Bill C-13 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, most notably, for
(a) a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well as complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images and the restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender;
(b) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(c) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(d) a warrant that will extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications;
(e) warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake; and
(f) a streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to an authorization to intercept private communications by ensuring that those warrants and orders can be issued by a judge who issues the authorization and by specifying that all documents relating to a request for a related warrant or order are automatically subject to the same rules respecting confidentiality as the request for authorization.
The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouse is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution with respect to the new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
It also amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.
Lastly, it amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support, as all parties do, tackling the important issues that the bill before us seeks to tackle. We also know that there has been an explosion of sexual exploitation of individuals online without their consent and an explosion of child pornography. What we have to do is find those measures that would be effective in bringing an end to these heinous practices.

Like the member for Peace River—Westlock, I would like to support and salute the survivors who have told their tales, at much personal sacrifice and much personal anguish, publicly acknowledging what has happened to them and the impact it has had on their lives. We would not be making progress on these issues without that work by those survivors, so I think we all want to salute them for their bravery in taking up this problem.

However, the challenge with these issues is to find what will actually work to end sexual exploitation. We know that a lack of resources for enforcement is almost always at least equally important to any gaps in legislation. What we need to see is dedicated funding to specific and skilled police units to tackle these questions because it can become highly complex and highly convoluted in trying to bring these cases to prosecution, and we know that is one of the problems with the existing legislation. It is difficult to prosecute for these offences under the Criminal Code as it now stands.

We look forward, as New Democrats, to hearing from expert witnesses in committee on what measures will actually be the most effective in bringing an end to these practices, and whether and how the measures proposed in Bill C-270 would contribute to bringing an end to online sexual exploitation. The bill, in some senses, is very simple. It would require checking ID and keeping records of consent. Some would argue that the existing law already implicitly requires that, so is this a step that would make it easier to prosecute? I do not know the answer to that, but I am looking forward to hearing expert testimony on it.

While this legislation is not specific to women, it is important to acknowledge the disproportionate representation of women as victims of both child pornography and of sexual exploitation online without consent. However, I would also note that we have had a recent rash of cases of sexploitation or sextortion of young men who thought they had been speaking to other partners their own age online. They later find out that they were being threatened with the images they had shared being posted online and being asked for money or sexual favours to avoid that. Yes, it is primarily women, but we have seen this other phenomenon occurring where men pose as young women to get young boys to share those images.

Obviously, we need more education for young people on the dangers of sharing intimate images, although I am under no illusion that we can change the way young people relate to each other online and through their phones. Education would be important, but some measures to deal with these things when they happen are also important.

If we look at the Criminal Code, paragraph 162.1(1) already makes it illegal to distribute an intimate image without consent. Of course, child pornography, under a succeeding subsection, is also already illegal. This was first brought forward and added to the Criminal Code 11 years ago. I was a member of Parliament at that time, and the member for Peace River—Westlock joined us shortly after. It came in an omnibus bill brought forward by the Conservatives. In that bill, there were a number of things, to be honest, that New Democrats objected to, but when the bill, which was Bill C-13 at the time, was brought forward, our spokesperson Françoise Boivin offered to the government to split the bill, take out the section on online exploitation without consent and pass it through all stages in a single day. The Conservatives refused, at that point, to do that, and it took another year and a half to get that passed into law.

New Democrats have been supportive in taking these actions and have recognized its urgency for more than a decade. We are on board with getting the bill before us to committee and making sure that we find what is most effective in tackling these problems.

What are the problems? I see that there are principally two.

One, as I have mentioned before, is the difficulty of prosecution and the difficulty of making those who profit from this pay a price. All the prosecutors I have talked to have said that it is difficult to make these cases. It is difficult to investigate, and it is difficult to get convictions. Are there things we can do that would help make prosecution easier, and are the things suggested in the bill going to do that? I look forward to finding that out in committee.

The second problem is the problem of takedown, and we all know that once the images are uploaded, they are there forever. They are hard to get rid of. As members of the government's side have pointed out, there are measures in government Bill C-63 that would help with warrants of seizure, forfeiture, restitution and peace bonds in trying to get more effective action to take down the images once they have been posted. I am not an optimist about the ability to do that, but we seem to lack the tools we need now to make a stab at taking the images off-line. It is also important to remember that whatever we do here has to make our law more effective at getting those who are profiting from the images. That is really what the bill is aimed at, and I salute the member for Peace River—Westlock for that singular focus because I think that is really key.

We also have to be aware of unintended consequences. When subsection 162.1(1) became law, in court we ran into a problem fairly early on of minors who share private images between each other, because technically, under the law as it is written, that is illegal; it is child pornography, and it certainly was not the intention to capture 15-year-olds who share intimate images with each other.

Whenever we make these kinds of changes, we have to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. Whether we like the practices that young people engage in online or not is not the question. We just have to make sure we do not capture innocent people when we are trying to capture those who profit from exploitation. The second part, in terms of unintended consequences, is I think we have to keep in mind there are those who are engaged in lawful forms of sex work online, and we have to make sure they are not captured under the broad strokes of the bill.

Again, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony about what will work to tackle these problems. We know the images are already illegal, but we know we lack effective tools in the legal system both to prosecute and to get the images taken down. New Democrats are broadly supportive of the principles in the bill. We are looking forward to the expert testimony I am certain we will hear at committee about what will actually work in tackling the problem. I look forward to the early passage of the bill through to committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-22.

The Chair has received a letter from the government House leader arguing that Motion No. 6 could not have been presented in committee, as the changes it proposes arose out of a decision of the Supreme Court rendered very shortly before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security began clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. A similar argument was made in relation to part (b) of Motion No. 3. The court decision in question was rendered on Friday, November 25, 2016, and clause-by-clause consideration began on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. The government House leader contended in her letter that there was not sufficient time to analyze the consequences of the decision and prepare amendments accordingly. For that reason, she has asked that they be selected at report stage.

The hon. member for Victoria has also sent a letter to the Chair arguing that these amendments should not be selected, as he believes they should have been presented in committee. He also argues that there are cases in the past where the Chair has refused to select motions presented by the government.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented or were defeated in committee.

However, there have been exceptions. On September 22, 2014, the Speaker was faced with a similar case in relation to a motion at the report stage of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The hon. member for Charlottetown submitted a motion arising out of a court decision rendered after clause-by-clause and, in that case, the motion was selected.

The circumstances in the present case, although not identical, are sufficiently analogous to satisfy the Chair that the motions in question should be selected for consideration at report stage.

The Chair has examined the remaining motions submitted and is satisfied they meet the criteria spelled out in Standing Order 76.1(5). Motion No. 1 could not have been presented in committee, as it requires a royal recommendation. Part (a) of Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4 further amend changes made by the committee. Motion No. 5 restores a clause deleted by the committee. Motions Nos. 2 and 7 propose to delete clauses. These motions will all be selected.

Motions numbered 1 to 7 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 7 to the House.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

The bill is designed to support and facilitate the inclusion of transgender and other gender diverse people in Canadian society. Diversity and inclusion are values that are important to us as Canadians, yet we have heard repeatedly from trans and gender diverse Canadians that they still do not feel safe or fully included in Canadian society. Social science research also shows that many transgender and other gender diverse Canadians are not yet able to fully participate in our society. They face negative stereotypes, harassment, discrimination, and sometimes violence.

We know that discrimination and violence have significant impacts on social participation and an individual's sense of safety in the public sphere. Research conducted by the Trans Pulse survey found that approximately two-thirds of trans people in Ontario had avoided public spaces or situations because they feared being harassed or being perceived or outed as trans. The survey also indicated that the majority of trans Ontarians had avoided public washrooms because of these fears. Trans Ontarians also avoided travelling abroad, going to the gym, shopping at the mall, and eating out in restaurants, all commonplace everyday activities and pleasures that many of us are able to enjoy comfortably. However, for many trans people, these activities can be fearful because of their previous experiences of harassment and discrimination.

The research also shows that transgender or other gender diverse people face significant obstacles in obtaining employment. This is not due to a lack of qualifications. The Trans Pulse survey results I mentioned earlier showed that 44% have a post-secondary degree, but trans people are significantly underemployed, with many having been fired or turned down for a job because they are trans. Others felt that they had to turn down a job that they were offered because of a lack of a trans-positive or safe work environment.

It is clear that too many transgender and gender diverse people are being deprived of the opportunity to contribute to and flourish in our society. This is important not just for trans people but for us all. When a person loses an opportunity to work or is too fearful to go out shopping or eat in a restaurant, we all lose a potential contribution to the workplace, to the economy, and to our collective social life. Discrimination is a matter of concern to us all. It both undermines the freedom of those individuals to make the life they are able and wish to have, and it deprives us all of their participation in our society.

The bill would be just the beginning but is an important beginning. It is another step toward greater acceptance and inclusion. By adding the grounds of gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in sections 2 and 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we would protect the freedom to live openly.

The amendments proposed by the bill would make it clear that discrimination in employment against trans people is unacceptable and a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. An employer cannot refuse to hire or promote a qualified individual simply because that person is trans or gender diverse. These amendments will make it clear that federally regulated employers and service providers will need to provide accommodation for transgender and other gender diverse individuals when required and treat them in a manner that corresponds with their lived gender. Explicit recognition will also serve to promote understanding and awareness about trans people and their rights.

I now want to address one of the amendments that the bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code, which is to expand the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code to protect those who are targeted because of their gender identity or gender expression. To put this proposal in context, it is useful to give some of the history of these offences.

There are three crimes of hate propaganda. They were created in 1970. These are now found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. These offences are advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group, inciting hatred against an identifiable group in a public place that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and willfully promoting hatred, other than in private conversation, against an identifiable group.

As we can see, a key element for all of these offences is the term “identifiable group”. When the hate propaganda offences were first created and for many years afterward, the definition of identifiable group was very limited in scope. It was defined in the Criminal Code to mean a section of the public that was identifiable on the basis of race, colour, religion, and ethnic origin.

In 2001, the then member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas introduced in the House Bill C-415, later reinstated as Bill C-250, and entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)”. This bill proposed to add sexual orientation to the definition of identifiable group in the Criminal Code. The member quoted in support of his bill a statement made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990 case of R. v. Keegstra, which upheld the constitutionality of the hate propaganda offence of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. The Supreme Court said:

The harms caused by [hate propaganda] run directly counter to the values central to a free and democratic society, and in restricting the promotion of hatred Parliament is therefore seeking to bolster the notion of mutual respect necessary in a nation which venerates the equality of all persons.

In 2004, Bill C-250 became law. As a result, the definition of identifiable group was expanded to include sexual orientation as an identifiable group for the crimes of hate propaganda.

I will now fast-track to 2014, when Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, received royal assent. One section of that bill amended the definition of identifiable group for the hate propaganda offences by adding more groups to that definition, specifically the criteria of national origin, sex, age, and mental or physical disability. As we have seen, the definition of identifiable group has been expanded considerably since 1970. This expansion reflects a commitment to equality and the desire of Canadians to protect more and more vulnerable groups in our society from the serious harms to human dignity that flow from the type of vicious hate speech prohibited by these Criminal Code provisions.

Bill C-16 proposes to add two new terms to the definition of identifiable group: gender identity and gender expression. Such an expansion is eminently justifiable on two grounds.

First, this expansion would extend to those in our society who are identifiable on the basis of gender identity and gender expression the same protections already afforded to other groups in Canadian society, such as those identifiable on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation. This would help to promote equality before the law and throughout Canadian society for trans people.

Second, this expansion would explicitly recognize that those who are identifiable on the basis of their gender identity and gender expression are in need of protection by the criminal law. For example, the Trans Pulse survey I mentioned earlier indicates that trans people are the targets of specifically directed violence; 20% had been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans, and another 34% had been verbally threatened or harassed but not assaulted.

Here in Canada, we criminalize hate propaganda, in part because it undermines the dignity and respect of the targeted group. It undermines their sense of belonging and inclusion in society. Adding gender identity and gender expression to the list would send a clear message that hate propaganda against trans and other gender diverse individuals is not acceptable.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

Digital Privacy Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really put his finger on the problem, which is rather widespread and applies to other bills besides the one before us today.

For instance, following public pressure, the government unfortunately had to withdraw Bill C-30 from the order paper. However, there was also Bill C-51 and Bill C-13 on cybercrime. Now we are talking about Bill S-4, which completely destroys Canada's privacy protection regime. It waters down the criteria for obtaining warrants and, in some cases, even allows authorities to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant.

I wonder whether the member could tell us just how troubled he is that this government says here in the House and elsewhere that it wants to protect Canadians, and yet it introduces a number of bills, like Bill C-51, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4, that put Canadians' privacy at risk.

Motion in Amendment

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

Liberals will not be supporting the bill. I want to be clear that we do not seek to invalidate incorporation by reference in regulations, a technique that has been long in use and that is useful on a case-by-case basis. However, the government cannot be trusted to act responsibly with these expanded powers. We have seen time and time again the government's abuse of oversight mechanisms. I think specifically of its use of omnibus legislation and its bad-faith approach to the Department of Justice's constitutional review process, including the use of private members' bills to avoid that process.

A general power to incorporate by reference could embolden the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. For that reason, expanding the government's power to delegate lawmaking to foreign or private entities will not serve the public interest.

Liberals will not expand the Conservatives' power to privatize and export the power to make Canadian law.

There is also a chance that this bill could prioritize the English version of Canadian laws by allowing changes to be made to the English text without updating the French version.

To be clear, we agree that regulating by reference will undoubtedly continue to expand. Globalization, standardization, and technical and scientific progress make the tool necessary. However, a regulation-making authority should have prior authorization from Parliament in its enabling statute to use incorporation by open reference.

Bill S-2 is a highly technical bill. Before elaborating on why Liberals will not be supporting it, let us go over the contents of the bill. Bill S-2 would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to provide an express general power to incorporate by reference in regulations. To incorporate by reference is to give a secondary document legal force by referencing it in regulations, such as a set of technical standards developed by the Standards Council of Canada.

Incorporation by reference has long been in use, and it is already expressly authorized in more than 60 federal acts. However, its legal status outside of these acts is uncertain. Bill S-2 aims to clarify that incorporation by reference is a valid technique of general application. Bill S-2 would also provide that any secondary documents referenced must be accessible and that liability or administrative sanctions could not apply if a document was not accessible. In addition, Bill S-2 would retroactively validate any incorporation by reference that was made before its coming into force.

In effect, incorporation by reference sub-delegates the details of regulation to a designated entity, which may be private or foreign. It creates efficiencies in the context of globalization, standardization, and rapid technical and scientific developments. It is important to appreciate that regulations incorporated by reference may not exceed the regulatory powers granted by statute. In addition, regulations made by reference remain subject to review and possible revocation by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

There are two varieties of incorporation by reference. They are incorporation by closed or static reference and incorporation by open or dynamic or ambulatory reference. Incorporation by closed reference cites a secondary document as it existed on a particular date. Incorporation by open reference automatically allows regulations to change as secondary documents are amended. This latter technique delegates the details of regulation to whomever has the ongoing power to amend the secondary document. Bill S-2 would expressly allow both open and closed incorporation by reference.

Why are these changes a bad thing? Bill S-2 would reduce the oversight of federal regulations by allowing the sub-delegation of the regulatory power that is already delegated by Parliament to the Governor in Council and other persons. The current government cannot be trusted to use this power responsibly. Time and again, we have seen its willingness to abuse oversight mechanisms, restrict democratic debate, and violate Canadians' constitutional rights.

For example, the government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny. Most recently, I can think of the unconstitutional amendments to the Supreme Court Act being hidden in a budget implementation bill. Yes, changes to the Supreme Court Act were in a budget bill. When those changes failed, we all remember how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice wrongfully criticized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for trying to save them some embarrassment.

With omnibus legislation, I also think of Bill C-13 and the way the government linked urgent and necessary cyberbullying legislation with immunity for telecommunications companies for warrantless disclosure. Again, the Supreme Court came to the rescue with the Spencer decision, which allowed us to support that cynically packaged piece of legislation.

In opposing Bill S-2's reduction of regulatory oversight, we also think of the government's disregard for the Department of Justice's constitutional review procedure. As the House is aware, Department of Justice lawyer Edgar Schmidt revealed to Canadians that the government proceeds with legislation even if it has a 5% chance or less of being charter compliant. It is the government's own faint hope clause, so to speak.

Is this a government that needs less oversight or more oversight? The revelation of the government's outright contempt for the charter was not surprising, given how often legislation and executive actions have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Let us review some of the greatest hits.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada prevented the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who was health minister at the time, from closing a safe injection site, which would have caused an increase in the number of fatal overdoses and the spread of communicable diseases.

Last year the Federal Court prevented the government from making cuts to health care services for refugees. Also last year, right here in Ottawa, Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Justice found that the decision to impose a $900 victim surcharge on a 26-year-old impoverished Inuit offender who was an addict amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Some British Columbia courts and the Ontario Court of Appeal have also struck down the mandatory minimum sentences brought in by the government. This is all in addition to the negative responses to referrals related to the unilateral Senate reform and the appointment of federal judges to represent Quebec on the Supreme Court.

We have also seen the Conservative government's willingness to veil government legislation as private members' bills to avoid constitutional review. There are numerous examples of tough-on-crime, presumably government-driven legislation that masqueraded as private member's bills. All of these bills contained significant changes to the Criminal Code, and regardless of their merits, they should have passed through the Department of Justice's charter compliance review process.

This is not a government that Canadians can trust to protect and promote their rights and interests. This is a government tainted by scandals of public betrayal, from election fraud with robocalls to tampering with the Duffy audit, to a $90,000 payment to Duffy from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to the Prime Minister defaming the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Canadians should not trust the current Conservative government.

As I have said, the danger with Bill S-2 is that the government would be emboldened to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, and any oversight would be retrospective rather than forward looking. That is why we will not support the expansion of the current government's power to delegate law-making powers to foreign and private entities.

In addition, Bill S-2 would put the average person at a disadvantage, since there is no guarantee that documents incorporated by reference would be meaningfully accessible. In particular, an incorporated document would not have to be registered in the Canada Gazette and might even be protected by copyright. It would also be increasingly difficult for people to know whether the version of the incorporated document they have is up to date, and in some cases, they would have to pay for access to copyright-protected documents. The bill would weaken the right of those governed by the law to know the contents of the law. We will not support the Conservative government's privatization of Canadian law.

We heard at committee that it may be possible for international bodies to amend Canadian law without our having a representative at the table. We heard that Canadian laws would not be centrally available to the public and that Canadians would sometimes have to pay to access Canadian law. Moreover, if Bill S-2 passed, the government would be generally empowered to decide which foreign and private entities could make law, and which laws Canadians should pay to see.

Time and again, the government has not been forthright with Parliament and the public, and so our position is that a regulation-making authority should have prior authorization from Parliament in its enabling statute to use incorporation by open reference. For that reason, we will not support the bill.

Digital Privacy Act

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming for his speech on Bill S-4.

I worked on Bill C-51, which thousands of Canadians opposed. They were worried that the bill would invade their privacy and violate their rights and freedoms. In the answer he just gave, my colleague said that this bill was not necessarily perfect but that we need to take action. I have a question for him.

Bill S-4, and also Bill C-13, would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for a proper oversight mechanism. This is reminiscent of the extremely distressing Bill C-51, which we studied not too long ago.

Why is the government working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant by creating bigger holes with Bill C-13 and Bill S-4?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to express support for Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, which was first introduced in April of last year. The digital privacy act would make important changes to Canada's private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, to better protect the privacy of Canadians.

I would like to spend my time highlighting the measures in Bill S-4 that are designed to better safeguard the privacy of minors and protect vulnerable members of our society. In our modern digital economy, it is absolutely critical that we make sure our children have safe and secure access to online resources.

Being digitally literate is no longer merely nice to have; it is now a necessary prerequisite for young Canadians, whether to be successful in school or to find their first job. In fact, a recent survey revealed that in 2013, 99% of Canadian students were able to access the Internet outside of school.

While there are many benefits to being digitally connected, going online can also expose our children to risks. As we have unfortunately seen, young people can become targets of online intimidation and abuse. Our government has acted to protect our children from cyberbullying and other similar threats through Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. This bill, which came into force on March 9, 2015, ensures that all Canadians can freely access the Internet without fear of victimization.

Bill C-13 protects children and adolescents from online predators and exploitation. Provisions of the bill permit and empower the courts to penalize those who harass, intimidate, exploit, or threaten others online or through telecommunication devices. In other words, Bill C-13 serves to counter cyberbullying in Canada.

The Government of Canada takes cyberbullying very seriously and supports a no-tolerance framework. In January 2014, our government launched the anti-cyberbullying national awareness campaign called Stop Hating Online, which raises awareness of the impact of cyberbullying and how this behaviour amounts to criminal activity.

We have also taken further steps to protect children from online predators. Our government has invested $14.2 million a year through the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. In addition to Bill C-13, our government has implemented other concrete measures to keep young Canadians safe online and in their communities. Such measures include increasing the maximum penalties for luring a child online, strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders, and strengthening the sex offender registry, to name only a few. All of these initiatives align with our government's commitment to stand up and protect Canadians.

Bill C-13 was introduced to provide a safe and secure environment for Canadians online, and the digital privacy act seeks to accomplish this as well. In this rapidly growing digital world, we must be aware that going online can expose vulnerable Canadians to privacy risks. For example, minors can be subject to aggressive marketing tactics or can have their personal data collected and shared without them truly understanding what is being done and the potential long-term privacy consequences.

To address this concern, the digital privacy act includes an amendment to clarify requirements for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. Specifically, the bill clarifies that when a company is seeking permission to collect, use, or disclose personal information from a group of individuals, such as children, it must take the necessary steps to ensure that, as a group, these individuals are able to understand what would happen to their personal information. In practice, this means that the organization's request for information must be presented in a clear and concise manner and must be appropriate for and easily understood by the target audience. This includes making sure the wording and language used in the request are age-appropriate.

Let me take a minute to give an example explaining to the members of the House how this would work. Let us say that an online service designed for children wishes to gather information about who visits their site. In order to seek consent, the company would be required to design and present its request to collect, use, and disclose information using language that a child could reasonably be expected to understand. If a child could not be expected to understand what the website seeks to do with their information, the child's consent would not be valid. As a result, consent from a parent would need to be sought.

The Privacy Commissioner expressed his strong support for this amendment when appearing before the standing committee. This is what the Privacy Commissioner said:

I think with the clarification that Bill S-4 provides, it is a useful clarification of what consent is, and it has the potential of improving the situation for the issue of consent sought from children....

There are additional amendments in Bill S-4 that are also designed to better protect the interests of other vulnerable individuals. I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members two particular amendments that would allow information to be more easily shared in emergency situations.

The first of these amendments would allow organizations to share personal information in order to contact a family member of an injured, ill, or deceased individual. The importance of this amendment was well summarized by the representative of the Canadian Pharmacists Association in her appearance before the standing committee when she said:

Pharmacists, as well as any health care provider, may find themselves in the difficult situation of having to deal with patients who may be severely ill, unconscious, or incapacitated for any number of reasons. In such circumstances it may be imperative for the pharmacist or other health professional to immediately contact family members or next of kin to inform them of the patient's condition, or to seek valuable information on the patients' medical history. But seeking permission or consent to contact those individuals in advance may simply not be reasonable nor in some cases possible. This clause would provide pharmacists and other health care providers with the comfort and knowledge that in the case of a severe health emergency they will not be in contravention of PIPEDA for acting in the best interests of their patients by contacting next of kin or authorized representatives.

The second of these amendments would allow information to be shared in situations such as accidents or disasters, in order to assist in the identification of injured, ill, or deceased individuals. For example, this would allow dentists to provide an individual's dental records to authorities in order to identify victims of a natural disaster.

These two amendments are clearly in the public's interest and are long overdue.

The government is committed to protecting the privacy of Canadians. The digital privacy act would take necessary actions to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, including children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech.

He said he is extremely concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. However, his party voted in favour of Bill C-13, which represents a major threat to protecting Canadians' personal information. He himself voted in favour of Bill C-51, which truly poses serious risks to personal information protection, since it allows our personal information to be shared among a number of government agencies without any parliamentary or judicial oversight. It is very disconcerting.

I am confused. Does the hon. member want to protect personal information or is it not as important as all that?

National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion before the House today, put forward by the member for Churchill. It deals with the very important issue of ending violence against women and girls. Our government takes the issue of violence against women and girls very seriously, and we have taken a multi-faceted approach to addressing it. Allow me to take a few moments to discuss some of the actions that we have taken.

We have made communities safer for all Canadians by enacting over 30 measures into law since 2006. For example, amendments to the Criminal Code made under the Safe Streets and Communities Act that came into force in 2012 promote safety and security. They also assist in holding criminals fully accountable for their actions through increased penalties for violent crimes, including child sexual offences, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and house arrest for serious and violent crimes.

Another example is Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which came into force in March. It provides for a new Criminal Code offence, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which prohibits the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images without the consent of the person depicted.

We have supported the needs of victims with Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, which received royal assent on April 23. This bill provides rights for victims of crime, many of which will benefit women who have experienced violence. For example, the bill gives victims the right to have their security and privacy considered, the right to be protected from intimidation and retaliation, the right to request the protection of their identity if they are a complainant or witness in a criminal justice proceeding, and the right to request testimonial aids.

Another recent example is Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill would address forms of family violence that are predominately perpetrated against women and girls. It contains proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, creating a new form of inadmissibility to Canada for those practising polygamy. It includes proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage and to introduce a new national absolute minimum age for marriage of 16. The bill would also introduce proposed new offences in the Criminal Code related to forced or underage marriages. It would extend the offence of removing a child from Canada to include removal for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage abroad, introduce a new forced or underage marriage peace bond to prevent these marriages from taking place, and limit the application of the defence of provocation so that it would not be available in honour killings and some spousal homicides.

These examples highlight the leadership role of our government in responding to violence against women and girls by establishing a strong legislative framework to protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. These legislative actions are a critical element of the multi-faceted approach that we have put in place to reduce and prevent violence against women and girls.

I would now like to describe some of the actions that we have taken beyond legislation. The Government of Canada has allocated more than $140 million since 2006 to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system through initiatives delivered by Justice Canada. Last September, we launched the latest phase of the stop hating online campaign to combat cyberbullying. This is a national awareness campaign to protect our children and youth from cyberbullying. On February 20, the Government of Canada announced a 10-year $100-million investment to prevent, detect and combat family violence and child abuse as part of our government's commitment to stand up for victims.

On April 1, the Government of Canada began the implementation of its action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. We also continued collaborating with aboriginal leaders, aboriginal communities and other levels of government to get the most out of our respective action plans.

Our government also believes in giving communities the tools to help end violence against women and girls. That is why we have increased funding to Status of Women Canada, including the women's program, to record levels. In fact, we have invested over $162 million in more than 780 projects through Status of Women Canada since 2007. This includes over $71 million in projects to specifically address violence against women and girls. These efforts include a number of different calls for proposals for projects in rural and remote communities and in post-secondary campus communities.

Another call for proposals is helping communities respond to cyber and sexual violence. More than $6 million has been invested in these projects through Status of Women Canada so far.

My view is that we must continue taking actions like the ones I have described today, and therefore I will not be supporting this motion. However, we must continue working together because we know that no single individual, organization or government working alone can address the problem of gender-based violence.

We have made this issue such an important priority because we know that helping women and girls live violence-free lives is the right thing to do. However, we also know something else. We know that enabling women and girls to live free of violence removes a barrier to achieving their full potential for themselves, their families and their communities. Doing that will move us closer to equality in our country, which is something we all wish to see.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

When we come to this place, we all come with certain reasons behind what we want to accomplish. One, of course, is to improve the lives of Canadians. Another is sometimes to fix things that we believe are terribly wrong with our systems. For me, this legislation fits in the latter category of fixing something that we believe is terribly wrong.

Many people have been fortunate, in their careers and their lives, and they have never been touched by this particular issue. They have been spared the heartbreaking view of what happens to these young children when they are violated. In my career, I spent many years working in a rural emergency department. When I rise both to speak to this bill and to vote, it will be with the victims that I will be making that vote. I will give just a few small examples before I actually talk about the technical aspects of this bill.

I remember very clearly the 14-month-old who came in with incredibly bruised genitalia and a fractured femur. I remember three little girls. I remember the day their dad died in an accident. Two years later their mother remarried someone who then began to abuse those little girls. I remember a rape kit we had to pull out of the cupboards for a 12-year-old, barely pubescent young girl who had gone out and had a few drinks for the first time in her life. She had overdone it, and had then been brutally raped.

I remember a nurse who worked the night shift. One day she went home and her daughter revealed that the step-dad had been climbing into the beds at night, and the absolute trauma and the guilt that this nurse experienced as she dealt with the fact that she had married someone who was abusing her most precious possessions.

These are just some examples of what I experienced in my career. However, I was only representing a small area of this country, a small area of the province in terms of providing services. We have to recognize that these things are being repeated across the country many times over. Some are being reported; some are not.

I have witnessed young girls going into the criminal system to share their testimony and not meeting that burden of guilt that was required, and seeing the person who had violated them go free.

