much.

My name is Michael Spratt. I am a criminal defence lawyer who practises here in Ottawa. I practise exclusively criminal defence work, and as such, I've done extensive work involving intercepted communications. I'm here representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association, or the CLA.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association is an association of criminal law professionals. The objective of our association is to educate, promote, and represent our members on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law in a manner that respects and emphasizes civil liberties.

It should be noted that the CLA was granted intervenor status in the case of R. v. Tse, the case that brings us here today. As part of our mandate, the CLA is routinely consulted by parliamentary committees such as this, and it's always a pleasure to appear before these committees.

I apologize for not having any detailed position in writing, but I'm happy to answer questions. I know it's a short time period for everyone to get up to speed on this.

I will start by saying that 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.

The starting point from my submission relates to the tension between the need to respond in a timely manner to urgent and serious situations, to act quickly to avoid and prevent harm. And of course, that comes into conflict with the citizen's right to be private and avoid warrantless intrusions by the police into very private aspects of a citizen's life.

As Mr. Justice La Forest recognized in the case of Duarte that there is an immense danger that can be posed by electronic surveillance and the intrusion of the state into individual privacy. He described it as an insidious danger that is inherent in allowing the state in its unfettered discretion to record and transmit our words. 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.

Now, most importantly from our perspective, Bill C-55 imports the notion and adds a notice provision into the existing legislation of section 184.4. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with my organization's submissions at paragraph 83 of the case, in saying that, “After-the-fact notice should not be viewed as irrelevant or of little value for s. 8 purposes. In this regard, we agree with the observations of the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association.” I won't read it; everyone can read it. Following that pronouncement, our position is quoted by the court.

So the notice provision is a positive step that brings this provision into constitutional compliance as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

With respect, another positive feature of this bill is in respect to clause 3. The CLA supports the narrowing of the applicability of section 184.4 to those offences listed in section 183. That goes above and beyond what the Supreme Court said. They were able to leave it more broadly than that. Having said that, I can't really imagine any offences that wouldn't be captured in section 183 that would fall outside that section. Having said that, it's the CLA's position that legislation should be as modest and restrained as possible and the government should be commended for taking those steps.

I'll deal with clause 2, another positive aspect of this bill. This deals with the “peace officer” versus “police officer” distinction. Although that issue wasn't squarely before the Supreme Court, at paragraph 57, the court did express some reservations about the term “peace officer”. Of course, that's a very broad term. Now, clause 2 replaces “peace officer” with ”police officer”, and that amendment is laudable. However, there still is some room for concern and some room for refinement in that language when we see the language of “police officer” defined somewhat broadly meaning, “any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace”.

That leaves open the possibility that this definition is overly broad, and that is important, given the exceptional nature of this section. It's a warrantless intercept of private communications, and the CLA submits that there should be no ambiguity over breadth and concerning who could use this section. There should be clarity.

This section, we submit, should provide a clearer definition, and that definition should be restricted to what we conventionally think of as publicly employed police officers. In addition, some consideration may be given to further restricting the use of what is a very exceptional power to supervising officers or high-ranking officers. That is seen in some other areas of the law, and it would provide some additional safeguards, while at the same time keeping alive the purpose of section 184.4.

Clause 5, the reporting clause, is also a very positive addition. The Supreme Court didn't strictly require this reporting to bring the section into constitutional compliance, but the Supreme Court did say very clearly that a reporting requirement such as the one found in section 195 can provide a measure of accountability. Of course, this is accountability to Parliament about how this power is being used and the ways and mechanisms through which it's being used by the police.

Although we support the importation of the section 195 reporting requirements, we submit that, 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. The other sections that deal with intercepted communications deal with communications that are intercepted pursuant to judicial authorization. There has already been that level of oversight. Section 184.4 deals with the warrantless intercept of communications.

And so I would flag that importing the section 195 requirement doesn't recognize the distinction between judicially authorized intercepts and intercepts made under section 184.4. As I said, from a constitutional perspective, that may not be fatal to the bill, but from the perspective of a citizen who reads the report and the Parliament to which ultimately the police forces have to answer through the legislation, this would provide some good oversight, considering the very exceptional nature of this provision.

For example, clause 5 could be amended to ensure that Parliament is provided with clear information not just about the number of arrests or the number of prosecutions or the number of crimes that had been discovered by virtue of section 184.4; the reporting could include the number of times there were no arrests, the number of times there were no offences, and the reasons for section 184.4 urgency. Why was it urgent in those situations? What harm was sought to be prevented? Why could other sections not be used?

Strengthening the language with respect to reporting would provide more accountability, would provide more oversight, and ultimately would provide Parliament and Canadian citizens with the background statistics to evaluate how useful the section is, how much it is being used, information that's really required, when you're looking at balancing this exceptional intrusion into what otherwise wouldn't be lawful against the harm sought to be prevented through these very unusual and urgent situations.

Having said that, it's nice to appear before the committee. I'm often here saying that we disagree with legislation. It's nice to come and see that the legislation is something that we can support and that the Supreme Court of Canada's recommendations are being incorporated. It's unfortunate that it happened 20 years after it was passed, but I'm very happy to be here to say that in large part we support the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 63 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on Wednesday, March 6. Our orders of reference for today, from Monday, February 25, are the study of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Goguen, I saw your hand.

[Mary Chaput]

Precisely.

They include things like the guaranteed income of about $40,000 per veteran and the permanent impairment allowance supplement of $1,000 per month for those who are very seriously injured and cannot secure gainful employment. Of course there's the disability award. The other feature of Bill C-55 was the option to secure or obtain the disability award in installments versus a lump sum. Then the final piece, a fourth piece, is the expansion of the VIP to a broader number of veterans and other recipients to ensure we work hard to keep those veterans, be they young or old, who wish to stay in their homes, in a position to do that. That would be a large component of the most recent increases.

The other increases you see in the estimates over time have to do with demographic shifts. As the numbers go up in certain areas of programming, as Charlotte said, earnings loss being one of them, the quasi- statutory increases are required to support that.

Further back in time there was what was known as the legacy of care. I'm going to let Charlotte comment on those elements.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You wanted to avoid loopholes under Bill C-55.

My understanding is that, as long as things were working with Bill C-30, you felt that the situation has been taken care of rather well. Once Bill C-30 was withdrawn, you had to find something else to respond to the court's concerns and to the fact that the court found some provisions unconstitutional. That seems very clear to me.

As for the R. v. Tse decision, we were told that it was completely contrary to the Charter, specifically to section 8. The minister considered that the interceptions had to be constitutionally compliant, that people had to be aware that a report had been prepared, and so on.

What type of legal test are you using to ensure that the drafts are consistent with the R. v. Tse decision?

[Karen Audcent]

The draft of Bill C-55comes from Bill C-30. Previously, it was Bill C-50 and at the outset, it was Bill C-31. The only change that we made to the content of Bill C-30 in order to incorporate it into Bill C-55 was to include the restriction for police officers. The Supreme Court had indicated that it would be a good idea to do so, and the government wanted to reflect that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Okay, but I think you may have misunderstood my question.

Bill C-55 is a response to the R. v. Tse decision. The title of the bill says so. The government might have used Bill C-30 and Bill C-12. Actually, many bills along the way could have tried to address the gaps identified in the R. v. Tse decision.

The government announced that it would withdraw Bill C-30 on the same day that Bill C-55 was introduced. Bill C-55 was tabled by the minister in the House less than a month ago. I think it was on February 11, 2013. It was then sent to committee on February 25, which is also very recent.

As you were working on Bill C-30, Bill C-55 was not in the picture. Could you tell me when you started to work on the drafting of Bill C-55?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I never miss an opportunity like this. When we have such brilliant minds from the Department of Justice in our company, we must take advantage of their expertise, especially when we have to fast-track our study of a bill.

I still managed to take good notes when the minister was speaking. We are fully aware of the impact of the decision in R. v. Tse and what will happen on April 14 if Bill C-55 is not passed. That being said, I'd like to know how long you've been working on the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Wilks.

I want to thank you, Minister, for joining us today and talking to us about Bill C-55. As you know, we will be studying it with witnesses on Wednesday for the first hour and maybe more, and then we will be going clause by clause. Thank you very much.

We will ask the officials if they would stay a few minutes in case people have questions. I'll suspend for 30 seconds while the minister leaves.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here.

My first question is about Bill C-55 and Bill C-394. It is assumed they will soon receive royal assent. In that case, what amendments would be necessary to ensure they are consistent with the Criminal Code?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your presence here today.

Certainly I hope we can all support this particular bill. After reviewing some of the papers the Library of Parliament has done in terms of analysis, coupled with your testimony here today, I think it's very important that all parties support this.

We all know that law enforcement at times requires the ability to respond very quickly in situations where there are urgent circumstances.

Minister, you mentioned specifically kidnapping, hostage-taking, bomb threats. Those are just a few examples of where urgent actions are expected of the police to protect innocent victims and maintain safety.

A good example, Minister, from my home province of British Columbia is the kidnapping of 23-year-old Vancouver resident Graham McMynn in April of 2006. The prompt response by the Vancouver Police Department in using all the legal resources to safely return Mr. McMynn to his family serves as a reminder as to why useful amendments such as Bill C-55 are in order so that we can continue to protect the public.

This legislation responds directly to the guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada by adding new privacy safeguards of notification and reporting. You've alluded to it in your testimony and in a number of your comments to the committee, specifically section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

Minister, is there anything in this bill that is not related to adding more safeguards—beyond the response to the Supreme Court?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Before this bill, there was Bill C-30. As my colleague mentioned, we are very glad that the government realized that a mistake had been made and took a step back. Now we have Bill C-55. And there were provisions from Bill C-12 that were supposed to apply. Is there any follow-through on that?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

All the changes that are made in Bill C-55 really are just to strengthen the privacy components of the legislation, to come into compliance with the Supreme Court's—

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for appearing, and thank you to the witnesses.

It's pretty apparent that Bill C-55 seeks to right the judicial oversight and basically make the interception of private communications constitutionally valid. We know that in each instance there's a test that's done. You strive to make sure, of course, that all legislation is in keeping with the Constitution, and we thank you for that.

It's pretty apparent from our review of the cases that any interception of private communications would probably, prima facie, be a breach of the constitutional right against search and seizure. Minister, just generally, can you tell us what is the interception of private communications and why exactly is it needed in this society?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, minister.

Obviously, we are all aware of the time limit, since the Supreme Court of Canada gave April 13 as the deadline in R. v. Tse. So we have between now and then to do something.

The government took another approach. With its introduction of Bill C-55, it announced the withdrawal of the much-criticized Bill C-30. The government dragged its feet for some months, so now we are forced to study an important bill post-haste. You said yourself that it concerns the “Invasion of Privacy” part of the Criminal Code. So we are very aware of the matter we are legislating.

That being said, I read Bill C-55. Although the Supreme Court did not make a determination regarding peace officers, police officers and so forth, I can somewhat appreciate that the government, in its wisdom, did not wait to establish definitions. However, the provision says the following:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

I am always a bit averse to those kinds of catch-all expressions. I'd like you to tell us who exactly “other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace” refers to. Does it go as far as to include private security guards? Does it include individuals employed to enforce other federal laws such as the National Defence Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and so on?

It might be advisable to define those things, because you may have opened the door to a complicated side issue, in your efforts to address the Supreme Court's ruling.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be joined by Karen Audcent and Don Piragoff, both from the Department of Justice. They'll be glad to answer any questions that you may still have, if you have any, after my hour here.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here to talk about Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse. The court's decision in the Tse case found that existing authority to wiretap without prior judicial authorization in exceptional circumstances was unconstitutional due to its lack of accountability safeguards.

The bill before you responds to this finding of unconstitutionality in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code by first adding the safeguard of after-the-fact notification to persons who have been intercepted; second, adding a requirement for public reporting on the use of this power; third, restricting the use of emergency wiretaps to cases of serious offences; and fourth, limiting the use of this power to police officers and to certain listed offences.

Under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, the police can conduct a wiretap without prior judicial authorization only when the situation is too urgent to obtain a wiretap authorization; when the “interception is immediately necessary to prevent...harm to any person or to property”; and when the originator or recipient of the communication is the perpetrator of the harm or the victim or intended victim of the harm.

This means that police can only intercept communications between the perpetrator of the anticipated harm and the actual victim or intended victim of that harm. This imposes a strict limitation on whose communications can be intercepted and closes the door on the possibility of police intercepting the communications of an unlimited number of classes of persons.

Furthermore, there must be an immediate need to wiretap to prevent harm to a person or to property from occurring. This should provide you with a sense of how and when this section can be used; for example, in situations such as kidnappings and bomb threats.

Finally, the urgency of the situation must make it impossible for police to obtain an emergency wiretap authorization. To be clear, the Criminal Code has another provision that enables a rapid response designed for an emergency. Section 188 of the Criminal Code enables an abbreviated process for court authorization allowing 36 hours of wiretap. For police to avail themselves of the authority under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, it must not be possible for them to seek court authority under either the principal and lengthier process for wiretap under section 186 or the expedited process for short-term wiretap authorizations in emergency situations under section 188 of the Criminal Code.

That said, the Supreme Court in the Tse case found that while there exists a justifiable constitutional imperative for the existence of such a wiretap power, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code as drafted is constitutionally deficient, despite the existing built-in safeguards that I've just described.

In its reasons, the Supreme Court found that the addition of after-the-fact notification to persons whose communications have been intercepted would make the provision constitutionally compliant.

That's what they told us: if you do this, it's constitutionally compliant. This bill, Bill C-55, proposes this requirement for the use of 184.4 of the Criminal Code by requiring that notice must be given to the person within 90 days of the wiretap, unless a court authorizes an extension.

The Supreme Court of Canada also commented on other issues for which the bill proposes some appropriate responses.

While the court held that the notification was the only amendment required for constitutional compliance, it expressed the view that reporting was a good idea from a policy perspective, and on that the government agrees.

This bill proposes, therefore, to add a reporting requirement to the use of section 184.4, which would mean that the reports prepared annually by the federal Minister of Public Safety and provincial attorneys general on the use of wiretaps would now include information on the use of section 184.4. This will enhance transparency and increase public knowledge and scrutiny of the use of this exceptional power.