I hope this is a personal issue that everyone can stand up and support.

I need to talk about the specifics of this bill. It set out to recognize the devastating impacts such crimes have on the lives of the victims. It ensures that justice is not only done for each victim, but also for each crime by requiring sexual offenders to serve sentences that are proportional to the degree of harm inflicted on each victim.

What is it going to do? It is going to increase penalties for sexual offences committed against children. This includes increasing existing maximum and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain offences, as well as ending sentence discounts for child pornography offences where there are multiple child victims. Bill C-26 also increases the penalties for breach of a number of supervision orders. These amendments are necessary to protect the community from offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending, and this despite having been given the privilege of being conditionally released in the community.

Such amendments are not only integral to the protection of our communities, but necessary to incapacitate repeat sex child offenders who choose recidivism over rehabilitation, and continue unlawful conduct over peaceful reintegration into the community.

Again, there is not one of us who as members of Parliament have not had concerned citizens phoning our offices when there is a repeat child offender released into their communities. In many cases I have seen them go on to repeat their crimes. We are all absolutely horrified that the system that we had in place did not actually address those issues.

These proposed amendments would ensure consistency in punishment for breaches of prohibition orders imposed on child sexual offenders, section 161, breaches of probation orders, section 733.1, and breaches of peace bonds, section 811, imposed on individuals feared to be at risk of committing a sexual offence against a child.

In all these cases, offenders would be liable to a maximum of four years imprisonment on indictment and 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

The bill would provide the same penalty for a breach of the new prohibition order, section 162.2, created by Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which can be imposed for the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-13 came into force on March 10, 2015.

Furthermore, Bill C-26 would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing for an offender to commit an offence while on parole, statutory release, or an unescorted temporary absence or while being subject to a conditional sentence order.

The proposed amendments would also ensure that the relevant evidence was available in prosecuting child predators in the case of child pornography.

As a general rule, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if the person wants to. The exceptions to this rule permit spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and the offence of violence against young persons, but it is important to note that it does not include child pornography offences.

In the case of child pornography, evidence of the accused's spouse is often required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography or a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bill C-26 proposes to amend the Canada Evidence Act to add child pornography to the list of exceptions and to therefore make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution.

Bill C-26's proposed reforms also seek to build on existing measures to better protect children in Canada and abroad against sexual abuse by convicted child sex offenders. The bill proposes to establish a new, publicly accessible national database of high-risk offenders convicted of child sexual offences.

Currently, all provinces and territories have the power to advise the public about the release of high-risk offenders. These notifications are made at the discretion of the police, and they contain characteristics about the offender and the nature of the offences committed.

However, such notifications are limited to the jurisdiction and province where they are made. The bill seeks to expand access to all of those local notifications on a national scale. We do not have any boundaries in terms of where people go in Canada. The establishment of such a database would be a great example of a coordinated effort to protect the community against convicted high-risk sex offenders, because it would consolidate existing notifications in one publicly accessible spot.

As I mentioned earlier, a complete and comprehensive response to child sexual exploitation also requires a coordinated effort that encompasses programs, services, and partnerships among key stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and territorial governments, law enforcement agencies, and civil society. In this respect, since 2010, the government has allocated $10.25 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime.

We obviously have existing criminal prohibitions against child sexual abuse. However, the fact that it has been growing in the last few years at an extraordinary rate, as indicated earlier by my hon. colleague opposite, and the fact that children account for 55% of all victims of police-reported sexual offences, even though they account for only 20% of the Canadian population, is a stark reminder that more must be done.

We must stop such heinous crimes. As such, I urge all members of the House to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-26.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin my speech in the House on Bill C-26 by pointing out the latest attempt by the member for Langley to demonize the official opposition and the second opposition party.

Any time we examine a justice bill, whether it is Bill C-26 or any other justice bill, I look carefully at what the bill says. This bill is An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Sometimes I receive a letter from the Minister of Justice, but not always, explaining a little about the context of his bill, which I appreciate.

In the case of Bill C-26, the main objective is to deter criminals and denounce sexual offences against children. The next step is to examine the bill and see whether that is what the bill actually does.

When I hear the Conservatives say over and over again that we care more about offenders and criminals than we do about victims, I find that rather biased and I take offence to such comments, which add absolutely nothing to the debate.

Obviously we are talking about criminals when we are studying a bill like this. They are the main focus of the bill. Talking about them does not mean that we like them, or support them, or that we are behind them saying, “good job, do it again”, like a bunch of cheerleaders. Not at all.

However, if the government tells me that it is denouncing sexual offences against children in order to deter criminals, then I will look at the bill to see whether that is indeed what the government is doing.

It is rather sad that closure was invoked at second reading stage of such an extremely important and complex file, because we can see from the title of the bill alone that it affects a number of statutes at the same time. It introduces a specific database for offenders who are at risk of reoffending and committing more serious offences than the ones described in the current database.

As I was saying to the Minister of Finance, who was well informed but was perhaps not the person who worked directly on this file, the House has passed many laws regarding sexual offences against children.

In fact, we have to question why, by the Minister of Justice's own admission, there has been a 6% increase in offences in the past two years alone. That still bothers me somewhat because if one of the main objectives of the law is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to report sexual offences against children, there may well be some flaws. I do not want members to tell me that this did not exist before. Minimum sentences did exist.

Bill C-26 does not include any new minimum sentence or any new maximum sentence. All that happened was that the length of the sentences was increased. Both minimum and maximum sentences were increased. Perhaps these types of sentences did not work. In short, we could have done the analysis, but first there was closure in the House, then we went to committee.

I must confess that I was a bit wary in the beginning. We were under the impression that the members sitting on the government benches wanted to work very quickly and take shortcuts. Nevertheless, I admit that we were finally able to call the witnesses that we wanted to hear.

I am not quite so positive when it comes to the amendments. Only the government's amendments were accepted, which is always the case. I think that is unfortunate because one of our amendments was based on the very solid evidence given by a criminology expert.

She told us that the information the government wants to put in the new registry—or high risk sex offender database—that it wants to create and that is mentioned in clause 29 of Bill C-26 might be used to identify some victims. This government claims to be on the victims' side and tells us that we are the mean ones who always side with the criminals.

I presented a very simple amendment but the government decided it was too complicated and unnecessary because the notion was implied. When I studied law at the University of Ottawa I was taught that if it is clear, you spell it out. You write it and that is that. Leaving things open to interpretation is another story. All we were asking was that, “under no circumstances must the information referred to in subsection (1) be used to identify the victims”. The amendment was rejected.

This government likes to introduce all kinds of bills. Sometimes it seems as though it is lacking a plan or a person to make sure that the different bills do not contradict each other or that a bill, like Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, which amended a lot of other laws, is not affected in any way by Bill C-26. Sometimes I wonder whether the government is losing control and losing its way.

We presented a perfectly reasonable amendment, requesting that the minister of justice be required to prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5(f) and (g), which have to do with the type of offence. This information could have been interesting to look at with respect to each of these individuals. The amendment stipulated that the minister of justice would have to table the report to each house of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the report has been prepared.

Once again, this seems to me like a reasonable amendment. The Conservatives will probably give me the same answer. The answer that was given by the Department of Justice and the Conservatives is that it is a public registry—as if I did not know that. The word itself says it all. Since it is a public registry, it is up to me to find the information I need. Every year, I will have to go and check the registry to find the information. If the government was interested in promoting these things and ensuring that its bills work well, this is the type of work that would normally be done. They want to complicate our lives. That is fine. That is good. We will put that in our pipe and smoke it.

However, that being said, it would have been much simpler to do this the way we are proposing. It could also have been useful for the government, since it could have found some missing information right in this report. The government may well say that the 6% increase could be due to the fact that the minimum sentences were not yet harsh enough. On this side of the House, we think that the increase is more likely related to the fact that the government does not spend much and, even worse, it is making cuts to programs that are working really well and that have been successful. That is also what experts told us in committee.

As I said before on the radio and here in the House at second reading, it is all well and good to have a registry. We already have one. The person responsible for the registry at the RCMP came and told us in committee that the RCMP is already doing this. When a dangerous person moves into a community, the RCMP informs the people living there. The RCMP does not need the government to keep the public safe. The government created this registry saying that it would formalize what the RCMP is already doing.

I will digress for a moment. When we had the minister's press conference after the Prime Minister's presentation, everyone who talked about Bill C-26 made it sound as though it was the ultimate goal and that it would solve all of the world's problems. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP answered one of my questions and said that it would affect perhaps a dozen cases a year.

That brings us back to reality. The National Sex Offender Registry already exists for such offenders. The additional “high risk” aspect pertains to about a dozen people. One thing is clear, and I am surprised that the Conservative government has not paid more attention to it. In fact, instead of talking in glowing terms about this type of measure, it should instead be worried about the fact that these high risk offenders are in our communities. That worries me a lot. I sometimes feel that this government works a lot harder on paper, with words, because that goes hand in hand with its rhetoric that makes it appear to be tough and to be doing something. However, in reality, when we look at the resources available to the RCMP and police forces to conduct investigations, that is not the case. I shudder when I hear police services say that some types of crime will have to be ignored because combatting terrorism is now the priority. Perhaps the minister was right to specify the criteria for a sentence. Yes, there is rehabilitation, deterrence and all that, but one of the government's main purposes is to protect its citizens. Putting more eggs in one basket than in another is not necessarily good management.

There is nothing real there. As for minimum sentences—that is what the member opposite was talking about—I am of the same mind as a former Supreme Court justice who appeared before us and said, in the context of another justice-related file, that all minimum sentences are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is simply not a tool that should be overused. First of all, and this is very important, even the witnesses who appeared in committee, whether they were victims or people who work with organizations that support victims, told us that minimum sentences were not the issue. If, for the kind of offence and the seriousness of the crime committed, we were to impose the minimum sentences that the Conservatives proposed in Bill C-26, there is a problem somewhere. However, there could be a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of stereotype we have of that kind of offence. Therein lies the problem. We heard it directly from legal experts. To say that we are against minimum sentences for this kind of offence does not mean we are defending criminals.

The fact is that, ultimately, the minimum sentence may not even be imposed by the court, because the court, as a general rule, will give more than that, and that is what we want. Look at the bill dealing with child kidnapping—it was clear from the case law that was brought before the committee that the average sentence exceeded the minimum sentence that the Conservatives wanted to impose.

Basically, this is mostly just smoke and mirrors; however, in some cases, it can lead to some strange outcomes. This is why there are constitutional challenges. With a constitutional challenge, all you need is one case that is flawed, that does not fit the minimum sentence formula, for the provision to be struck down; it will then be sent back here for us to do over again. That is one of the problems.

Obviously, the NDP supported Bill C-26 at second reading. We took our work seriously and sought the extra information we needed, even though the bill is far from perfect and is not necessarily the type of bill we would introduce. I think our analysis would be more thorough. Indeed, offenders need to be punished, but we must also ensure that the people who leave prison are not a danger to the public. Earlier, the Liberal member mentioned the circles of change program. In committee we learned that the program had a 70% to 80% success rate. Who would scoff at that? None other than the Conservative government, because it does not want to talk about that type of thing.

The government just wants to talk about things that create the impression that it is dealing with criminals. Of course, we are all against criminals.

When I return to my riding at the end of the day and talk to the people of Gatineau, because I like to connect with my community, I tell them I am proud of the work we did that week. In this case, we passed a victims bill of rights and we worked on a bill to deal with sexual predators. I would just like to add, for once in my life, that I am sure that this will be useful.

In any case, I can tell them I tried very hard in committee to have the government listen to reason, not to defend criminals, but to ensure that the bill will withstand the constitutional challenges that will test it in the coming years, that it is consistent with other bills, and that it achieves its objectives.

The government claims to be helping victims with the victims bill of rights, but they need real rights, as I said in my speech. The right to lodge a complaint cannot be hypothetical. The government brings in minimum penalties but it is cutting resources for police officers—the ones who catch criminals and bring them to justice. The justice system is crying for help, and we are in need of judges and crown prosecutors. How does this make any sense?

I weep for victims because they will never get the services they need. That will not change, even in one, two or three years. What is even sadder is that they will have been promised the world. It is even more disappointing when they are told that something will be fixed.

As for the registry, people from the RCMP have told us that they already have a hard time keeping criminal cases and criminal records up to date. The member for Langley presented a petition earlier regarding impaired driving. I agree that we still have a long way to go. When we hear in the papers that someone was convicted for the sixth time, we have to wonder how that can be possible. However, these situations happen because nothing is written in the records of these repeat offenders, even though everyone knows that they have been to court six times and that this is not their first conviction.

Civil and criminal justice need to be consistent. There needs to be some follow-up. The bill gives the governor in council the power to make regulations by establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature; and, in subclause (b), by prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by this act. This means that this legislation retains some harmful legal grey areas.

This is moving too fast even for the people at the Department of Justice. I asked them what impact Bill S-2 would have. People like me who follow justice issues know that this was the bill concerning statutory instruments and how to enact regulations. We all know that a law is one thing, but that three-quarters of the obligations are set out in the regulations.

When the government tells us that the Governor in Council, namely cabinet, will be establishing the criteria, that tells us who is going to be making the decisions and that we will not know exactly when and how those decisions will be made. I asked them whether Bill S-2 would apply since we are talking about delegation and regulation by reference. That means that we would not even have a separate list of criteria. The answer that I got from the expert at the Department of Justice was that he did not know and that he would check.

That means that the government is not making connections between its various bills. I got an answer today, just a few hours before I rose in the House for the debate, and I was told that, yes, Bill S-2 would apply.

There are ramifications, and I get the impression that we will be forced to revisit many of these bills. However, as it now stands, Bill C-26 is unfortunately a lot of talk, just like the Canadian victims bill of rights. As one of the victims, Mr. Gilhooly, so aptly stated, even if the bill were passed as it stands, it would not change what he experienced in any way.

Once again, the government is misleading victims by giving them the impression that it is tough on crime and imposing law and order, but in the end, the law will not be enforced.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. This important and timely legislation, as many of our colleagues have said, fills important gaps in Canadian law relating to threats to our national security. This bill is comprehensive and would address, among other things, improved information sharing so that national security and law enforcement agencies can more effectively share information relating to threats, and improved security for air transportation. It would also strengthen the tools available to our intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would help prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist threats and activities. There are two important prevention measures in the bill that I would like to speak to today, namely, the terrorist propaganda seizure and take-down powers. Prevention can come in various forms, and this legislation has a number of measures that would support this pillar, including improved information sharing.

As we all know, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. As we have seen in Copenhagen, Brussels, Sydney, Paris, and even right here at home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa, jihadi terrorists are attempting to destroy the values that make Canada the best country in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Clearly, Canada is not immune to homegrown terrorist threats. Therefore, the legislation before us today also includes, in support of the terrorism prevention pillar, measures to address the radicalization of these homegrown threats.

Bill C-51 proposes two provisions that would address the proliferation and availability of terrorist propaganda that can contribute to the radicalization of our youth and turn them toward terrorism. These new powers would complement the proposed indictable offence of promoting and advocating the commission of terrorism offences in general.

Specifically, the proposal is to create two warrants that would allow for the seizure of terrorist propaganda. “Terrorist propaganda” would be defined to mean any writing, sign, visible representation, or audio recording that advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general—other than the proposed new offence of advocating terrorism offences, which I just mentioned—or counsels the commission of a terrorism offence. The effect of this change would be to authorize courts to order the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist propaganda material, whether in a tangible form, such as a poster, or in electronic form, such as a website.

Currently there exists a shocking gap. The Criminal Code does not presently authorize the confiscation of terrorist propaganda produced for sale or distribution in Canada, or that is stored on or made available by a Canadian server. The first new warrant would be similar to the provision in the Criminal Code governing the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda in a hard-copy format, such as in books or magazines.

Terrorist use of websites and social media to recruit and radicalize youth to violence is a growing concern. Currently, police can only ask that a website host voluntarily remove the material, which would usually only occur after a conviction. However, when the person who posted the material cannot be found because they are abroad or have posted it anonymously, the removal of such offensive material is very difficult, and it may be available to the public for some time thereafter.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, proposes to authorize a court to order the removal of terrorist propaganda from Canadian Internet services, even when the person who posted it cannot be found. This proposed power is similar to ones that already exist for other materials that Parliament has deemed harmful, such as hate propaganda, child pornography, voyeuristic material, and most recently with the passage of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, intimate images.

Some of these provisions have been in the Criminal Code since 2002 and help facilitate the removal of such harmful content from Canadian Internet services, which in turn limits Canadian exposure to such harmful content.

Courts must have the power to order the removal of such terrorist propaganda when posted online. That is exactly what this new take-down provision is designed to accomplish. Under this new provision, judges may order both the person who posted the terrorist propaganda and the Internet service provider to remove the material that is terrorist propaganda. It is focused only on the removal of the material that is available to the public, so that even in the absence of a prosecution, police will still be able to remove this material from Canadian servers.

As I mentioned earlier, these types of warrants are not new to the Criminal Code. They are also not new to the international community. For example, the United Kingdom has had similar powers in place since 2006, and Australia provides for the takedown of restricted online material, such as terrorist propaganda, through its Broadcasting Services Act.

As an additional complementary amendment to these new tools, Bill C-51 also proposes changing the customs tariff to include the new concept of terrorist propaganda. This change would ensure that Canada Border Services Agency officers would be authorized to inspect and seize terrorist propaganda material.

These new tools are not only complementary to the proposed new offence of advocating and promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, but they are also consistent with Parliament's past approach relating to content that we have deemed harmful to Canadian society.

As I have said, these tools are designed to help address the radicalization of Canadian youth toward violence by assisting in the removal of terrorist propaganda material. I would like to quote Avi Benlolo, the president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, who says:

It is especially significant that this new legislation will enable the removal of websites promoting jihad and related materials on the internet. Jewish communities are a favourite target of jihadis, and the provisions of this bill will do a great deal to help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians as we continue to fight this threat to western democracies.

I hope that all members of the House heed these words and support these proposals in Bill C-51 as a positive step toward making Canada and the world a safer place.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

There were a lot of consultations, including in my own riding of Edmonton Centre. As we all know, the bill does propose significant changes to Canadian criminal law.

It is thanks to some great work of the tireless staff in the Department of Justice, people like Pam Arnott, working closely with the Minister of Justice, who have brought the bill to the House. Most important, the bill would create the Canadian victims bill of rights to enshrine enforceable rights of victims of crime in federal law for the first time.

These rights fall into four main areas.

The right to information would give victims the right to general information about the criminal justice system, available victim services and programs, as well as specific information about the progress of the case, including information related to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The right to protection would give victims the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, have reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation and retaliation, and to request their identity to be protected from public disclosure.

The right to participation would give victims the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by criminal justice professionals and have them considered at various stages in the criminal justice process, and to present a victim impact statement.

The right to restitution would give victims the right to have the court consider making a restitution order for all offences for which there are easy to calculate financial losses.

In addition, the bill would amend other legislation, such as the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide greater specificity to those rights.

Bill C-32 is the most recent example of our government's commitment to improving the experiences of victims of crime. Because of the transformative nature of these reforms and the significant impact they will have on the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system, the Canadian victims bill of rights is a milestone in the quest for justice for victims of crime.

This government has long been aware of the need to do more for victims of crime. Indeed, it has been one of our top priorities. Since 2006, we have designated more than $140 million to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We have seen the results of this investment in concrete terms, such as through the creation of more than 20 child advocacy centres across Canada that help children and their families navigate the justice system.

We have also undertaken a robust legislative agenda that has included many reforms benefiting victims of crime. These have included Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which reformed the victims surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code; Bill C-14, Not criminally Responsible Reform Act, which addressed the needs of victims accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder; and, most recent, Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, to address cyberbullying.

While we are proud of everything we have done for victims of crime, the victims bill of rights is truly a significant achievement. Ensuring the rights of victims at the federal level recognizes the difficulty that victims can experience as they participate in the criminal justice and corrections systems. It would provide concrete means to ensure that the needs of victims would be respected.

The rights enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the amendments to the other acts that are included in Bill C-32 would apply to all victims of crime.

However, some of the proposed provisions would have special significance for vulnerable victims, such as victims of sexual offences, and that is where I would like to focus my attention today.

Bill C-32 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code scheme that governs the production of third party records. To be clear, this scheme applies to documents of all kinds for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and which are being sought as evidence in criminal trials involving sexual offences. The proposed amendments are consistent with the rights of victims to privacy and security, which would be enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Four amendments are proposed to the third party records regime.

First, the amendments would ensure that all historical sexual offences would be included within the procedures governing the release of third party records by replacing the current list of historical sexual offences with a general description to ensure that all victims of sexual offences would be protected by this scheme.

Second, the period of time for which an accused must serve their application for the production of third party records would be doubled from 7 to 14 days.

Third, the court would be required to inform the complainant or witness of their right to be represented by independent legal counsel during the in camera process.

Finally, a court would be required to consider the right to personal security of a complainant or witness when determining whether to produce a record for inspection by the court or whether to produce the record to the accused. This would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in this area.

Bill C-32 also includes a number of amendments that specifically address the needs of victims of sexual offences when they testify as witnesses in criminal proceedings. The benefits of testimonial aids, such as support persons, use of a screen that spares the witness from seeing the accused, or testimony outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television, are well documented.

Bill C-32 would make testimonial aids more readily available for adult vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, by providing the courts with greater discretion to determine whether to order their use. Currently such testimonial aids may be ordered for adults when a court determines that they are necessary for the witness to provide a full and candid account. Amendments proposed in Bill C-32 would allow a court to make such orders for adult witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, when they believe it would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account. The language is important here.

Additionally, a court would be required to consider the security and protection of the witness, and society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and witness protection in the criminal justice system, when deciding whether to order a testimonial aid.

The Criminal Code provision governing the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of a witness when the accused is self-represented would also be amended to benefit victims of sexual offences. The amendment would presumptively prohibit a self-represented accused from personally cross-examining a victim of sexual assault, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires it. This presumptive approach is currently the case with victims of sexual harassment, and recognizes that victims of certain crimes are more vulnerable while they participate in the criminal justice process.

A victim's right to privacy and protection under the Canadian victims bill of rights would also be supported by amendments to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code, which governs publication bans for adults. Currently a judge may order a publication ban for an adult victim or witness, if the order is deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. Bill C-32 would allow a court to order a publication ban for adult victims and witnesses when it is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Once again, the language is important.

When determining whether to order a publication ban, the court will consider factors, including whether the witness can suffer harm, rather than significant harm, as is currently required, if their identity were disclosed. These amendments would be particularly beneficial to victims of sexual offences, who are often more vulnerable due to the nature of the offence.

This bill has been thoroughly examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The standing committee held nine days of meetings and heard evidence on many critical aspects of the bill. It has also been the subject of comprehensive debate in the House of Commons. In fact, this bill has enjoyed the support of all parties, at all critical stages of parliamentary consideration. There has never been any question in anyone's mind on both sides of the House about the need to recognize victims of crime and the positive and long-reaching impacts that this bill will have on their experiences in the criminal justice system.

The time has come for this House to conclude our study and debate of this bill. I hope that all parties will work with us as we ensure that this landmark piece of legislation is passed as swiftly as possible. For too long, victims have voiced the concern that their perspectives have not been heard. This government has made a commitment to improve this situation, and has in fact made significant progress in improving rights and services to victims through many legislative and program initiatives.

Victims have waited a long time for this bill. Let us not make them wait any longer.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

S-213, An Act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day—Chapter 30.

C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Chapter 31.

C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 32.

S-1001, An Act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Consumer Protection.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the optimistically titled drug-free prisons act.

Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole boards to cancel day parole or full parole if an offender failed a drug test or refused to provide a urine sample and if the board then considered that the criteria for granting parole were no longer met. As the law currently establishes, urine samples may be demanded on reasonable grounds as part of a random selection or as a prescribed requirement of a particular program, such as a substance abuse treatment program.

Bill C-12 would also clarify that conditions of parole or other forms of release may include conditions relating to an offender's use of drugs or alcohol. The imposition of such conditions would explicitly include cases where drug or alcohol use had been a factor in the offender's criminal behaviour.

The Liberals will be recommending that this bill go to committee for further study. However, I would like to reiterate the criticisms that my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, levelled at this bill over a year ago.

First, we would all like to see drug-free prisons, yet Bill C-12 takes an exclusively punitive approach to substance abuse in Canada's correctional facilities. Does anyone think this will be effective?

In his 2011-12 annual report, Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, made the following observation:

A “zerotolerance” stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving as an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world. Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and victimization.

Mr. Sapers' report specifically stated:

—that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures -- prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction.

In 2012, the Conservative government re-appointed Mr. Sapers, giving him his third consecutive term. Accordingly, one might be tempted to think that the government would take the advice of its chosen adviser. After all, Mr. Sapers' recommendations were the product of careful and politically impartial analysis. Efficacy was the sole motivator.

Why does the Conservative government not listen to the highly qualified individuals who have been hired to give good advice and who are motivated solely by the desire to give good advice?

When Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien suggested splitting Bill C-13 into two bills, the government ignored him. When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court tried to warn the government about its legal problem with appointments from the Federal Court, the government ignored her. We all remember that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice even went so far as to slander the Chief Justice for trying to save them from themselves. This is a worrying trend, although I do not expect the government to take my advice, either.

In this instance, ignoring the Correctional Investigator is stunning, or as my Newfoundland colleagues may say, “stunned”. Howard Sapers was vice-chairperson for the Prairie Region with the Parole Board of Canada, director of the Crime Prevention Investment Fund at the National Crime Prevention Centre and executive director of the John Howard Society of Alberta. He served two terms as an elected member of the Alberta legislative assembly, including as leader of the official opposition. He is also an adjunct professor School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, and he has served as president of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. That is whose advice the government is ignoring.

Instead of taking that advice, the government is opting for a purely punitive strategy. Yes, the government's only solution to drug use in prisons is to keep more people in prisons for longer periods of time. As Kyle Kirkup wrote in the The Globe and Mail, the government's thinking on criminal justice is summed up by the slogan “Got a complex social issue? There’s a prison for that.”

I suppose this should come as no surprise. Bill C-12 is business as usual for the Conservatives. It is strong on rhetoric and weak on policy.

The government consistently prioritizes optics over substance, Orwellian sound bites over logic and it does Canadians a great disservice. We see it with mandatory minimums. We see it with the failure to use evidence to formulate public policy. In its eagerness to appear tough on crime, the government goes soft on thinking.

Last year, Mr. Sapers shared some deeply troubling statistics with Canadians. His report indicated that Canada's prison population is now at its highest level ever, even though the crime rate has been decreasing over the past two decades.

About three out of four offenders in federal penitentiaries are considered to have addictions, and a very high percentage of those addicts also have mental health issues. Given the context, this new bill's punitive approach is clearly unjustified.

Further, close to a quarter of all inmates are aboriginal, although aboriginal people make up only 4% of Canada's population. In the past decade, the number of aboriginal women in prison has increased by 112%. Aboriginal inmates are also subject to use-of-force interventions and incur a disproportionate number of institutional disciplinary measures. In addition, aboriginal inmates are typically released later in their sentences—80% by statutory release—and are less likely to be granted day parole or full parole.

Still, here we have a bill that does nothing to address the historical injustice and resultant social problems that aboriginal people are grappling with today. Instead, this bill would effectively lock up aboriginal inmates struggling with addictions for longer periods of time.

The issues plaguing aboriginal communities are reported in the newspaper, and we know those are available in this chamber. Therefore, ask, when is the government going to address the problems facing aboriginal communities?

I am disappointed by the government's approach, but I am not surprised. Just a couple of weeks ago we saw what the government did with Bill C-583, the bill from the member for Yukon, that would have made fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, a mitigating factor in sentencing. Of course, FASD disproportionately affects aboriginal and northern communities. Bill C-583 was a bill that both the Liberals and the New Democrats were ready to support, yet the member for Yukon agreed to turn the bill into a study, killing his own proposal. One could reasonably infer that the government pressured the member to do this rather than risk being seen—Heaven forbid—as soft on persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. However, I digress.

Speaking of this bill, we need to consider what the Correctional Investigator said in his 2013-14 report. Specifically, he was critical of the government's continued refusal to develop a comprehensive program. I emphasize the word “comprehensive”. To respond to continued drug use in penitentiaries, he said:

Interdiction and suppression in the absence of a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention and harm reduction measures will not eliminate the demand (or supply) of contraband drugs or alcohol.

Mr. Sapers also criticized how the government had undermined a key correctional services program on addiction, specifically, its 10% funding cut to the prison methadone program. Mr. Sapers said:

I question the appropriateness of reducing investment in a program that delivers sound public policy benefits from both a health and public safety standpoint.

I could not say it better, and I would strongly urge the government to heed the advice of its chosen advisers by developing a more comprehensive strategy than what this punitive bill represents.

Again, Mr. Sapers set out what that strategy would look like. It would involve an integrated link between interdiction and prevention, treatment and harm reduction. It would involve a comprehensive public reporting mechanism and would involve a well defined evaluation, review and performance plan to ensure efficacy.

Finally, when the bill goes to committee, I would especially urge the government to take seriously any constructive proposals for amendments that emerge. We currently have a punitive bill that would not solve the drug problem in Canada's prisons and that would exacerbate aboriginal incarceration rates. Frankly, we need to do better, and we can do better.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, this government will not apologize for wanting to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: children. We kept our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from bullying, including cyberbullying, by introducing legislation to combat online crime.

Bill C-13 did not create new police powers to access telecommunications data without a judicial warrant. Judicial oversight prevails and we are protecting our children.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-26.

Each day, in Canada, children are the victims of sexual abuse. It causes unimaginable devastation to their lives and it causes lifelong emotional turmoil that profoundly affects victims well into adulthood.

Our government pledged to protect Canadians and keep them safe, especially the most vulnerable among us: our children. This legislation is one way we are fulfilling that promise.

The proposed new measures would help better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography. Furthermore, they would help ensure that offenders receive sentences that better reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

Over the summer and fall of last year, the Minister of Justice met with Canadians across the country. In those meetings, there was one central theme: victims wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and sentences that truly reflect the crime committed. Today, this legislation illustrates that we listened and that we are delivering for Canadians.

For example, we are seeking an end to sentence discounts for multiple child sexual offences. Sexual predators would receive sentences that take into account each young life that they have devastated.

The legislation would also ensure that those sentenced at the same time for child pornography and for contact child sexual offences, especially those who have victimized more than one child, would serve their sentences consecutively—in other words, one after another.

In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction. These sentences are based on what is referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one after another for multiple convictions when the offences are unrelated, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions.

The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentencing predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it offers little guidance to courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct a court to consider ordering, where applicable, that the sentences it imposes be served consecutive to a sentence of imprisonment that the offender is subject to at the time of sentencing. Where the court sentences the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events be served consecutively.

Bill C-26 would also increase minimum and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences, and there would be increases in the maximum penalties for violations of supervision orders. Canadians want those who violate the conditions of their probation orders, prohibition orders, and peace bonds held to account.

Moreover, these measures would ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could also be required to testify in court.

Under the Canada Evidence Act and under common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if they want to, as they are not competent, and they cannot be forced to testify against their spouse, as they are not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules, permitting spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and for offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences.

The amendments proposed through this bill would also add child pornography, section 163.1, to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, subsection 4(2), making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These changes are necessary and have been long in coming. Statistics tell us so, but more so the stories of victims. A report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed that in 2012 more than 3,900 sexual offences against children were reported to police in Canada. That is an increase of 3% from 2011.

As a society, we must do what it takes to protect our children and help them heal. Today, we are standing up for the vulnerable and showing them that their voices are being heard in our justice system. This legislation is in keeping with our commitments in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to punish those who break the law, to match penalties to the severity of the crimes, and to ensure that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It follows up on our previous actions, through legislation such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, to better protect our children.

Our government also recognizes that bullying and cyberbullying are serious concerns for many Canadian families and communities, and we are committed to doing everything we can to protect our children. That is why, last year, we acted to protect children and other vulnerable Canadians from this degrading behaviour by introducing Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Our government has also provided funding to create and enhance child advocacy centres across the country to help young victims and witnesses cope with the trauma they have experienced and to better navigate the often-complicated criminal justice system.

Despite our differences in this chamber, I believe we can all agree that nothing is more reprehensible than harming a child. Our government is deeply committed to strengthening the justice system to ensure that sexual offenders who prey on children are punished to the fullest extent of the law. Bill C-26 would send a signal that we as a society do not accept this kind of behaviour in our communities, and it would allow the justice system to better respond to the needs of child victims and their families.

In reviewing speeches from my hon. colleagues across the way, I understand that they have some concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. That said, they have agreed that this bill should go to the committee for further study, and I could not agree more. I hope that the opposition will work with us in giving this bill a thorough examination. I believe, at the end of the day, we can mend our differences for the sake of our children.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. However, I must say that although I fully support this bill, I do so with sadness, because like every member of this House, I wish it were not necessary, but unfortunately it is.

We discussed earlier the statistics from Juristat, which describe the problem. Over 3,900 sexual violations against children were reported to police in 2012, which was an increase of 3% from 2011, and the same increase was seen from 2010 to 2011. There were approximately 33,000 sex offenders on the National Sex Offender Registry, of which approximately 22,000 had a conviction for a child sex offence as of October 2013.

This is very unfortunate. It is the one type of crime in Canada that continues to increase year by year.

I was told by Karyn Kennedy, the executive director of the Boost child advocacy centre in Toronto, an agency that is doing fantastic work to assist child and youth victims of sexual offences, that they cannot keep up with the demand. They opened a centre a year ago expecting to have about 1,400 cases in that year, and they had almost double that number during that period.

It is an endemic problem. It may be fuelled in part by the availability of the Internet and the ease of luring and abusing children over the Internet. Unfortunately, it is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated against the most vulnerable people in our society, and we must all take action to do whatever we can to reduce and eliminate it.

This bill reflects the ongoing efforts of the government to protect our children from sexual exploitation. My remarks today will focus on the bill's proposals to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual offences adequately reflect the appropriate level of denunciation and deterrence.

We know that children are far more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than are adults. It is worrisome to see that the trend is increasing. One of the factors contributing to this trend in recent years has been the Internet, which has expanded the reach of sexual predators to the globe with a click of a button.

The justice committee heard considerable evidence of the use of the Internet to lure, exploit, and sexually bully children during its study of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. The proposed reforms to our Criminal Code and our new investigative powers in that bill are necessary to protect children, as are the provisions in the bill before us.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection is an impressive organization that has, since 2004, received support from the federal government as part of the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. It delivers programs to increase the personal safety of children and reduce their risk of sexual exploitation. These programs include education and prevention, research, and the coordination of national efforts on child protection with the private sector, government, and law enforcement.

It also operates cybertip.ca, Canada's national 24/7 tip line for reporting online child sexual exploitation. As noted on its website, between September 2002 and June 2010, cybertip.ca received 39,783 reports of online child sexual exploitation, 90% of which were for child pornography offences. These numbers paint a horrifying picture that clearly demonstrates that we must do more to stop child sexual exploitation, including by online predators. The proposed amendments contained in this bill would assist in achieving this objective by ensuring that sentences handed down would properly denounce and deter all forms of child sexual exploitation.

Bill C-26 proposes to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for nine existing child sexual offences as well as increase the maximum penalties for 16 existing child sexual offences. For example, the maximum penalty for section 171.1 of the Criminal Code, making sexually explicit material available to a child for the purpose of facilitating the sexual abuse of the child, would increase from two years of imprisonment on indictment to 14 years of imprisonment, with a corresponding increase in the mandatory minimum penalty from 90 days to six months imprisonment.

The offences of making child pornography, subsection 163.1(2), and distributing child pornography, subsection 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code would be converted from hybrid offences to indictable offences, and the maximum penalties would increase from 10 to 14 years.

As well, the maximum penalties on indictment for luring a child on the Internet, section 172.1 of the code, and for an agreement or arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child through the use of telecommunications, section 172.2 of the code, will increase from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. These are serious crimes, and this bill will ensure that they receive serious penalties.

This bill goes further to ensure that the objective of these amendments, to impose penalties that properly reflect the seriousness of the offence, is not defeated through sentence discounts for offenders sentenced at the same time for multiple child sexual offences.

Courts have, over time, developed rules to assist sentencing judges in the determination of whether sentences should be served concurrently, at the same time, or consecutively, that is, served one after the other. The general rule is that offences committed as part of the same transaction or same event should be served concurrently. For instance, an offender who sexually abuses a child and also makes a permanent record of that abuse by making child pornography should in theory be ordered to serve two sentences concurrently. Where an offender is sentenced at the same time for offences that are not committed as part of the same transaction, those sentences are normally served consecutively.

However, sometimes it happens that an offender is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences committed against different children, that is, committed as separate events. There have been a number of notorious serial child sex offenders whose crimes have come to light in much later years and were then tried together. Those offenders sometimes get a sentence discount through sentences that are imposed concurrent to each other rather than consecutively. Such an approach, in my view, sends a message, in the case of multiple victims, that not every victim counts. That is unfortunate.

Increasingly, however, sentencing courts are recognizing that consecutive sentences are warranted in certain cases of child sexual exploitation. These situations include, for example, where the offender has sexually abused a child, made child pornographic recordings of that abuse, and then disseminated those images worldwide via the Internet.

Imposing consecutive sentences in these circumstances, as some courts have already done, recognizes the reality that once such images are distributed, they will forever be available on the Internet and that the child depicted in those images will be revictimized every time the images are viewed.

For these reasons, Bill C-26 proposes to codify this growing practice by requiring courts that are sentencing an offender at the same time for child pornography and child sexual abuse to impose consecutive sentences for these offences.

The bill would also require a sentencing court to consider imposing consecutive sentences on an offender who is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences against multiple child victims; that is, the sentence imposed for child sexual offences committed against one child would be served consecutive, meaning one after the other, to the sentence imposed for sexual offences committed against another child.

Those are all important and welcome steps to ensure that all child sexual offenders are held fully accountable for their crimes. This bill will treat each victim equally and with dignity. This bill will end volume discounts for serial child sexual offenders.

This bill will also look beyond the sentence and seek to enhance community safety where the offender is released into the community under a prohibition order, under section 161; a probation order, under section 731; or a peace bond, under 810.1 of the Criminal Code.

A sentencing court must consider imposing a prohibition order on an offender convicted of a child sexual assault offence. Probation orders, under section 731, can be imposed on offenders who are sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment. Peace bonds can be imposed where there is a reasonable fear that the person will commit a child sexual offence, which is under section 810.1 of the Criminal Code.

Many experts tell us that most, if not all, child sexual offenders can never be rehabilitated, that once they have this problem, this issue, this proclivity, there is really nothing that can be done to ensure that they do not have that proclivity in the future. There are people, unfortunately, in our society who must always be under some kind of probation order or watch and must be listed on an offender registry so that Canadians can keep their children safe.

All of these orders can impose conditions restricting the offender's contact with children and use of the Internet or other digital networks with a view to preventing the offender from committing a child sexual offence.

The Criminal Code currently provides for a maximum penalty on indictment of two years' imprisonment for breaches of the supervision orders. Given that they are crucial in protecting our children from sexual offenders, including from recidivists, the bill proposes to increase the penalty for a breach of these orders to a maximum term of imprisonment on indictment of four years.

The bill also proposes to impose consistent penalties for breaches of these orders when prosecuted summarily. There have been many cases, unfortunately, of child sexual offenders who, on release and on some form of probation, then committed a second, third, or fourth subsequent offence, and that is problem we are trying to address with these provisions in Bill C-26.

Currently, breaches of peace bonds and prohibition orders are both punished on summary conviction by a maximum fine of $5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, yet breaches of probation orders are punishable on summary conviction by a maximum fine of $2,000 or 18 months' imprisonment, or both.

To ensure the harmonization of the penalties for breaches of these supervision orders, the bill would provide that the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breaches would be 18 months' imprisonment or $5,000, or both.

The last element I wish to touch upon is the amendment to the proposed Canada Evidence Act. The Canada Evidence Act provides that the spouse of a person accused of most offences can neither testify for the prosecution nor be forced to testify against the spouse. However, there are exceptions to this rule for most child sexual offences, but not, unfortunately, in the case of child pornography offences.

In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. That is why the amendments proposed in this bill would make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution in cases of child pornography.

There are a number of other provisions that I think are very important in the bill that I would like everyone listening to know about. The bill would also establish a publicly accessible database of high-risk child sexual offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. It would assist in ensuring the safety of our communities.

In addition, the bill would provide for legislation to enable information-sharing, on certain registered sex offenders, between officials responsible for the National Sex Offender Registry and those with the Canada Border Services Agency so that foreign nations may be notified when these types of offenders are travelling to other jurisdictions.

Finally, Bill C-26 would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad. We want to protect not only children in Canada but children around the world, and unfortunately, there are those in our society who would leave our borders to find victims around the world. Canada will live up to its international obligation to protect children around the world by ensuring that high-risk child sexual offenders notify the Canada Border Services Agency when they intend to travel abroad.

The heinous nature of sexual crimes committed against children, especially the online sexual exploitation of children, requires all of us in this chamber to support the proposed amendments contained in the bill. I was gratified to hear a few moments ago that my friends in the NDP will be supporting the bill to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study. I look forward to working with them at the justice committee to study the bill and ensure that it addresses the needs of the children we are trying to protect in Canada.

Digital Privacy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech with great interest. He seems to be very concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. That is something we should all be concerned about.

However, when it came time to vote, the Liberal Party supported Bill C-13. I am perplexed. They seem to be saying one thing but voting another. Can the member clarify whether the Liberals plan to support Bill S-4? They are saying one thing now, but will they change their minds when it is time to vote?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill S-4 this afternoon.

It is an important piece of legislation, as it at least attempts to deal with an issue that many Canadians are quite concerned about. They see the merit of the government introducing legislation on how Canadians can be protected. However, there is also a great deal of concern about the manner in which the Conservative government, as it has in the past, appears to be attempting to overstep concerns related to privacy and protecting the privacy of Canadians.

We have before us Bill S-4 this afternoon. It attempts to deal with and expand warrantless access to subscribers' data. This is an issue which can no doubt be exceptionally controversial. It is something that needs to have more consultation and work with the different stakeholders so that we do not make mistakes.

As suggested in the bill's title, this bill has come from the Senate. There were concerns upon its departure from the Senate and entry into the House regarding the constitutionality of the legislation. I have found that quite often the government will bring legislation into the House in anticipation that it will ultimately pass, yet a great deal of concern has been expressed regarding the degree to which it would be in compliance with Canada's Constitution, the Charter of Rights, and so forth.

Time and time again, I have heard it suggested, and I have suggested it myself, that the government needs to be more forthright in providing information which clearly shows that the legislation it is bringing forward would pass our laws. More often than not, we do not receive the legal opinions from the department giving clear indication that the legislation being debated is in fact constitutional and will pass the Supreme Court. That is important to note, for the simple reason that when the House of Commons passes legislation and it gets challenged, it costs literally millions of dollars, especially if the government has done it wrong.

The idea of seeing Bill S-4 go to the committee is something we are quite comfortable with. Going through the summary of the bill gives us the sense of the scope we are dealing with. The act would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to do a litany of things. It covers quite a broad area. We have expressed a great deal of concern about some of it to the Liberal Party critic.

The primary concern we have is ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is being respected. Checks need to be put into place to ensure that there is accountability.

Let me give members a couple of very specific examples of what the legislation is proposing. This comes from the summary of the bill itself. It would “permit the disclosure of personal information without the knowledge or consent of an individual for the purposes of...”

Here it lists some very specific things. These are:

(i) identifying an injured, ill or deceased individual and communicating with their next of kin,

(ii) preventing, detecting or suppressing fraud, or

(iii) protecting victims of financial abuse;

As I said, there are a litany of things. One that really caught my eye and that I think is a very strong positive is related to the Privacy Commissioner. The bill says, “modify the information that the Privacy Commissioner may make it public if he or she considers that it is in the public interest to do so”.

We have seen an expansion of the role, if I can put it that way, of the Privacy Commissioner, and giving more authority to him or her. Through the legislation, we are also seeing more penalties being brought in.

This is not only the first but the second piece of legislation over the last number of months dealing with privacy. It was not that long ago that I was speaking to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. It deals with cyberbullying. Canadians have little tolerance for cyberbullying and the types of things that take place.

Bill C-13 focuses a great deal of attention on the distribution of pictures without consent onto the Internet. We had some difficulty with Bill C-13, as we do with Bill S-4, but we ultimately ended up supporting the legislation because we recognized how important it was to stop cyberbullying. There were concerns with that legislation just like there are concerns with this particular piece of legislation.

We would like the government to provide more answers and be a bit more transparent about what it hopes to achieve with this legislation. We call upon the government to do just that in anticipation of the bill going to committee where it will be changed in order to provide some comfort to Canadians with respect to their privacy. Privacy is an issue that the Liberal Party takes seriously. Our party critic has had the opportunity to express many of our concerns with regard to it.

Bill S-4 would allow for warrantless requests of companies. Telecom companies and service providers could be approached in order to access personal information.

Over the last decade we have seen an explosion of technology in the computer and Internet areas. Who would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that we would be where we are today? In many ways we are playing catch-up in terms of trying to bring forward legislation in order to protect Canadians. Canadians have great access to the Internet as a whole. Many things are done through the Internet and unfortunately, at times, people are exploited, so we need bills such as Bill S-4 to deal with that.

Today we are talking about corporations getting personal information about people living in Canada who ultimately go to a particular telecom provider. That means company x could request specific information from a telecom provider about a particular customer who is being serviced by that provider. All of us should be concerned about that. All of us should want to do what we can to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected and that there are checks in place to ensure no abuse is taking place.

What we are talking about are warrantless requests. People would be surprised to know that in 2011, almost 800,000 warrantless requests by telecom companies were documented. People would be amazed to know the amount of information that leaves Canada through the Internet via, for example, the United States and ultimately comes back into Canada. The U.S. national security agency no doubt has access to a lot of Canadians' personal information.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has a responsibility to provide assurances to Canadians that their right to privacy is being protected. This is the greatest concern I have as the bill continues to go forward.

The challenge is to ask the government to provide the necessary amendments that would protect and provide assurances to Canadians that their privacy would in fact be protected. I am very concerned that private corporations, on a whim, could say a copyright has been infringed, or there is a perceived illegal activity and then are able to get personal information on Canadians.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this motion by the government to have Bill S-4 go to committee before second reading, which is a rare event in the House. This is a procedure that was made possible for the first time in 1994 amendments. I believe it stemmed from the 1982 McGrath committee's report that said that committees should more often be used at the early stages of legislation to make sure that things are caught and that a wide variety of perspectives are taken into account in drafting legislation and, frankly, to make the role of MPs more meaningful than is often the case when a bill is studied only after second reading in committee.

As we know, in committee after second reading, and after hearing any amount of testimony from witnesses that could suggest serious problems with a bill, the amendments are often extremely constrained by the rule that they must fit within the principle of the bill. Quite often that means that the principle is understood by the chair or the legal staff advising the chair as simply the principle of a given provision, and therefore, an attempt to work more broadly than the narrow purpose of a given provision is often ruled out of order.

Beyond that, I have found so far in committees, since arriving in the House, that there seems be a reluctance at the moment, on the part of the advisers to chairs, to understand that bills can often have multiple purposes and not just a single purpose. Therefore, in the end, after second reading, committee work often really is an exercise in frustration, because a lot could be done to perfect a bill that is technically ruled out of order due to the fact that we have to work within the principle of the bill as voted at second reading.

It is great that this bill is going to committee before second reading. It will hopefully allow, in the spirit of what this procedure is all about, a full, frank hearing, from all kinds of witnesses, about the problems I hope the government understands are in this bill. I hope this is also the reason the minister has decided to send it to committee before second reading. There can be true dialogue and engagement among MPs, obviously with the government watching what is going on and giving its input through government MPs, so that this bill is taken apart and rewritten in the way this procedure would allow.

I myself stood in the House to move unanimous consent to have Bill C-23, what New Democrats called the unfair elections act and the government called the fair elections act, referred to committee before second reading, exactly for the reasons I have just given. There were so many obvious problems in the bill. Not sticking to the principle in the bill and working collegially across party lines would have benefited the study of that bill. In retrospect, New Democrats realize how true that was. Although we got serious amendments passed, with pressure from backbench members of the government suggesting changes that helped us in our efforts, that bill would be much better if it had gone to committee before second reading.

There is another procedure that, in the spirit of openness, I am hoping the minister might consider. To date, it has not been the practice of the government to table opinions about the constitutionality or charter compliance of a bill. Given the real concerns that exist with respect to warrantless access to information that is contained in this bill as kind of a compendium bill to Bill C-13, I would ask the minister to please consider, for once, having the Department of Justice table a written opinion on the constitutionality of this. Why does it think that the Spencer judgment coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply or, if it applies, that the bill is written in a way that justifies it under the charter?

So often in committee there is minimal to no good testimony from the civil service side on why, supposedly, the Minister of Justice has certified that a bill is in compliance with the charter. We know that the standard for the minister doing that is a very minimalist standard.

I will read from the Senate testimony on Bill S-4 from Michael Geist, of the University of Ottawa, to tell the House why having that additional procedure as part of the referral to committee before second reading would be useful. He says:

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both [to] past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

That is an extremely good summary of a core problem with the bill in terms of the fears it raises that it has gone too far. It would purportedly create an updated regime to protect privacy and in the process would potentially ram through new problems with respect to Canadians' privacy.

I would like to now, in my last couple of minutes, go over a few points that I hope come up in committee.

I wish to thank a constituent, Mr. John Wunderlich, an expert in privacy law, who worked with me on the weekend to better understand the bill. These are points that I hope do have discussed.

In paragraph 4(1)(b) of the act, the definition of who this would apply to would move from just employees to employees and applicants for employment. In that context, this leaves hanging the question of how much or how little this would apply to companies whose business is to conduct background checks. The committee should solicit feedback on this. In my view, the background check function in the employment sector is done far too often and too deeply and already constitutes a systemic privacy invasion in the employment sector. Therefore, this extension needs to be looked at.

The next thing is the definition of valid consent. While it is welcome, because it brings clarity, the committee should note whether the current systems asserting consent on the web actually provide meaningful information to web surfers about just how many entities will be given access to either some or all of their personal information. Right now, there is a real risk that so-called valid consent, as outlined in the bill, would actually piggyback on the systematic sharing of information that people have no idea is being shared. The act could become a smokescreen behind which individual profiles were built and shared across businesses.

I have already spoken about the potential for the warrantless invasion of privacy because of the fact that organizations could seek information from others when they are simply investigating breaches of agreement or fraud. We should keep in mind that when they are investigating fraud, it is not just in the criminal context. All of this involves civil questions as well. An example is fraudulent misrepresentation.

The “real risk of significant harm” test for companies in particular to decide whether they are going to inform the commissioner and at another stage inform persons of breaches of privacy is a problematic standard in the sense that it is actually very general, and it is probably too low. There should be a presumption for disclosure to the commissioner, and it should be left up to the commissioner to either determine, or assist the company in determining, whether this is significant enough to let the persons whose information was released know that it happened. At the moment, it is an entirely discretionary system, based on a very vague standard, which may mean that data will be breached without people actually knowing it and being able to take the measures necessary to protect themselves.

Those are only three of the more specific concerns that need to be looked at. There is a lot in the bill.

I have a final comment, and it may be a rather strange one. I am looking at my colleague across the way. The privacy legislation from Alberta should be looked at very closely as a reference point for whether the government has gotten certain things wrong. That province has gotten things right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for my colleague.

The government's bill is called the Digital Privacy Act. However, we now know that the Conservative government does not have the best record in the world when it comes to protecting privacy. It lost track of a significant amount of Canadians' personal information. It passed Bill C-13, which gives statutory immunity to Internet service providers who decide to voluntarily hand over personal information. There is no shortage of examples: government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests to Internet service providers in just one year.

Does the hon. member not have any misgivings about this? Will the government really make good changes during the review of this bill in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. As members know, today's debate turns not precisely on Bill S-4 but on a motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

The concerns that I will raise with respect to the bill itself, which go as far as to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, would likely be fatal to the bill at second reading, but we need not concern ourselves with that today. We need not arrive at a conclusion about how fatal these flaws are or how injurious they are to the bill.

The motion before us today would allow us to visit the scope and principle of the bill at committee and make, as required, amendments to those very principles and scope of the bill.

Today, I would argue that this motion warrants support, so that we have the flexibility to properly study, examine and propose amendments to the bill at committee before the principle and scope are set.

Let me set out a few reasons why this is particularly important in these circumstances and relating to this particular legislation.

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

According to a survey of Canadians on issues related to privacy protection conducted last year, 70% of Canadians feel less protected than they did 10 years ago; only 13% of Canadians believe that companies take their privacy seriously; 97% of Canadians say they would like organizations to let them know when breaches of personal information actually occur; 80% of Canadians say they would like the stiffest possible penalties to protect their personal information; and 91% of Canadian respondents were very or extremely concerned about the protection of privacy.

The current government cannot absolve itself from contributing to this level of public concern about privacy issues. It is not just a matter of legislative lethargy; that is, it is not just about the fact that we are well past the five year mark for the conduct of a mandatory review of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, an act that is by now well behind international standards and has failed to keep up with technological advancements in this digital age.

Part of the issue here is that the current government has itself repeatedly demonstrated insufficient care for the personal privacy of Canadians through its own conduct. I would point to the fact that in one year alone, under the current Prime Minister's watch, government agencies secretly made more than 1.2 million requests to telecommunications companies for personal information, without warrant or proper oversight.

It is a government with a seemingly insatiable appetite and perhaps an addiction to Canadians' personal information. It is a government that needs to be constrained by effective legislation that protects the privacy and personal information of Canadians. It is a government that has no credibility on this subject matter.

This is evident in the legislation that the Conservatives have defeated in this House. In 2012, our NDP digital issues critic, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, put forward Bill C-475, a bill to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would have applied similar online data protection standards that exist in Quebec's personal information protection act. For example, Bill C-475 would have given the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the power to issue orders following an investigation. The Conservatives defeated that bill at second reading. They also defeated our NDP opposition day motion on May 5 last year. That motion simply called on the government to close loopholes in existing legislation that currently allowed the sharing of personal information without warrant.

The current government's disregard for private and personal information is also evident by the legislation that it has brought forward.

Bill C-13, the government's cyberbullying law, includes lawful access provisions that would expand warrantless disclosure of information to law enforcement by giving immunity from any liability for companies that hold the information of Canadians to disclose it without a warrant. This makes it more likely that companies would hand over information without a warrant as there are no risks that they would face criminal or civil penalties for such conduct.

There is a thread here that runs through the government's own efforts to access the personal and private information of Canadians through to their conduct and voting record in this place. It goes against the interests and concerns of Canadians and denies the wishes of Canadians for greater protection of their personal and private information.

In other words, the issue before us goes to the principles underlying this bill. They need to be examined and amended at committee. For example, while Bill S-4 would make it mandatory to declare the loss or breach of personal information for the organizations in the private sector and penalize organizations that do not fulfill this obligation, the proposed criteria for mandatory disclosure remains subjective. It would allow the organizations themselves to assess whether “it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual”.

More and most problematically still, Bill S-4 would add exceptions under which personal information may be collected, used or disclosed without an individual's consent. The bill would make it easier for organizations to share personal information with each other without the consent of individuals if the organizations are engaged in a process leading to a “prospective” business transaction. In other words, under certain circumstances, the bill allows personal information of one organization's clients to be shared with another organization without the consent or knowledge of those individuals.

Here we run into some significant problems with this bill. The amendments proposed contradict the very foundation of the act they seek to amend and serve to defeat what the Supreme Court called in R. v. Spencer the act's “general prohibition on the disclosure of personal information without consent”. As the Supreme Court said in that recent decision, “PIPEDA is a statute whose purpose is to increase the protection of personal information”.

The Supreme Court, in R. v. Spencer, got to the heart of the issue here, understanding what the government has failed to understand about the issue of informational privacy in the digital age. It is worth quoting at length here. It stated:

Informational privacy is often equated with secrecy or confidentiality, and also includes the related but wider notion of control over, access to and use of information. However, particularly important in the context of Internet usage is the understanding of privacy as anonymity. The identity of a person linked to their use of the Internet must be recognized as giving rise to a privacy interest beyond that inherent in the person’s name, address and telephone number found in the subscriber information. Subscriber information, by tending to link particular kinds of information to identifiable individuals may implicate privacy interests relating to an individual’s identity as the source, possessor or user of that information. Some degree of anonymity is a feature of much Internet activity and depending on the totality of the circumstances, anonymity may be the foundation of a privacy interest that engages constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

So, from subscriber information, the Supreme Court has connected that information through to search and seizure.

We have at least before us a major concern with the principles of this act, but seemingly too a bill that is simply unconstitutional. Leaving aside for the moment this latter issue, let me suggest by way of conclusion that if there is something in Bill S-4 that is salvageable, it can only be so if this bill moves to committee before this House sets in concrete the principles and scope of this bill, and limits the kinds of amendments that can arise out of committee post second reading.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 give access to personal information without a warrant or any oversight mechanism.

Why does the government want to allow snooping without a warrant by creating these deficiencies with no oversight to prevent abuses in the system?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, as we were with Bill C-13, but hopefully we will do a thorough examination of it at committee. We will not support the legislation if we do not see some changes and some clarifications when it comes out of committee. I am much more hopeful. We have been able to do some good non-partisan work at the industry committee and I look forward to continuing to have that opportunity.

We must keep in mind that this is about protecting Canadians' privacy rights, especially given the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that the Senate chose to ignore. I suspect that will be front and centre and it will be our job as opposition to continue to remind the government at committee that there is a Supreme Court ruling on Canadians' privacy rights and it should be reflected in the final recommendations that come back to the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as is the case with much of the legislation that the government puts forward, it puts two or three good things in that we want to see happen, especially issues such as cyberbullying and so on, the issues that Canadians truly care a lot about, but it also throws in a bunch of other things that we equally have concerns about. It comes down to weighing the pros and cons of which parts are the better parts to deal with.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for her speech.