The Supreme Court also considered restricting the use of this section to police officers instead of peace officers, as is currently provided in the Criminal Code. This could enhance charter compliance, though the court did not rule on this issue.

Again, the government takes that representation and that suggestion to heart, and the bill therefore proposes to restrict the availability of this section, from peace officers—a term that is defined rather broadly in section 2 of the Criminal Code—to “police officers”, which is a narrower class of individuals. For example, the narrower approach would exclude such individuals as mayors and reeves.

This bill also proposes to limit the use of section 184.4 to the offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. Currently the section can be used for any unlawful act. That's what it says now.

Although limiting this power to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code was commented upon, it was not required by the Supreme Court of Canada; nonetheless, Bill C-55's proposal in this regard would harmonize this section 184.4 and its use with other provisions in the Criminal Code related to wiretap that are already limited to section 183 offences. We are making it consistent with the other wiretap sections; the provisions under the Criminal Code would apply to this as well.

Harmonization with other wiretap provisions will also be achieved with the notification and reporting requirements that I have already mentioned, as these requirements already exist for some of the other provisions in the Criminal Code.

Finally I would note that the Supreme Court of Canada gave us until April 13, 2103, to amend section 184.4 to address this defect, and that time is swiftly approaching. This makes it imperative that we move as quickly as possible to enact this legislation, failing which, after April 13 police will no longer have the ability to use this section, which may compromise their ability to respond to high-risk situations and to protect Canadians.

When considering the reasons for the amendments in this bill, it may also be of use to consider the situations in which the bill or the section is likely to be used. Kidnapping is one example, as in the Tse case, in which a married couple and a friend were abducted from their home and held for ransom. Police relied on this section to respond quickly with a wiretap when family members were contacted by one of the abducted persons.

In another case, R. v. Riley, the police used section 184.4 of the Criminal Code during an investigation of murder through drive-by shootings in which the goal was to respond quickly to prevent additional murders.

These cases illustrate the importance of this particular section. In short, Bill C-55 is about ensuring that police have an important tool that they need to protect Canadians, while also ensuring that it is used in a way that shows the respect for privacy that Canadians can expect from their government.

I urge all members to support this.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

According to order of reference of Monday, February 25, 2013, we're looking at Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

We have the pleasure of hearing from the Honourable Rob Nicholson, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who is here for the first hour to talk to us about this bill. He's accompanied by a number of senior staff members, who are also willing to stay into the second hour if we have questions for them specifically.

With that, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, let me call to order meeting number 62 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this Monday, March 4.

What I'd like to do before we start with Bill C-55, pursuant to the order of reference before us, is to deal with the fifth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. It actually talks about our having this meeting today, so I think it's only appropriate that we pass this first before we start the meeting, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to order meeting number 61 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to our order of reference of Wednesday, June 6, 2012, we'll deal today with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

Before we get started, let me do a couple of housekeeping things, if you don't mind.

First of all, I will be leaving in a few minutes and then coming back again. Madame Boivin will be taking the chair, which I really appreciate. So behave.

We're having witnesses for one hour. I will introduce them in a moment. Then we will go to the clause-by-clause part. That will be the end of this meeting. Then I'll start a new meeting for the subcommittee on agenda, assuming we have time.

If for some reason the clause-by-clause part takes too long, we have agreement around the table to deal with Bill C-55 next week, starting with the minister on Monday. This is just a little heads up in case this takes longer than we anticipate, because you never know.

I have one other housekeeping item before I introduce the witnesses. I'll take a motion to approve the budget. It's $2,800 for this actual study that we're doing right now.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, Bill C-30 was a complete disaster. Canadians strongly opposed that bill. However, Bill C-55 appears to be a step in the right direction.

Can my colleague explain why we have only 19 days to debate this bill? Why is the government improvising on this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, section 184.4 does allow for exceptional powers regarding warrantless access for personal information and we should all be concerned about ensuring safeguards are put into place. After all, these things are part of our Charter of Rights and our Constitution and which provide assurances to Canadians that their personal rights will be respected.

Bill C-55 will be going to committee. It is very important to recognize, given the lateness of the bill coming forward, that there will be a need for us to be open-minded at committee stage and hopefully see some possible changes that would deal with the concerns individuals might have with regard to the privacy issue.

One of the examples to which I made reference was a situation where an individual's phone line was tapped and a warrant was not required, that there needed to be notification time. The legislation suggests 90 days. That should be talked about, building on those safeguards. The member may want to comment on that.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for that great round of applause as I start my speech.

I am very pleased to rise today to stand up and talk about our points relating Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

I know that we are coming to this with 19 days to go before it is supposed to be taken care of. As New Democrats, we recognize the importance of this and will be supporting it at second reading. We are in favour of sending this legislation to committee for review.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, safeguards related to authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the act.

Notably, the enactment states that it:

(a) 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;

(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;

(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception; and

(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

I was talking earlier about how this really has come down to 19 days. I believe my colleague from Winnipeg North asked this question repeatedly today. The Conservatives have had a year to act on this. Why now, in the eleventh hour, are we having to deal with this so quickly? If they are truly looking at what can make great legislation, it is the debate and involvement of all members of Parliament from all sides.

However, once again, we see the Conservatives bringing forward legislation at the eleventh hour so that we all have to come together very quickly to try to pass something that we, of course, want to give due diligence and a good once over. Unfortunately, we have seen from the Conservatives time and time again the lack of opportunity for debate.

How many times is it now that the Conservatives have used time allocation to shut down debate when it comes to important bills? I believe that we are up into the 20s if not the 30s. We have seen budget bills and other legislation affecting the services Canadians rely on shut down at every opportunity. It is unfortunate that we once again have to come to an eleventh hour conversation to ensure that we can get legislation to committee.

This new legislation is simply an updated version of the wiretapping provisions the Supreme Court deemed to be unconstitutional. The court has established new parameters for the protection of privacy, and we expect this legislation to be in compliance with those standards.

Canadians have a good reason to be concerned about the Conservatives' privacy legislation. Their record in this area is not very encouraging. We need to continue working for the public to uphold the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we go back, not too long ago, we had the inception of Bill C-30. Back in February of 2012, the Conservative government tabled Bill C-30, which would give authorities the power to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant. That bill raised serious concerns about personal privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms. Bill C-30 was a compilation of three bills that made up lawful access in the last parliamentary session: Bill C-50, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52. The Conservatives were then building on legislation first spearheaded to propose providing public safety authorities with surveillance powers over digital information in 1999. This led to a huge uproar from people from coast to coast to coast who were concerned about this legislation and how it would enable law enforcement to access a citizen's personal information without a warrant.

Right now, we have seen the Conservatives quickly change their tune in this new bill they have brought forward. With the government trying desperately to comply with the Supreme Court ruling within the prescribed time frame, which is April 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 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, interception in exceptional circumstances, enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it did not include any accountability measures. The court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013, to amend the provision and make it constitutional.

The Conservatives have proposed amendments that appear to be a direct response to that decision in that they add safeguards to constitute notification and reporting under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. The legislation would require giving a person 90 days' notice, subject to an extension granted by a judge after his or her private communications had been intercepted in situations of imminent harm.

These amendments would limit the authority of the police to use this provision. All peace officers can avail themselves of it at present and would restrict its use to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments appear to be a direct response to the court's instruction.

If we are to look at those in a little more detail, 184.4 outlines:

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—

Reasonable grounds is very important.

—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.

If we look at R. v. Tse, this appeal concerned the constitutionality of the emergency wiretap provision in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

In this case, the police used section 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 Standing Order 186 of the code.

The trial judge found that section 184.4 contravened the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the charter and that it was not a reasonable limit under section 1. The Crown appealed the declaration of unconstitutionality directly to this court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Section 184.4 permits a peace officer to intercept certain private communications without prior judicial authorization if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, provided judicial authorization could not be obtained with reasonable diligence.

In principle, Parliament may craft such a narrow emergency wiretap authority for exigent circumstances. The more difficult question is whether the particular power enacted in section 184.4 strikes a reasonable balance between an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures and society's interest in preventing serious harm. To the extent that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization would be available only in circumstances to prevent serious harm, this section strikes an appropriate balance. However, section 184.4 violates section 8 of the charter, as it does not provide a mechanism for oversight and, more particularly, notice to persons whose private communications have been intercepted. This breach cannot be saved under section 1 of the charter.

When we look at all of those details, what do we truly want as New Democrats? What should we all want as parliamentarians? To start off, we are in favour of the legislation as presented being sent to committee for review. It is essential that we play our role as members of Parliament. It is essential for us to investigate measures that include oversight and accountability, which is also the court's opinion, and we expect nothing less. We will work for the public to uphold the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Members do not have to take my or the NDP's word for it, as there are many others out there who validate it. Michael Geist in OpenMedia said:

—Bill C-30 may be dead, but lawful access surely is not. On the same day the government put the bill out its misery, it introduced Bill C-55 on warrantless wiretapping. Although the bill is ostensibly a response to last year's R v. Tse decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, much of the bill is lifted directly from Bill C-30.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-30, an act to enact the investigating and preventing criminal electronic communications act and to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, which was also referred to as the protecting children from Internet predators act, did many things. There was a lot to be said from coast to coast to coast about many of things presented in that bill.

At the time, we supported making changes to ensure that the police would have powers to address the emerging threats posed by cybercrime, and we supported efforts to bring policing into the digital age. However, a number of that legislation's provisions unnecessarily eroded the privacy rights of ordinary citizens. We believed that we could aggressively go after criminals at the time of Bill C-30 and punish them to the full extent of the law without making false comparisons to child pornographers and treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals.

To reiterate, Mr. Geist has mentioned some of his concerns with Bill C-30 that are emerging again with Bill C-55. If people like Mr. Geist are thinking this, then of course we need to get Bill C-55 to committee to review all of the things that were previously in Bill C-30 and that may now be in Bill C-55 and that Canadians from coast to coast to coast may be upset with.

To mention others' views on Bill C-55, Chris Parsons from the blog “Technology, Thoughts, and Trinkets” states:

—the Canadian government struggled to explain the legislation—and the need for all of its elements—to the public. In the face of public dispute over the legislation’s need the government sent the legislation to Committee before Second Reading. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police strongly supported the government, as did individual police chiefs from around the country. This extended to calls for examples of where the legislation would have helped to resolve criminal cases; to date, though, few substantive examples were found.

That sums it up right there.

Political pressure recently, in our opinion, led to the failure of Bill C-30. However, some of its measures have been reiterated in other federal legislative proposals. Civil libertarians have succeeded in their fight against lawful access, but it is important to note that some aspects of Bill C-30 were transferred outside the parliamentary process a few months ago, but the failure of Bill C-30 does not mean the non-parliamentary processes will be stopped as well.

Parliament is generally informed of the use of wiretapping so it can be aware of the frequency and the circumstances of its use. However, when 184.4 is invoked, there is no disclosure obligation. There is no need to let anyone know. The court stated that a requirement to keep records of the use of wiretapping, under 184.4, would also increase accountability, but would not be necessary if there was an obligation to provide prior notice.

In summary, we will support the bill at this time. We are in favour of the legislation getting to committee for review. However, it makes us want to ask some questions. It makes us wonder what precautions the government has taken to ensure the legislation is truly in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. We truly need more than 19 days to understand if this will be in compliance. Yes, we want to act quickly on this, but not at the eleventh hour.

Can the government explain how the Department of Justice's assessment of the legislation's compliance with the charter and the Constitution was carried out? Why has the government waited so long to address a relatively simple matter relating to freedom and public safety? We are pleased that the government listened to the public on Bill C-30 , and Bill C-55 seems to be a step in the right direction. However, why did the government dig its heels in for so long rather than admit it was wrong and work with the opposition to resolve the problem? As members of Parliament, we are here to work together to resolve problems. What measures from Bill C-30 has the government brought back and are now outside the scope of the House of Commons?

Those are some of the things we truly need to have addressed, now in this debate, the debate that we will carry on and the debate that we will have when the bill gets to the committee stage. Many of those questions will need to be answered. We hope we can get the answers from the government for those questions when we get to committee. Unfortunately, what we have seen time and time again is that is not the case. I can talk about committees that I have sat on where we have brought forward legitimate amendments, ideas and propositions and every one of them has been denied. The Conservatives do not accept amendments, they will not listen to reason and for some reason, they just do not get that we are all trying to do this together. We are in this together to try to make laws and legislation better from coast to coast to coast for Canadians.

At the end of the day, I hope this time—and we are always hoping that a glass is half full—that when it gets to committee, if we have amendments, if we recognize that something was missed in trying to deal in such a quick fashion on the Supreme Court's ruling, that we can work together to resolve it and get this done quickly.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague’s speech. She stated that Bill C-55 was different from Bill C-30, which, as we know, was a spectacular failure for the Conservatives. As my colleague just mentioned, this is proof that the Conservative government is a slow learner.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada asked the government one year ago to amend section 184.4 to make it constitutional. Unfortunately, we have only 19 days to do so. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on this matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect we talked about earlier in the day, and that is the timing of the introduction of Bill C-55. The government had plenty of time to bring the bill forward. We asked why it waited so long before we had the opportunity to debate it. The government sat on it for almost a year. Today we are being asked to pass the bill not only to committee stage but to third reading and so forth before April 12.

Could the member provide some comment on how we are expected to expedite the passage of the bill?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, also known as the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act.

Before I speak in more detail to Bill C-55, I would like to provide some background on the reasons for this bill.

In its ruling in R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court stated that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, entitled “Interception in exceptional circumstances”, which was enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it did not include any accountability measures. The court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013, to amend the provision and make it constitutional.

Parliament has until April 13, 2013. That leaves 19 days until the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada, 19 days during which Parliament will sit and can work on this bill. I will come back to that point, but it is important in terms of the context of this debate.

What is section 184.4 of the Criminal Code? What exactly does it cover? What is the problem? Here is what the section 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 here we are talking about serious harm, and I will come back to that]

(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.

In other words, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code allows a peace officer to intercept certain private communications without prior judicial authorization if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, and provided that judicial authorization could not be obtained with reasonable diligence.

We are dealing with something that is pertinent, and we believe it is important. If a peace officer has—first—serious reasons for believing that—second—serious harm may occur and that waiting for authorization to intercept conversations could prevent the officer from intervening in time to prevent the harm, then we are dealing with something very important.