I am pleased that she raised some of her concerns about Bill S-4, in particular the negative impact it may have on the privacy of Canadians. All of the concerns that she mentioned were also raised by the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-13. However, in the end, the Liberals supported the government bill designed to spy on Canadians.

I would like to know if we can expect the same thing from the Liberals this time as well?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be on my feet, adding a few comments on my concerns with Bill S-4.

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

On this side of the House, we will support sending the bill to committee. We have some very serious concerns when we combine the impact of Bills C-13 and S-4, but in order to ensure that we are being open and fair on this issue, that we understand it thoroughly, and that it does keep Canadians' interests in mind, we will support it going to committee. Hopefully, at that point, we will have sufficient time to get answers to the various questions of concern.

We are back discussing the Conservatives' type of approach, which is that one is either with them or against them. If we vote against the bill, it means that we are not interested in privacy rights, and if we vote for the bill, there is another side.

It is another one of those bills that continue to be very divisive in the House at a time when these are the kinds of privacy issues that we should be trying to work out together. I do hope that when we get to the industry committee, we have a good group there so that we can do some serious work in a non-partisan way. Maybe we can strengthen the bill in the end, by listening to some of the experts who have sincere concerns about it.

I do not mean to start out on a negative, but the truth is simple. We all need to be part of the debate today.

The way that the government looks at personal information, protection and privacy has already been subject to a Supreme Court ruling, and we have to give consideration to that. It is one thing to play partisan politics in the House and think that we are playing to the political base, but it is important that we listen to the rulings of the Supreme Court on privacy issues.

There are clearly those who have tried to make it sound like anyone who does not support the government is supportive of criminals. We have heard that before. However, the discussion is not as simple as that. The government's record on information protection has been embarrassingly negligent, so forgive me if I am not convinced that the recent scheme is worth passing without intense scrutiny.

We should all remember the matter of that lost hard drive, which held the social insurance numbers, medical records, birthdates, education levels, occupations and disability payment information of about 5,000 Canadians. That was lost. Perhaps the government wishes to plead incompetence on that side, or maybe it was an accident. We always like to be fair, so maybe it was an accident. Either way, the way that the government manages information needs extra study, which is why I am speaking on this today.

We are now looking at Bill S-4, but one cannot look at Bill S-4 without considering the implications of its companion legislation. Bill C-13, which is also before the House this week, would make it a crime to transmit pictures without consent, and it would remove barriers to getting unwanted pictures removed from the Internet. The stated intent of the bill is positive, but I have serious concerns with the provisions that would grant immunity to telecom companies that provide subscriber information to the police without even so much as a warrant.

I raise the issue, given that last April, Canada's interim privacy commissioner revealed that nine telecommunications companies received an average of 1.2 million requests from federal enforcement bodies for private customer information every year. That amounts to nearly 3,300 requests each and every day.

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

How could that possibly be? Did the Senate miss this detail or did it fail to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling? The truth is that the Senate passed Bill S-4 just days after the Supreme Court ruling, without even studying the implications. I guess the government is less concerned with that than pushing ahead with both Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. It is a lack of respect for the Supreme Court as well as Parliament.

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

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

In a world where crimes involving data theft, identity fraud and online stalking are on the rise, protecting data is crucial. Data is not simply information. It is a commodity, it is power, and it is the doorway into the private lives of so many people. Liberals are deeply concerned that the government's commitment to safeguarding the personal information and privacy of Canadians is less than absolute. I am not suggesting the government is malicious. I do not believe that, but I fear it just does not understand the implications of Bill S-4.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather peculiar question coming from someone who supported Bill C-13 at third reading. Together, these two bills strengthen the parallel system for accessing personal information. Of course, there is the traditional system under which a warrant is needed to obtain personal information about someone. However, as a result of flaws in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there is also a parallel system under which a government agency can simply pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and ask for information about that company's clients. That is something that the government does not seem to want to correct. In fact, the government wants to do the opposite. It wants to increase its ability to do this sort of thing by giving itself legal immunity under Bill C-13 and by now allowing organizations to share Canadians' personal information among themselves without consent and without a warrant.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with today’s NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, aimed at combatting cyberbullying at third reading.

When we come back from our constituency week, on Monday, October 20, we will consider a motion to refer Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act, to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology prior to second reading. If we have extra time available that day, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Tuesday, October 21, shall be the fifth allotted day. The Liberals will offer the day’s topic of discussion.

Starting on Wednesday, October 22, the House will consider Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at second reading. This bill would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simple firearms policies. I would note that this legislation has already been endorsed by a number of key groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, la Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, among others.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to wish you and all members a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope that all will share that with their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think as everyone in the House knows, it was the intention of the government to have a debate and a vote on this matter today. However, it is apparent right now that it will not happen. As a result, I would like to provide the following brief statement about the business of the House for the balance of the week.

The fourth allotted day, which was originally set for tomorrow, will now be on Thursday, October 9. Wednesday will see us debate Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at second reading. Friday will be the last day of third reading of Bill C-13, protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on the government's resolution on taking appropriate action against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Conservative and Liberal Parties of Canada

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seeing what the Conservatives are doing to the environment, the economy, employment insurance, justice and foreign policy only reinforces our belief that we need to replace this tired old government in 2015 and change course.

However, we cannot just switch lanes, we need to make a U-turn. When we take a closer look at the issues championed by the Conservatives, it is clear that there is no real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: for the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for the 30-day mission in Iraq, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for invading Canadians' privacy with Bill C-13, the Conservatives got Liberal support; and for destroying the belugas' breeding grounds at Cacouna, the Conservatives got Liberal support.

If the Liberals believe that hope and hard work mean giving the Conservatives a blank cheque and making off-colour jokes about a potential war, they are sadly mistaken.

The NDP will continue to demand accountability. We will provide a real alternative in 2015, and we will put an end to the status quo.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer who will be celebrating 30 years of legal practice in November, I would venture that we cannot say that it is completely unconstitutional or completely constitutional.

The minister says that he is convinced that this will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. I got a minor amendment passed. I do not really boast about it because I find that ridiculous. Once again, the Conservatives do not want to be clear and transparent.

We asked the minister to report on prostitution and human trafficking two years after the passage of the bill. They amended my amendment to increase the time period to five years. With Bill C-13, they increased it to seven years. We all know that this will be before the courts well before that.

I would like to reiterate that this is a health and safety issue. We must not put the lives of people who work in a very dangerous environment at risk. This is very serious.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course, independent watchdogs, offices, ombudsmen, people like the Privacy Commissioner and the privacy office have indeed voiced their opinions, as have many others, as have experts.

Here is a stunning revelation for everyone. Sometimes experts disagree. Sometimes lawyers even disagree, or parliamentarians.

We believe, fundamentally, the legislation not only respects the Spencer decision, it answers the questions that have been asked with respect to judicial oversight and it answers with respect to the constitutionality of the bill itself. It is an attempt to modernize the tools that are in the hands of the police to allow them, with that judicial oversight, to investigate very sophisticated criminal activity online.

I remind my friend that the Spencer decision does not require amendments to Bill C-13. In fact, this decision addresses very plainly the ability for the police to obtain private information with a valid warrant.

Nothing in Bill C-13 is intended to create any new powers to obtain information without a warrant, as has been suggested by some members of the NDP. Simply put, the bill puts forward privacy safeguards, which are built into the legislation and built into the investigative powers of the bill. It is tailored to meet those expectations around privacy, but at the same time allow the police to do this critically important work of protecting the public from online criminality.

Quite frankly, we know this online criminality is prolific, growing and in some cases is causing young people, because of intimidation and harassment, to take their own lives. That is what is at stake.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is because I rely, not on the advice of the member opposite, but on the advice of departmental officials, lawyers and those who argue the case, those who are involved intimately in tracking the Spencer decision and drafting this legislation. This is not some sort of a fly-by-night written on the back of an envelope piece of legislation. This has been in the works for some time. It has been studied extensively. We have heard from numerous experts and we have heard from the people most affected, the victims. They have told us of the urgency.

The member said, just a moment ago, that they are not trying to hold up the bill. There have been some 20 speakers from the NDP on the bill. We have ample time to look at the bill in further detail, not this type of banter back and forth in the House of Commons but in committee.

Therefore, when it comes to the constitutionality of Bill C-13, we believe strongly that this not only passes constitutional muster, but it does what it is intended to do. That is to allow police, with judicial oversight, to do proper investigations that protect the public at large.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we are talking about the urgency of adopting provisions on cyberbullying. The NDP has always said that we need to adopt this part very quickly. Nonetheless, we want to properly assess the parts that may cause serious problems when it comes to protecting Canadians' privacy.

What is more, the Minister of Justice responded to my colleague from Gatineau by saying:

“It is not our duty to slow things down here”.

I am sorry, but it is our responsibility. As parliamentarians, we must be sure to uphold the Canadian Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

Can the Minister of Justice tell me why he does not even want to sit down and address the Supreme Court ruling to see whether the provisions of Bill C-13 are indeed constitutional?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the very crux of the issue, striking that balance between protection of online activity while at the same time giving police modern powers with judicial oversight. There were certainly criticisms and legitimate concerns raised in the past and with respect to the bill about unlawful access online to information. The bill requires judicial oversight. The bill does not create new powers for police that go beyond the Criminal Code. It does not allow for any new online investigation without judicial oversight.

It is important that people understand that if the police want to use the powers contained in Bill C-13, they by necessity have to get a warrant from a judge, so the judicial oversight provisions are here. They are alive and present in the bill. They are also respectful and responding to recommendations that came from a very intense consultation with provinces and territories, not to mention what we heard at committee and not to mention what we have heard from experts such as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime who said:

This legislation, if passed, will help to provide tools necessary to assist in reducing cyberbullying and in providing victims with much-needed supports.

It will empower the police to protect people online.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I am right there, Mr. Speaker, but considering the time we are having on Bill C-13, could you give me a tiny leeway?

Mr. Spratt goes on to say:

In short, the government is doing its best to obscure the fact that our highest court has articulated the constitutional limits of invasive police investigative techniques...

If the minister cannot change reality, is rushing it and blurring it the next best thing?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the government and on the Minister of Justice, who seems to forget he is also the Attorney General of Canada, for the 78th motion for time allocation.

It is absolutely incredible.

Bill C-13, which is before us right now, is not just any bill. The same thing happened with the prostitution bill last week. We had roughly half a day of debate on Bill C-36. Third reading of that bill is planned for Friday. The same thing will happen with Bill C-13, but that comes as no surprise.

My request to split the bill was rejected. My request at committee to wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rendered a day after we finished the clause-by-clause, to suspend so we could read it was denied. We have time allocation at second reading, time allocation at report stage and at third reading.

Manon Cornellier wrote an extraordinary piece on this a year ago, saying that time allocation was becoming the norm in the House of Commons: “There was a time when limiting debate was the exception and invariably caused outrage [including that of the Conservatives]”.

Last week, Michael Spratt, of iPolitics, wrote:

The Conservatives proposed a controversial law that would expand the state’s Internet surveillance powers.The bill was attacked by experts...as unconstitutional....The Conservatives have the gall to claim that the decision confirms what they’d been saying all along — that the new law is justified. Black is white, love is hate, peace is war—

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13--Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on the question of missing and murdered aboriginal women, I was pleased that last night the House of Commons had an opportunity to vote to concur with the excellent work in the report done by the committee of parliamentarians that examined that issue, one of well over two dozen such studies that have been undertaken on the subject. They have been helpful in forming the government's action plan that is taking place to help address this problem and help to improve the conditions of aboriginal women on reserve and elsewhere.

In terms of the government's agenda, this afternoon we will continue the second reading of Bill C-41, the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. This important bill would implement our landmark free trade agreement with South Korea, Canada's first in the Asia-Pacific region, I might add. It would provide expanded access for Canada's businesses and workers to a growing G20 economy, Asia's fourth largest.

Free trade with South Korea is projected to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by boosting Canada's economy by almost $2 billion annually and increasing our exports to South Korea by almost one-third.

That debate will continue next week, on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will see the conclusion of the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The House will recall that we are working to implement this legislation before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford takes effect before Christmas.

Monday shall be the third allotted day, with the New Democrats choosing the topic of discussion.

I am designating Monday as the day appointed pursuant to Standing Order 66.2 for the conclusion of the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

On Wednesday, the House will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime legislation.

Thursday morning should see the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. Then we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-40, the important bill to establish the Rouge national urban park. After question period we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-5, which would also, in a similar vein, create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Friday will be set aside for third reading of Bill C-36.

Privacy

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, I asked the government why the Conservatives had such little respect for Canadians' right to privacy, a fundamental right, an immutable respect and non-negotiable right. According to documents we have obtained, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency committed roughly 3,000 privacy breaches and data breaches against Canadians in less than a year. That means there were more breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency this year than in all the departments combined since 2006, or when the Conservatives came to power. That is not trivial.

The changes the Conservatives are proposing would allow employees of the Canada Revenue Agency to hand over taxpayers' private information to the police without authorization from any sort of warrant. It is as though the Conservatives want to reward the Canada Revenue Agency for its mismanagement of private information, as we saw in recent scandals. Data breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency, the systematic collection of private information at airports and the passage of legislation facilitating access to private information without a warrant reinforce the perception that the government does not respect the right to privacy and that it is also opening the door to abuse with ill-conceived legislative reform.

The government introduced a series of bills that, according to experts, could have serious repercussions on Canadians' privacy. Indeed, Bill C-13, Bill S-4 and Bill C-31 enshrine a number of controversial practices in law.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has been sounding the alarm since last May. After revealing that the federal government is collecting vast amounts of personal information from telecommunications companies, the Privacy Commissioner's office then revealed that the federal government is also collecting personal information about Canadians from social networks.

Bill C-13 on cybercrime and Bill S-4 on the protection of digital information would allow telecommunications companies to provide personal information to other companies or law enforcement officials without a warrant. That is a very significant and serious issue.

I would like to quote a professor and intelligence expert from Laval University, Stéphane Leman-Langlois, who believes that Canadians should be very concerned. He said:

We can all agree that there is not very much privacy on the Internet, but still, there are some very weak protections in place. However, rather than strengthening privacy, which of course would be the best thing to do, the government is bombarding us with bills that will reduce those protections...

That is what is happening on the Conservatives' watch. They are reducing these protections and eroding respect for Canadians' privacy. As I said on a number of occasions, this truly is an intrusion into people's lives. That is very worrisome. We spoke about it last May, and I would like to talk about it again this month, now that Parliament is back in session, because it is really important.

The government did away with Statistics Canada's long-form census because it was too intrusive, but it has no problem allowing private companies to impinge on the privacy of millions of Canadians. That is completely hypocritical.

To shed some light on the consequences of these privacy bills, the NDP is asking for the creation of an independent panel of experts to examine how the government is using and storing Canadians' communications data.

Obviously, I am asking my colleague opposite to respond to this proposal. Does he intend to follow the NDP's recommendation and set up an independent panel of experts so that Canadians can be reassured with regard to their right to privacy, an immutable and fundamental right that all Canadians hold dear?

Justice

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to voice my opposition to the Conservatives' Bill C-36, the so-called “protection of communities and exploited persons act”. Bill C-36 would do nothing to improve the working conditions for those involved in the sex trade.

Under Bill C-36, a prostitute who communicates to sell sexual services could be thrown in jail for up to six months. This is the same criminalization of sex workers under a new name.

When sex workers and their clients are scared of prosecution, they will take steps to avoid police detection. This will lead to even more unsafe and riskier working conditions.

Bill C-36 flies in the face of all the concerns raised by our Supreme Court last December.

The Conservatives have tried to sell this bad bill by claiming that targeting the buyers of sex will decrease the demand for prostitution. This is ridiculous. The demand will always exist and has existed for the world's oldest profession.

A report from Norway, where prostitution laws were similar to those proposed by this government, concluded that sex workers there were still experiencing high levels of violence and discrimination against women had actually increased.

Bill C-36 is part of a pattern of the Conservatives' blatant disregard for the rights of Canadians. The unanimous ruling by our highest court was clear: the old laws were unconstitutional. They infringed on the charter right to security, which all Canadians are entitled to, including sex workers.

The Conservatives have totally ignored the Bedford ruling. The bill discriminates against sex workers. It openly defies the Supreme Court and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the Conservative government has disregarded the Supreme Court. Its Bill C-2 banned safe injection sites, which the court unanimously ruled were necessary to reduce health risks in 2011. The Conservatives have ignored the court's affirmation of Canadians' privacy rights and introduced Bill C-13, which would legalize Internet snooping.

This is shameful. The Conservatives' disdain for the constitutional rights of Canadians is reprehensible and dangerous.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to introduce evidence-based policy. They could have taken a hint from New Zealand, where prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed.

Research there shows that sex workers are safer and are empowered to refuse dangerous clients. Sex workers in New Zealand are more likely to use condoms and HIV rates there are lower there than in other countries. Employment conditions for sex workers in New Zealand have improved drastically and violence against sex workers there has declined significantly.

The facts speak for themselves. While the Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions about sexual matters, they are not entitled to their own facts.

The government should know that poverty is the major driver for many women in the sex trade. If the Conservatives really want to help sex workers, perhaps they would implement a guaranteed livable income so all Canadians could prosper in a safe career of their own choosing.

Our response should have followed the successful New Zealand model, a safe and regulated work environment. A practical and progressive government would, and will soon in about a year from now, face reality and make prostitution legal, regulated, taxed, safer for everyone and get organized crime out of the sex business.

Bill C-13—Protecting Canadians From Online Crime Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to ask you to select the amendment I submitted for debate and vote at report stage on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. I understand that you will be giving a ruling on this after question period today, and I wanted to make sure that I made this submission before then, as this is a motion that was proposed and defeated in committee.

As stated in the note to Standing Order 76(5), the Speaker can select a motion that was defeated in committee to be debated at the report stage, “...if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage”.

I would like to explain why this motion warrants consideration and why it is of such exceptional significance to members that it should be considered again. The motion is to amend clause 12 of Bill C-13 to add “gender identity” to the definition of “identifiable group” in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code concerning hate crimes.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House previously decided on this issue during its consideration of Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity). Clause 3 of Bill C-279 replaces subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and in doing so adds to the definition of “identifiable group” those members of the public distinguished by gender identity.

Clause 12 of Bill C-13 would replace that same subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and would add to the current definition of “identifiable group”:

...any section of the public distinguished by national...origin, age, sex...or mental or physical disability.

However, clause 12 of Bill C-13 does not use the current definition in the Criminal Code, as amended by the House by Bill C-279, and therefore deletes a provision by omission. If the House adopts Bill C-13, we will not protect transgender Canadians from hate crimes, despite having already affirmed this principle in this same Parliament.

This one amendment to the Criminal Code makes up half the substantive content of Bill C-279, my private member's bill, which passed third reading in this House on March 20, 2013. The members of this House will recall that it was passed by a majority of members in a vote of 149 to 137 with support from all parties. Again, a change to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-279 is a short and specific proposal to offer protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians. In all likelihood, the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 at third reading would also support the motion I proposed in committee had they had the opportunity, since this motion is identical in content to that proposed in Bill C-279.

With Bill C-13, as it will be reported back to the House later today, the government would be, in effect, attempting to override this part of Bill C-279, which was passed by a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

I believe that the note to Standing Order 76(5) was written specifically for situations like this one. This is an exceptional case in which a motion defeated in committee because of five government MPs would most certainly be supported by at least 149 MPs if it were moved in the House, and it would therefore pass. If the vote were held in the House of Commons rather than in committee, the outcome would be completely different. You can therefore be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not of a repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious nature or of a nature that would merely prolong unnecessary proceedings at the report stage. This would not be a repeat of the committee stage, since the outcome of the vote would likely be very different from what it was in committee. Some MPs would certainly oppose the motion, but it seems obvious to me that a majority of MPs would once again vote to provide protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians.

There are several precedents where the Speaker referred to the note to Standing Order 76(5) to identify a motion as being of exceptional significance to the House as justification for selecting it for debate at the report stage, even though it had been proposed and defeated in committee. Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of those precedents.

One involves Motions Nos. 3 and 4 at the report stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations. On April 3, 2000, the chair occupant said to the House:

Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March 23, 2000 and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions would not be selected for consideration at report stage. I have looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfill the requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

Another example took place on February 18, 2002, at the report stage for Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Speaker Milliken stated as follows:

...there are motions similar to those that were rejected by the committee. Usually, such motions are not selected, because they would generate discussions that have already taken place in committee. However, the note in the Standing Orders allows the Speaker to select these motions if he deems that they are of such importance that they deserve to be examined again at report stage. I believe that these motions respect that criterion and therefore they will be selected for the debate.

Lastly, I would like to refer to the precedent established on June 10, 2005, at the report stage for Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005. Again, Speaker Milliken had originally rejected Motions Nos. 5 and 6 at the bill's report stage. After hearing a point of order raised by the chief opposition whip, he reversed his ruling and selected the motions for debate at the report stage. In response to a question from a government MP who disagreed with him, the Speaker said:

Motion No. 1 to amend clause 9 to put back in words that were deleted in the committee was allowed. I understand they are the same words. I allowed those to be debated because, as I say, the minister made submissions that indicated he thought this was a matter of public importance. I am prepared to make the same arrangement with respect to Motions Nos. 5 and 6 and I have so ruled.

Mr. Speaker, my request is even more significant, if we consider the precedent that would be set if this motion is not selected for debate. The House previously decided on the issue of gender identity when a majority of MPs chose to include provisions in the Criminal Code that would protect transgender Canadians. Without the amendment I have proposed, Bill C-13 would do exactly the opposite. It would reverse a decision reached democratically in the House following several hours of debate and a recorded division.

It is also worth noting that the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 included many government MPs. The five Conservative MPs who opposed this amendment to Bill C-13 in committee were not representative of all their colleagues. By allowing the government to rewrite subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code to eliminate the changes made by Bill C-279, we are going against the wishes of the majority of MPs in the House who supported that bill. What this means is that if a majority government does not support a piece of private member's business, which is the case for Bill C-279, it can introduce a government bill reversing the provisions of the private member's bill. All the government has to do is ensure that the members who sit on the committee during the clause-by-clause study of the government bill are among those who opposed the private member's bill in question. I believe this creates a dangerous precedent for private members' business.

This amendment is of significant importance for MPs and for public safety, as demonstrated when Bill C-279 was debated in the Commons and was considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment should be selected for debate at the report stage so that all MPs may decide on this issue. This is not a matter that can be resolved by a mere handful of government MPs on a committee of the House. It deserves to be considered again in the full House of Commons.

Given that this motion is of exceptional significance to the debate at report stage, and in view of the precedents available to the House, I respectfully request that you select it for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-13 and that you allow the members of this House to vote on it separately as a stand-alone motion and one not tied to any of the other votes at report stage proceedings.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome you and everyone back to the House for the autumn sitting. I know it will be a hard-working, orderly, and productive sitting because there is much work that we have to do.

This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. Tomorrow, we will have the final day of third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act.

Monday, at noon, we will start the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. In the afternoon, we will start the report stage of Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act.

Tuesday, as I announced at the start of the week, shall be the second allotted day. This will be an opportunity for the leader of the Liberal Party to put forward a proposal for some new initiative. This week we saw the New Democrats do that. As much as their idea was neither bold nor responsible, it was a motion which let us have a debate on the merits of an idea. I hope the hon. member for Papineau will be inspired to set aside his musings of the summer and present to us a concrete proposal for which he will come into this House to explain and defend in debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, I will give priority to the consideration of any new government legislation that may be introduced between now and then.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined, and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.”

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined.” At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function.” He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principal duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our Constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Privacy

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he said, “I always respect the decision of the Supreme Court.” When the government gets a decision that it does not like from the court, the Conservatives ignore it altogether, they make stuff up, or they attack the courts.

The Supreme Court was clear. Collecting personal data without a warrant, something the minister has defended, is in fact unconstitutional. Instead of respecting that decision, he turned around and misled the House and claimed it as a victory. Well, he is wrong.

Will the minister now accept that the only legal way to protect our children and respect legitimate privacy rights is to split Bill C-13?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we always do. We always respect the Supreme Court. We always respect the decisions. The reality here is the Supreme Court's decision clearly stated that the Criminal Code provisions dealing with voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. As our government has continually said, those provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. This is nothing new.

We respect the decision. It reinforces the position of the government and we will move forward with Bill C-13.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has resorted to making up facts to justify his badly written, unconstitutional bill on cyberbullying.

The Supreme Court clearly said no to access to personal information without a warrant. The Privacy Commissioner, whom the Conservatives say is an authority on the subject, has stated that this ruling invalidates the principles underlying Bill C-13. The bill must be split to stop cyberbullying and maintain the right to privacy.

Will the minister abide by the Supreme Court's ruling or not?

Criminal Code

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on countless occasions my profound concern about the ongoing effort of Conservative members of Parliament who introduce bills allegedly to combat crime. I have repeatedly made my concerns known that these crime bills are undermining the coherence of the Criminal Code of Canada. Far too often we find backbench MPs introducing private members' bills primarily relating to crime and justice, and more often than not based on input from the Prime Minister's Office.

I am also concerned that these private members' initiatives are not properly vetted to ensure their charter compliance. Unfortunately, that concern applies to government bills in too many cases, which, when introduced, immediately raise serious constitutional issues.

To underscore this concern we need only look at what happened yesterday with the Minister of Justice, who yesterday and again today was telling the House and the media bizarrely that the Supreme Court's ruling last Friday somehow was a victory for his government. More specifically, he was suggesting that there was something in the court ruling that was a victory for Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Never mind that in the reality in which most of us operate, the court ruling undercuts both of those bills.

When it comes to so-called tough on crime legislation, whether from the government or backbench MPs, we on this side are more than a little suspicious of their motives. Moreover, we are concerned whether or not these bills, and there are many, are constitutional.

Again, the overall impact of these bills is to make the Criminal Code incoherent, which is unfortunate. The Criminal Code should not be used as a political fundraising tool, and I submit that the government has used these private members' bills and other government bills for no other reason than to raise money.

Today, however, as I indicated earlier, we may have a rare exception to that rule. We are debating Bill C-590 in the name of the member for Prince Albert. It was certainly encouraging to hear him say that he is open to amendments that would seek to achieve the objective of the bill.

As we know, Bill C-590 would amend the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimum penalties for impaired driving where the offender has a blood alcohol content more than double the legal limit.

Currently, there are minimums for drivers over the legal limit and for convictions of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. In most provinces, a minimum jail time does not apply for a first offence. As I indicated in my question earlier, there is an exception in Prince Edward Island. That is how the case law has developed, but in most of the country there is no mandatory jail time for a first offender with a blood alcohol level of 0.08.

The hon. member will be pleased to know that today, after careful consideration and consultation with my colleagues, I have recommended to the Liberal caucus that we support Bill C-590.

My major concern is with the use of mandatory minimum jail sentences. The hon. member would know that we opposed in principle the use of mandatory minimums, and we do so because there is no evidence to suggest that they work or are effective in reducing crime. We believe that mandatory minimums should be the exception and not the rule.

We will support sending the bill to committee because we agree with the objective of the bill, and at committee, hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear how best to achieve that objective.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Prince Albert for his effort. I believe he is sincere in that effort. I believe he is in fact seeking to make our roads and highways safer.

We all know that drinking and driving remains a serious issue in Canada. The number of bodily injuries and deaths caused by impaired driving continues to be unacceptably high. By targeting impaired drivers with a blood alcohol over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, the act would create a specific deterrent to the class of drivers who pose the greatest statistical risk.

By dealing severely with the worst consequences of impaired driving, which are bodily injury and death of third parties, the act would also emphasize the rationale behind deterring impaired driving. Limiting judicial discretion is problematic, but this is, indeed, a serious enough issue that it merits further examination.

It should be noted that impaired driving continues to be a particular problem in locations and provinces across the country, including, and especially, in my own province of Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, the provincial government is doing what it can to address this problem. Just in the last session of the provincial legislature, a law was passed that would mandate a special license plate for chronic offenders of the impaired driving laws. This would allow police, but not the general public, to identify those who fall into this category. This is the type of innovative thinking that is required to combat this problem, not the automatic default to mandatory minimum jail time that we so often see.

Also in our province, as I indicated, the case law has grown such that there are sentencing guidelines for impaired driving offences. Those sentencing guidelines require that every single person in Prince Edward Island who is convicted of a drunk driving offence, whether it is at 0.08, 0.16, or whether it is a first offence, should bring their toothbrush, as we say, because they are going to Sleepy Hollow for the weekend, at a minimum.

Here is some relevant background information. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that impaired drivers with a blood alcohol level at 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood represent close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents. According to Statistics Canada, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

Let me focus a bit on fatalities. It is estimated that in 2010, 2,500 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada estimates that, at a minimum, 1,082 of these fatalities were impairment related. In MADD Canada's opinion, the 1,082 figure is a conservative estimate, due to the under-reporting that results from the inability to conduct alcohol tests on surviving impaired drivers, and from the need to rely on police reports. Moreover, the figure underestimates the percentage of crash deaths that involve drugs, thus the recent sharp increase in driving after drug use was not factored into the 1,082 figure.