We agree that some peace officers must have this latitude in certain circumstances. However, Bill C-55 must strike a balance between, on the one hand, allowing peace officers to do their very important job, which is to protect society and the community, and, on the other hand, guaranteeing the right to privacy and not to be wiretapped without prior knowledge, or without knowing the reason. We doubt the bill can do so because no one can say whether or not a peace officer has reasonable cause for intercepting a communication.

That is the dilemma. How far can peace officers go in doing their job while protecting the individual's right to privacy?

The Conservatives' first response to this dilemma was Bill C-30. We have heard all about it because it caused an outcry from the public, the media, corporations, entrepreneurs and a number of public safety organizations. In short, there was a huge protest against the Conservatives' Bill C-30. They were forced to drop it because evidently it was very troubling and there was cause to be troubled.

The problem persisted. Section 184.4 violated a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This issue definitely needed to be addressed and a solution needed to be found.

I am going back a bit. Section 184.4 threatens the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not provide for a monitoring mechanism and particularly because it does not require that notice be given to individuals whose private communications have been intercepted. Such a violation cannot be validated by the application of section 1 of the charter.

This is similar to what I was saying earlier: we are looking for that balance. Here, a section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is dear to the hearts of all Canadians, is being violated by a provision of the Criminal Code, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

That is how we have come to be debating Bill C-55. An excerpt of the bill reads as follows:

(a) 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...

We have here a sort of regulation requiring reporting on any interceptions. The bill goes on to say:

(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period...

The individual does not necessarily have to be notified the following day or the following week. This bill would once again regulate this potential surveillance by stating that it must be declared and that individuals under surveillance must be notified within a specified period.

(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception;

This is also important. We must clearly define who may conduct such surveillance.

Lastly:

(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

This is another measure that regulates interceptions.

I will support Bill C-55 at second reading, for all the reasons I have mentioned, so that it can be examined in committee.

There is a problem. The Supreme Court of Canada has given Parliament a deadline to correct things. So let us get to it and carefully examine Bill C-55.

Earlier I spoke about Bill C-30, which became a scandal across Canada. I would like to say that Bill C-55 is nothing like Bill C-30. What we have before us is different, and that is encouraging.

This bill gives us, as parliamentarians, a better foundation to work with so we can fix the part of the Criminal Code that the Supreme Court of Canada has asked us to fix.

However, investigations must absolutely include oversight mechanisms and accountability measures. That is what the court said. I agree, as does my party, the NDP. We must ensure that Bill C-55 respects the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is why we think it is necessary to carefully examine this bill in committee. We must ensure that Bill C-55 is not another Bill C-30 and that all of the provisions are addressed properly.

Earlier, the minister told us not to worry, that Bill C-55 respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. But he did not tell us how he verified that. I hope that he did not take the same measures he took for Bill C-30. We can take little comfort if he did.

Who was consulted? What measures were taken to ensure that Bill C-55 respects the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

That is important, and not just hypothetically speaking. It is important because this would not be the first time the Conservatives have introduced a bill without listening to the experts and without following democratic processes and procedures. Such bills must then be dismantled, shelved, debated, reworked and re-introduced. It is a waste of time for parliamentarians and it is an inefficient way to work. The Conservatives introduce flawed bills that anger the people and sometimes scare them as well.

We need to examine Bill C-55 seriously and ensure that the work is done well, in the interest of all Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to address Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. I want to talk a bit about the specifics of the bill and the NDP's thoughts on this bill and then move to what is the bigger question, which is the balance between protecting the privacy of citizens and collecting the information we need to make proper policy decisions. Again, I will go through the specifics and then move to the bigger question. Although New Democrats support this bill in general and think it should go to committee for more scrutiny, the government has perhaps an unbalanced or inconsistent approach to these issues that is worth discussing.

Bill C-55 concerns safeguards in relation to authorization to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization, basically wiretapping, or the state intercepting private communications. This bill requires the federal government and provincial Attorneys General to report interceptions of private communications, requires that the person who had his or her private communications intercepted be notified and narrows the class of people who can make such interceptions. They seem to be reasonable measures that would all be considered by any other country or government around the world that has to undertake these kinds of measures.

These measures seem reasonable to New Democrats, and we will be supporting this bill at least at second reading. We will see what kinds of shenanigans the committee members get up to, but we will make sure the committee has enough time to go through them.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Wiretapping is really what this bill is all about. Though we are calling it intercepted communications, we are really talking about wiretapping. Wiretapping has quite a long and sometimes dark history in Canada, and its proper use deserves our full and careful attention. In fact, the creation of our current Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, has its origins in this whole issue. As agents of the state, police and RCMP, in this case, illegally collected information on citizens during the 1970s. There was such an outcry, mainly from Quebec, that a number of task forces looked into it. They said the RCMP had too much centralized power, so we needed a separate security service, and that is why CSIS was established.

The problem in this case was that the RCMP overstepped its bounds and collected hundreds of hours of illegal wiretaps from Quebec citizens. Some were worthy, but others were to collect information about people at the whim of state agents, in this case the police. Records also show that this practice had been going on for quite some time, as well as outside the boundaries of Quebec. After quite an uproar across the country, CSIS was created. We have been wrestling with these issues and will always wrestle with where the boundaries lie between privacy and collecting necessary information. We need to take care that these past injustices, the misuse and maladministration of justice, do not happen again and that wiretapping only be used in legitimate circumstances and that the practice be as transparent as possible.

Returning to the text of Bill C-55, let me be clear that this bill is simply an updated version of previous Conservative-initiated wiretapping laws that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. This is not a new initiative and, in fact, we are just cleaning up a bit of a mess. Due to this mess, the courts have established new parameters for the protection of privacy, and we need to ensure that this legislation meets these new requirements. We need to make sure the committee gets this right and that it is given ample time to ensure it gets it right this time.

New Democrats want to make sure the committee gets the time, especially when the government is crafting the post-committee version of this bill, because the Conservative record shows that Conservatives are prone to make mistakes in this area.

I want to talk about the whole idea of balancing the need to collect information from citizens to make policy, whether it is security, economic assessments or policy decisions in other areas, and the citizen's need for privacy and the right to protect private communications.

The government really needs to make sure it gets the balance right. We saw before that Bill C-30 was judged too intrusive. It went too far in terms of prying into the private lives of citizens. However, I want to talk about the other side, too, where the Conservatives have erred in terms of perhaps not being clear on what information is important to collect or what they are willing to do in terms of making proper policy decisions.

There are certain members of the Conservative Party, the libertarian wing, such as the member for Nepean—Carleton, who would say that the state has no business, at all, in the lives of citizens. We know that, in its pure form, cannot be true; otherwise that would be anarchy.

What we need to do is make sure we strike the right balance. I am afraid the Conservatives have got it wrong on a number of occasions. For example, the Conservatives have used the excuse of privacy to abolish the long form census. The effects of this action will be felt throughout Canada for years to come. Using the kind of smokescreen of protecting citizens' privacy, we have abolished a tool that has been in use not just in Canada but in almost all countries around the world to inform policy decisions.

Without the long form census, we still have the short form census, which is still mandatory; however it contains very little information. The long form census, which goes to a smaller proportion of the population, collects very valuable information. For example, being somebody who used to work in city planning, I know that cities need these things to plan properly: where to put a new school or what languages should be highlighted in that school. That information comes from the long form census.

Businesses looking to target a particular neighbourhood, wondering if the business will do well there or not, will not be able to target markets with any accuracy without this information. Without the long form census, policy makers will have to fly blind in many areas without these valuable statistics.

We are going to be feeling the ripple effects of not having the long form census for many years to come. Many community members felt very strongly about this, and in fact the head of Statistics Canada felt so strongly that he resigned when the long form census was abolished.

This is what I mean by balance. The Conservatives are keen to wiretap people and to really open that up and not have it be transparent. However, on the other side, Conservatives are not willing to allow the state to collect the information it needs to make proper planning decisions.

Some of my colleagues in this House have raised the spectre of the Conservatives abolishing other surveys with mandatory requirements. We have had the long form census abolished, and the reason given on the other side was that it had a mandatory reporting requirement.

For example, we have the labour force survey, which is mandatory. We have business surveys and agricultural surveys, which are also mandatory. My question for the Conservatives would be where they fall on these issues. Will the government use the name of privacy in vain in order to abolish these critical surveys, or will it cave in to its radical libertarian wing?

It is not just an imbalance between protecting privacy and the state gaining information it needs to make policy; it is also that it is a very inconsistent application. There is no single rule that the government is using in terms of making its policy decisions.

If we abolished the labour force survey, we would probably be kicked out of the OECD. This would not allow us to calculate our unemployment rate, and we would not be able to accurately report to international organizations with any accuracy.

Maybe when the Conservatives are asking questions when I finish my speech, we could have a bit of a debate about where they see the balance between protecting privacy and collecting proper information.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who really has a lot of experience. She is sharing her extensive experience here in the House. Her speech today added many facts and striking examples to the discussion of Bill C-55. It is important to note that, as of this morning, we had 19 days left to pass this bill, which has just been introduced.

Now the first day is already over, and we have received no replies to our questions. Since this morning, even though the member for Gatineau, the member for Halifax, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and many others have asked questions, we have not received any answers from the government. The government has therefore lost an entire day even though it introduced the bill late, that is, 19 days before the deadline. The government has known for a year that it must do something.

The question that I would like to ask my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie is very simple. Why does she think the Conservatives are treating this matter with such disdain? Why is their approach so disorganized, when following up on a year-old Supreme Court decision is actually quite an important matter?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I have a question, because I am not sure I understand the point regarding defining police officers. For Bill C-55, the Supreme Court has demanded that Parliament develop a clear definition of “police officer”.

Not a peace officer, but a police officer. There may be a problem with the words, “or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace”. Perhaps that is the problem? I would like my colleague to speak to that.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-55, Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act.

We have known for quite some time now that certain provisions in the Criminal Code needed to be amended. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse was handed down more than 10 months ago, nearly a year ago, in fact. The decision was very clear: the provisions of Criminal Code section 184.4 had to be amended. We know this; we have spoken a great deal today about the provisions that allow for private communications to be intercepted without prior authorization.

I would like to clarify something at the outset. We in the NDP have no problem with the fact that, sometimes, in order to save lives, in matters of public safety and so on, private communications must be intercepted before prior authorization can be obtained. However, when this is done, and because it is really on the borderline, there must be safeguards in place.

In R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court stated that the existing safeguards are not sufficient to ensure that there is no abuse or undue interference in a person's private matters or that the basic principle of the right to privacy is always respected. As one of my colleagues said, when we see what has been happening recently in surveillance organizations such as CSIS, where there have been serious issues and questionable appointments, it is even more important to have a rigid, clear legislative framework.

In short, the court asked Parliament, the government, to fix the problem, which absolutely had to be done. But what did the government do? It came up with Bill C-30, a terrible bill that was poorly designed and included all sorts of things but did not provide more safeguards. Instead, it increased the power to intercept private communication.

We on this side of the House opposed Bill C-30, and we were not the only ones. Many Canadians across the country strongly opposed it. My office received hundreds of emails and letters from people who were opposed to Bill C-30.

When we opposed it, we were called every name in the book. We were told that we were siding with pedophiles, and so on. Those responsible for the file treated us with their usual haughtiness and arrogance, but as it happens all too often with this government, its arrogance backfired. As the expression goes, when one spits into the wind, it blows back into one's face. That is more or less what happened with Bill C-30.

We graciously admit that Bill C-55 is a little better. That said, we have a small problem with the fact that the Conservatives want it passed so quickly. The Supreme Court ruling on R. v. Tse was handed down on April 13, 2012, and at that time, the court gave us one year to correct the situation.

Almost one year has passed, and the government is finally introducing a bill that is moving in the right direction to correct this situation. That leaves only 19 sitting days to debate this bill at second reading, send it to committee, have it return to the House for third reading and carry out the rest of the process. That is a very short timeframe, and it is truly typical of this government, which is always so short-sighted. I work on international files a lot and I am always fascinated at the lack of foresight of this government. You would think that a year would be long enough for the government to have seen this coming. Are the Conservatives so shortsighted that even a year is too long to plan? That is rather frustrating.

Maybe the government is hoping that the bill will pass easily. In case we were not clear before, we will be clear now. We believe that this bill is necessary, that we must ensure security, but we must also ensure that privacy is protected. We do not have a problem with that.

The problem arises when it comes to doing things right. Many people have concerns about the bill as it stands. Let us look at several examples. The bill talks about peace officers that can intercept communications. However, the term “peace officer” is not defined. Could a private security guard be a peace officer?

The bill deals with the issue of the time required before a person must be notified that his or her communications have been intercepted. Should this be 30 days or 90 days? Can this be extended for up to three years, as it is proposed in certain cases? Where is the happy medium?

There is another even more fundamental problem. What have we done to ensure that the legislation really responds to the Supreme Court case? What evaluation mechanism have we put in place to ensure that, in six months or one or two years, we do not find ourselves before the Supreme Court once again? This government seems to think that the executive branch does not have to answer to anyone and that it is above the law. That is not true. The charter and the Constitution are more important than the Conservatives' or any other party's political agenda.

The committee will have to take a close look at these concerns. Canadians have every reason to be apprehensive about a Conservative privacy bill. The Conservatives have a dismal track record in this area. Regardless, it is never a good idea to speed through bills. It is important to act, but we must do things properly. We have only 19 sitting days left to get this job done. We will roll up our sleeves and work hard.

The government's rush to get this passed unfortunately shows its lack of professionalism and lack of respect for Parliament, which in itself shows a lack of respect for Canadians, who have every right to expect Parliament to work diligently on such important issues.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

The NDP will vote in favour of Bill C-55 at second reading so that it can be examined in committee and so that its weaknesses can be remedied, since therein lies the problem.

This is a good bill, particularly in comparison to its predecessor, Bill C-30, which fortunately was withdrawn. I do not think that the government really had any choice.

We, in the NDP, think that it is reasonable for Canada to have the means to protect its laws, its people and their property. We agree that emergency situations may require the intelligent use of a police force to combat crime.

However, unfortunately, the devil is in the details and they are many. We must clarify them and provide solutions. The NDP will do so in committee.