Additionally, that 1,082 figure does not include individuals killed in impaired crashes on waterways. It was estimated that there were more 135 boating deaths per year from 2006 to 2008. It appears that more than 50% of those boating deaths involved alcohol and/or drugs. That 1,082 also does not include fatalities arising from aircraft, trains, and industrial vehicles, such as forklifts.

Given the limits on this 1,082 figure, MADD Canada estimates that there are somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 impairment related crash deaths in Canada each year. That amounts to three to four deaths per day.

I would like to turn now to the matter of injuries caused by impaired driving. In 2010, it was estimated that about 300,000 individuals were injured in motor vehicle crashes. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 64,000 of those individuals were injured in impairment related crashes. That is roughly 175 per day. This figure is limited to motor vehicle crashes only.

There is also information available on property damage. In 2010, it was estimated that approximately 1.7 million motor vehicles were involved in property damage-only crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 211,000 of these vehicles were damaged in impairment related crashes. That works out to 578 per day.

Finally, there is the financial cost. Using a social cost model, impairment related driving deaths, injuries, and property damage-only crashes in Canada can be estimated to have cost $20.6 billion in 2010. This model is recent, it is based on extensive analysis, and it was prepared for the Department of Transport.

This bill would meet a positive policy objective. People who drink should not drive. That may seem like a simple suggestion to us here, but far too often, people do drink and then decide that they are okay to drive. This is never acceptable and, on that point, I believe the House is united.

Privacy

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13, gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address.

This is exactly what we have been saying. This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading.

The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional.

Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “for a greater certainty”. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13.

Here is another interesting quote:

—our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose....

Who said that? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect privacy but at the same time allow the police to do their important work.

I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case in which the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens.

Regarding Bill C-13, the elements of this bill remain before Parliament. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Spencer is in keeping with the spirit of his cyberbullying bill. Fortunately, making a fool of oneself is not harmful to one's health.

Some provisions of Bill C-13 run completely contrary to this ruling. The bill allows businesses to turn over their clients' personal information without a warrant from a judge.

The minister does not have to sacrifice privacy in order to fight cyberbullying. Why is he doing that?

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent to wait before moving forward with Bill C-13 and to conduct an analysis to see whether this works or not.

Under the Conservatives, and especially under this Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court appointment process has become a real farce, and I would go even further. The Prime Minister does whatever he wants without any regard for the Constitution or the courts.

The Minister of Justice, who is supposed to be standing up for our justice system and our Constitution, cannot even tell the difference between the Quebec Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

Why is the Minister of Justice trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision on Justice Nadon?

Privacy

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. We are reviewing that decision, which was made on Friday.

The letter from the Supreme Court confirms what our government has been saying all along, which is that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. It is absolutely essential to review this Supreme Court decision and pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Supreme Court reiterated that police must obtain a warrant from the court to obtain a customer's IP address.

This decision casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.

In light of this ruling by the highest court, will the government finally agree to the NDP's request to divide Bill C-13 in order to combat cyberbullying and prevent the law from being struck down because it infringes on people's privacy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we received the Spencer decision from the Supreme Court a full two business days ago, but let me tell the member this. The Supreme Court's decision actually confirms what the government has said all along, that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant.

The Supreme Court's affirmation, in fact, of Mr. Spencer's conviction on possession of child pornography charges very much reinforces the long-held position of this government that children and Canadians in general must be protected from the scourge of cyberbullying, online criminality, and certainly sexual exploitation.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in.

I always say what an honour it is to rise in this institution, but as I reflect on the government's response to the report on the Conflict of Interest Act, I have to say that I am not proud of what has been taking place in this Parliament.

We have what is being presented to the Canadian people as a Potemkin democracy. It is a false democracy. Democracy does not really happen here anymore. It is a sideshow that Canadians are being exposed to on a daily basis in a House that has become a circus, an ugly circus, a vicious circus.

What we see here is an overall attack by the government against the institutions that are supposed to maintain the credibility of the Westminster tradition, a continued unmitigated attack on the various institutions that are supposed to bring accountability to this place. As Canadians watch the daily circus show and the silliness and the way the government has dumbed down important issues into little buttons that it can press at a given moment, what we see is the bigger issue that is being deflected that the Canadian public is not seeing, which is the attack on the credibility of the institutions that would hold some level of accountability.

Let us go through the standards that are supposed to be there to ensure a functioning democracy.

We hear of MPs who go back to their ridings and when people ask about the circus that they watch on TV, they will say, “Oh, yes, but committees are where the good work is done.” When I was elected 10 years ago I used to think that. I used to think that maybe on a given day it may be fairly mediocre in the House, but in committees, by and large we were there to do relatively good work, even if it was sometimes very partisan. Sometimes it was not the brightest. This is a democratic system after all, and it is what it is, depending on who is elected. However, the notion of the committee had a place. That is not true anymore. Committees have become circuses. They have become kangaroo courts. It is all done in camera or it is done to use the notion of majority to undermine even legislative positions that have existed since the Westminster tradition.

In England, in the U.K. Parliament, it is considered a failure of the committee if there is not unanimity, if one has to bring forward a minority report. Unfortunately, we are having to bring forward minority reports all the time.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the circus of what happened at the ethics committee with the review of the conflict of interest guidelines. We heard from witnesses from across the political spectrum about the need to develop a coherent set of conflict of interest guidelines to hold government and the public office holders to account. What was delivered to the Canadian people in this report was an absolute democratic fraud.

The recommendations that were brought supposedly through the committee were never even raised by a single witness. I will get to the key recommendation, the number one recommendation that the government found in dealing with issues of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest review had raised all manner of issues, such as the need for administrative monetary penalties of a substantive nature, to ensure compliance with basic due diligence so that people were not just doing things for their friends or their pals, that there were clear rules to ensure that insiders did not have access, and that public office holders were acting in the public interest.

The number one recommendation that came out of this committee, and I want to say again it appeared in the report when we were examining it without a single witness having brought it forward, was that the definition of “public office holder” be changed. The government's notion of who will now be under the Conflict of Interest Act are the members who collectively bargain with the Government of Canada. They will now be public office holders.

What is a public office holder? A public office holder, according to the act, is a minister of the crown, a minister of state, or a parliamentary secretary. They will now have the same provisions around their conflict of interest as someone who does the vacuuming in a public office building for the federal government. Someone in Scarborough who works in a call centre for the federal government answering the phones is now going to have the same legal obligations as a minister of the crown.

Members of ministerial staff, all the little boys in short pants who write all those notes so the marionettes in the front row do not look so slow on a given day, and someone working in a secretarial function in an office in Calgary for the federal government will be treated as having to have the same responsibility for reporting their behaviour as the men in the little short pants who work for the Prime Minister's Office. A ministerial appointee under the Governor in Council will be treated the same as someone working at a Service Canada outlet in Moose Jaw, Kenora, or Timmins. That means there would now be between 240,000 and 300,000 people who are under the Conflict of Interest Act, whom the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has to oversee.

The government approved this. Members of the government thought this was a good recommendation. They are laughing at us. They are laughing at the Canadian people. This is an absolute fraud of democracy when they decide that a minister of the crown, who can be bought and sold if there are not clear rules for lobbying and for conflict of interest, would be held to the same code as a person who goes into a government office in Winnipeg in the evenings and sweeps and cleans.

The Conflict of Interest Act was one of the key provisions of the Conservatives' commitment to have themselves elected in 2006. It is notable that the Conservatives made this promise that they were going to clean up the corruption of the Liberals in 2006. Their electoral platform was to give the ethics commissioner the power to fine violators—wrong; to enshrine the conflict of interest code into law—wrong; to allow members of the public, not just politicians, to make complaints to the ethics commissioner, which did not happen; to make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the ethics code. It does not say anything about making 250,000 Canadians apply under the same code, a code that has no provisions for holding these ministers to account.

There is another fascinating recommendation that the government has brought in. If one of its ministers is under investigation, it has to be kept secret. It has to be kept secret to protect their reputation. It is a government that believes in maximum secrecy for its members while insisting on maximum transparency for average Canadians. That is a fundamental failure of accountability.

We had a Conservative member from London the other day who said that if people go to a public demonstration, why should the government not be able to keep tabs on them? The Conservatives believe that being able to spy on Canadians is their right, but if their ministers are under investigation, good luck investigating them because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would be absolutely swamped with the 250,000 civil servants she would have to deal with. We asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner what she thinks of this report and she said she is extremely disappointed. Of course she is, because it is making a mockery of her position.

The conflict of interest office is just one of the attacks the Conservatives have been making. Let us look at a few others.

We saw what they did with Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada and the attack on him personally. The insinuation was that Marc Mayrand in doing his job was doing it for partisan reasons. They wanted to make it illegal in Canada for Elections Canada to be able to tell Canadians about their rights to vote. International observers said that if Canada went down this route, it would fundamentally undermine the basic notion of democratic accountability.

We saw how they attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Kevin Page, one of the most respected civil servants I have met in my career, was regularly ridiculed and undermined and attacked. His job, which was to provide members of Parliament with basic financial data, was interfered with every step of the way. I have to tell people back home that the House of Commons does not oversee the spending that is going on. It is a shell game that happens here. Billions of dollars are spent in all manner of categories, and yet the government makes sure that they keep members in the House of Commons in the dark. It's as though they were raising mushrooms on what they are feeding the House of Commons when it comes to actual information.

The one office to provide basic financial accountability, the Parliamentary Budget Office, was considered a threat and Mr. Page had to go. That is another one of the officers of Parliament that has been undermined.

There was the latest appointment of the Privacy Commissioner. The Prime Minister ignored the recommendations of all the experts and picked Mr. Therrien, a lifelong civil servant, but one with no expertise in the privacy field. He was appointed over all the qualified people. Mr. Therrien was given a poison chalice with this appointment. As soon as Mr. Therrien was approved, the government attacked his credibility, because even Mr. Therrien, without the necessary expertise, recognized that the government's bills, Bills C-13 and S-4, on warrantless access and snooping on Canadians, were very problematic and probably were not legal.

The Privacy Commissioner was undermined. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was undermined. The Elections Canada office was undermined. Now with this report, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office is being turned basically into a farce. She said that she has no ability to keep track of the 244,000 civil servants across this country when her job is supposed to be keeping an eye on a government that is mired in corruption.

These are respected institutions that provide accountability to Canadians when government does not want to be accountable. There is another key element, and that is the access to information office. The government now routinely tells the access to information officer that it will not comply with requests. It will give delays of 300, 600, 900 and 1,000 days on basic rights to access to information. Canada was a world leader on access to information 15 years ago. Now it is behind tin-pot dictatorships and third world countries in terms of providing information to citizens. The President of the Treasury Board runs around like some two-bit flim-flam artist talking about data sets and open government on his Twitter account. It is a farce. The Conservatives are making sure that the real key information that Canadians need is not being made available to them.

The Department of National Defence, the CRA, the justice department, and Indian affairs routinely stonewall and shut down the attempts of citizens and journalists to find out why decisions are made. If we do not know who was in the room when a decision was made or what source provided the information, we have no idea whether or not we are getting accountable government.

The government undermined the other institutions. We can talk about Rights and Democracy. We can talk about the round table on the environment. We can talk about Census Canada. I do not know what he is the minister of now, but he was the minister of immigration, and he is now running around trying to explain why he blew it so badly on the foreign worker program and saying he did not really have any data to go on and is having to look it up on Facebook and Kijiji. It is the same party that ridiculed and laughed at the Census Canada information that was considered the gold standard for information around the world.

There is another institution that the Conservatives attacked and undermined, and it is the one institution that so far has stood up to them. That is the Supreme Court.

I will not mention the Senate. We were taught in school that legislation goes from the House to the so-called chamber of sober second thought, but it is full of hacks, partisans, and friends of the party who rubber stamp bills again and again. They are not doing their legislative oversight. What ends up happening is the Supreme Court has to address bills.

Before I get to the issue of the Supreme Court, let us talk about the justice department. The justice department has a job to review legislation to ensure that it is charter compliant, that it meets the overall legal framework of this country. We see time and time again the advice that is given is ignored, or perhaps the Conservatives decide to favour their political masters, because this is a government that runs and butts its head again and again on the basic issues of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are beginning to look increasingly ridiculous. Rather than the Conservatives stepping back and saying that they have to respect the Supreme Court, even though they will respect no other institution in this country, the Prime Minister personally led an attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Conservatives attempted to bring in a judge who was not able to sit on the Supreme Court. They had legal advice on this. They ignored it. They created an unnecessary crisis.

We saw the Conservatives' prostitution law thrown out by the Supreme Court. The Conservatives have gone right back at the Supreme Court, banging their heads against it with a bill that will also be found unconstitutional, because it ignored the fundamental issues in the Bedford decision.

Nowhere is this more obvious than on the Spencer decision last Friday that talked about the fundamental legal obligation to get a warrant to get access to IP information and cellphone information. I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries the other day saying, “Oh my God, this is going to mean a four- to six-week delay in police investigations.” Nonsense. It is a one-day turnaround.

We also have, within the legal system in Canada, the right the police have, if they believe a crime is being committed, to get that information without a warrant. The proviso is that they have to be able to show to a judge later on that there was the urgency. There is still judicial oversight.

The government believes that there is no need for judicial oversight. We have a situation now where 1.2 million times a year, government agencies are grabbing information on private citizens without any apparent warrant. The government says that it is only being done in cases of extreme threat, terrorism, or violence. Obviously that is not true, given that there are 1.2 million requests a year.

All that being said, we had Vic Toews, who tried to bring in his warrantless snooping bill, who stood up in this House and told ordinary Canadians that they were on the side of child pornographers if they wanted to defend privacy rights. They put the run on Vic Toews pretty quickly.

The Conservatives then came back with Bill C-13, which would create the provisions to give legal cover for the telecoms to hand over this information, and Bill S-4, which would allow corporate interests to get at Canadians' information without warrant or disclosure to people.

The other provision, the absolutely bizarre one, is that the Conservatives are now going to allow personal tax information to be transferred without warrant or oversight. They somehow think this is going to get past the Supreme Court. Since Friday's ruling, it is clear that it is not.

Rather than use this institution for the benefit of all Canadians to ensure that we have clear, definable rules in this country, we are going to see the government running and butting its head against the Supreme Court and then howling like a victim when the Supreme Court does what its job is to do, which is to maintain legislative and constitutional obligations.

This brings me back to the Conflict of Interest Act. The government's response and its recommendations, which will protect its ministers, will dilute the act and turn the office of accountability into an unmanageable and unenforceable branch. It has completely broken the commitment it made in 2006 to Canadians.

It was very interesting when we heard from Ms. Dawson, the commissioner, the other day. We asked her about one of the most serious cases we have had in memory in terms of a breach of the act, which was the secret payment made out of the Prime Minister's Office to a sitting senator.

I am not a lawyer, but when I read section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it says to make a payment to a sitting senator to make a political problem go away is an indictable offence. The RCMP chose not to follow through. The RCMP said that there was nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen, move on, yet when we looked at Corporal Horton's ITO, there were serious questions about who was involved in that $90,000, and it was clearly an issue of quid pro quo.

If the RCMP is not going to follow through, and the RCMP said that it had received all the legal advice necessary but did not appear to have talked to the Department of Public Prosecutions, which has oversight in this, then the issue goes back to Mary Dawson. Mary Dawson has no ability to go after the senators. The senators are in a closed world unto themselves. However, Mary Dawson does have the authority to investigate Nigel Wright. She says that she is not investigating Nigel Wright, because she is under the impression that the $90,000 was still under investigation by the RCMP. I find that surprising, because I do not know how it could be illegal to receive the money but not illegal to pay the money. I am not exactly sure. I think Ms. Dawson would do us all a favour if she could explain.

This is the kind of work Ms. Dawson is intended to do. It is to ensure that secret payments are not made to insiders, that backroom pals do not have access that ordinary Canadians do not have. This is why we were supposed to have the Federal Accountability Act. Unfortunately, with the motion and the report, the government has signalled that it has no intention of following through on those commitments.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims' rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or monies that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

Justice and Human Rights

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The committee has studied the bill, and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Privacy

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there was another Supreme Court decision this morning, this one telling the Government of Canada that it cannot request telecoms companies to provide information on citizens without a warrant. In layman's terms, it means that spying on Canadians without a warrant is illegal.

Beyond Bill C-13 and its misdirection, we know that the government operations centre has ordered all departments to report on any and all demonstrations within their jurisdictions. These are not illegal demonstrations.

Will the government suspend that directive to spy on Canadians through the government operations centre immediately?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 has been extensively studied, as the member will know, both in committee and in the House of Commons. We have had 12 hours of debate in the House of Commons and 22 hours of study and extensive evidence from all witnesses and all experts on all sides of the issue.

We respect the work of the court, but we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals to protect children and all Canadians.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Supreme Court reminded the Conservatives that they cannot make up rules when it suits them.

The right to privacy and the protection of personal information are very important concerns for Canadians. The way in which the government rejects these concerns is unacceptable.

In light of this morning's ruling, will the government finally accept the NDP's request to split Bill C-13 in two, so that the provisions that constitute serious violations of privacy are taken out of the bill? This must be done so that victims of cyberbullying can quickly obtain justice.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives have rejected almost all the opposition's amendments to Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.

This morning the Supreme Court rebuffed the Conservatives again. The court unanimously ruled that a warrant is required in order to obtain a client's IP address from Internet providers. This casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of their Bill C-13.

Why did the Conservatives not agree to the NDP's request to await the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with the clause-by-clause study of their bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative incompetence has reached a new high. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled what the NDP and privacy experts had been warning all along, that allowing police to pull private information from telephone companies without warrant was unconstitutional, yet the Conservatives are steamrolling ahead with Bill C-13, which also allows unconstitutional spying on Canadians.

With yet another bill struck down by the Supreme Court, when will the Conservatives finally take a balanced approach that keeps Canadians secure without infringing on constitutional rights?

Agricultural Growth Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.

It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.

My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.

We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.

It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well, and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.

One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.

I went to Europe, where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.

If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.

The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.

The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.

For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.

Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?

That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said:

We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers.

We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well.

Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.

Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.

The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty.

This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions, but I will save some for our work in committee.

I am not clear on how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice interprets public places, so I would like him to clarify. For example, does he think that where Bill C-36 refers to an offence committed next to a school, that means only during school hours? Does this clause apply elsewhere in the bill to criminalize sex workers?

I asked the minister that question, but he never gave me an answer. Maybe that is because he does not know the answer. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice knows. Can he define the expression “sexual services”? What does the bill mean by that?

Also, what about the new Bill C-13, which has just passed another stage without amendment, or rather with just a tiny, inconsequential one, even though we proposed 34 amendments? Could the provisions in Bill C-13, which give more powers to police officers, also apply in this context, with or without a warrant, if a person were advertising sexual services on the Internet? Would the Internet service provider also be guilty of a crime?

Justice

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that at the last minute, Conservative votes were swapped or changed in order to block an amendment to Bill C-13 that would have protected those most subject to hate crimes in Canada. This was an amendment that the Minister of Justice said in committee that he supported in principle.

Instead, Conservatives voted to deny equal protection against hate crimes to transgendered and gender-variant Canadians, even though this very same protection has already passed the House of Commons twice, only to be blocked in the Senate. What do Conservatives have against standing up for vulnerable Canadians?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected an NDP amendment to Bill C-13 that would have made discrimination on the basis of gender identity a hate crime. It just so happens that right before the vote, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who supported the amendment, was replaced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Why did the Prime Minister's Office intervene to block this important amendment?

Privacy

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, based on the way that Bill C-13 is constructed, which would enable the police to act with modern tools not only to enforce the existing law but also to enforce the new legislation that would criminalize the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, it makes no sense to split the bill. We have to not only protect the public through passing the legislation; we also have to enable the police to have the modern tools necessary to enforce that law.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns that have been raised about the new privacy commissioner's background and his potential conflicts of interest, he himself believes that Bill C-13 should be divided.

He also believes that the information telecommunications companies have on their clients should be better protected. This kind of information is not the same as what is found in a phone book. This information is much more sensitive.

Will the Conservatives listen to the person they just appointed?

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I felt quite confident that the House would certainly want to hear from the member for Ottawa South, and I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues for that.

Today it is my honour to stand to speak to Bill C-26, and I want to state from the outset that I am reluctant to support the bill. However, we will vote at second reading to send the bill to committee, and will do so in order to provide the government with an opportunity to present what evidence, if any, has emerged since 2012 that has prompted the introduction of even more mandatory minimum sentences.

It was just two years ago that many of these same provisions were contained in Bill C-10. In the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences, as we heard from the minister, have risen by 6%. To repeat, in the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences have risen by 6%.

The House will remember that when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, in 2011, they spoke at length about how these measures would combat child sex offences. I think we are still in agreement that reducing child sex offences is a priority that we all share. The government has made much of the fact that it imposed mandatory minimum sentences, stating that this would somehow reduce incidents against children.

Again, that legislation, Bill C-10, came into force in 2012. Since the coming into force of that bill, and despite the rhetoric from the Conservatives, it must be accepted, and indeed it was earlier in debate this evening, with obvious concern, that child sex offences have actually risen.

I want to make it clear that I do not for one minute believe that the Conservatives planned or hoped for this result, but I do believe that they need to accept the idea of being smart on crime.

At the justice committee this past March, I raised this issue with the minister. It was the same issue that I raised with him in the question and answer period following his speech this evening. I wanted to know why the government would introduce further flawed legislation for these offences when very clearly the evidence suggested that its previous approach had not worked.

The same question was posed at the justice committee when these statistics were introduced by the minister at committee, as they were again this evening. I asked him where the statistics came from, and at that point he did not know. He indicated he would get back to me, and I guess that happened tonight. We now know that these statistics came from Justice Canada.

I asked the minister at committee, on March 6 of this year, “Do you not agree that the stats that show that child sexual offences have increased in the last two years indicate that the increases that you put in C-10 haven't worked?”

The minister responded, and not exactly in the same fashion as he did this evening, but his response was:

I'd answer that two ways.First, I would say that C-10 would hardly have had effect in the time period we're looking at. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it indicates to me that we have more to do. It indicates very clearly that we have to take more steps toward prevention, deterrence, and denunciation.

That was, in part, the exchange that I had with the minister this past March at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a part of which we heard repeated here this evening.

If it were the intent of the government when introducing Bill C-10 to reduce crime as it relates to child sex offences, then it must recognize and accept that its efforts have failed. Some members of the Conservative caucus, including the minister, would argue that not enough time has passed to properly measure the impact of Bill C-10. I assume they believe that with the passage of time, the data will indicate Bill C-10's effectiveness.

If that is the case, why are we here today discussing Bill C-26? Why are we here debating this bill, if, as the minister himself suggested, we need more time to properly assess the impact that Bill C-10 will have in reducing crimes against children? It does not make sense. It has caused many of us on this side of the House to wonder why the government is doing this.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. No one in the House would accuse the Minister of Justice of being Einstein, but the government's behaviour on this issue gives rise to the suspicion that they are playing politics with a very serious issue.

I have said time and again that I find it very troubling that the government would seemingly use sensitive subjects as a potential wedge issue, or worse, to raise money from its base leading up to an election. We have seen this approach to cyberbullying in Bill C-13, presently before the justice committee, where the government is using real victims of cyberbullying to bring in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with cyberbullying. It is using victims to bring in a law that would allow for the widespread invasion of our privacy.

Suffice it to say, though, that on the matter of crimes committed against children, the House is very united. I want to reiterate that no one in this House is immune from heartache when we hear of any child who has suffered because of the actions of an adult. I know that members on all sides share this view.

The Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to the protection of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, our children, against the most predatory of practices: child pornography and sexual offences against children. We support concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

I earlier quoted the justice minister, who had indicated in a response to a question I posed that he believed that we need to do more to combat crimes against children. He indicated that we need to do more in the areas of prevention and deterrence and that prevention and deterrence are important elements in reducing crimes against children. This bill, however, includes no measures to prevent sexual offences against children or measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. Again, why this glaring inconsistency?

By increasing mandatory minimums, the bill would reduce judicial discretion and could result in charter challenges.

We need to know that the laws we are passing will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against children and will not be merely symbolic expressions. That is why we will seek a detailed study and analysis with stakeholders at committee. Liberals will seek to ensure that the policies adopted in this area reflect the best evidence and the latest research available and will not be based on fear and ideology, or worse, on an effort to raise money from a political base using the Criminal Code and this sensitive issue as a way to exploit the fears of Canadians.

We also want an effective law that addresses these issues and not laws that will be met with endless charter challenges defended at taxpayers' expense.

We have some concerns about charter challenges to the sentencing provisions of the bill and about privacy suits that may arise from the offender database. Moreover, travel restrictions may raise concerns as to the mobility rights of Canadians, as guaranteed by the charter. I raise these issues knowing that the government's record on crime legislation is abysmal. Time and again, we see the courts tossing out its legislation, because it is found to be unconstitutional.

Sexual violence, like other forms of violence, is traumatic and devastating. The minister also suggested in committee that along with prevention and deterrence, we need denunciation of those charged and convicted of crimes against children. No one would disagree with that position, but denunciation does not equal deterrence. We must endeavour to find methods of prevention, as well as punishment, while not overlooking the importance of treatment and rehabilitation and the reintegration of offenders.

Evidence-based criminal law policy is a guiding principle of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is through this perspective that we review and critique all legislation.

While we have supported mandatory minimums in this area in the past, we no longer support them as a matter of policy, given that they are ineffective in achieving their stated objectives and may violate the charter. Indeed, mandatory minimums should be the exception, not the rule. Under the current government, they have become the rule, not the exception, despite the fact that mandatory minimums have no basis in evidence pointing to their effectiveness.

There would not be one member of the Conservative caucus who could rise today in his or her place and point to any independent study that would suggest that mandatory minimums work. Indeed, that challenge was advanced to the minister immediately after his speech.

This is not an issue that should divide the House, because we all want to protect children. We in the Liberal Party want to do it in a way that respects the charter, respects evidence and facts, and respects the overwhelming need to be smart on crime.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in this splendid chamber to be with my colleagues, particularly to speak to such an important bill as Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The bill, as members know, would touch upon three on three important areas: sentencing reform; the Canada Evidence Act, the evidentiary reforms we believe necessary; and enhancing the practical tracking of sex offenders through our public safety department.

The bill would represent another positive, significant initiative that our government has brought forward to address one of the absolute worst forms of crime: the sexual abuse of children.

As a new father, I must say that in addition to the joy that a child brings to one's life, it is certainly also a stark reminder of the vulnerability of young children and the sacred duty that we all share to protect our youth, particularly, children who are subject to sexual abuse.

It is incumbent upon us to continually assess the current adequacy of the law in that regard. How does our criminal law in fact protect our children and ensure that we are effectively and comprehensively addressing these heinous crimes of sexual abuse?

Sadly, children and youth are far too likely to become victims of sexual offences, more so than adults. For instance, in 2011, police reported that cases had actually gone up. Reported rates indicate that children were five times more likely than adults to be victims of sexual assault. In fact, in 2012, police reported incidents of child sex offences had increased by 3%, and that was up over 3% the year before that. These statistics from Justice Canada indicate, clearly, that the current laws have to be examined and improved. That is what we are attempting to do.

The statistics, of course, do not tell the full story. They do not tell, or speak to, or truly reflect the devastating lifelong impact of a sexual offence on a child.

The amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act set out in the bill would help to ensure that any offenders who have committed sexual offences against children are fully held to account for crimes committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. These amendments would also serve as a deterrent for these heinous crimes.

The bill would also create a high-risk child sex offender database. Practically speaking, this would assist in protecting society's most vulnerable from those who are known to have offended against them and those who are most likely to do so again: a classic incurable pedophile.

To achieve these important objectives of protection, the bill would maintain several different components. First, maximum and minimum penalties for certain Criminal Code child sexual offences would be increased, building upon the recent reforms that were enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act, formerly known as Bill C-10.

The Criminal Code already contains comprehensive provisions protecting children from sexual exploitation, including both general and child-specific sexual offences.

The child sexual offence reforms would ensure that anyone who commits any of these offences against a child faces a mandatory minimum penalty. That means jail time, in all cases, if someone sexually abuses a child.

Yet more can be done. The bill proposes, further, to increase the mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties that would apply to child sex offences to better deter and denounce this type of heinous offence. Maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds, all of which can be described as supervision orders and aimed at protecting those who are most vulnerable again from an individual who has been released who has arguably already been afforded the opportunity to be back in society, albeit with restrictions.

The intent here is to ensure that when people violate conditions imposed by a court, conditions that were aimed specifically to protect a child, there will be accountability. A stay-away order, for example, from schools, pools, and playgrounds is a classic attempt to keep sex offenders away from children. When those violations of probation occur, there would be a specific offence attached.

These tools would authorize judges to impose conditions on child sex offenders or suspected child sex offenders by prohibiting unsupervised contact with children. Again, that would be a protective order made by a court to hopefully pre-empt any further offence. If those pre-emptive orders were breached, the bill would bring about criminal accountability.

A sentencing judge would have to consider imposing a probation order on an offender convicted of a sexual offence on a child, and probation orders could be imposed on an offender sentenced to two years' imprisonment. A peace bond could also be imposed if there were a reasonable fear that a person would commit a child sex offence.

Strict adherence to the conditions imposed by these supervision orders significantly reduces the risk of reoffending. Many breaches of supervision orders do not involve the commission of a new offence that would warrant a new charge, but any breach of a condition imposed to protect children, we believe, would be a significant indicator of risk to children.

Accordingly, the protection of children and the prevention of sexual offences against them demand significant condemnation of all violations of supervision orders. Importantly, this bill would increase the penalties for breaches of the new probation order proposed by Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, so I would describe this as sister legislation. As the Speaker is aware, this new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images very often includes a pre-emptive attempt to stop the spread of the offending material.

We know that in the case of young suicides, it is that devastating feeling of hopelessness that the material on the Internet is being passed around not only in the community but literally around the globe. It has a devastating psychological impact on the individual. This new legislation aims not only to help remove the material but also in some cases to restrict the offender or the accused from having any further contact with that young person, so there is very much a connection between this bill and Bill C-13, I would submit.

This amendment would ensure that penalties for both the new probation order and for child sex offence prohibition orders are consistent. Again, it is important that we have consistency in the legislation.

The bill also proposes sentencing reforms that would clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences, something that there has been confusion on in the past. In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous act or single transaction, often referred to in the courts as the same event or series of events rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one on top of the other for multiple convictions for unrelated offences, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions. The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentences predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it sometimes offers little guidance to the courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering, where applicable, that sentences of imprisonment be imposed and served consecutively. That is to say that when the court would sentence the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events would be served consecutively.

This bill also proposes to codify the approach of the courts when one of the offences was committed either while on judicial interim release—or bail, as it is commonly known—or while the accused was fleeing a police officer. In such cases, in order to discourage offenders from committing offences with impunity, courts would usually order that the offences be served consecutively to other offences for which the court would sentence the offender.

The purpose of these proposed amendments on consecutive versus concurrent sentencing is to try to bring about a greater sense of consistency and understanding as to when and why consecutive sentences apply to certain circumstances and to certain offenders. In particular, for multiple child sex offences, including child pornography offences, we believe that sentences should not receive a sentencing discount, as it is sometimes described, whereby a court directs that the sentences imposed are served concurrently, meaning that the offender only has to serve the longest sentence that is imposed for a series of convictions.

Put another way, this proposed amendment would require that sentences for child pornography offences and others would be served consecutive to any sentence imposed at the same time when there has been what is called a contact child sex offence or when there have been multiple victims. Sentences imposed at the same time for contact sexual offences committed against one victim would be served consecutively to those imposed for contact sexual offences committed against any other victim.

This gives individual recognition in the criminal system for each of those victims in the sentence that is meted out. These reforms end the sentencing discount that is sometimes afforded to child sex offenders who are sentenced at the same time for multiple charges. In particular, they ensure that the law recognizes the devastating impact that sexual abuse has on each individual life.

The bill sends a clear message to child sex offenders that there will be no more discount and that they will serve jail time for each and every victim, each and every offence. We believe this is a just result, given the seriousness of the type of offence and the fundamental injustices that have occurred when there have been multiple victims.

Another important sentencing reform included in this bill is to ensure that any evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order—that is, a sentence that was served in the community or while on parole or while on statutory release—is also considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

These amendments will ensure that the gravity of committing an offence while subject to one of these more lenient orders is better reflected in the sentence that is then imposed.

The bill will also make it possible to ensure that the spouse of the accused can testify in child pornography cases. Under the Canada Evidence Act and common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, for most offences, the spouse of the accused cannot testify for the prosecution even if he or she so desires. One spouse is not competent to testify and cannot be compelled to testify against the other. The spouse of the accused is not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules permitting spousal testimony for most child sex offences and offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences. Again, we hope to bring about a greater sense of consistency when it comes to spouses and their competency and compellability before the courts.

The amendments proposed in this bill add child pornography to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, as we know well, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Without this amendment, child pornographers may be able to get away with this very disgusting crime, and we must put an end to this legal loophole. I would submit that the current state of the law on this issue is unacceptable. Any form of child pornography we know is taking advantage of and exploiting children.

This bill also includes amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. These amendments would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad and would permit information-sharing on registered sex offenders among officials, those responsible for the national sex offender registry, and the Canada Border Services Agency. All of this reform is aimed to prevent travelling sex offenders from accessing children in foreign jurisdictions and to facilitate holding them to account for their crimes.

My friend the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will be speaking to this issue. My friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs is a former police officer. I know he shares the desire to break down any barriers to sharing information between agencies to help hold sex offenders accountable. In this day and age, we cannot be seen as a nation that allows those convicted of these heinous crimes in our courts to then go abroad and take advantage of jurisdictions where laws and enforcement may not be as rigorous. We owe a larger duty of care to children in other countries as well. They are equally vulnerable.

Currently, the law as it pertains to registered sex offenders and the reporting of absences of seven days or more for trips within or outside Canada only requires them to report specific designations and addresses for domestic trips. This bill would amend the act to ensure that all registered sex offenders report every address or location at which they expect to stay on a trip for seven days or longer outside Canada, as well as specific travel dates. These amendments would also require registered sex offenders with a child sex offence conviction to report absences of any duration for trips outside Canada and to provide specific dates and locations. These amendments would help facilitate information-sharing with foreign jurisdictions, which I consider to be appropriate.

As well, the bill proposes to authorize national sex offender registry officials to disclose information on registered sex offenders to Canada Border Services Agency officials, particularly in cases of child sex offenders assessed as high risk, who will be placed on their lookout system. CBSA would also be authorized to collect information about these sex offenders upon return from travel outside Canada and to share this information with the national sex offender registry officials.

Given that the national sex offender registry officials and CBSA officials do not currently have the authority to share information on registered sex offenders, we believe these amendments are critical and practical in ensuring that authorities are aware of the activities of sex offenders who travel outside our country. Without this knowledge, it may be impossible to detect and combat this type of criminality.

Last but certainly not least with respect to the importance of this bill, the bill proposes the creation of a high-risk child sex offender database. It would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a publicly accessible national database of high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a province or territory.

All of this, I would submit, is in keeping with previous efforts that we have made to improve our criminal justice system to protect our most vulnerable, particularly our children. We have made numerous amendments and brought forward some 30 criminal justice initiatives in the last eight years, including taking such practical measures as increasing the age of protection, putting in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders. All of this is in keeping with our efforts to make this country safer and to make our justice system more just.

We have also put in place the necessary resources to set up child advocacy centres in 10 locations across the country. We have launched the getcybersafe.gc.ca website for public awareness. We have joined in the Global Alliance against Child Sex Abuse Online. I am proud to say that all of this furthers the intent of this bill.

The fundamental message is clear. We must do everything in our power to protect children. I know this is something you share as a father, Mr. Speaker, and we all share as parents and those who care for children. Accordingly, I would encourage all members to support this important legislation.

Privacy

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that Bill C-13 does not create any new protection from criminal or civil liability for those who voluntarily assist law enforcement. It simply clarifies existing protections under section 25 in the case law.

I would suggest she take a look at that.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.

I want to speak about why it is important we do this. I have been here eight years. Every year we get a calendar printed in the fall that indicates with little stars the days we can have extended hours. Extended hours are not new. This year, I will admit, we are doing extended hours about a week prior to when it normally would have happened. It is a normal process, a normal way of doing business in this House that I have experienced eight times.

My understanding is it was the process prior to that. In fact, there were years in the past when extended hours took place in the evenings throughout the year, not just at the end of the session. However, things have changed and this is a normal way of proceeding so we can get some of the work done we need to do.

We have added approximately 20 hours of opportunity for debate per week. That is 20 hours, so 40 members of Parliament could make 20-minute speeches with 10 minutes of questions and comments. Often people split their time. Technically we could get as many as 40 people of the 308, or whatever there is, of us at this particular time. There are by-elections going. That would be 40 more opportunities to get up and say what the constituents we represent feel about a particular issue or about a particular bill.

We often get complaints that there is not enough time and that more members from whatever party in the opposition want to speak. This motion provides that opportunity for them to speak.

I would be the first to agree that likely at 11:30 p.m. there would not be a lot of people in the House. Some people would have said their piece and are not interested in talking about whatever issue is before the House, but there is opportunity for other members of Parliament to say their piece. That is what extended hours do. They provide opportunity for as many as 40 members a week. If we do it for three weeks, that is 120 more spots, so almost half the House would be able to speak in those extended hours.

That does not mean we are not meeting during the day, that we are still not opening at 10 and having debate all day long with a break for question period, routine proceedings, and private members' hour. All that opportunity is still there.

We are not limiting debate. We are increasing debate. It is important, in my view. We need to do this. When I go back to my constituency and tell the folks at the local riding association that we passed nine bills, people say to me, “That's it? What did you do the rest of the time?”

I did research on how many hours we spend on this. I think there is a better way of doing it more efficiently and effectively, and I may speak to that. We need to use our time efficiently and effectively to get changes made. Of the 18 bills that we have standing, a lot of them have not even got to committee yet, so all we need to do is move them on to committee.

Our committee right now is dealing with Bill C-13. We have had excellent panels come before us to talk about that bill. We have two more weeks of analyzing that bill, and I think it is an excellent demonstration of why it is important to get things out of the House. Each party has its say, a number of members put on the record their position and what they would like to see changed or why they support the bill, and then it goes to committee for a real discussion with debate. I think we should be doing that much faster, and maybe even providing more time for that at committee, but that does not work with the process we have here.

We are going to debate a private member's bill later tonight that talks about some changes in how we operate. It was brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is some real opportunity for further change. Many of us spend hours and hours having staff members change our schedules because we have to get coverage for this and we are here and we have to give a speech at committee meetings, so we have to have someone cover us here. I do not know what it is like on the opposition benches, but I know what it is like on our side of the House.

There should be a review of how we operate here. Maybe we should have all our committee meetings in the morning with the House not sitting in the morning. Members would not be missing coverage or House duty because House duty would not start. Maybe we should do that. Maybe we should start debate on different items after question period. Maybe we should have all the votes after question period. I know this motion does that, but if we were a corporation we would not be operating this way. It is not efficient. It is not effective and it does not produce results as the smart people in the chamber could do.

My suggestion is that the House leaders from all sides look at why we need to bring the system of how we operate into the 20th century, maybe even the 21st century. It has been a traditional way of doing things. I think it is time to look at all those issues.

People will ask why we need to extend. As chair of the justice committee I will give one perfect example of why we need this time. The Minister of Justice introduced the victims bill of rights, a very important bill to the House. Tonight we will start debating that issue even further. In this case, there are many members of Parliament who would like to speak to the bill because it would make some fundamental changes to how we treat victims of crime in this country. It is appropriate that it is on the agenda for this evening and it gives us an opportunity for many more members to speak to it because we have extended the hours.

I would like to see the bill go to committee. It is still at second reading. I fully understand why so many members would like to speak to it. Extended hours provide that opportunity to do. Then I hope it will come to a vote before we rise for the summer. That would provide the justice committee with an opportunity to get ready over the summer for this very important bill, to make sure we invite the right number of witnesses. A relatively large list of people would like to come and talk on what could be improved, what they like about the bill. I do not know if people understand there are only nine weeks in the fall session between September until we leave at Christmastime. Nine weeks is not a lot of time. It does not provide much opportunity for members to speak to this fundamental bill.

We also will deal with Bill C-24 this week. Many members in the House would like to speak to strengthening the Citizenship Act. There are some fundamental changes in it. If we do not get it done and sent to committee before we leave, we basically will have to start over again in September. People now are engaged in the topic and understand what is going on. There is debate in the House and then the summer comes. Members go back and work in their ridings all summer and they have to get geared up again when they come back here.

I think it is important that we get that bill through, and there are a number of other bills. The opposition finance critic is at committee tonight dealing with the implementation bill, which is a significant bill. There is a lot of discussion about what is happening with that.

We need to be able to move forward, and there is nothing wrong with working late. I heard from the leader of the Green Party and the previous speaker. I do not think there is a lot of opposition to working late on these particular items because it does provide opportunity.

We have heard a little on who can bring forward certain motions, and the opposition is not happy about that. However, the whole concept of adding hours is to make the place a little more efficient and not bogged down with procedural motions, because that is what slows us down here.

There is a place for procedure. As chair of the justice committee, I understand that there needs to be procedure and it can move efficiently and effectively. Those rules are in place for a purpose, and I believe they have a role to play here, but we need to move forward.

There are nine bills, and to be frank about it, there are 18 bills still on the order paper from the government now. We have nine weeks in the fall and then we come to the last session before we break in 2015, and we know we will not be coming back before an election. We do not have a lot of time left from the government's perspective to get the legislation through the House, through the Senate, to royal assent, and into law. Once it becomes law, it then takes time to implement.

In Ontario, I talk to a grade 5 civics class and a grade 10 civics class. They ask how long it takes to get a law through. I am honest with them. I tell them that the reality is it takes at least a year. Some bills are a little faster than others, but in a normal process, from the start when a minister introduces it in the House to royal assent, it is approximately a year. Then, it depends on what kind of law it is, but let us say it is on the Criminal Code, it takes a while for it to get implemented. Also, there are often regulations in other areas that have to be added before it actually comes into force. It is a slow process to begin with.

With the process we have here, in my view, as a city councillor who advocated for the council to go from 17 to 7 for improved efficiency and effectiveness of the councillors, I think we can do a much better job here in the House of Commons for efficiency and effectiveness. We need to look at that in the future, but in the meantime, extended hours help us get our legislation through this House.

Justice

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot protect our children from cyberbullying unless the police have the necessary powers to deal with such cases. That is what Bill C-13 does, and that is why I encourage the NDP to support our children.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his support for splitting the bill.

In the previous exchange, the Minister of Justice suggested that I or the opposition members as a group were trying to delay action to protect children and young people from cyberbullying. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a very interesting procedural motion that the official opposition is using, a motion of instruction to the committee to split the bill. The point of splitting the bill is for the very purpose of making sure that those provisions that are about cyberbullying and protecting people, potential victims and the vulnerable from cyberbullying are removed and moved through quickly and that the other parts of the bill enhancing sweeping new powers for snooping be subjected to longer hearings.

I noticed that the Minister of Justice did not like my reference to a Globe and Mail cartoon. I wonder if my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor noticed today's editorial in the National Post, a newspaper with a closer alignment to the current Conservative administration. It has also called Bill C-13 an unacceptable attack on our privacy.

Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me the time to do this. I also want to thank my colleague, the Liberal member of Parliament for Charlottetown, who did an extensive amount of work on this, as well as the member of Parliament for Malpeque and the member of Parliament for Mount Royal.

The enactment would amend the Criminal Code to provide most notably for a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images. As well, there would complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of the expenses incurred to obtain the removal of images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images, and restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender.

We are talking about the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence, new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things.

A warrant that would extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications, or warrants that would be associated with telephones and the like, as I mentioned, a streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to an authorization to intercept private communications by ensuring that those warrants and orders could be issued by a judge who would issue the authorization and by specifying that all documents relating to a request for a related warrant or order would be automatically subject to the same rules respecting confidentiality as the request for authorization.

Last, it would also amend the Competition Act to make applicable for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of the act the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents related to the transmission or communications of financial data.

It would also amend the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that I spoke of earlier.

There are some messages that we would like to put out there regarding this. This has been a long time coming. It was first introduced in the House on November 20, 2013. Cyberbullying is a scourge upon our society, as we all know, and has been evidenced certainly in the last two or three years. This is a problem not just in Canada but around the world. The party is supportive, in principle, of legislative measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying.

This is an area where the Criminal Code urgently needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies.

We believe, however, that legislative measures alone are insufficient to combat cyberbullying and we urge the government to commit to a broader, more holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying that would also include public awareness resources for both parents and kids to allow them to see the signs of cyberbullying which they probably would not recognize under normal circumstances.

We introduced cyberbullying legislation last session that would have modified some Criminal Code offences to cover modern technology, as is done in C-13, which the Conservatives and the NDP voted down. The Liberals introduced legislation that would have addressed new technologies back in 2005.

The Conservative government is only figuring out now that police forces need these tools to keep up with technologies that are increasingly a part of today's crime.

We believe that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public safety, particularly when it comes to warrants that may be intrusive and overboard. We do not support the measures that were in Bill C-30, which even the government had to withdraw because of the outrage some time ago.

Some of the bill would duplicate the rejected Bill C-30, such as word for word reproductions of the changes, subsection 487.3(1) of the Criminal Code and all but one word changes to subsection 492.1 and subsection 492 regarding warrants.

We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce lawful access, which the Conservatives promised was dead at the time. That is not necessarily the case now.

Though the title is the protecting Canadians from online crime act, nobody is actually protected under this act. In typical fashion, this is all about punishment rather than prevention. Complex problems like cyberbullying require more than blunt editions to the Criminal Code. This omnibus bill touches everything from terrorism to telemarketing, cable stealing to hate speech, and is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process in the omnibus form that has been in going on in for quite some time.

We have seen that through the budget bills and a lot of the legislation that has passed through the House, so we can only assume that this type of pattern will continue with this legislation. Therefore, we support the motion to have the bill split and the provisions relating to cyberbullying be contained in a stand-alone bill at committee.

We are proposing two amendments.

The first is an amendment that would provide for a statutory review of elements of the bill, including the voluntary disclosure provisions. The sunset clause is a part of a law statute and we can repeal the law part over a specified time period.

The second is an amendment that would require an actual basis a report by telecoms detailing the volume of information being disclosed without a warrant.

As we mentioned earlier, we talked about the splitting of this bill, and we certainly feel this is a way to go. This would be the most responsible thing to do in light of the omnibus nature of this legislation. I believe that by doing this, we would be taking a principled and responsible approach.

Again, I go back to our original message of cyberbullying, which is a scourge on our society. What we can do in the House is reflect by looking at stand-alone legislation dealing with that. Basically, by making this a stand-alone provision, it would go a long way in enhancing the debate. Given the fact that we have had so much debate in the past, so much opposition and that there has been so much talk in the public realm about this legislation, this is something we can support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, but I think he has a problem of selective hearing if he thought my entire argument boiled down to The Globe and Mail editorial cartoon.

I think that sometimes satire is the best way of piercing the veil of increasingly draconian policies. However, it happens that I also referenced the privacy commissioners from Ontario, British Columbia, and federally, all of whom have pointed to serious problems, as well as many other critics who are looking at this.

As a matter of fact, in the language used by Ann Cavoukian, this is very clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing. What could be clearer in saying that in the guise of doing one thing, this particular administration is willing to open the floodgates so that we will have private information from cellphone companies turned over to the RCMP?

I do think that satire often crystallizes an issue quite well. I encourage the Minister of Justice to pay attention when his legislation becomes the stuff of clear satire and the skewering of draconian polices by those, whether privacy commissioners, lawyers, or advocates for our civil liberties in this country, of which I consider myself one.

Before Bill C-13 gets rushed through this place, we should look at it and split the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and I listened carefully to my friend opposite. First of all, I want to state unequivocally that this government is very concerned and takes the privacy issues of Canadians very seriously. That is the very impetus to this legislation, Bill C-13 and others. The government should also indicate that all government agencies comply at all times with Canadian law. It is surprising in some ways that I have to state that, but that appears to be the backdrop to some of the concerns raised by my friend opposite.

The activities of the government's law enforcement and security agencies in particular are all subject to independent agencies and oversight. Again, this is not as if law enforcement or the definition of peace officer enables individuals to, without jurisdiction, without proper oversight, simply access privacy and the private information of Canadians. They have to seek judicial authorization. That is embedded in the bill before the House and now before the committee.

I should note that we have worked closely with the interim Privacy Commissioner, as with her predecessor, in developing provisions within the bill that we think strengthen privacy protection for Canadians, including increasing the investigative powers of the Privacy Commissioner.

In regard to the issue of examination by experts, we now have the bill at committee. We now have a multi-party committee that is looking at the bill in detail as it would in the normal course of parliamentary procedure. It has the ability to call before the committee experts, more than just one expert. Committees are masters of their destiny. The committee can hear from experts with a specialized knowledge and I submit that there are certainly more than one, to speak to these issues and to bring to the forefront in a very public way, and answer in a very public way, concerns that my friend and others may have raised.

I want to come back to the substance of the member's argument with respect to splitting the bill. She would know and others would know that within the bill is an attempt to modernize our efforts to enable law enforcement to now police the Internet. To use the vernacular, it is giving the police the ability in the virtual world to enforce and protect Canadians the way that we see in the normal course of events in the real world in the law enforcement community.

Sadly, many of the provisions of the Criminal Code as they pertain to intimidation, to what we call bullying, the type of intimidation that very tragically led to the death of a number of young Canadians including Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, whose parents we had before committee. This is all about enabling the police to in some cases, pre-empt and prevent the type of very insidious activity that takes place online that caused these young people to feel so despondent that they took their own lives.

To pass a bill that has within its text the words that will create a new criminal offence that would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and criminalize that type of activity that might have saved the lives of Parsons, Todd, and others, but not then enable the police to gather and present before the courts the evidence necessary to obtain a conviction, the necessary ability for law enforcement to uphold the law, would be an empty vessel. It would be a shell of a bill if we did not modernize those provisions of the Criminal Code that allow law enforcement to do their important work.

It pertains to more than just this new provision of the Criminal Code. It pertains to acts of terrorism. It pertains to acts of fraud, all of which and other acts can occur online, as the Speaker and others would know. To separate the bill, I would suggest, would be perverse. It would run counter to the intent of the government to allow police and law enforcement to do their good work.

Speaking of perverse, I find it somewhat contradictory that the hon. member would argue such a point and would suggest that we simply pass this law preventing cyberbullying from occurring, but not allow the police to actually enforce it.

The current sections of the code were put in place during the time of rotary telephones and prior to the Internet. This is very much an overall modernization attempt by the government. It does not pertain to just this new section of the Criminal Code.

What I also find somewhat contradictory in my friend's argument is that she says there is an urgency. She spoke, rightly, with real and genuine passion about the harm being done on the Internet. She was asked a question by a colleague from the NDP about the necessity, in fact I would call it a moral obligation on the part of the government and all members of Parliament, to act to protect young people from this type of activity.

Yet, almost within the same breath, the member suggests we slow down and not act with haste. I think the member used the word “stall”. We are not stalling just for the sake of stalling. That is in fact what would happen. This bill would not advance, it would not come into being, and it would not become law.

I believe there is urgency. I believe there are exigent circumstances, as the Supreme Court would say, that require this bill to become law and that necessitate action on the part of the government. That is why we are bringing this bill forward, holistically, in a way that not only puts new provisions in the Criminal Code but also gives the police the ability to enforce the law.

Bill C-13 specifically would not create new protection from criminal or civil liability for those who voluntarily assist law enforcement. It simply clarifies existing provisions. Further, the provisions would provide protection for those who voluntarily assist police where such assistance is not otherwise prohibited by law. Bill C-13 would not protect or propose to protect a mechanism that bypasses the necessary judicial oversight, as some might have suggested.

I want to come back to one of the witnesses, Carol Todd, mother of Amanda Todd, who was referenced by my friend. I, as a new father, personally cannot imagine the pain and suffering that she has endured, losing her beloved daughter. Clearly this is a subject that is very deep, very emotional for her. I reviewed her testimony. I heard her concerns. As a result, that very day, I reached out to her. I spoke with her in person. The very next day, she came to my office and we had a very detailed discussion about the concerns she had raised at committee. I am not going to go further than that, other than to suggest that I believe she came away with a much better sense of comfort and confidence in what the government was attempting to do.

I do note, and I think it bears repeating, that at the end of the day, and I know my friend will confirm this because she was there, Mrs. Todd and all family members who testified, all said in their testimony that they wanted to see the bill passed as quickly as possible.

That runs completely contrary to the impression that my friend has left, that somehow Mrs. Todd or other family members wanted this bill delayed, wanted this bill split, wanted this bill somehow put into a side track that would prevent it from becoming law. That is a complete mischaracterization of what was said. All family members said they want this bill to become law.

I felt it was incumbent upon me to correct the record on a number of those statements by my friend. I repeat again that this bill is central to our government's commitment to contributing further to addressing the issue of cyberbullying across this country. It is a key element of the government's agenda to support victims and punish criminals.

Again, I find it passing strange that my friend would suggest that somehow victims were being overlooked in this bill, that there was not specific reference or perhaps there was insufficient reference to victims. We have an entire bill dedicated to enhancing victims rights, a bill that was the result of extensive cross-country consultation with justice stakeholders, most importantly the victims and those who work with victims.

That bill is completely in keeping with the very premise and underpinnings of this legislation to enhance the rights of victims, to enhance their involvement in the criminal justice system, the respect they deserve, the information flow. The very critical epicentre of a role that they play in our justice system is contained in commensurate legislation known as the victims bill of rights. Therefore, somehow suggesting that this bill may be lacking in reference to victims I find disingenuous at best.

The issue of cyberbullying, I agree with my friend, is an age-old problem. Technology has irrevocably changed the nature and the scope of bullying. There is no denying that. Bullying is now conducted via the Internet. It is no longer simply happening in schoolyards with pushing, shoving, and fights. This now follows a victim home. It is carried with them in their pocket or on their hip with their handheld device. It is with them in the classroom. It is omnipresent because of the Internet. That necessitates action. It necessitates legislation empowering police to do more in terms of tracking, identifying, arresting, and charging those who are responsible for crimes on the Internet.

This problem, as was referenced, is not going away. It is in fact becoming worse. It is more prolific. It is more broadly spread than ever before. It does not respect borders. It does not respect jurisdictions. Many of these images are permanently in place. Therefore, this legislation, in addition to other things, provides action to remove offending images. It provides the types of pre-emptive acts that we hope might prevent the despondency that was felt by some of the victims, like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, and others.

Over the past number of years this issue has become prolific. That is what I view as a clarion call for government action, not further study, not delaying it, not allowing experts who may have some other agenda in mind, but simply moving the bill into law. There are suggestions that somehow this is against police wishes because in some obscure way this could possibly necessitate a constitutional challenge. As sure as night follows day there will be challenges in the court, but the member opposite is well aware of the fact that the Department of Justice regularly, as a matter of routine, examines legislation for charter compliance. Will this prevent a charter challenge? Of course not. Are we to be reticent to pass laws because a lawyer, an interest group, or an individual may decide to launch a charter challenge? I would respectfully submit that that would be irresponsible, particularly knowing what is at stake. There are literally lives at stake. That is not rhetoric. That is not an overstatement because we know the result of inaction here. We have seen it far too often, and it is going on as we gather here.

We know that this type of action is also going to require much more than simply passing bills. It will require a very progressive and aggressive public education effort. It will require having teachers, parents, police, counsellors, public servants, and I respectfully submit, everyone we possibly can bring to this cause, talking to young people, talking to everyone, about the necessity for responsible action when using the Internet because it is a powerful instrument to have that information in the palm of one's hand but it also requires responsibility and responsible action.

That is what this legislation is about. That is what the bill intends to do. If it is irresponsible, illegal, and dangerous action, we want the police and public law enforcement to have the means to act and to call people to account who have defrauded the elderly of their money, who have perpetrated or attempted to perpetrate acts of terrorism, bullying, or other illegal activity.

The stories themselves, the personal tragedies, are there. They are heartbreaking. I have heard time and time again during consultations that I have been involved with, “What is the government going to do? When is the government going to do it?”

This is what parents are most concerned about. I have not had one parent say to me, “I wish you could just study this more. I wish you could somehow slow this process down so that we could hear from more experts”. They are telling us to do something about it. That is what we are attempting to do, not somehow derail the effort, which I would submit has thus far been quite a non-partisan effort. It has been one that has garnered attention, but only because the stakes are so high, I would suggest.

In fact, I would remind the chamber that we are acting on recommendations that came from federal, provincial and territorial working groups on cybercrime. The working group already studied it extensively, considered whether cyberbullying was adequately being addressed under the Criminal Code, and found it lacking. It found there was a need that had to be filled.

In July of last year, the Department of Justice, on behalf of all federal, provincial, and territorial partners, publicly released an extensive report that was available to the committee. It is entitled “Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images”. All of that and more consultation led to this point, and the working group made nine unanimous recommendations with respect to the criminal law response. It is significant to note that the very first recommendation in that report calls for a multi-pronged, multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying. It calls upon all levels of government to continue to build on the initiatives to address, in a comprehensive manner, this serious issue of cyberbullying.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse and support that recommendation. It recognizes that the current situation is intolerable and inadequate. I think most experts agree that something had to be done, and that is where we are. We are now at a point where criminal law reform represents part of this larger multi-sectoral approach that is required.

Returning to the bill before us today, I am pleased to note that all of the proposals contained in the bill were in fact recommended by the provincial, territorial, and federal working group, and supported by provincial and territorial attorneys general, I am quick to add. The bill has two main goals: create the new Criminal Code offence, as I have referred to it already; and, importantly, modernize the investigative powers of the Criminal Code to enable police to effectively and efficiently investigate cyberbullying and other crimes committed via the Internet, or that involve electronic evidence.