The bill has many weaknesses. One of our concerns is that the government has a serious problem with the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The number of bills that this government is introducing that the Supreme Court considers to be ultra vires is becoming indecent.

Someday, this government is going to have to understand that the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not going to be struck down just to please it; the Supreme Court is not going to take pity on it and is not going to say someday that it accepts the charter being violated, to please a government that plainly does not understand it. That is not how it works.

As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” This government is plainly afflicted by that syndrome. It systematically makes the same mistake all over again by violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it hopes that someday those violations will be accepted by the Supreme Court. That is not how it works.

In this case, we have to pass this bill urgently. We will have a short time to examine it, essentially because of a judgment given nearly a year ago by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse, declaring section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to be invalid. I would note that that section authorizes peace officers to intercept private conversations without seeking a warrant from the court.

The Supreme Court said at the outset that in exceptional urgent cases, where people and property are in immediate danger, it is to be expected that a democratic society will take measures to defend itself. However, it also said that this reasonable violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must not open the door to any form of repression. That is the point at which it says that under section 184.4, the government is going too far.

Personally, I say that this must be limited. We must limit rights by stating clearly that the situation is exceptional. We must remedy the situation by informing the person who has been the subject of an unauthorized wiretap and have the continuation of the wiretap approved by a judicial authority.

In fact, section 183 of the Criminal Code provides a list of the events that will open the door to the use of section 184.4. That is a good thing. The application of that section must be guided by section 183.

A police force must not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition—to give itself the right to wiretap because it thinks that maybe someday something is going to happen. That is not authorized by the Supreme Court.

Collecting Canadians’ confidential information is no small matter. What is troubling is that this same government has a well-known tendency to lose confidential information about Canadians.

It accidentally forgot 500,000 files of students who received loans and bursaries. It lost information about aboriginal communities. It has lost a lot of information. It would be nice if this government took things a little more seriously.

We will be uncompromising when it comes to restricting rights. We will never allow democracy to be killed for the purpose of preserving democracy. That is the issue here. Under the rule of law in a democracy, people are accountable to justice and the law. We are debating this bill because section 183.4 does not meet the Supreme Court's criteria. It does not meet the criteria of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-30 definitely did not.

The close connection between Bill C-30 and Bill C-55 is regrettable. It is precisely this relationship that NDP members are going to keep a close watch on in committee. The question that then arises is whether we must sacrifice democracy in order to save it. The NDP's answer is very clear and intelligent: no.

The Supreme Court opened a door. It said that it wanted us to review section 184.4 and directed us to ensure that rights and freedoms were respected. There are some potential problems, such as replacing peace officers with police officers—which is fine—and other persons. However, “other persons” can mean anyone. At least this was limited to peace officers before. Now “other persons” can mean people who are not even peace officers. That is a problem and it is unacceptable.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service—CSIS—agents are not police officers within the meaning of the act. Members of the Canadian armed forces who work at the Communications Security Establishment Canada—CSEC— are not peace officers within the meaning of the act. Moreover, those who work for Echelon have the same problem. All exchanges with Interpol are therefore problematic.

It is therefore important to revise section 184. However, it requires proper oversight by police watchdogs. But then there is the problem of the scandal involving Dr. Porter. He was appointed to the highest level of our country's security institutions despite being wanted for fraud and corruption. The only qualification he had for work in intelligence and security was being a friend of the Conservative Party. I believe that friendship with members of the Conservative Party is a flawed criterion.

It is therefore important to make sure that the RCMP, CSIS and CSEC are properly monitored by oversight organizations that will tell their members, “Here is the act; you are required to follow the guidelines set out in this act.” We mentioned the problem of “other persons”, how oversight of them is important, and that this oversight should be performed by serious entities staffed by qualified people, not by Conservative Party campaign fundraising friends. There is also the problem of “other means”, which is very vague. Wiretapping is mentioned, but there is also the interception of private communications. Are the notes we write to prepare a speech or a sermon a problem?

In conclusion, I want to say that in democratic countries—and in London specifically—the phone hacking scandal in which journalists listened to conversations was a problem. In France, President Sarkozy used security services to get rid of some opponents. In the United States, intelligence services were misused to solve the problem. That is the problem with Bill C-55. That is what the NDP wants to do to protect Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's critic had the opportunity to address that specific issue also. Narrowing the scope, I believe, is a good thing.

My understanding is that the legislation in its current state, for example, included that a mayor would have that authority. I am not convinced that a mayor should have that authority.

At the very least, I suspect if we or the government is wrong on that particular point, one of the stakeholders would make that case at the committee stage.

I do believe it is necessary for us to narrow that gap or to be a little bit more specific. I think that is good, given the authority that Bill C-55 would be giving. I think it is a responsible suggestion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'm not speaking about criminalizing anyone, per se. I'm saying there are inconsistencies in the mechanism you have produced as a private member's bill. Certainly the goal is laudable, but the inconsistencies that this is creating, even within the code itself, to me, do not necessarily add to that clarity.

Earlier in your testimony you mentioned that this bill gives new tools to those in law enforcement. I would just challenge that simply, for example, by saying that we have before the house Bill C-55, which gives tools to law enforcement in extenuating circumstances, where someone is about to commit a crime that would cause significant harm to public safety, or perhaps someone is suicidal and is about to hurt themselves. Law enforcement can then access that. I certainly hope you'll be supporting that legislation, because that will actually give law enforcement tools they need in order to maintain public safety and to save lives.

Lastly, I would just ask for your response, because you've given the impression, at least in my view, that this would help law enforcement deal with ISPs. You mentioned the Amanda Todd case, which was very tragic. I would like your response on the ISP provisions, because I don't see anything in here that would actually help with that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to say a few words on Bill C-55.

There are many thoughts I would like to share with members, albeit we are somewhat limited in terms of time.

I want to pick up on two or three themes. I always take great exception when the government does things in a fashion that ultimately is disrespectful to the functionality of the House.

It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament, and I value the role I get to play. I thank the constituents of Winnipeg North for allowing me to represent them. I am also very grateful for the Liberal Party allowing me to respond to the different bills and so forth.

When I look at what the government is doing here, I find it is once again somewhat disrespectful. We need to recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada made the decision that precipitated the legislation before us. This decision was not made a month ago or two months ago. This decision was made back in April 2012.

The government has known for months that it needed to change the legislation. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that could justify the delay it has taken in introducing Bill C-55.

What the government has done through procrastination is put the House of Commons in a position where, if we want to respect what our Supreme Court has ruled, there is pressure on its members to pass the legislation not only through second reading, but also committee, third reading and so forth, before April 13 of this year.

Today is the first opportunity to debate the bill. It is a significant issue. One has to question why the government—former Reformers and now Conservatives, as the members call themselves—has taken a different approach to dealing with legislation.

Members will recall the two massive budget bills in which the government, through the back door, made amendments to dozens of pieces of legislation. I am somewhat surprised that the government did not include this change. I guess the minister responsible did not think about it, or maybe he did not get the message from the PMO that the budget bill was coming forward. I am glad that at the very least the minister did not take advantage of the budget bill.

The government has been bringing in a record number of time allocation motions. I have a fairly lengthy list, and I will not go through the entire list. Some of these issues of time allocation were quite significant, whether it was on back-to-work type of legislation, the gun registry, a pension plan, the Canadian Wheat Board, Air Canada, Bill C-31, Bill C-27 or numerous other bills.

All of these deal with opportunities that members of Parliament have to provide due diligence and go through the legislation in a timely fashion to ensure the legislation is debated and that ideas will stem out from those debates, ultimately seeing it going to the committees and allowing them to do their jobs. Hopefully the government is then sympathetic to recognizing that its legislation quite often needs to be amended. Amendments come from many members on a wide variety of legislation.

Therefore, today we have a very short window. I suspect time allocation will be placed on this bill. However, there is a high sense of co-operation from opposition parties. On behalf of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party critic was able to address the bill earlier today and indicated that we were very comfortable in seeing the bill go to committee. We recognize the importance of that.

That does not excuse the government of its irresponsible behaviour in not providing the House the respect that is necessary when dealing with legislation. It should be held accountable for taking so long in bringing this legislation before us.

However, the Liberal Party will behave responsibly and do what it can to get it to committee. We hope the government will be sensitive to possible amendments to the legislation. We recognize the bill does deserve attention at committee and understand that hopefully there will be some changes brought forward.

There are four things that Bill C-55 attempts to do.

It requires the ministers of public safety and emergency preparedness and the attorney generals of each province to report on the inception of private communications made under section 184.4. That is a positive request. It is something that the Supreme Court did not require. It is a reporting mechanism and there is great merit for it.

Bill C-55 provides that a person who is the subject of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period of time. We must give thought to what the appropriate amount of time is. Hopefully that will come out in committee. We are very much aware of the importance of our charter and the protection of our privacy. There has to be a balancing of the public good and life-threatening situations and so forth. However, there also needs to be protection for individuals who ultimately might be subjected to a warrantless wiretap. I suggest the committee would do well to have some dialogue as to whether it should be 90 days or less than that and what the arguments and concerns are. It would be interesting to hear what the stakeholders would have to say on that point.

It would narrow the class of individuals who can intercept a wiretap. My understanding is that it is more general today. What the government wants to do is narrow it to include police officers. Hopefully, we will have some dialogue at committee stage regarding contracting out. Many municipalities hire private services related to security and policing. How will they be incorporated, or will they be incorporated?

Again, there is an opportunity with respect to the limits of those interceptions for offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. We can appreciate that when that type of authority is issued, we should be very careful in terms of when and for what circumstances it would be utilized. Two things that come to mind are life-saving measures or kidnappings. These are the types of things where timing is of the essence. There might be a requirement for us to ensure that law enforcement officers are able to get the necessary information as quickly as possible.

The minister and others have talked a lot about section 184.4. That is really what we are talking about and that is what the Supreme Court made its ruling on. In going through some notes and, in particular, comments by judges, I thought I would share two that are really important to recognize and are related to section 184.4, which deals with the warrantless wiretapping provisions.

The first quote was said by one of our court judges:

—the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society — here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

I find that to be a most appropriate statement. This is why I raised this a few minutes ago. It is important for us to take a look at the most appropriate time frame. When someone's telephone conversation is being tapped into and the individual is not aware of it, what is an appropriate amount of time between the law officer making a recording of a conversation and the individual's right to know that recording was in fact made? From what I understand, the bill suggests 90 days.

The judge has correctly pointed out the importance of this to the public. We need to recognize that it outweighs the private interest. However, in the same breath, it is still important the private interest be protected in some fashion.

The second quote is as follows:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual’s s. 8 charter rights and society’s interests in preventing serious harm.

I wanted to read those quotes because I believe very passionately in the charter. I believe the vast majority of Canadians over the years have recognized how important it is to protect and refer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because we have taken ownership of that over the last 30 years. We need to do what we can to always reflect on that.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask a number of members a very important question that many took for granted, and I want to use a couple of examples.

I am the critic for citizenship and immigration. I have been frustrated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and some of the legislation he has brought forward. The question I posed to members earlier was related to the obligation of government ministers, with regard to the changes they are proposing at the draft stage, to get a better sense of whether these changes would meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or pass a constitutional challenge. This has been an important issue for me because it has been raised in committee on several occasions. In fact, there is a group of lawyers and doctors in Toronto that is going to the Federal Court questioning the constitutionality of the decision made by the minister to cut back health care services to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

We have challenged the minister on that and it is now going to a federal court. We are not confident that the minister knew what he was doing when he brought in that change. Through Bill C-38, the minister made changes that ultimately excluded hundreds of thousands of skilled workers. Again, we questioned that. Not only does it come across as a very cruel and inhumane policy change, but when the minister brought in the change it was, and is being, challenged by a federal court. In fact, there was a ruling made by one court in Ontario indicating that the minister was wrong. I am not sure where this is at within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but that is another issue.

Then we had the issue of detention, which is where committees really are of benefit. We had a minister who was going to put people in a detention centre without any real right of appeal for a year, but at committee stage we were able to make some serious changes to that proposal. However, it took a whole lot to do it. Again, we had presenters at committee who said that this would not meet a constitutional challenge. That is important.

In looking at the justice area, I always thought that Bill C-30 was an interesting bill when it was introduced. I understand that the government has now withdrawn Bill C-30, but one of the arguments in that regard was that it did not go far enough in its provisions to give police officers wiretapping power over Internet services. Now Bill C-30 has come to a standstill, with the government backing off from it for a wide variety of reasons. That said, I question whether or not the current section 184.4 is something that would have been able to deal with many of the measures suggested in Bill C-30. Is that one of the reasons the government is not moving forward with the legislation? If so, one could question why it brought forward the bill in the first place. What happened regarding the exploitation of children on the Internet? Is that issue addressed in section 184.4? I am interested in knowing the answer, as I do know there was an attempt to deal with that issue in Bill C-30.

When I look at Bill C-55 as a whole, I do see merit in it going to committee, where I am interested to see what will take place. Hopefully, there will be some discussion relating to Bill C-30 because there might have been possible amendments to it that would benefit Bill C-55. Canadians are concerned about the exploitation of children over the Internet. I do not know to what degree Bill C-55 could assist in extreme circumstances in dealing with that issue.

We look forward to the bill going to committee. I hope and trust that the government will look at bringing legislation in a more timely fashion to the House and allow members the necessary diligence, without being rushed to pass bills to meet a deadline such as the Supreme Court's decision.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-55, which amends the Criminal Code to provide, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse, safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of that Act. I would like to mention the four main points included in the bill's summary.

(a) 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; (b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period; (c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception; and (d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

I am emphasizing these four points because one would expect to find these clearly defined points in the bill.

I would like to begin with an argument that was already raised by our justice critic and that is the definition of “police officer”. It is important that this term be better defined in committee. The definition has been narrowed. It reads:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace...

We will have to provide additional clarification. I would also like to point out that the bill in fact updates the wiretap provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. This reminds us of the saga of Bill C-30. Today, we find ourselves in the House with only a few days to study the bill. When the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the number of days left to thoroughly study the bill will pose a problem. A timeline more in keeping with the importance of this bill should have been established in order to properly define the notions covered by this bill.

I would also like to mention that it is vital that this bill include mechanisms to provide oversight and accountability for the investigative measures. As I mentioned with respect to the four points, they must be well defined and there must be accountability. As English members say, there needs to be checks and balances.

We also mentioned that this bill must balance the need for surveillance with specific conditions and exceptional circumstances that have been well defined. These measures must only be used in exceptional circumstances. There must also be accountability for the frequency with which this mechanism is used and the methods used to inform people that they have been affected by this type of interception.

Another point must be clarified. I am the industry critic. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology conducted a study of electronic commerce. We need not look any further to know that our world is ever-changing and that technology is evolving at incredible speed. New technologies are introduced every day. We are surrounded by all manner of electronic devices.

Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code mentions police officers, which, as I said, will have to be defined, because it also mentions “other person”. It states:

A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that

I see “or other” there. I would like to know what this “other” refers to and what it includes. Industry Canada requested and held public consultations regarding the 700 MHz spectrum auction.

Some points were raised during these consultations. I am referring to the documents written by Chris Parsons, a man who follows everything to do with electronics very closely, particularly since the introduction of Bill C-30. Mr. Parsons—and others; this is public information—pointed out that the people who appeared to testify were asked to talk about providing information through other means, such as the Internet, for example.

I will read what was requested of the participants:

The consultation has asked participants to provide comments on a variety of issues. What I focus on are the proposals revolving around 'lawful intercept' conditions of licensing Canadian radio spectrum. These conditions are addressed in paragraphs...operating as a service provider using an interconnected radio-based transmission facility.

Then, witnesses, people from various associations—in the online sector, for example—asked whether it was realistic to ask them how they do things when the legislation is silent on the issue. Bill C-30 had yet to be examined, so people were wondering. For example, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association said:

The Department’s proposal to replace “circuit-switched voice telephony systems” with “interconnected radio-based transmission facility for compensation,” opens up several additional services to interception requirements, including internet services...

They went even further, saying that it was not up to them to act and that legislation needed to be put in place so they could understand where they stood.

That is why I wanted to mention those points. Bill C-55 is very important in the sense that everything in it must be clearly defined, particularly when it states that an officer may “intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication” while respecting public safety requirements in exceptional circumstances. However, I feel it is very important, as do the people of LaSalle—Émard, that a person's privacy be respected.

That is very important. Oversight and accountability mechanisms must be written into a bill such as Bill C-55.

I believe that the members will agree that these requests are completely fair and justified, especially in the interest of the common good and peoples' rights.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

I will start by saying that I am very relieved. Like many of my constituents from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I am relieved that Bill C-30 has died a quiet death.

Many of my constituents wrote to me to share their concerns about the ill-advised and dangerous Bill C-30. I am pleased that it is now behind us and that we can finally focus on the issues related to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

In all the time I have been a member in this House, this is the first time that the government has listened to reason and acknowledged that its first attempt was not the right one, since it did not correspond to the needs and wants of Canadians. I congratulate the Conservatives on that and urge them to start over more often. It is not so hard and everyone feels better afterwards. I urge the government to start over with the employment insurance reform. It feels so good to do the right thing.

But to come back to the matter at hand, let us be honest: this bill looks more like an appropriate response to what the courts have called for than did the former Bill C-30. This new bill is simply an update to the wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional.

This bill is before us as a result of a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, that declared section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. That section allows peace officers to intercept certain private communications, without prior judicial authorization, if they believe on reasonable grounds that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm, provided that judicial authorization cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence.

The courts held that emergency situations existed, but that a balance had to be struck between measures to protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures and society’s interest in preventing serious harm. That is why the courts held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the charter, since it does not provide a mechanism for oversight, and very specifically, it does not require that notice be given to persons whose private communications have been intercepted.

An accountability mechanism needs to be enacted to protect the important privacy interests that are at stake, and a provision requiring notice would meet that need. The requirement that individuals whose communications are intercepted be given notice would in no way interfere with police action in an emergency. It would actually enhance the ability of the individuals targeted to identify and challenge violations of their privacy and obtain a genuine remedy. That is part of the balance we must try to strike and it is precisely that balance that we must achieve. Safeguards have to be in place to prevent as many abuses as possible and provide our constituents with a guarantee that their rights and freedoms will not be violated by legislation that this House might enact.

One way to be sure of this is to follow the instructions the courts have given, in particular with regard to privacy.

There are points that respond directly to the decisions of the courts. For example, this bill requires that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the attorney general of each province report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. It further provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified within a specified time, which is ordinarily 90 days but could be extended to three years in the case of terrorism and organized crime.

The bill also narrows the class of individuals who can make such interceptions, in addition to limiting interceptions to the offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code, which make up a relatively long list. In my opinion, these measures follow the instructions given by the courts, but we have to make sure that these provisions meet the charter requirements.

Like my NDP colleagues, I would like this bill to be referred to committee so that witnesses can be heard to give us answers to a number of questions, or at least provide some details on certain points. It would not be acceptable for amendments to the Criminal Code to once again be ruled unconstitutional by the court. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that the rule of law is respected and that section 184.4 is amended in order to comply with the Constitution, the charter and Canadian laws. The benchmarks must be clear.

Needless to say, I have no blind faith in this government. Canadians have good reason to be apprehensive about Conservative privacy bills, because their record in this area is dismal. We must always work on behalf of the public and show respect for the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In view of their failed attempt with Bill C-30, that is to be expected. Many Canadians and stakeholders agree.

According to Michael Geist, Bill C-30 may be dead, but legal access is definitely not. He claims that when the government dropped Bill C-30, it introduced Bill C-55 to allow wiretapping without a warrant. He added that although the bill is disguised as a response to last year's Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse, much of it is lifted from Bill C-30.

He is right. That is why we need to be vigilant. The court established new parameters to protect privacy and we expect this bill to comply with those standards. That is why it must be studied in committee.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, a Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act.

This bill amends the Criminal Code to provide safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184 of that Act.

Bill C-55 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; provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified within a specified time, which is currently done only where charges are laid; and narrows the class of persons who can make such interceptions.

This bill updates certain provisions of the Criminal Code relating to wiretaps that were enacted in 1993. The updating was ordered by the Supreme Court in R. v. Tse, in which it held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional and had to be amended by Parliament no later than April 13, 2013. The deadline is fast approaching.

In that case, the Supreme Court found that this section infringed the right to be protected against arbitrary searches and seizures, a right guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and was not a reasonable limit within the meaning of section 1 of the charter. That decision is based on the fact that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code does not provide a mechanism for oversight and does not require that notice be given to persons whose private communications have been intercepted.

Bill C-55 is a somewhat desperate last-minute attempt by the Conservatives to comply with the instructions from the Supreme Court by the deadline given. I say “last-minute” because as of today parliamentarians have exactly 19 days left in which to pass Bill C-55 at second reading, examine it in committee, pass it in the House and then repeat the process in the other place, before it ultimately receives royal assent and comes into force as the law in Canada. That is very little time for such an important bill, which could have negative consequences for too many Canadians if we do not take the time to analyze it thoroughly.

I can understand why, after falling flat on their face with Bill C-30, the Conservatives would be somewhat nervous about the idea of considering the electronic surveillance issue again, or indeed any issues relating to potential breaches of Canadians’ privacy, but bill C-55 ought to have been introduced long ago.

Perhaps the Conservatives were trying to minimize the Minister of Public Safety's opportunities to insult potential opponents of Bill C-55. Who knows?

In any event, the NDP believes that it is an initial step in the right direction, and that is why we will be supporting Bill C-55 at second reading so that it can be studied in committee.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill would make important and essential amendments to the Criminal Code to make section 184.4 consistent with the Constitution by adding a number of safeguards as directed by the court.

The NDP has been asking the government to take action for a long time in order to act on these recommendations. From this standpoint, we would like this bill to move on to the next stage. It is essential for the investigative measures provided in any bill amending section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to have oversight and accountability mechanisms that protect the privacy of Canadians.

I am aware of the fact that it is sometimes necessary to put aside individual privacy to protect human lives and property from serious and imminent harm.

On the other hand, one cannot simply cast aside the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada has established new parameters to protect privacy. We expect Bill C-55 to comply with these new criteria.

However, analysis of the defunct Bill C-30 and its stinging failure makes it obvious that the Conservatives need to rethink their approach to privacy and personal information.

A close look at the Conservatives’ agenda in this area demonstrates clearly that Canadians have good reason to be worried about any government bills on wiretapping and privacy.

My New Democratic colleagues and I are aware of the public's concerns about wiretapping, and we share them.

When Bill C-55 is studied in committee, the NDP will work, as we always do, on behalf of all Canadians to guarantee respect for the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We want to ensure that Bill C-55 is in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse to make section 184.4 of the Criminal Code constitutional and to achieve the necessary balance between personal freedom and public safety.

I invite my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to work with the NDP to improve Bill C-55 to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of all Canadians as set out in our charter.

We know that it is sometimes difficult in committee to get support for opposition ideas. However, this time, we all agree on the basic idea that the Criminal Code needs to be amended to comply with the Supreme Court directives. There are people with impressive legal expertise in every party. They understand this issue and have suggestions to make to ensure that public safety in this country is a given for everyone, but that people's fundamental rights are also guaranteed.

It is important that all of the parties work together on this task so that the end result will truly protect us by keeping Canadians safe from terrorist attacks and any other wrongdoing. However, we need assurance that personal rights will be respected as well.

The Conservatives do not need to get caught up in hyper-partisan debates, as they did when they introduced Bill C-30. There is no need for rhetoric and no need to label people as child pornographers—as the Minister of Public Safety did during debate on Bill C-30—if they dare raise the issues that remain in Bill C-55. They also do not need to wait for public and political pressure to get to the point where the government has no other choice but to abandon its own bill, as it did with Bill C-30.

After that huge debacle, I would hope that the Conservatives have finally learned their lesson and that they will be willing to work with members of the official opposition and the third party to fix enduring issues in the Criminal Code of Canada.

We in the NDP share the government's desire to maintain and ensure public safety, but we also care about respecting the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in every bill that is passed in this House. Unfortunately, that does not always seem to be the case with this government, which would rather be called to order by the Supreme Court after introducing its bills, rather than legislating proactively and ensuring that its bills are constitutional before introducing them in the House.

This government could benefit from the advice and opinions of the opposition in order to ensure that Bill C-55 complies with the Supreme Court decision in the R. v. Tse case. I hope the government will be more open than it typically has been since winning a majority.

I heard many of the speeches given by my NDP and Liberal colleagues. They all regard this bill from more or less the same perspective, specifically, that it addresses something that has been a serious problem in the Criminal Code since 1993, but has never been resolved, not by past Liberal governments or by the Conservative government.

Now we have a makeshift bill here today that was introduced at the last minute to satisfy a court requirement. However, this bill was not necessarily 100% well thought-out and not all possible consequences have been considered. There is still some work to do.

We come here with a very open mind. We support this bill at second reading so that it can be improved at committee in order to ensure that it respects the criteria for the protection of privacy set out by the Supreme Court. That is the objective of all of my colleagues, including those who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and those on other committees. It is the objective of the third party.

I hope we will achieve this objective together through our work in committee, and I look forward to seeing the new version that results from our examination.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I will call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 60 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Just before we go to the orders of the day, I will let you know that Bill C-55 is in the House today. It's going to come here quickly, so I thought we would have a subcommittee on agenda in the last half-hour of Wednesday's meeting. We'll put that aside so we can make some adjustments to what we had planned due to government legislation coming to this committee.

Today the orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 6: Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). The author of that private member's bill is the Honourable Hedy Fry. The member is here to discuss her bill. We have her for the first hour.

The floor is yours, Ms. Fry.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I appreciated and enjoyed the presentation from the member for Halifax, who has the constituency adjacent to mine. I know that she and her constituents enjoy looking across at the wonderful constituency of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

We were provided some wonderful information about the Supreme Court decision that led to Bill C-55. I do not have the capacity to engage in the type of legal analysis my colleague did. However, on the question of legislative procedure, there is a need for all members of this House to understand what their responsibilities are and to ensure that they follow through on those responsibilities, so that each and every piece of legislation tabled in this House does not leave the House unless it has been fully examined and vetted and until we have ensured that it is the best possible piece of legislation that it can be.

These are the laws of our country. These are the laws that affect all of our constituents. These are the laws that will continue to exist long after we have left here. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we dot the is and cross the ts so that a piece of legislation does not leave here and immediately get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, because we did not show due diligence.

Members should understand that this bill, which is a direct response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, is being introduced in this House with a time limit of 19 sitting days to deal with it. It is absurd that the government, in all seriousness, would expect members of this House to deal with a piece of legislation of this magnitude—one as detailed and specific as this is, and one with such serious ramifications for privacy and for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada—in 19 sitting days. That means the justice committee will have about two days to examine this important piece of legislation.

Let us not forget that the current government does not have a very good record when it comes to issues of privacy or when it comes to introducing legislation and trying to ram it through this House.

We have already seen provisions in some of its justice legislation struck down and seriously questioned by some of the courts in this land. We know what happened to the bill that was supposed to take care of this, the bill that preceded this, Bill C-30, which was tabled approximately a year ago in this House. It was torqued up by the minister, who tabled it in such a partisan, mean and ugly manner that Canadians from one end of this country to the other responded with outrage at the manner in which the government and that minister were dealing with such a sensitive and important issue to all Canadians.

They spoke with one voice. They said that it was simply unacceptable that the Government of Canada would deal with a very important issue in such a partisan and irresponsible manner. It was later determined, as people sifted through the details of the legislation, that the government did not do what it said it would do, that it was flawed in so many ways that finally the minister and the government tried to kick it under the carpet, pretend they had never tabled it and that they did not know what people were talking about when discussing the infamous Bill C-30.

What I remember, and I suggest what many members on this side and many Canadians remember, was the second attempt, in part to deal with something that Bill C-30 was supposedly to deal with. The government tells us not to worry, that it has been dealt with it, that it has responded to what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, that it has been very specific, that it has limited it to the particular provision as it relates to section 184.4 and that it has it covered. Therefore, there is no need for members to be concerned or engage in a great deal of debate, so we do not need a lot of time.

The NDP critic, who gave such an eloquent and informative speech at the beginning of this debate, suggested that the government often introduced legislation with a sense of arrogance and knowing what was best: regardless of the members opposite and the constituents they represented had to say, the Conservatives were the ones who had all the answers, so when they brought in legislation that they said was good to go, we should say “fine” and let it go. However, that is not what we were sent here to do.