The preservation of evidence is a very important part of this. Specifically, the modernization portion of the bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to ensure that the laws are suitable for the technologically advanced world that we now live in. There is a common thread in these amendments, in this effort, and that is to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need in the 21st century to fight crime, and continue, I am quick to add, to respect the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Let me conclude by saying that the proposed new offence and the complementary amendments that would fill an existing gap in the Criminal Code are aimed at providing broader protection for all victims and deterring criminal behaviour. This legislation is not a complete answer, and it would be untrue if I were to suggest that this was the final answer to all of the concerns expressed throughout this process, yet it is a key piece of the broader response that is necessary to address this complex issue.

I strongly urge members to support the continued examination of the bill at the committee in its current form, and not to interfere in that process, not to derail that process, not to in any way slow up the passing of this bill. The last thing that parents, particularly those who have children who have experienced this, want to see is any sort of delay or derailment of the process. I am quoting Glen Canning when I say he was of the belief that had this law been in place, perhaps his daughter, Rehtaeh Parsons, would still be with us today.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that wonderfully compassionate question is at the heart of the subject and affects everyone here in the House. Who here has not heard a constituent or a close friend talk about a child of theirs who is being bullied?

We now know that bullying is changing. That is because technology is changing. We should not be surprised. Bullying is happening faster and can cause much more damage. Before, people were teased in schoolyards, and things stayed in the schoolyard, for the most part. Now, with a single click, things go viral around the world. Bullying is on a much larger scale now.

When victims tell me that they think it is too bad the people studying the bill are not talking about them very much, that makes me think it is even more important to adopt this motion. This bill is 48 pages long, but fewer than 10 of the clauses are about victims.

Victims tell us that they do not really feel included in Bill C-13. They feel like this is actually two separate bills. That is why I said that I sometimes felt like I was taking part in a meeting of cyber-whatever experts. For example, law enforcement experts talked to us about lurking, which they do in Internet chat rooms. Then a victim told us that she had been bullied, and so on.

That is why I think that victims were kind of buried in the process. I know that the government wanted to make sure all of the side stuff went through, but all of that stuff got to be bigger than the main event. This is the unfortunate result.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for seconding the motion.

As the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

After second reading stage of Bill C-13, it seemed clear to me that it would be best to divide the bill because the bill had strayed from what it was meant to address, which is cyberbullying. It does much more than that. This bill has some 50 clauses, but barely seven or eight clauses on cyberbullying. The issues it addresses vary.

Members must understand why it is important to remove clauses 2 to 7 and 27 from the bill so that we can finish studying them right away. The rest of the clauses need to be studied much more carefully, as many people are telling us.

I made the request subsequent to a motion that did not receive the required unanimous consent of the House. I am trying again because we are now studying different parts in committee and have additional information.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will be able to keep working much longer because the government has indicated that it wants the bill passed before the end of this session. That concerns me because there are not many meetings left. There are still many, many people who want to testify. I would hate to hear that the process is going to be fast-tracked for the most contentious clauses on terrorist activities, telemarketing and theft of a communication service. That is what I suspect will happen so that clauses 2 to 7 and 27 get passed. The bill also includes some of the provisions from Bill C-30.

There is also the issue of privacy and the fact that Canadians have already overwhelmingly rejected the provisions contained in Bill C-30. There is also a series of concerns about which of the provisions where included in Bill C-13, which ones were set aside, which ones were put back in with slight changes, and what kinds of changes are needed.

These are very specialized provisions. They are so specialized that it is rather odd in committee. Parents of victims are there on certain days. At those times we are truly reminded of why Bill C-13 was supposedly introduced. It completely changes how the committee works. The next day, the witnesses might be cyber experts or police representatives.

I do not think this request is crazy or illogical. It makes sense. I have a hard time understanding the government's insistence on passing a bill that contains provisions that are not necessarily widely accepted or that have not been approved by even a small segment of the Canadian public.

The mother of one victim, Amanda Todd, made statements to the committee that some found incredible. If anyone could have been expected to support Bill C-13 100%, it would have been one of the victims in this huge file, but this mother herself recognized that we should not have to choose between security and privacy. These two concepts are extremely important.

I am not saying that we should reject the provisions in Bill C-13 that deal with access to the private data of some individuals in this context.

We have to recognize just how important this is and give it the thorough study it merits, the way it should be done. We have not done that kind of analysis in a long time.

The committee received a letter, and I would like to read parts of it that I find particularly persuasive. I am not the only one calling for the bill to be divided in two, as we have asked in the motion. The letter was addressed to the committee chair, the very competent member for Burlington, and came from Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, whose stance is echoed by many of her counterparts. I would like to read parts of the letter because she puts a fine point on why we are making this request:

As the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, I am writing you to assist the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in fulfilling its duty to ensure that Canadians have both effective law enforcement and rigorous privacy protections. To find the most compelling testimony on this point, you need look no further than to the statement made before your committee on May 13, 2014:

“We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children's privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, 'sextortion' and revenge pornography”.

As you know, these are the words of Carol Todd, whose daughter Amanda took her own life after being shamelessly bullied and abused by a person yet to be brought to justice. The federal government, this Committee, and Parliament as a whole each owe families like the Todd's, as well as all Canadians, their best thinking about both privacy and safety. The fact that over the last decade, the government has repeatedly failed to pass legislation updating police surveillance powers is a sad testimony to the government's failure to honour Canadians' reasonable expectation that they deserve and can have both.

The time for dressing up overreaching surveillance powers in the sheep-like clothing of sanctimony about the serious harms caused by child pornography and cyberbullying is long past. In my view, the government should immediately split Bill C-13 and move ahead quickly to deal with those provisions of the bill that directly address the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images...In the future, further consideration may need to be given to how best to respond to other forms of cyberbullying, for example, of the most unfortunate kind, recently seen on an Instagram account called “IF_U_ON_THIS_KILL_URSELF” (as reported on by Global News). In the meantime, the remaining surveillance-oriented provisions of Bill C-13—some 46 of its 53 pages—should be withdrawn and redrafted.

This work should be approached with reasoned thought and without imposing a time constraint—as this government so often does with everything it introduces in the House—so that we can arrive at and draft good provisions. This is not a trivial matter. We are dealing with people's privacy.

The goal here is to stop crimes, but that does not mean giving carte blanche to the government and police forces to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. There are rules. However, in Bill C-13, those rules are not very clear, and experts do not seem to agree on them. The rules need to be studied and possibly amended, and that will not happen with Bill C-13 as presented in the House and in committee, or with the deadlines imposed on us, or with the commitments by the minister and his government to have this bill passed before the summer break.

It is absolutely cruel, when I see the list of all those who asked to be heard, including experts from across the country. They wanted to be heard on the issue so that we can give our law enforcement agencies the best tools to do their work properly, while respecting Canadians's right to privacy.

Canadians also have the right to be protected by the government. They are already protected by the charter. It has already been noted that Bill C-13 does not include anything on wiretapping. Under the Criminal Code, a person must be notified that they were wiretapped. What is more, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-13 to indicate that the person concerned has to be notified that some of their information and data has been shared. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to inform a person that their data has been shared. There is the issue of immunity that was given to the telecommunications companies.

The real goal of Bill C-13 was to penalize behaviours that have to do with the distribution of intimate images. That is all. Clauses 2 to 7 and 27 have to do with crime related to the distribution of intimate images. That is not the only form of cyberbullying. It is the rest that shows what is really behind Bill C-13.

Our motion calls for an instruction to be given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13. It is not only experts who are calling for this action to be taken, but also the mother of one of the victims, a woman whom the government likes to quote regularly.

I think that she was very wise in making this recommendation. The government would not be showing weakness by supporting this motion. Rather, it would be showing that, for once, it is listening to people's recommendations. Our intention is not to reject everything in the second part of the bill, and I would not want to hear the members opposite saying that we do not want to give the police the tools they need. That is not at all the case.

What we want to do is to make sure that the tools that we give them are legal and that the application of Bill C-13, if it is passed without amendment, will not eventually lead to a case before the Supreme Court where another bill has to be rejected. Such an approach will just keep bringing us back to square one. That is not a good way to show serious concern for smart justice in Canada.

Give us some time. That does not mean giving us time to stall for nothing. It means giving us time to hear what experts have to say on the subject. Give us the time to analyze each clause without feeling like we have a gun to our heads because the work needs to be done in the next few hours, the bill needs to come back before the House by June 10 or the bill needs to be passed before the House breaks for the summer. That is not an intelligent way to pass a bill that is so important and that will have such a great impact. Many people are still not sure what the consequences of this bill will be.

We are not rejecting the bill. It simply needs to be examined more intelligently.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee. As members know, our government has a fairly extensive justice agenda. We are dealing with Bill C-13 at present. We have a number of other issues coming forward.

Could the House leader tell the House the effect that the extended hours would have in helping us proceed with our very important justice agenda?

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Opposition Motion--Safeguarding of Personal Information

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude the debate on the opposition motion.

I will read the motion, because after hearing such garbage today, I was beginning to think that I was not talking about the right one. This is what the motion, moved by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, is asking of the House:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

I cannot believe that today, May 5, 2014, the Conservatives are going to vote against this motion. It is absolutely incredible. We heard all sorts of drama from the Conservatives about extremely important security issues. They shifted the debate from the opposition motion, which simply calls on the government to grant the Privacy Commissioner's request and make certain information public. It seems quite reasonable to me.

Today is the best possible day to be in the House. This morning, we debated Bill C-567, which was introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and is all about access to information. This motion is completely justified in light of the context, but they are saying all kinds of things.

I would like to comment on a question that my colleague from Timmins—James Bay asked the last Conservative member who spoke. That member laughed in his face even though the question was completely relevant. It was about peace officers, not as the local paper defines them, but as the Criminal Code defines them.

I would like to give my colleagues opposite a little lesson about the Criminal Code. It is important to define the notion of “peace officer” accurately, because Bill C-13, the government's supposed cyberbullying bill, refers to that notion. That bill is about much more than cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images.

According to section 2 of the Criminal Code, a peace officer includes:

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when

(i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or

(ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act [or] the Excise Act...or a person having the powers of such an officer...

I could keep reading this definition until 6:15 p.m. It is not so far-fetched for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to suggest that Mayor Ford could request certain information.

What is more, the NDP has been heavily criticized today for some of its requests. However, in La Presse this morning, there was an article by Joël-Denis Bellavance on the information we are looking for with the official opposition motion moved by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. Mr. Bellavance reported that the Privy Council Office also made a request of all its departments. The PCO wanted to know who these people were who made 1.2 million requests for information about Canadians. There are 1.2 million Canadians who are allegedly affected by these requests.

All day, the Conservatives have been telling us that this is terrible, that what we are asking for is scary and that the NDP does not know what it is talking about.

I even heard one of the ministers of state, a junior minister over there, say the times have changed.

I think we all know that. Information circulates quickly, I agree. Regardless of the fact that times have changed, there are still laws that apply in this country.

We all know that this Conservative government likes to intrude on Canadian taxpayers' privacy and could not care less about almost every law around. When this government gets caught, it takes a holier than thou stance or it suddenly takes a few strategic steps backward and comes back with what I like to call the Trojan Horse tactic. In other words, it disguises its approach in another way.

Everyone in the House remembers Bill C-30, introduced by my favourite minister, the former minister of public safety. I was going to say something unkind, but I will be careful. Thank God the public woke up and made a concerted effort to ensure that the government backed down. This goes to show that ridicule never killed anyone. However, sometimes it kills political careers, even though politicians will often end up becoming a judge somewhere. Everyone kept telling the former public safety minister what he was in the process of doing. They ridiculed his bill. Sometimes that is what it takes with this government.

Their concerns were heard. The Conservatives withdrew the bill and suddenly we had Bill S-4 and Bill C-13, which deals with cyberbullying. Who in the House would not want to protect victims? Who would not want to say at some point that we passed legislation after a number of young people committed suicide as a result of bullying? That is rather disgusting, although there are other unparliamentary words that could be used. It is problematic to rise in the House and say that, on the contrary, we are in favour of cyberbullying. However, once again, the Conservatives introduced five or six pages of text that were more or less accurate and then combined them with tons of provisions that amend all sorts of legislation.

Fortunately, the Minister of Justice told me that he would give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the time needed to examine those provisions. Perhaps we, the members of that committee, are not the best people to examine those provisions. Fortunately, we will be hearing from many experts.

I still believe that the motion that I moved at the beginning of the debate on Bill C-13 made complete sense. I proposed dividing the bill in two so that that we could do what we do best: examine the provisions of the Criminal Code and make sure that the new provisions regarding the distribution of intimate images fall within the parameters and meet the test of the Criminal Code.

Instead, we are going to be spending a lot of our time looking at the aspects of the bill dealing with privacy and how certain telecommunications providers will be able to disclose information without a warrant, or with a warrant but with a lighter burden of proof, and so on.

Unfortunately, since the beginning, this government has shown us that it has no credibility. Every week, there is a new drama featuring one of the people sitting in the front benches. At the end of last week—and it has continued into this week—it was the Prime Minister and his serious insinuations. Sometimes, not saying enough is the same as saying too much. He attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Members on the Conservative benches are wondering why we do not trust them. Why are we suspicious when we get bills like Bill S-4 or Bill C-13? We are wondering what is behind those bills.

People have been debating this motion all day in the House. I repeat that it does not get any simpler than this motion, which calls on the government to follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. Who does not want to follow that advice? Who is against making public the number of disclosures, when even the Prime Minister's Office is quietly checking into this matter? The Conservatives are simply afraid of doing things. They want public information on our constituents, on Canadian taxpayers, but they do not want anyone other than themselves to have access to that information.

That is why the government does so much behind closed doors. The representatives of the people, here in the House, certainly have a right to know. We are getting questions as well. I hear from people, and I am sure that my colleagues in the House, even on the Conservative side, are hearing from people. I am shocked to see that many of these people, from the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance, who made a point of calling themselves the voice of the people, are now the biggest puppets, sitting in their seats, terrified to rise and say that this makes absolutely no sense.

At some point we need to wake up and go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents, who are asking what is going on with their information, who has access to this information, when and why. Are there 1.2 million criminals somewhere in Canada? Is it because we have relaxed our rules so much that everyone—ISPs, telecommunications companies and others—feels justified in passing on information? The companies know that they will go unpunished if they freely share information on anything. That is dangerous.

Some people here in the House say that times have changed. That is true. I can do research. In fact, I do not claim to know all the sections of the Criminal Code, and I was able to find the section on the concept of peace officer right away, in two seconds. It was actually quicker than that as I think it took me one-tenth of a second to find the definition in the Criminal Code. Sometimes I tell young people or future lawyers that they are lucky because, in my day—I do not like to say this because it dates me, but it is a fact—when I did my research, I had to go to the law faculty library and open maybe 18 books before formulating an idea. Now, we just click on a button.

However, just because information travels at astronomical speeds, it does not mean that the privacy guarantees and protections granted to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be trampled by a government that does not care about protecting its citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I am sort of surprised at his reluctance, given all his talk about oversight, to support this motion, which is about oversight. The person who does oversight for Canadians is the Privacy Commissioner, who has raised the alarm bells.

I would like to also suggest to my hon. colleague that the proposals the government is bringing forward to legalize what has been happening with the 1.2 million requests would actually vastly expand the ability of all manner of people to conduct any manner of fishing expeditions.

I would like to refer to an article in the National Post today, talking about Bill C-13. It says it will take out the caveat of the necessity to actually be investigating a crime when you call up a telecom and want information about an average Canadian. That would be removed. I find it staggering that we would not need to have a reason to investigate someone, that someone would just be able to investigate it and it would be legal.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is okay for the government to vastly expand who can make those calls. It would not just be the RCMP or CSIS now. It would be all manner of public officers. It would include tax agents, sheriffs, reeves, justices of the peace, people who work in the fisheries department, and mayors. I would like to ask my hon. colleague, if he is in a dispute with the mayor in his jurisdiction does he think that the mayor should have the legal right that would be enshrined in Bill C-13? Perhaps they do not read their own legislation. I know they do what they are told over there. A mayor would have the right to call a telecom and ask for the IP information on an average Canadian citizen? Come on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

It has been fascinating listening to the Conservatives, because in their upside-down world, they are opening the door to widespread snooping and spying on Canadians but are somehow protecting their privacy.

I ask my hon. colleague about what we are reading in the National Post about the government's supposed fix, Bill C-13. We have been hearing from their tough-on-crime guys. It is all about the police investigation and the importance of investigation. We need to be able to investigate and go after the crooks, the perverts, and the crazy terrorists. However, under Bill C-13, the Conservatives' fix would take out the provision, the caveat, that enforcement agencies would actually have to be doing an investigation. It would no longer be for investigating crime but for anything that would help in “administering any law in Canada”.

It is the ultimate free ride for fishing expeditions, not just for law enforcement but for corporations. Under Bill S-4, corporations could demand information on our Internet use, as could public officers, which include, if we look up the definition, reeves, mayors, and even people who work for the Department of Fisheries, fisheries officers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the government is so intent on changing the law to allow widespread snooping. Is it possibly because this is what the standard practice has become under the Conservatives' watch?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House this afternoon in support of the motion by my colleague, the MP for Terrebonne—Blainville, on this great opposition day.

It is a day in the House to be talking about privacy issues. This morning I had the privilege of speaking in support of Bill C-567, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document), put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

This morning's bill and this afternoon's motion complement each other very well. Together they demonstrate to Canadians our NDP desire that it be the citizens of this country, not the government of this country, who are able to conduct their lives with a reasonable expectation of privacy and that it be the government of this country, not its citizens, that has the obligation to operate in a manner that is transparent, open, and accountable.

If there is a simple conclusion to draw from the sum of the whole day, it is that the current Conservative government has it backwards, upside down, and twisted all around. The Conservatives stand in support of government privacy, of, in fact, the necessity to operate free from the scrutiny of the citizenry of Canada and those they elect to hold the government accountable.

How, the Conservatives ask in response to Bill C-567, can they operate at once openly and honestly? If they are to tell the truth, it must be behind the curtain, they argue, in the dark, out of earshot, and away from the gaze of the public and opposition members of this place. On the other hand, they demonstrate no mere disregard of the privacy rights of Canadian citizens. They demonstrate an appetite, a voracious, seemingly insatiable appetite, for the private information of Canadians.

Much is made of the fact that we live in new and different times, with new forms of information and new means of accessing that information. There is truth, of course, to this, undeniably. I think all of us are alive to the ease with which information we consider private is accessible to those who want to put some effort, and not much is required, into accessing it. Our expectation of privacy is diminished as a result, simply because we know the ease with which we are vulnerable. Therefore, we see the narrative here being one of the need to modernize our laws to take these new circumstances into account. That does not account for the conduct of the current government.

The problem before us is not simply one of a government that has not come up to speed, that has failed to respond in a timely way to these new circumstances, and that has left exposed loopholes in the formulation of the laws of this country. That would paint a picture of an incompetent or slow, but certainly benign, government. No, the current Conservative government is anything but benign.

Confronted with a loophole for accessing the private information of Canadians, a benign government may simply fail to close that loophole. The current government lets through that loophole, fully, completely, and head first, with great enthusiasm and an obvious lust for what it might find on the other side. What we have before us is evidence of this lust.

Very recently, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, revealed that Canadian telecom companies disclosed massive volumes of information to government agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency, and provincial and municipal authorities.

Telecom companies disclosed personal data to the Canadian government 1.2 million times in a single year. We can of course concede that a balance is to be found between privacy rights, public security, and other concerns, including immediate danger to life. However, this can be nothing other than an indiscriminate fishing expedition of monumental proportions that the Privacy Commissioner has revealed to us.

These volumes equate to information requests with respect to one in every 34 or so Canadians. The vast majority of these requests are made without warrants. These volumes equate to a request for personal data, by the federal government to a telecom company, once every 27 seconds.

So great is the volume of information requests that one telecom company has advised that it has installed what it calls “a mirror” on its network so that it can send raw data traffic directly to federal authorities. Michael Geist, a digital law professor at the University of Ottawa, says this of what is happening:

This is happening on a massive scale and rather than the government taking a step back and asking is this appropriate...we instead have a government going in exactly the opposite direction—in a sense doubling down on these disclosures

It is easy to find further evidence of this doubling down, of this appetite for private information. One cannot help but note that Bill C-13, which is purportedly about cyberbullying, is more about lowering the bar on government access to information. The “reason to believe” standard is being replaced with a “reason to suspect” standard, opening up much greater warrantless access to electronic information. Moreover, Bill C-13 would allow a broader and lower range of government officials to have access to the private information of Canadians.

Bill S-4 will also be coming before this House, we suspect. That bill would permit non-governmental organizations and corporations to have access to information from telecom companies. FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, buried deep in the budget bill, would expose the financial information of about one million Canadians to the U.S. government, and so on.

In light of all of this, one could argue that there is a kind of naiveté to the motion I speak in support of today. Certainly the first part of the motion is easy enough. It is, in fact, all the Privacy Commissioner has requested. She has said:

I'm not disputing that there are times when there is no time to get a warrant—life is in danger....

What we would like is for those warrantless disclosures to simply be represented in statistics so that Canadians have an idea of the scope of the phenomenon.

...It would give a form of oversight by empowering citizens to see what the scope of the phenomenon is.

It is a modest enough proposal: at least let me see what it is the federal government is doing here.

However, we are also asking the government to close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without warrants. In so doing, we must recognize that we are asking the predator to restrain itself, to bind itself, to limit its own appetite for our private information, to guard itself. It has no such impulse, no such sense of constraint, as is obvious from the 1.2 million requests, by Bill C-13, by Bill S-4, and by FATCA.

Here is the very saddest part of this. As we engage with each other through the technologies of this modern world, we do so with some trepidation about how exposed we are to the prying eyes and interests of others, and part of what we need to be concerned about now, we find out, are the prying eyes and interests of our own government. Rather than being able to rely on our own government to support us and to protect our privacy in this modern world, it appears that our government is itself a cause for concern.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in support of the official opposition New Democratic motion introduced by our superb colleague, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. I should point out that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the equally commendable member for Beaches—East York.

The motion before the House today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

If we think about those words, and I know Canadians will think about the text of the motion, who could possibly not support this? Who could possibly oppose a motion of the House of Commons in Canada that the government should simply tell the public how many warrantless disclosures are made by telecommunications companies at the federal government's request and close a loophole that allows the indiscriminate disclosure, meaning the improper disclosure, of personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant?

I would have thought that every member of the House would stand in support of such a motion, a motion that preserves and protects the very elementary privacy rights and expectations of Canadians everywhere, but that is not the case, because Conservatives in the House do not support the motion.

I am going to talk about how the motion came to be.

In summary, the motion addresses what we now have learned are rampant requests to telecommunications companies in Canada by various government agencies for Canadians' private information, often—in fact, normally and mostly—without a warrant.

We are calling on the government to listen to the Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of the House, to make public the number of requests disclosed by these companies, and to tighten the rules that allow it to happen.

This came out of an access to information request that determined that at least one Canadian telecom was giving the government unrestricted access to communications on its network, according to documents from Canada's Privacy Commissioner. The documents were obtained by University of Ottawa digital law Professor Michael Geist. He cited at that time an unnamed telecom firm as saying that it had allowed the government to essentially copy the communications data moving on its networks.

I quote Mr. Geist:

Interception of communications over data networks is accomplished by sending what is essentially a mirror image of the packet data as it transits to network of data nodes.

Then the Privacy Commissioner's document states:

This packet data is then sent directly to the agency who has obtained lawful access to the information. Deep packet inspection is then performed by the law enforcement agency for their purposes.

“Deep packet inspection” is a method of analyzing Internet traffic to determine the exact type of content. It can distinguish between emails, file-sharing and other types of internet communication, and can be used to build statistics about an internet user.

This statement appears in the document prepared by the law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson for the Privacy Commissioner. It summarizes nine telecom firms' responses to questions about law enforcement access posed by the commissioner.

Mr. Geist called this “an incredible admission”.

He asks:

Are there legal grounds for these disclosures? Who is doing this?

He goes on to say later:

Given the uncertainty of the enormous privacy implications, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is surely entitled to investigate this admission using her current powers under PIPEDA.

Documents subsequently released by the interim Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, revealed that the government made about 1.2 million requests for subscriber data about Canadians from Canadian telecoms in 2011 alone. Mr. Geist calculates that it works out to one request every 27 seconds, and the Privacy Commissioner's report showed that telecom firms complied with the requests at least 784,000 times.

This issue engages one of the most important values that mark our nation. It is a value that marks our democracy. It is cherished by Canadians, valued by Canadians, and expected by Canadians. That is the value of privacy.

The government exists to protect its citizens. It exists to safeguard our rights, our interests, and our opportunities, so when the government is actually found to be the source of secret requests to private firms to try to get private information about Canadians without their knowledge and without ever appearing before a judge in a court to demonstrate that the government has any lawful interest in that information, in my view that is a violation of the most fundamental precept and obligation of the government. That is what is happening under the watch of the Conservative government.

I want to go through a few facts here. Canadian telecommunications providers collect massive amounts of data about their subscribers. These are the firms that have been asked by the government's agencies to disclose that information to law enforcement agencies. In 2011, providers responded to almost 1.2 million requests, but the actual total is likely even greater, since only three of nine telecom companies told the commissioner's office how many times they granted the government's request for customer data.

In 2010, RCMP data showed that 94% of requests involving customer name and address information was provided voluntarily, without a warrant. The Canada Border Services Agency obtained customer data from telecom companies 19,000 times in one year, and it obtained a warrant in fewer than 200 of those cases. Significantly, one Canadian company has told officials that it has installed “what is essentially a mirror” on its network so that it can send raw data traffic directly to “federal authorities”.

The Privacy Act, which is meant to protect Canadians' privacy and keep the government accountable, has not been updated since 1983, before the Internet, Google, email, Facebook, and Twitter were even invented. PIPEDA, which protects Canadians' privacy in the private sector, has not been updated since 2000. Once again, that is before Facebook, Twitter, and social media had really taken off in our country.

I would think that if the government is really concerned about the values of privacy and protecting Canadians' rights, it would spend time in this place modernizing those acts and doing so in a way that is consistent with Canadians' expectations. Instead, it is doing the opposite. It has introduced Bill C-13, a bill that is expressed to be aimed at attacking cyberbullying, but which is expected to expand warrantless disclosures of Internet or cellular subscriber information to law enforcement.

Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, has been introduced in the Senate. It would also extend the authority to disclose subscriber information without a warrant to private organizations, and not just law enforcement agencies. It would also allow telecom companies to disclose the personal information of consumers without their consent and without a court order to any organization investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of a law.

There are many validators of the New Democratic position. New Democrats think privacy laws should be modernized and strengthened to better protect Canadians' personal information, not weakened. New Democrats believe that we can and should aggressively pursue criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law without treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals and violating their rights.

Privacy is something that must be judiciously and carefully guarded by every generation. We have people as diverse as Benjamin Franklin, who said that those who would give up liberty for a little security deserve neither. We have organizations as diverse as the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who are joining together in their concern about the issue of violations of privacy and surveillance of Canadians' private interests on the Internet by the government.

I say that what Canadians want of their federal government is for it to protect their privacy interests, not be complicit in violating them.

For the Conservative government to allow 1.2 million requests to go to telecoms for Canadians' personal information without their consent, without their knowledge, and without a court order is something that every Canadian in this land would disapprove of.

I ask all of my colleagues in the House to vote for this well-thought-out motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for sharing her time today. She gave an excellent speech on this topic and it is an honour for me to speak to this issue. I appreciate the New Democratic Party using its supply day that provides opposition parties an opportunity in every session a number of days to put forward any items they would like for discussion.

Frankly, in the past some of the topics that have been brought forward on supply days I thought were very much a waste of important time that the opposition is allotted. However, in this case it is important. It is in the news. It is something that has been happening in terms of information that is out there and it is important for us to have a debate on this and discuss what the facts are in this case and going forward.

There is an important balance required between privacy and the ability of law enforcement, in particular, to be able to do their jobs. The Conservatives have has put in around 30 measures since we have taken office to improve issues with privacy and access to information regarding this and it is always important to have a balance.

There have been a few misconceptions propagated in the press or in the House and connections with what was in the newspaper and Bill S-4 in the Senate that talks about PIPEDA and a number of other areas, but I want to focus on what is in front of us today. The main question is what type of information our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are requesting from telecommunications service providers.

The vast majority of those investigations were agencies requesting voluntary co-operation. Before we go any further, it is voluntary co-operation. They ask and the service providers provide. They are not providing all the content of what an individual may be using or looking at through their IPS or service provider, whether it is a cellphone or the Internet, but they are providing basic address information such as name and address.

A simple example would be this. The police could look in the phone book. They know where I live. I know who is on my street. I have lived there for 16 years. Police might come to my door and ask if so-and-so lives next door. I have to say “yes”. I voluntarily provide that information and that is basically what has been asked for. I do not give the police permission to go into my neighbour's mailbox, open their mail, and read their mail. That is not the permission we are providing and that is being accessed here.