The government has shown that we have to be on our toes because it does not do its job. It has been raised in the House by members on this side on a number of occasions. They wonder why the government does not properly vet legislation. We understand that the demands of the Supreme Court are such that we are not, with completely certainty, able to say that a piece of drafted legislation will pass muster in the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely the government takes the time, and we have not had the answer, to ensure there has been some examination and sense of proportionality that any particular piece of legislation will pass muster in the Supreme Court of Canada, but it has not given us that assurance.

In terms of the legislation the government has presented to the House since May of 2011, much of it has been flawed in detail and substance. It sometimes seems that when the government produces legislation, it is more concerned with the title and politics of the legislation than it is with the details, the substance, the implications and the impact that changing the laws of our country will have on Canadians. That is very much a case of the government thumbing its nose at members of the chamber.

On initial review of this bill, we hope it will do what the government says it will in relation to the Supreme Court decision. There will be an examination of the bill at the justice committee. Let us hope we get the opportunity to examine the bill to ensure that when it heads out of the House, we have made sure it is in fact the best piece of legislation it can be.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that question because I did not have time to address it in my speech.

I do not have answers to the questions I raised here today and I am not sure we are going to be able to get to them in about 19 days. I think this is negligent attention to parliamentary duty. I do not think the government has acted. It did bring forward Bill C-30. We see a lot of the provisions of Bill C-30 now in Bill C-55, but Bill C-30 was a total, utter, abject failure, and Canadians cried out against it. Rightly, finally, the government did withdraw that piece of legislation.

However, here we are. The clock is ticking. It has been practically a year, and now we have this legislation in front of us and we are just supposed to agree and vote for it. That is not responsible decision-making. That is not a responsible way to make legislation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note the heckling from the other side about “hug-a-thug” and that kind of nonsense. It is pretty depressing to be here and to hear that kind of talk, when it is very clear that the hecklers on the other side have not actually read this legislation and do not really know what it is about. This is a serious issue in front of us. This is a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has instructed Parliament to change the Criminal Code of Canada.

Let us do a legal analysis of the bill. We will start with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, let us start with section 8, which provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. There are very few words, but there is a lot packed into that section.

The courts have held that a search without a warrant is unreasonable. The standard for determining whether a search is reasonable is to have it brought before a judge. There must be a neutral and impartial party, such as a judge, who can determine if a search is unreasonable. However, the courts have noted, in particular Justice Dickson in Hunter v. Southam that:

[I]t may not be reasonable in every instance to insist on prior authorization in order to validate governmental intrusions upon individuals' expectations of privacy. Nevertheless, where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, I would hold that such authorization is a precondition for a valid search and seizure.

However, there is also a long line of case law that states that judicial authorization can actually be waived if there is potential for serious and immediate harm or exigent circumstances. I use those words purposely: serious and immediate harm. For example, when a person calls 911, the police are actually permitted to enter the home without a warrant. Why? It is because it has been held that the police duty to protect life warrants and justifies a forced entry into the home in order to figure out if the person is safe. Section 184 of the code says that violations of privacy are against the law, but then we say that this can be violated or waived with judicial authority. However, judicial authority can be waived if there is potential for serious and immediate harm. That is the chain of thinking.

Bill C-55 is an attempt to update the wiretapping provisions in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Why? The government is making an attempt to update the code after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision R. v. Tse struck down the wiretapping provisions in the Criminal Code because they violated section 8 of the charter, which I described, which is the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

It is worth noting that the court gave us the deadline of April 13, 2013 to correct the decision, but here we are in February 2013 debating this legislation.

I will move on to the analysis. Before we can analyze Bill C-55 and the government's proposal, we need to take a close look at what the Supreme Court said about section 184.4. We need to understand the problems with section 184.4 and why it was struck down if we are going to be able to understand whether this attempt by the government actually fixes those problems or whether we are going to have the same constitutional problems.

The court stated that:

[I]n principle, it would seem that Parliament may craft a narrow emergency wiretap authority for exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm if judicial authorization is not available through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

These are lots of words, but let us unpack them.

When section 184.4 made its way through Parliament in 1993, there was testimony at committee about the need for this kind of emergency power for situations such as hostage takings, bomb threats and armed standoffs. These are pretty serious situations. There was also testimony that this was necessary for very short periods of time during which it might be possible to actually stop that threat and prevent harm from occurring.

I will return later to the phrase “peace officers” in the wording of section 184.4.

Peace officers may only use the power to wiretap without judicial authority if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the urgency of the situation is such that authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision in the part, so there are four key concepts there.

What happened? The Supreme Court of Canada found that section 184.4 does not meet accountability standards because it does not provide any accountability measures. If we think about it, wiretapping is not at all like a 911 emergency call.

I want to quote something important from the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada quoted Justice Davies who, I believe, wrote the court of appeal decision:

The interception of private communications in exigent circumstances is not like situations of hot pursuit, entry into a dwelling place to respond to a 9-1-1 call, or searches incidental to arrest when public safety is engaged. In those circumstances, the person who has been the subject of a search will immediately be aware of both the circumstances and consequences of police action. The invasion of privacy by interception of private communications will, however, be undetectable, unknown and undiscoverable by those targeted unless the state seeks to rely on the results of its intentionally secretive activities in a subsequent prosecution.

In other words, it would actually come out in court. In this case, however, a person could actually be wiretapped and never know it. There is no accountability here.

Another piece that the Supreme Court quoted was the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers Association, and I think this is really interesting:

...notice is neither irrelevant to section 8 protection, nor is it a “weak” way of protecting section 8 rights, simply because it occurs after the invasion of privacy. A requirement of after-the-fact notice casts a constitutionally important light back on the statutorily authorised intrusion. The right to privacy implies not just freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but also the ability to identify and challenge such invasions, and to seek a meaningful remedy. Notice would enhance all these interests. In the case of a secret warrantless wiretap, notice to intercepted person stands almost alone as an external safeguard.

As we can see, it is not at all like a 911 call, and we need to have notice. As was pointed out, notice after the fact is still notice. There needs to be an accountability provision, and the Supreme Court of Canada found that Parliament actually failed to provide adequate safeguards to address the issue of accountability in relation to unwarranted wiretaps and went on to outline why this charter breach was not saved by section 1 of the charter.

Parliament was tasked with drafting a constitutionally compliant provision. How has the government attempted to deal with these accountability provisions?

It did introduce a new provision that the authorization should be reported back to Parliament by the Minister of Public Safety.

Like any law student, I took criminal law, but I am far from a criminal law expert. However, it strikes me that this might actually be a creative way of addressing this issue, the issue of accountability.

Offhand, I cannot think of any similar accountability provisions whereby the accountability problem is solved through annual reports to Parliament. In a way it reminds me a bit of a sunset clause, when legislation is debated and is brought back to the House for debate again, but at the same time, it is really quite different. Through this way of dealing with the report, quite a number of details would be introduced in section 195 of the Criminal Code.

It is interesting, it is potentially very creative, and I am curious about how it would work. My first instinct is to think that it just might work, but then I remember where I am. I am in the House of Commons in the 41st Parliament, with a Conservative government that refuses to accept amendments to legislation, that invokes closure or time allocation to stifle debate, that buries important legislative policies and changes in omnibus legislation.

I would like to see the bill go to committee not just to find out if this is a creative and interesting accountability solution that might work but also to find out if it would work in the context of a government that has such disdain for parliamentary oversight.

I cannot say I have the answer to those questions right now, but I really do think Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the legislation, because the government's record on privacy is not very encouraging.

I very much look forward to the testimony at committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent, elegant, hard-working and resourceful member for Halifax. She will be using the second half of the time allotted for this speech, so we will have the opportunity to hear from her.

I am rising after the member for Gatineau, who gave a wonderful speech about this issue.

We will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, it is unbelievable that the government is introducing a bill now, even though it knew for a year that changes were needed.

The Conservatives did nothing for a year. They introduced Bill C-30, which the public clearly rejected. The government even tried to denounce those who were opposed to their ill-conceived bill. The government reacted, but luckily, pressure from the Canadian people eventually forced it to abandon the bill.

Now the Conservatives have introduced Bill C-55, only 19 days before the deadline of April 13, 2013, which was imposed by the Supreme Court.

We have 19 days in total to debate it at second reading and to examine it in committee. We have 19 days to hear from witnesses from all over and to do the clause-by-clause study in order to avoid problems and ensure that the Supreme Court does not have to deal with another botched bill from this government. We have 19 days to get to third reading, to consider proposed amendments and to have a final debate and vote. That is completely ridiculous, when we have known for a full year that the government had work to do on this.

Once again, the government did not do its job. This is not the first time. We on this side of the House see this as a real problem.

As the hon. member for Gatineau put it so well, this government's bills are botched, improvised, flawed and nonsensical.

When our work is not done in the House, when witnesses do not have time to come and share their expertise, and when members do not have time to do the clause-by-clause and amend a bill based on what witnesses tell us, what happens?

True to form, the government moves a closure motion, and the bill passes, even if it is a bad, improvised bill. Canadian taxpayers are then forced to pay judges to examine the merits of the bill.

When the government does not do its job and disrespects the opposition members, Canada as a whole pays the price. Now the Supreme Court has to examine several Conservative bills that are botched, flawed and improvised. In fact, the Conservatives introduced yet another botched bill here today.

The Conservatives continue to have an attitude of entitlement. They think that they can introduce any bill in the House and that it does not matter if it is flawed. As a result, we end up spending a lot more time and tax dollars to fix these botched bills than we would if the Conservatives were disciplined and did their homework properly from the start. I think that Canadians are fed up with this.

That is one of the many reasons why more and more Canadians are saying that they look forward to 2015, when they will be able to get rid of this government and bring in a government that will introduce well-written bills, listen to witnesses and amend its bills accordingly.

In a democracy, it takes time to listen to the opinions of people across this diverse country and to fine-tune bills.

The government is being irresponsible and taking that time away from us. Even if we could work together since the deadline is 19 days away, the reality is that, if the government refuses to co-operate and tries to impose its opinion, then we will once again end up with a Conservative bill that is likely to be challenged in the courts.

If the government refuses to co-operate and tries to impose its opinion, we will once again end up with a Conservative bill that will be challenged in the courts, as we heard this morning and as we have been seeing for months. That is not what Canadians want. They want us to take the time to do things right here in Parliament.

We now have 19 days to put forward this piece of legislation. We have 19 days to get through every single level of speaking, hear from witnesses and get through all of this work. All of this could have been avoided if the government had simply done its work a year ago. After the judgment came forward from the Supreme Court, the government could have moved forward in a responsible way. It chose not to.

Yet again, we have the Conservatives basically asking the NDP to fix the mistakes they have made. Very many Canadians are looking forward to the day when we will not have to have Conservative mistakes fixed, when we will have an NDP government that can bring forward legislation that actually meets that test and receives the consent of the population.

I want to talk about the broader justice agenda. Bill C-55 is part of it. It is symptomatic of just how bad the Conservatives are on justice issues. We had crime prevention programs in the country that were doing a remarkable job. Crime prevention programs are a good investment for Canadians. When we put $1 into crime prevention, we save $6 later on in policing costs, court costs and prison costs. For every buck put into crime prevention, we see a $6 return. More importantly, we do not see victims, because the crime is never committed in the first place. That has always been the foundation of how the NDP has approached justice issues.

What did the Conservatives do? They gutted crime prevention programs. They destroyed them across the country. In my area and elsewhere, Conservatives have gutted the funding that would allow crime prevention programs to stop the crime before it is even committed, to stop having victims because the crime is not committed, saving $6 in policing costs, court costs and prison costs for every $1 spent on crime prevention.

The Conservatives have done far more in a negative way for Canada. The whole issue of putting more front-line police officers in place was a commitment made by our former leader, Jack Layton, and by the Conservatives before the last election. What have the Conservatives done? Nothing. They have failed on that front-line policing duty.

Most egregious, and there is only one way to put this, is the Conservatives' complete lack of respect for our nation's police officers and firefighters in terms of the public safety officer compensation fund. Members will recall that six years ago, before the Conservatives were elected, they voted for and committed to putting in place a public safety officer compensation program so that when our nation's police officers or firefighters are killed in the line of duty, killed protecting the Canadian public, their families are taken care of.

Since that time, I have talked to families who have lost their homes, kids who have had to quit university, and spouses who have had to try to put something together to keep the family together, because the Conservatives broke their promise to the nation's police officers and firefighters. For six long years now, firefighters and police officers have been coming to Parliament Hill. For six long years, the Conservatives have given them nothing more than the back of their hands. That is deplorable.

In 2015, when an NDP government is elected, what we are going to see is respect for the nation's police officers and firefighters. We are going to see in place a public safety officer compensation fund. We will never again see the families of our nation's police officers and firefighters left to fend for themselves because the federal government does not respect them and does not care about them.

We in the NDP take a different approach on these issues. We actually believe that bills should be brought forward in the House of Commons in a respectful way. We should hear from witnesses, improve the legislation, and make sure that it is not the type of legislation that is then subject to court challenges just to fix the mistakes the government has made.

We would take a more mature and more professional approach to justice issues. Like so many other Canadians, I can hardly wait for 2015.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I read the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. Tse very closely. I read the decision with Bill C-55 in hand, and I was able to see that this bill follows the court's privacy directives.

Some of the bill's wording bothers me, though, and the member for Gatineau mentioned one example. Does the term “peace officers” include private sector security guards? Is the definition that broad?

I expect the government to agree to have subject matter experts testify before the committee and to give these experts the latitude to fully address the issue.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question but I am curious. He just told us what he would do if he were the Minister of Justice. We are not there yet, but I have a question for him in his capacity as an MP who works on the justice file.

We know that Bill C-30 was introduced and practically caused an uproar. The NDP wants to ensure that the new Bill C-55, which we are discussing today, is in line with the charter and the new parameters set out by the court for protecting people's right to privacy.

What does my colleague think we should do while examining Bill C-55 to ensure that the charter and the right to privacy are respected? What procedures need to be followed? What should be done before the bill is passed?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, the bill we are debating today, needs to be seen against the backdrop of Bill C-30, the government's Internet surveillance bill introduced in February 2012. When Bill C-30 was tabled it crashed and burned, largely because the government failed to do its homework. Mainly, the government did not charter-proof the bill or listen to telecommunications service providers about the impracticality of some of Bill C-30's key provisions, nor did the government properly gauge Canadians' views about such a bill in advance of introducing it.

Finally, the Minister of Public Safety's mishandling of the beginnings of the debate in the House on Bill C-30, namely his hyperpartisan reaction to anyone who raised reservations about the controversial and likely unconstitutional aspects of the bill, added oil to the fire and de facto shut down the public conversation, thus foreclosing the possibility that the bill's problems might be remedied through amendment in committee; though many people doubt that the bill could have been salvaged even that way. In short, the minister's rhetoric killed the bill in its legislative tracks. One wonders also if the bill's fatal flaw, its inconsistency with charter principles, was tied to the rumour that the government no longer vets legislation against charter requirements in the drafting phase prior to tabling in Parliament.

The government's decision to withdraw Bill C-30 raises a series of questions.

First, was Bill C-30 needed in the first place? Second, if it really was necessary for public safety, why did the government withdraw the bill, given it has a majority in Parliament? As we have seen with budget legislation, the so-called stable majority Conservative government can and will do what it wants with its majority. To the government, the word “majority” means never having to say “compromise”.

Third, given its decision to withdraw Bill C-30, does the government have the courage of its convictions, whatever their merits?

The fourth question is related to the first. Does the current Criminal Code provision, namely section 184.4, provide law enforcement agencies with sufficient means to investigate and apprehend those who seek to exploit children on the Internet? By withdrawing Bill C-30, the government's answer to that question seems to be “yes”. I will come back to section 184.4 in more detail in a moment.

Another related question that comes to mind, in light of the government's new focus on the costs of policing, is whether the Conservative government is in fact investing enough to give police the resources it needs to fight cybercrime. This may be the real crux of the issue: money for policing. By not sitting down with the provinces to discuss extending and replenishing the police recruitment fund, is the government undermining the current capacity of the police to fight cybercrime? Is the government abandoning communities and leaving them more vulnerable? For example, the police recruitment fund was used in Quebec to beef up the cybercrime division of the Montreal police department. What will happen when federal funds dry up? Is the RCMP spending enough on cybercrime, or are fiscal constraints being imposed on it by the Conservative government, hurting its valuable work patrolling cyberspace, not to mention fighting the ever-complex problem of white-collar crime?

These are the tough questions that the government needs to honestly ask itself. The safety of our communities and families depends on the answers to those questions.

Bill C-55, which the Liberals support, is a response to the Supreme Court's decision in Regina v. Tse, rendered by the court last April. The Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code came shortly after the government's controversial tabling of Bill C-30 in the House. In other words, the court was deliberating on some of the issues at the core of Bill C-30 at the time the government introduced the bill. This raises the question of why the government did not wait for the Supreme Court's decision before rushing to table Bill C-30. The government could have benefited from the wisdom of the court in its final drafting of the bill. Furthermore, given that the Supreme Court, in April 2012, gave the government a full 12 months to rectify problems with section 184.4 that made the section unconstitutional, why did the government wait until the very last minute, namely two weeks ago, to deal with this matter?

As mentioned, the Tse case was a test of the constitutionality of section 184.4 in its existing form. Section 184 of the Criminal Code deals with emergency wiretapping or wiretapping in an emergency situation.

Section 184.4 is about the interception, without the normally required warrant, of private communications, including computer communications, in exigent circumstances—that is, in circumstances where interception is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to a person or property, and a warrant cannot be obtained quickly enough to prevent the imminent harm; in other words, in situations where every minute counts.

In the Tse case the police in B.C. used section 184.4 to carry out unauthorized 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. The case brought before the Supreme Court was an appeal by the Crown of a trial judge's finding that section 184.4 in its current form violates the charter.

The question the Supreme Court was asked to address was whether section 184.4, as currently written, contravenes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to section 8 of the charter relating to privacy rights and, if so, whether this section's constitutionality is salvaged by section 1 of the charter, which allows a charter right to be circumscribed if it is deemed reasonable to do so in a free and democratic society.

In the earlier landmark decision Hunter v. Southam Inc., the Supreme Court determined that a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable. In other words, the presumed constitutional standard for searches or seizures in the criminal sphere is judicial pre-authorization—that is, obtaining a warrant.

In Regina v. Duarte, the Supreme Court found that:

...as a general proposition, surreptitious electronic surveillance of the individual by an agency of the state constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

However, as the court said in its decision in Tse:

Exigent circumstances are factors that inform the reasonableness of the search or authorizing law and may justify the absence of prior judicial authorization.

Thus, in principle, it would seem that Parliament may craft a narrow emergency wiretap authority for exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm if judicial authorization is not available through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Thus, section 184.4 is based on the accepted principle that, to quote the court:

...the privacy interests of some may have to yield temporarily for the greater good of society—here, the protection of lives and property from harm that is both serious and imminent.

To further quote the court in the Tse decision:

Section 184.4 contains a number of legislative conditions. Properly construed, these conditions are designed to ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization is available only in exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm. To that extent, the section strikes an appropriate balance between an individual's s. 8 Charter rights and society's interests in preventing serious harm.

This reasoning is consistent with Justice Lamer's observation in Godoy, which states that “dignity, integrity and autonomy” are values underlying the privacy interest; however, the interests of a person in need of police assistance are “closer to the core of the values of dignity, integrity and autonomy than the interest of the person who seeks to deny entry to police who arrive in response to a call for help”.

The court's main finding in Tse is that section 184.4 is unconstitutional because of the absence of a requirement to notify the person whose communications have been intercepted of the fact of that interception. This is in contrast to judicial authorizations obtained under sections 186 and 188 where the subject of the interception must be notified within 90 days.

While the court refused to rule on the need to tighten the definition of “peace officer” under section 184.4, arguing it lacked “a proper evidentiary foundation to determine the matter”, it did express “reservations about the wide range of people who, by virtue of the broad definition of 'peace officer', can invoke the extraordinary measures under s. 184.4”.

The term “peace officer” currently includes mayors, bailiffs, prison guards et cetera.

The Liberals nonetheless support the government's initiative in Bill C-55 to narrow the class of individuals who can make an interception under section 184.4. to mean police officers only, meaning an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace. However, we wish to know if this narrowed class also includes private security guards of the type contracted more and more by municipalities to fill the reduction in their regular police coverage, for example, when regional municipalities cut police budgets or reassign police to other geographic areas.

Similarly, while the court ruled that there is no constitutional imperative for the government to report to Parliament on the use of section 184.4, we believe the requirement in Bill C-55 that this be done is a positive step, obviously, as it provides an important safeguard needed to balance the interests of the state in preventing harm and prosecuting crime with the obligation to protect section 8 charter rights.

Finally, we are a bit puzzled, however, as to why Bill C-55 limits section 184.4 interceptions to the large number of offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. True, it was the opinion of Justice Davies, the trial judge in Tse, that section 184.4 should be limited to offences enumerated in section 183. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, in the appeal:

There may be situations that would justify interceptions under s. 184.4 for unlawful acts not enumerated in s. 183. We prefer the conclusion of Dambrot J. in Riley...that the scope of the unlawful act requirement is sufficiently, if not more, circumscribed for constitutional purposes, by the requirement that the unlawful act must be one that would cause serious harm to persons or property.... No meaningful additional protection of privacy would be gained by listing the unlawful acts that could give rise to such serious harm. The list of offences in s. 183 is itself very broad; however, Parliament chose to focus upon an unlawful act that would cause serious harm. We see no reason to interfere with that choice....

...the serious harm threshold is a meaningful and significant legal restriction on s. 184.4 and is part of this Court’s jurisprudence in a number of different contexts....

...this threshold is also consistent with the police practice surrounding s. 184.4.

It appears that Bill C-55 is an admission by the government that police forces already dispose of necessary legal powers to act to intercept incidents of cybercrime involving children or terrorism for that matter. We are thus a bit puzzled as to why the government went ahead and introduced Bill C-30 only to withdraw it.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

Bill C-30 was a disaster, as someone said earlier.

What do we need to make sure we do when it comes to Bill C-55? What process do we need to go through to ensure that this bill complies with the charter and the parameters set by the Supreme Court for protecting privacy?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Justice that when one is seeking support from people, it helps to be nice to them.

Indeed, it is going to take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to ensure that a bill as important as Bill C-55 is given the attention it deserves. I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is asking the 307 other members of this House to simply take a leap of faith and blindly accept this bill because we have an obligation imposed by the Supreme Court.

On this side of the House, we in the official opposition plan to work very hard on this. I can tell the minister that we will support this bill so that it can be sent quickly to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This will not stop us from doing our job in committee, as we always do, as the minister knows very well. We do not do this in order to systematically oppose the government. I hope I will not hear this from any Conservatives for the next 10 days, which is how long members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will have to examine Bill C-55. I am very serious. The Supreme Court of Canada has set a deadline. We are not the ones asking for a favour here; rather, the government is, if it wants to meet the deadline.

I cannot believe that the brilliant legal minds at the Department of Justice took 11 months to draft Bill C-55. The fact is that the Conservatives made a serious mistake at the outset. They introduced Bill C-30 thinking that it would solve every conceivable problem related to wiretaps. I cannot exactly blame the Minister of Justice, since it was not his file. Rather, it was the Minister of Public Safety's file.

The Conservatives had to backpedal and introduce this bill with just a few weeks' notice. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are meeting today, but they will not be studying this bill. They are meeting on Wednesday, but they will probably not study this bill then either. That leaves two days at most. On this side of the House, we promise to look at this bill closely and we will do our best to finish our study of it in time.

However, I would ask the government to be more open than it has been since we arrived in this House, since the 2011 election.

The official opposition makes some very good suggestions sometimes that would prevent the government from looking bad and ending up yet again with a case like R. v. Tse. In its ruling on that case, the Supreme Court said that there was a problem with the legislation. The government can keep saying, and rightly so, that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code already existed, that this provision has been around since 1993, before it came to power.

I am not really interested in knowing who to blame. I just want us to settle this issue. The Supreme Court was very clear. It pointed to the problem and to the aspects that were inconsistent with the charter. It set its findings aside for one year to give the government a chance to deal with this major legal void.

Often, that is why I ask the minister or his officials whether any serious, in-depth studies have been done before certain bills are introduced. From a distance, these bills may be well-meaning, but up close they create more problems because they are drafted so quickly. This will come back to haunt the Conservatives maybe not tomorrow, next month or in the next six months, but someday.

When I was a lawyer, I tried to prevent any future problems by anticipating problems that could come out of any document I wrote. As legislators, we should do the same.

We should not believe, as a Conservative colleague told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that the courts will set things right if we make a mistake. I found that really ironic coming from a member of the Conservative government, which does not really have the greatest respect for what is known as judicial authority. When it suits them, the Conservatives rely on judicial authority to fix everything and set things straight.

However, I do not want to send people to court. This is not because I do not have faith in the courts. Quite the contrary. However, I know that it is very expensive, that the situation is not clear-cut and that there are problems accessing justice.

In this context, if we do our job properly in the House, if we draft bills that comply with our charter and our Constitution, we will solve many of the problems. After that, the courts will do their job, based on the circumstances.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in R v. Tse. I urge all my colleagues in the House to read the decision before voting on Bill C-55. There is no need to read all 50 pages of the decision, whether in French or in English, but at least read the summary. It gives a good explanation of the problem arising from the section on invasion of privacy. Believe it or not, that is what it is called. In the Criminal Code, the section concerns invasion of privacy. However, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, this section is justified in the very specific context of certain offences. Section 183 of the Criminal Code explains in what context this section applies.

I would point out to my colleagues and to those watching that we are not referring to minor offences. We are talking about extremely serious situations such as sabotage, terrorism, hijacking, endangering safety of aircraft or airport and possessing explosives. I could repeat them all, but there is a good list in section 183.

This 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. The authorities must ensure that the circumstances in question actually constitute an invasion of privacy. Most of the sections provide for some checks and require the Crown and the police to obtain certain authorizations. Section 184.4 has proven to be problematic in this regard because it is rather unclear about wiretapping. Unless an indictment was filed against the people in question, they would never know that they were being wiretapped. This problem therefore needed to be resolved. The Supreme Court gave directives to follow in such cases.

The Supreme Court often has more respect for the government than the government has for the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court still provides very general solutions and leaves it up to the government to draft bills.

Some clauses require more reflection and debate. I am not sure that the definition of “police officer” set out in clause 3 of Bill C-55 responds to the question that the Supreme Court of Canada will have to consider. The Supreme Court refused to rule on this specific issue because it had not been discussed before the court. Since the Supreme Court is very respectful of its role, it said that it did not have enough information to make recommendations to the government regarding this definition.

This will be examined in committee. The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be able to ask representatives of the Department of Justice and the minister questions about how the definition was developed and what the basis for the definition was. The bill is not really clear on that. We will certainly have some good discussions in this regard.

I would also like to draw hon. members' attention to the provision that sets out the possibility of renewing certain authorizations for three months to three years. I am no longer talking about section 184.4.

I would like to reiterate that I am talking about the section that pertains to invasion of privacy. Is it reasonable to renew such authority for three years? These things should be discussed.

These bills sometimes appear to be straightforward at first glance, but prove to be more complicated when we really get into specifics.

And since the devil is in the details, I think that as legislators we have a duty to at least do our job seriously. If we do not, in six months or a year, the Supreme Court of Canada will render a decision that shows we did not do our job. It will take a look at what we did so it can determine what the legislator's intent was. It sometimes uses the debates from the House or the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The legislator here refers to us. We must stop thinking that the legislator is some separate person within the confines of Parliament. The legislators are all of us, here in the House of Commons. If the Supreme Court wants to know the legislator's intent, it will look at what was said during the debates.

If the records show that there was no debate because the government waited until the very last minute to push a bill that has huge repercussions in terms of invasion of privacy—we are talking about invasion of privacy here—we must all, as good legislators, do our due diligence.

The bill will not be needlessly stalled, but I repeat to my colleagues opposite that they are the ones who need to get this bill passed as quickly as possible. They do not even have enough time to move the closure motions they love to use to prevent us from debating the bill, because in the time it will take to debate those motions, the bill will not even have had the time to get to committee or back to the House.

The Conservatives need the official opposition to help ensure that this bill passes. On behalf of the official opposition caucus, I can say that we are not in the habit of blocking something simply for enjoyment. We leave that kind of attitude to the members opposite. However, my colleagues and I will not sit back and listen to them say that the NDP supports criminals. If I hear anyone say that, I swear, I will talk so long at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that the Supreme Court will have time to replace seven out of nine justices before I am done.

Let us all do the work that we were sent here to do and let us be serious about it, so we can assure people that the Criminal Code has a section on the invasion of privacy. In the R. v. Tse case, all the necessary safeguards were in place to say that this is acceptable in a free and democratic society, considering the seriousness of the offences covered by section 183.

These are just a few of the points that need to be seriously examined in committee—but with good questions and good answers, and not by playing silly games or being secretive and pretending that everything was carefully considered. We must look for solutions.

Bill C-55 will probably pass by the deadline set by the Supreme Court, but I repeat that the government waited until the last minute. It should be ashamed of playing games with something as serious as this. I will not hold it against the Minister of Justice, since he had been steered in the wrong direction. The Conservatives started out on the wrong track with Bill C-30, and it took time for them to admit that and to withdraw that bill.

It is like finding out that a bad TV show was pulled from the lineup. Bill C-30 was finally pulled from the lineup. Thank goodness. It was replaced to a very small extent by Bill C-55. I do not want the people listening at home to think that Bill C-55 is a carbon copy of Bill C-30. That is absolutely not the case. It does what needed to be done. It amends a very specific section of the Criminal Code—section 183 and following—to answer the questions and carry out the orders of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Some of my colleagues will likely talk about the various provisions, but I want to speak to section 184.4, which is amended by clause 3.

That is quite possibly the most critical section in the decision in R. v. Tse, because it is exactly what the Supreme Court was referring to.

I would also like to draw the members' attention to something else that bothers me, and that is the clause about reporting authorized interceptions. Clause 5 of the bill covers authorizations and extensions for up to three years. Extensions are set out in clause 6 of the bill, specifically in the amendment to section 196.1. The clause mentions the initial 90-day period and states that an extension can be granted under subsection x, y or z for up to three years.

We should be looking into those aspects because they could have some serious implications. The definition of “police officer” should also be addressed. It is somewhat worrying, given what the Supreme Court said:

In the absence of a proper record, the issue of whether the use of the section by peace officers, other than police officers, renders this section overbroad is not addressed.

The Supreme Court is always careful to respond only to issues that are before it. Since the issue of who has the right to wiretap—in this case, peace officers—did not come before the Supreme Court, much to its credit, the court said that it would not rule on the issue. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court is not there to provide legal opinions, except when the government, regardless of which party is in power, lacks political courage and decides to go through the Supreme Court to be told what it has the right to do, whether it be with regard to the Senate, same-sex civil marriage or even Quebec's right to secede. These are some examples that come to mind.

This is often the strategy used by governments that do not want to stick their necks out. They hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will wave its magic wand and solve all of our country's political problems, which does not often happen, because the Supreme Court is actually very respectful of political power, our power to enact legislation. That is exactly what the Supreme Court did in this case.

The wording of the new definition of “police officer” seems a bit odd to me. It does not seem to be written in a typical fashion. It says:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace

As I lawyer, I must say that the expression “[any] other person” is vague, and I never like to see this type of expression in provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to invasion of privacy. Does this refer to security guards? This brings up so many questions for me.

What I would like to show my colleagues is that a bill that seems so benign and that is described by the minister as being “very straightforward” can be more complicated than we think. It is our job to point that out, particularly since this bill responds to a request from the Supreme Court of Canada that we go back to the drawing board. In my opinion, if we do not want the Supreme Court of Canada to give us another “F” for “fail”, we should at least take the time needed to do that.

I am ready to answer questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to what degree is a minister representing the Government of Canada obligated to ensure, prior to the introduction of legislation, that there is some form of constitutional compliance? Does the government have a check in place to ensure that the legislation it is passing is, in fact, constitutionally compliant?

My second question is related to the previous question. The bill is being introduced today. In a relatively short time, a few weeks, we are expected to pass Bill C-55 straight through the system. The minister had the opportunity to introduce the bill months ago. One could accuse him of being negligent in terms of his own responsibilities by not bringing forward the bill in a more timely fashion that would have allowed for due diligence. I am wondering why it took him so long to introduce the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for rising in the House to explain Bill C-55. We appreciate it.

We all know that we are on a tight deadline. April 13, 2013 is not that far off. The Supreme Court rendered its decision almost a year ago, and it basically told the government to get its act together. Bill C-55 was introduced a few days ago.

It reminds me of my university days. We would wait until the last minute to do our work, which sometimes yielded great results because we could come up with some great things at the last minute. However, there were also instances where we did not have enough time to ensure that there were checks and balances in place. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question about that.

This is an urgent situation. Since the government did an about-face by abandoning Bill C-30—which it felt would fix the issue—and since the Minister of Justice took on the task of making Bill C-55 more palatable, did he also take the time to speak with experts in his department to find out if the proposed amendments are in line with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-55, a response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the R. v. Tse case. This important piece of legislation would ensure constitutional compliance of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

The bill we debate today is the government's response to the April 2012 Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen and Tse.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is conceptually sound but that it is constitutionally invalid in its current form because it does not provide for an after-the-fact notification requirement to persons whose private communications were the object of a wiretap interception pursuant to section 184.4.

The court suspended its finding of constitutional invalidity until April 13, 2013, to provide Parliament with time to remedy the defect of this provision, failing which section 184.4 of the Criminal Code would no longer be available to law enforcement agents. With the introduction of the bill, I hope that its provisions will receive the widespread support of all parliamentarians so that we can move forward with this essential investigative tool.

Before members consider the specific amendments proposed by the bill, I think it would be helpful for them to know the facts of the R. v. Tse case, because they illustrate how important section 184.4 is in practice, and more importantly, they show how critical it is that the police continue to have access to such an essential power in situations where every minute counts.

In the case I refer to, three persons were kidnapped one night in 2006. When the daughter of one of the alleged kidnapping victims began receiving calls from her father stating that he was being held for ransom, the police used the power provided to them under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to carry out interceptions of the communications without prior judicial authorization. It had become clear to them that the victims were at serious risk of being harmed and that a wiretap was the way to assist in providing critical information about the situation at hand.

Since lives were at risk, the police could not afford to lose time by following the regular process and preparing all of the paperwork required to obtain a regular wiretap judicial authorization beforehand. Neither could they, given the imminent danger involved, obtain an emergency wiretap under section 188 of the Criminal Code. Section 188, which does allow for a more streamlined process to obtain a temporary judicial authorization to intercept private communications, still requires some paperwork and the availability of a designated peace officer and a specially designated superior court judge.

In the Tse case, the police determined that there was no time to go through either the regular elaborate wiretap process or the so-called emergency process to obtain the authorization to intercept the private communications. Accordingly, they relied on section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to perform wiretap interceptions without a judicial authorization.

When the case went to trial, the accused argued that section 184.4 was unconstitutional because it did not offer the usual privacy protections that are provided when a full-blown wiretap authorization is issued by a judge, which is the mechanism that police usually rely on to intercept private communications.

The judge found that in the circumstances at hand, the use of a wiretap without a judicial authorization could be justified; the court also held, however, that more safeguards should be built into section 184.4 to ensure that this exceptional power was used appropriately.

The trial court was particularly concerned about the lack of any requirement for officers to, first, give notice to those persons whose communications had been intercepted and, second, to report their use of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

As a result, the trial judge in British Columbia declared the provision unconstitutional and gave Parliament a deadline to remedy the constitutional shortcomings. Since then, trial-level courts in Quebec and Ontario have made similar rulings.

The crown appealed the declaration of unconstitutionality in R. v. Tse directly to the Supreme Court of Canada which, as I mentioned earlier, confirmed the constitutional invalidity of section 184.4 but suspended the effect of that declaration until April 13, 2013.

The Supreme Court of Canada also provided some helpful direction with respect to privacy safeguards that could be added by Parliament to improve the provision.

Bill C-55 therefore proposes to amend section 184.4 of the Criminal Code so that it remains available in life-threatening situations while offering appropriate privacy protections.

It is critical for members to also understand that section 184.4 does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a broader spectrum of wiretap powers provided for in the Criminal Code.

Part VI of the Criminal Code was created nearly 40 years ago, in 1974. Entitled “Invasion of Privacy”, part VI criminalizes the wilful interception of private communications, subject only to a few exceptions. Part VI contains numerous privacy protections and stringent tests to ensure an appropriate balance between investigative needs in pursuit of criminal justice and the privacy of Canadians.

The provisions contained in part VI of the Criminal Code have evolved from the two originally enacted types of authorizations—regular and emergency wiretaps, sections 186 and 188 respectively—to the five provisions for wiretaps that we have today.

These five different types of wiretaps form a spectrum of police interception powers that range from a high level of judicial oversight for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime, which could be described as investigative wiretaps, to no judicial oversight when the purpose is to prevent an imminent harm, or what could be described as preventive wiretaps. Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code falls into that latter category.

Section 184.4, the preventive wiretap, allows peace officers to intercept private communications without any judicial authorization in situations of imminent harm. It is designed to be used in order to prevent an unlawful act which a police officer believes on reasonable grounds would cause serious harm to a person or property.

The peace officer also has to believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person whose communications are to be intercepted is either the person who plans to commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm, or the victim or intended victim of the harm.

Importantly, the peace officer must also rule out the possibility of obtaining any other type of wiretap authorization contained in part VI.

Section 184.4 is designed to allow police to prevent serious harm to persons or property and to save lives in the most extreme cases. In high-stakes situations like bomb threats, every minute lost can be a game changer, and gathering evidence of the crime is a secondary consideration.

However, this does not mean that this power is without any judicial oversight. As was recognized by the Supreme Court, while this provision “allows for extreme measures in extreme circumstances”, the police know that their ability to intercept private communications without judicial authorization in exceptional circumstances under this section diminishes with the passage of time.

The court also noted that once the police start wiretapping in such circumstances, the speed with which they can obtain the follow-up judicial authorization plays a role in assessing whether this section passes constitutional muster. If the police do not proceed to seek the appropriate authorization when circumstances allow, they risk non-compliance if they continue interception under section 184.4. Thus, even in cases in which the situation allows for an interception under section 184.4, given the imminent harm or danger, steps need to be taken to regularize the process and the police need to start as soon as possible to prepare an application for a judicial authorization under section 188 if there is still urgency, or through the regular process otherwise.

This is exactly what happened in the Tse case. Twenty-four hours after having intercepted private communications in accordance with section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, the police obtained a judicial authorization to continue those interceptions.

Given the broad spectrum of wiretap powers and the parameters within which the police operate in urgent situations, I hope that we can all agree that it is absolutely necessary for police to continue to be able to get these communications without judicial authorization in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent serious harm.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly said that in order to retain this essential tool in a way that does not contravene the Constitution, the privacy provisions provided in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code need to be improved by requiring the police to notify, after the fact, persons who were the object of the wiretap interception. Therefore, Bill C-55 proposes to do not only this, but to also add other safeguards into section 184.4 consistent with our objective of ensuring the safety and security of Canadians while protecting their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. This critical balance is reflected in the bill.

Bill C-55 proposes an amendment that would require persons whose private communications have been intercepted to be notified of that interception once the interception is complete. As is currently the case in the Criminal Code for other wiretap authorities, Bill C-55 would require that such a notification be provided in writing within 90 days of the interception unless an extension is granted by a judge. Notification ensures that those whose private communications have been intercepted will be made aware of that fact so that they can exercise important rights, including their right to a fair trial.

Requiring after-the-fact notification for section 184.4 is clearly what is required by the Tse decision to pass constitutional muster. However, our bill goes further by proposing another safeguard to better protect the privacy of Canadians.

Section 195 of the Criminal Code currently requires yearly reports to Parliament on the extent of the use of electronic surveillance. This provision provides a detailed list of information to be included in the annual reports. By adding section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to the list of wiretaps that need to be reported, the bill would require the federal Minister of Public Safety as well as provincial Attorneys General to prepare a report each year on the use of this particular section, consistent with the existing reporting requirements under section 195 of the Criminal Code for other types of wiretaps.

As spelled out in the bill, the reports would include, for example, information about the number of interceptions and notifications, the methods used, and the number of persons arrested whose identity became known to a police officer as a result of the interception.

If Parliament and the public in general know how and how often these powers are used, it will be possible to review their use on an annual basis, thereby assisting to ensure that these powers are only used in appropriate situations. This, in turn, would allow Parliament to make adjustments, if necessary.

Another safeguard proposed by Bill C-55 would limit the use of the Criminal Code to specific offences only. Currently, the law permits section 184.4 to be used in respect of any unlawful act. While the unlawful act has to be one that would cause serious harm to any person or property, the concept of unlawful act could be made clearer. That is why the bill proposes to limit the use of section 184.4 to the offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. This limit already applies to most other wiretap authorizations. It would create certainty for police so that they could easily determine whether this investigative tool is available in the situation they are dealing with.

Finally, the bill proposes to restrict a class of persons who can use this authority to police officers only. Currently, the authority under section 184.4 is available to peace officers, which is defined in the Criminal Code to include not only police officers but also a wide range of officials, including fishery guardians, mayors and customs officials.

This proposed amendment accepts the Supreme Court of Canada's suggestion in R. v. Tse to consider whether the availability of the provision to peace officers generally might be overly broad. The court declined to address this situation in the absence of a proper record, but that is not to say that it could not come up in the future.

This legislation would not only remedy the constitutional defect of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code but would enhance the safeguards associated with this provision that allow police to intercept communications without judicial authorization in situations where there is an imminent and serious risk of harm to any person or property. The amendments are specifically intended to reduce privacy concerns and to increase accountability and transparency.

I hope the bill can be passed quickly to meet the April 13, 2013 deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Passing this legislation would ensure that we continue to have the tools necessary to obtain information required to deal with exceptional situations, such as kidnapping, while at the same time respecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

I urge all members of the House to give this legislation their full support.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)