I would not expect the police or anyone else to be able to go into my mailbox in my house. I am happy for them to come to my door to find me. I think that is information that has been out there for many moons, but they are not entitled to go into my mailbox and read my mail. They can if they get a warrant through the judicial system that allows that to happen. That is exactly what is happening here.

The world is changing. In the late eighties, early nineties, I worked for a company and I had what was called a car phone. It was on a post attached to the floor of my car. At that time, there were few of us who had them, but times have changed. Now 21 million Canadians have access to a cellphone, they are texting and it is a different type of communication. There is no reason why we, as the government or the police force or intelligence agency, should not be able to keep up with the times. How are we going to do our jobs if we do not keep up with the times?

Many of my constituents think that government is always behind the times, and some days here I actually agree with them.

However, it is not about the content of this information that is voluntarily being provided. If a company decides that it does not wish to provide it on a voluntary basis, then the police force, intelligence agency, or whoever is asking for it, is required to go and get a warrant or whatever legal document they need through the legal system to be able to have access to that information. I have no particular issue with this. Does any of this information require a warrant? Not if it is voluntarily provided.

I would say that if there is any further detail about exactly what somebody is accessing through their email, who they are emailing and all of that larger data, even as it is grouped, is not allowed. One needs a warrant for that particular information. Megadata is not covered in the voluntary aspect of those requests and they would still need a warrant.

I think members will find that the information that has been asked for and voluntarily provided is very simple address information. The parliamentary secretary indicated a number of uses for that information, and I think that is appropriate.

I can say that if I had a loved one who was missing or recently found and officials were able to contact me because they were able to find, through who they were dealing with, my phone number so they could let me know that they had found this individual, I would be very happy for the police to do that.

I had my home broken into a number of years ago and we had some property stolen. We voluntarily provided the police information to contact us if they were able to find some of our stolen goods. In fact, the police did. They found it at a pawn shop and they contacted us. They were also able to track down the individual who was in our home and prosecute the individual for the crime against us.

This is the kind of information that is now available and required. It is address information that happens to be in an electronic format. It is not on paper any more. It is not a phone book on paper, but in an electronic format, and officials are able to use that.

The justice committee that I chair is presently looking at a cyberbullying bill, Bill C-13. We are just embarking on that study and as of tomorrow we will hear from victims of cyberbullying. We will also hear from police forces and agencies that protect children. I will be interested to find out how they feel about basic address information being provided to law enforcement organizations to help prevent this kind of abuse and tragedy that happens to our young people throughout the country.

I have great faith and trust in our law enforcement agencies, as I think all of us do in this House. I am confident that our law enforcement agencies are following the law that is on the books presently. They are gathering information that they are entitled to, which is given voluntarily to help them solve crimes. For information that is deeper and more informative that they need, they will get the proper legal documentation, whether that is a warrant or other devices available to them. I have confidence in our system.

I have confidence in our law enforcement agencies. I believe it is important to balance the issues of privacy and protection of the public. I believe our law enforcement and intelligence agencies do an excellent job for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with interest, and a little surprise. This is a government that seems to be talking out of the both sides of its mouth. It first says it is just basic data that anyone can get in a phone book but that we need to do it immediately to stop all kinds of terrorist threats.

She mentioned ISP numbers and IP addresses and said that is ordinary; it is like looking in a phone book. I would like to quote Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who I am sure my hon. colleague would agree is a vigilant defender of Canadians' rights. She said that getting government information on an IP address is not like the digital equivalent of using a phone book. She stated:

...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.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why this large subset of sensitive information would be opened up under Bill C-13 to so-called public officers, which would include reeves, wardens, fisheries officers, and mayors. Under Bill S-4, this information will also be turned over to corporations that ask for it through telecoms. Then the telecoms would be given blanket immunity not to tell Canadians. Why is it that the government is going to expand who has access to this sensitive subset of information on the private lives of Canadians?

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were spied on 1.2 million times last year, and under the government, it is about to get a lot worse. Under Bill S-4, the Conservatives will now make it legal for corporations to call telecoms and demand an individual's personal information.

Under Bill C-13, peace officers or public officers, who are defined in law as small town reeves, fisheries inspectors and officers and yes, mayors like Rob Ford will now be able to call telecoms and demand our personal information.

It is like a massive fishing expedition. Why has the government declared open season on the private rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens?

Opposition Motion—Safeguarding of Personal Information

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do take the member up on the first point that she made. All Canadians should be concerned about privacy. All Canadians may be concerned about it, but the Conservative government is definitely not concerned.

I mentioned two bills, Bill C-13, the bill aimed at attacking cyberbullying, and Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. Both of these bills expand warrantless disclosure of Internet or cellular subscriber information to law enforcement.

There is no oversight. The Conservative government does not have a grip on the laws of social media.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the motion by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

The motion calls on government to make public the number, and just the number, of warrantless disclosures made by telecom companies at the request of federal departments and agencies. The motion also calls on government to close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

To simplify, how many times have telecom companies handed out personal information about Canadians without a warrant to government? The government must find an immediate way to shut down the loophole that allows such personal information to be released.

We live in an incredibly connected world. Earlier this year I travelled to Tanzania, Africa, to tour Canadian development projects with a group called Results Canada. Its mission is all about ending extreme poverty, and I did see some extreme poverty. One of the images that will always stick with me is walking into a maternity ward at a rural hospital, or what they called a hospital. The maternity ward was crammed with nine or 10 beds, but there were two women in labour to a single bed.

The Tanzanians I met were the finest and best kind of people, a lovely people, but they were living with basically nothing. Still, almost every adult I came across, who could have absolutely nothing but the second-hand clothes on their back and be sleeping under a tree, still had a cellphone, and they looked at the screens as often as we do.

My point is that from Tanzania to Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, my neck of the woods, the dependency on the Internet and on cellphones is universal.

Just this weekend I read an article by Stephen Hawking, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, on how artificial intelligence—and we are almost to that point—could be the worst thing to happen to humanity. It would be more or less the rise of the machines. I cannot even imagine a country being led by a robot.

Oh, wait; yes, I can.

Another article I read this weekend outlined how U.S. intelligence whistle-blower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. I do not know if it is to that point in Canada, but we do have some serious cause for concern.

Let us look at the numbers first.

In late April, we learned that government departments and agencies—the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, and CSIS, the Canadian spy agency—requested personal information from telecom companies almost 1.2 million times in 2011 alone. That is staggering. It is a jaw-dropping rate. As the previous speaker said, it is one request every 27 seconds.

However, the number of requests for personal information is most likely greater than 1.2 million, because three of nine telecom companies told the Privacy Commissioner how many times they granted the government's requests for customer data, not how many times the government asked for the data. It was how many times they gave the data.

It is reported that wireless telecom companies complied with the government's requests for customer data at least 785,000 times. The 2010 data from the RCMP show that 94% of requests involving customer name and address information was provided voluntarily without a warrant.

Here is another indicator or how often warrants were used or not used. Canada Border Services Agency obtained customer data from telecom companies 19,000 times in one year, but it obtained a warrant in fewer than 200 of those cases.

Do Canadians have a problem with telecom companies handing out their personal information left, right, and centre? Yes, we do. This is not 1984 or Brave New World. The idea of a Conservative Big Brother does not sit well with Canadians.

That said, it is generally understood across the board that police need information to catch criminals and to protect Canadian society. There is no time to get a warrant when a life is in danger, when a life is in jeopardy.

However, this is beyond that. At least 1.2 million requests for personal information, most times without a hint of a warrant, is a staggering statistic. The current Conservative government is paying to access our personal information, to the tune of between $1 and $3 for each request.

More than two years ago in this House, the former minister of public safety, Vic Toews, introduced Bill C-30, a bill to expand police surveillance of the web. At the time, he said “[You're either] with us or with the child pornographers”. That statement got the attention of all of Canada, and the immediate and appropriate backlash forced the Conservatives to back down, to walk away from the bill.

Since that outrageous bill was dropped and Toews was appointed to the Manitoba bench—but that is another story—the current government has introduced other legislation to this House that it says will protect the privacy of Canadians. In fact, the legislation may actually increase spying on Canadians without a warrant. The first example, Bill C-13, is a bill that is aimed at tackling cyberbullying and is expected to expand warrantless disclosure of Internet and cellular subscriber information to law enforcement agencies. Another example is Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, which would extend the authority to disclose subscriber information without a warrant to private organizations, not just law enforcement agencies.

The government has a bad habit of doing through the back door what it cannot do through the front door. The current government also has some hypocritical tendencies. On the one hand, the Minister of Industry argued that the long form census was intrusive, so the Conservatives eliminated it. On the other hand, this administration has no qualms and sees nothing wrong with invading the private information of Canadians and not telling them about what it is doing. It has repeatedly introduced legislation that would make it easier for Conservatives to snoop on Canadians.

Here is another example of hypocrisy. This country's information watchdog has said that it has been flooded with complaints that the current Conservative government is too often citing security in order to withhold documents requested under the Access to Information Act. The Conservatives are using the security excuse to withhold public information at the same time that the floodgates are open on the personal information and security of Canadians.

We live in an age when technology is advancing at an incredible pace and rate, yet the Privacy Act that is meant to protect the privacy of Canadians and keep government accountable has not been updated since 1983. That was before the Internet, Google, email, Facebook, and Twitter. Another act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, has not been updated since 2000, also before social media was born.

New Democrats believe that privacy laws should be modernized. We also believe they should be strengthened, not weakened, to better protect the personal information of Canadians. We also believe we can pursue bad guys and throw the book at them without treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals and violating their rights.

I will end with words from Edward Snowden, the former U.S. intelligence contractor, who said last week that state surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance. He said:

It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.

In so many ways, the Internet and social media are the new frontier. They are still the new frontier. It is our duty to ensure that laws and security do not fall to Big Conservative Brother.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House on behalf of the people of Pontiac to support the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague, who does an excellent job when it comes to protecting the privacy of Canadians in the digital age.

I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who tells me that his riding is the most beautiful in the country. However, I have to disagree with him because surely Pontiac is the most beautiful.

The subject of this motion could not be more important: the privacy of Canadians. The good people of the Pontiac are as concerned as other citizens that the increasingly technological world we live in should respect the privacy of individuals. This privacy may be breached in all sorts of ways today, but governments, as well as companies, have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that they protect the private lives of Canadians.

To me, the privacy of Canadians is sacrosanct. We are a G7 country where democracy has been stable, and we have a duty to our fellow citizens in this regard. However, we must remain constantly vigilant when the government begins to creep into the lives of Canadians. This is a slippery slope in any democracy, and certain inherent dangers exist in the sharing of private information with the government. This begs the question: what limits are imposed on governments today when they request information that is not voluntarily given by Canadians?

We have learned recently that Canadian law enforcement agencies have begun to request massive amounts of information on Canadians from telecommunications companies. Due to advances in technology, it is the telecommunications sector, and providers in particular, who collect massive amounts of data about their subscribers.

What is worrying is that this is not the first time we have heard this. In 2011, according to the Privacy Commissioner, telecommunications providers responded to 1,193,630 requests for the personal information of Canadians. That is an average of one request every 27 seconds. This does not even cover it, since only three of the nine major telecom companies actually informed the commissioner's office of how many times they granted the government's request for consumer data.

Of this staggering number of requests, figures provided to the office in late 2011 show that wireless telecom companies complied with the government's request for customer data, and the vast majority of these requests were done without a warrant or even information sent to the individuals concerned. No consent was sought, and no consent was given.

The situation is so bad, and so many requests have been made, that one major company actually had to install a mirror of their data on a network so that it could send this raw data traffic directly to the federal authorities requesting it.

A concerted government response is clearly required and urgently needed to protect the privacy of Canadians. Instead, seemingly to have an increased amount of information on Canadians, the government has actually eroded the protection of the privacy of Canadians since it formed government. Whether this has been on purpose or by accident, we can judge the consequences.

For example, it has consistently refused to update any of the laws that keep the government accountable with regard to the privacy information of Canadians. The privacy laws have not been updated since the 1980s. That was before Facebook. In fact, the Internet was in its infancy back then. We have to do better.

By allowing thousands of breaches of personal information, the government has also consistently shown itself to be incapable of adequately protecting Canadians' privacy within its own departments, as we have seen with the recent Heartbleed situation or as one can recall from the letter debacle at the CRA. Contradictions abound, because under the pretext of protecting the privacy of Canadians and while decrying heavy-handed government, the industry minister argued that the long form census was intrusive and eliminated it, yet the government sees nothing wrong with invading Canadians' private information without a warrant and without even telling them.

It has repeatedly introduced legislation that makes it easier for Conservatives and the government to snoop on Canadians. For example, we can remember the public safety minister's introduction of the infamous Bill C-30, known as the online snooping bill. Fortunately, Canadians were paying attention. They were outraged, and the government was forced to back down. Since then, though, Bill C-13, the government's cyberbullying law, though well-intentioned, includes lawful access provisions that would expand warrantless disclosure of information to law enforcement by giving immunity from any liability to companies holding Canadians' information if they disclose it without a warrant. This makes it more likely that companies would have to hand over information without a warrant, as there are no risks they would face or any criminal or civil penalties if they do so.

We can also mention Bill S-4, the new so-called digital privacy act, which would go even further and allow private sector organizations to hand over Canadians' private information. This again could be done without consent and without a court order to any organization investigating a breach of contract or potential violation of any law. This could also be done in secret, without the knowledge of the affected person.

We may, quite reasonably, ask why the government is not taking the privacy of Canadians more seriously. Where is the libertarian zeal that motivated so many of my colleagues on the other side of the House, the idea that government was too big and too intrusive in the lives of Canadians? The reality is that government has crept more into the lives of Canadians under the watch of this government than at perhaps any other time in Canadian history.

Many questions remain unanswered. The citizens of my riding would like to understand why breaches to their privacy are happening more and more frequently. The onus is on the government to prove there is enough crime or potential terrorism or other matters of national security to justify 1.2 million requests for personal information in a single year.

However, what concerns me the most is the lack of due process. It seems to me that when law enforcement agencies decide they want private information on citizens, at the very least there should be a good cause for them to seek it. In our current situation, that determination is assured by the warrant process. If a request does not meet the requirements of a warrant, then it should simply not be made.

Since I am short on time, I will skip ahead. Essentially, Canadians have a right to know who is snooping on them and how they are doing it. I just do not understand why the Conservative government does not simply come clean with Canadians and give them the whole picture of what is really going on. On our side of the House, we want this information to be provided to Canadians as rapidly as possible.

Canadians understand that law enforcement agencies need information to track down criminals.

However, the fact that the government is requesting Canadians' personal information from telecommunications companies without a warrant 1.2 million times a year is completely unacceptable. The problem with warrantless disclosure is that it is uncontrolled and results in information being disclosed much more frequently than is justified.

In conclusion, it is clear that our privacy laws need to be updated in order to better protect Canadians' personal information. These laws must not be weakened. We need to be able to take effective legal action against criminals without infringing on the rights of law-abiding Canadians and treating them like criminals.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, presently before committee, contains in it an immunity for the voluntary, secret, and warrantless disclosure of information by telephone companies. Bill S-4, presently before the Senate, expands the entities that can receive this information, so the two of them added together would result in greater lawful, warrantless, and secret disclosure of Canadians' subscriber information.

Does the minister not feel that Canadians have any right to know when and how their subscriber information is being disclosed to an increasingly broad audience?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his great speech. He mentioned that Bill C-13 will expand the abilities of government agencies and public officers, and even those of certain mayors and certain people in the fisheries department, which is somewhat odd. However, one thing it does is give legal immunity to telecommunications companies that decide to disclose voluntarily customer data.

Although this is a huge loophole in the law that we have created and today we are hoping that we can close this loophole through our motion, one of the things a telecommunications company might think before disclosing data is whether it could get in trouble, be sued, and so forth. That is the one little tiny threshold that we have in place right now. We are removing that with Bill C-13.

I want to ask my colleague this today. Is he scared that we might be creating somewhat of a quasi-governmental spying agency through telecoms?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on this very important issue. The New Democratic Party calls for accountability and an explanation on behalf of Canadians into the widespread spying and interference of Canadians' Internet use and their cellphone use under the current government.

What we are asking for today is eminently reasonable. We are asking simply to ensure the powers of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the member who represents us as a parliamentary officer, who represents the Canadian people, and that she have the authority to ensure that the laws of this land are being followed.

Now, we have a government, of course, that will do anything it can to obstruct the work of the offices of Parliament because right now the offices of Parliament are about the only bulwark standing in the way of the numerous underminings of Canadians' legal rights, and even the illegal activities that are being undertaken by the Conservative Party.

It has been said that one of the foundations of a democracy is to ensure maximum transparency for government and maximum privacy for citizens. However, the current paranoid and secretive government has flipped it. The Conservatives have maximum privacy for their black holes of administration where they refuse to answer the simplest questions, and they are getting maximum transparency on the lives of Canadian citizens to the tune of 1.2 million requests of telecoms last year.

Now that is a conservative number, and I say “conservative” in the way the Conservatives have begun to use this, because not all the telecoms bothered to even respond to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. That is a very disturbing trend.

What does the 1.2 million requests mean? It means that every 27 seconds someone from a government agency, who, we do not know; for what reason, we do not know; for what possible motive, we do not know; picks up a telecom and asks for information about the private lives of Canadian citizens, and gets it without warrant.

Let us debunk the excuses we have heard from the Conservatives on this.

First is the bogeyman excuse. Conservatives use the bogeyman all the time. The bogeyman is out there roaming the streets. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham the other day made it sound like his neighbourhood was a case of Shaun of the Dead. There are these violent criminals and terrorists all over the place and so the Conservatives have to be able to call up a telecom immediately to gather any information they need whenever they want it.

Those laws already exist and it is fairly straightforward to get information if a violent crime is occurring. However, we are being led to believe that the bogeyman is out there and the current government has to stop it.

How does the government define terrorists?

I think we should say that, in this whole piece on spying, we are dealing with the revenge of Vic Toews. I refer members back to February 2012 when Vic Toews branded the new anti-terrorism strategy, “building resilience against terrorism: Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy”.

The government was going to go after terrorists, which included domestic extremism that is “based on grievances--real or perceived--revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights...environmentalism and anti-capitalism”.

If a person is against the Northern Gateway Pipeline, under the current government's framework, he or she is a potential terrorist. Therefore, the government can decide to follow his or her movements, as he or she is one of the bogeymen.

A concern about animal rights is not that of concern for animal rights such as our Prime Minister's wife who tells us that 1,000 murdered or missing women may be a great cause, but they are here for abandoned cats. The government is probably not spying on the Prime Minister's wife. However, someone else who might have concerns about animal rights, and it is in there, is a potential terrorist and worthy of picking up the phone.

One of the other excuses is that the Conservatives are not asking for anything that is not already the norm. It is just like picking up a phone book and looking up a number. Calling a telecom and demanding private information on Canadians is just like using a phone book.

The Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ann Cavoukian, says that is a load of bunk. She said the following about getting even basic subscriber information such as ISP numbers:

...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 subset of information.

Then the Conservatives say, “Don't you trust our police?” We certainly would trust the police. However, we also see that Ann Cavoukian has said that at no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning that Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings in the current law. The privacy commissioners in their joint letter, also write to the Prime Minister saying, “The capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny” is the heart of the issue.

We all remember when Vic Toews stood up in the House and told Canadian citizens who were concerned about the fact that they were being spied on, that they were basically in league with child pornographers if they had the nerve to stand up for them. That was such a boneheaded move and it caused such a blowback on the government that they had to retract the legislation. Why would the Conservatives show intent on pushing that through? We now know, they were trying to legalize what has become the common practice. Their shadow world of spying on Canadians is not legal. Gathering this information without warrants is not legal. This is why they put forward Bill C-30, to attempt to deal with it. We all remember Vic Toews had one of those pieces, “The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with” their ability to spy on Canadians.

That seemed like such a bizarre request at the time, but we have seen with the NSA and the widespread spying on American citizens and citizens around the world is exactly what Vic Toews was getting at, which is the ability to create mirror sites. The fact that we just learned in Der Spiegel that the NSA tapped the underwater cable network between Europe and U.S.A. to listen in on what ordinary citizens were doing on the Internet. The Conservatives have the same vision. They wanted to legalize that ability, and they were frustrated.

We are hearing the biggest excuse from the Conservatives. They realize the Vic Toews approach of accusing ordinary Canadians of being like child pornographers really did not work, but now they would reassure Canadians that they would fix it. They will fix it all right. They will fix it so that not only they will get to spy on Canadians, but anybody who wants to will be able to spy on Canadians: corporations can spy on Canadians, and all manner of very dubiously named authorities now will be able to spy.

Let us go through some of the issues on Bill S-4 and Bill C-13. According to Michael Geist, Bill S-4 will “massively expand warrantless disclosure of personal information”, because under Bill S-4, “an organization may disclose the personal information without the knowledge and consent of the individual...if the disclosure is made to another organization”. Not the laws of the land, not the RCMP, not anti-terrorism units, but if an individual is in dispute with a corporation over some contractual obligation, it can call their telecom, have their information handed over and they will not be told.

The Conservatives will certainly fix it. They will fix it to make widespread snooping of everything we do all the time perfectly legitimate for any corporation that just phones up and says it wants to know what they are doing on the Internet.

That is not all. Let us look at Bill C-13, which will give a public officer or a peace officer the ability to call telecom, demand information, and the telecoms will receive legal immunity for passing over this private information.

An interesting article in the National Post points out that Rob Ford will now be able to make these requests, because, oh, yes, he is a public officer, and under the act, if Rob Ford wants to find out what his neighbours are doing, interfering with the drug gangs in Rexdale with whom he might be friends, he would actually be able to make the calls.

The Criminal Code describes these peace officers, public officers, as including reeves of small towns, county wardens, who would be able to get information, and even people designated under the Fisheries Act. However, there is another element that is really important. Under the present laws, even with all this snooping that is going on, it has to be part of an investigation. The government would remove the caveat that says this snooping, this spying on the rights of Canadians does not have to have anything to do with an investigation. If the Conservatives want a fishing trip, if they want to keep tabs on them, they will be able to do so.

This needs to be dealt with. This is a government that is spying on law-abiding citizens and treating them as criminals, and it needs to be held accountable for this abuse of Canadians' rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. I have great respect for the excellent work she does for Canadians on this very important file.

I would like to ask her about the spin we are hearing from the government. Conservatives keep changing their story about how they actually somehow care for Canadians' private information, and the Minister of Industry is telling us that Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 will fix the problem. They will fix it, all right.

Under Bill C-13, anyone designated as a public officer will be able to gather information without a warrant. It is in the bill. Under clause 20, what a peace officer or public officer would be in the Criminal Code would include wardens, reeves of small towns, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and persons designated under the Fisheries Act, meaning that the Fisheries Act would be able to get information from the telecoms about folks in Timmins—James Bay who are out fishing. Of course, mayors are included as well.

It seems to me that the government is now moving backward to actually legalize widespread snooping and open up snooping to all manner of people who have no business being able to find out personal information, what people do on the Internet, or who they phone.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the government is telling Canadians that allowing widespread snooping by wardens, reeves, sheriffs, mayors, and people designated under the Fisheries Act will somehow protect Canadians' privacy.

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

I am very pleased today to move this motion to ensure that justice is served for Canadians. However, I am very disappointed to have to rise once again to protest this government's extremely reprehensible actions.

I would have thought that, after three years, it would have finally understood. However, once again, the government has been caught spying on its own people.

With such ridiculous statements as, for example, if we did not support bill C-30 we were siding with pedophiles, the government has constantly tried to minimize the impact of its proposed measures on the lives of Canadians, all the while boasting and insinuating that it is proposing reasonable and necessary measures, which has been proven to be false by many impartial stakeholders.

The Conservative government called our assessment “speculation and unwarranted fearmongering” or a series of outlandish conspiracies made up by the NDP. After being harshly criticized by the public, media, and civil liberty and rights groups, as well as by privacy experts, the government finally listened and withdrew these bills or let them die on the order paper.

However, we still need to point out that exploiting the personal information on Canadians without reasonable cause and without a warrant is a huge violation of their privacy. I do not think I have heard about 1.2 million criminals being convicted of accessing personal information in 2011.

Last week, new revelations showed that government agencies and departments allegedly asked telecommunications companies to share personal information with them without a warrant. Not once, not a hundred times or a thousand times. They asked 1.2 million times.

We condemn this highly questionable tactic, since there is no legislative oversight to determine whether the government's reasons for accessing this information were valid.

Like many Canadians, I understand and support the need for security authorities to have the tools they need to fight crime in our country and to make us feel safe at home.

However, how can the government justify 1.2 million requests in a single year to achieve that goal? That happened in 2011, and the government was not required to explain what this information was necessary or how and for what it would be used.

When I think of the majority of Canadians who abide by the law and who could be affected by these requests, I find it unacceptable, disgusting and incomprehensible that the government is treating them like criminals.

The privacy of Canadians has been taken lightly by past Liberal and Conservative governments for far too long, and Canadians affected by the thousands of data breaches in government agencies are paying the price. To hear that the government is snooping on them as though they were common criminals when they have done nothing wrong is another blow on top of it all. Last week the government tried to make us believe these requests were made for public safety reasons, but let us look at the case of the CBSA.

In response to my order paper question, after reviewing the number of requests made from the CBSA in one year, we find that no requests were made in exigent circumstances. The 18,849 others were made in non-exigent circumstances. From these requests, only two were made for national security reasons, none for terrorism alerts, none for foreign intelligence, and none on the grounds of child exploitation, so it is hard to believe the government when it says that these millions of requests were made for national security reasons when the numbers speak a very different truth.

Canadians understand that law enforcement institutions need information to identify, catch and judge criminals. However, when the government makes 1.2 million requests for Canadians' private information from telecommunications companies per year, that is not just about cracking down own crime; that is spying.

The vast majority of Canadians are law-abiding. There is no reason for the government to engage in such broad spying activities. If the Canadian government decides to spy on its own citizens, it should do so only if it has reason to suspect them and only with a warrant.

If the law permits this kind of warrantless spying, the law must be changed immediately, and that is what the NDP is trying to do today. If the government needs a warrant to listen to Canadians' phone conversations, the same should apply to their online activities.

We understand that certain extremely urgent circumstances do not permit the obtaining of a warrant. However, the information we received from the Privacy Commissioner last week goes far beyond the imaginable: 1.2 million requests for subscriber data without a warrant is unacceptable and unjustifiable.

In Canada, we are very lucky to have a legal framework for obtaining a warrant. That framework protects Canadians and prevents abuses by the authorities. Unfortunately, there is a loophole in the system the Liberals introduced.

Today, the Conservatives are taking advantage of that loophole to spy on their own citizens. Clearly, the government is no longer in control of the warrantless disclosure procedures.

As I said earlier, the Conservatives' spying cannot be justified on national security grounds. Moreover, it is done in secret. The Privacy Commissioner is not even informed.

If the government had a real, viable motive for snooping on Canadians, it would have no problem whatsoever with warning Canadians when they were being snooped on, it would have no issue working with the OPC, and it would strengthen our laws to better protect Canadians against these types of abuses.

We do not know why, how often or how long the government has been spying. What is even more incredible is that the Conservatives have long been trying to expand the legal framework around requesting information without a warrant. If the government decides to spy on Canadians, there should be just cause, it should be overseen by the courts and it should happen only under exceptional circumstances.

What is even more ridiculous than the government's unwillingness to protect Canadians' privacy is its complete lack of understanding about the scope of the problem. Just last week, the Privy Council Office asked that all departments provide details about the number of personal information requests submitted to various telecommunications companies over the past three years.

That proves that the government has abused the loophole in the law to the point where it has lost control of its departments on this issue.

The Conservatives have proven that they are unable to protect the privacy of Canadians. The Privacy Act dates back to 1983, before the arrival of the Internet, and PIPEDA has not been updated since 2000, before the age of social media.

Instead of strengthening the laws and increasing government accountability, the Conservatives are moving in the other direction. Instead of protecting Canadians' privacy, Bills C-13 and S-4 will increase the likelihood that the government will spy on its own citizens. From an ethical standpoint, that is extremely problematic.

With Bill C-13 alone, the government would expand the number of people who can make requests for subscriber data so that even people like Rob Ford could access our personal information. It would create legal immunity for voluntary disclosure of personal information and it would expand the circumstances under which personal information could be disclosed.

As if that were not enough, the government is using taxpayers' money to spy on them. Government agencies pay telecommunications companies between $1 and $3 for each information request. That means that, at the very least, Canadian taxpayers have paid between $1.2 million and $3.6 million to be spied on. I say that is the minimum because only some of the telecommunications companies have disclosed how often they provide information to the government.

If all of those information requests were justified, and if the telecommunications companies were not worried about disclosing their practices, I would likely not be making this speech today. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are trying so hard to hide their spying that it is worrisome.

What are they using all that personal information for? Can they even justify the importance of the information? It is clear that the government believes that Canadians are criminals because it spies on them without their knowledge, as though it suspected them of something. This motion defends the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians, and it is meant to counter the government's nefarious attempts to get information by the back door.

Since becoming the critic for digital issues, I have risen dozens of times to draw attention to and criticize the alarming state of our privacy laws. Laws that are meant to properly protect us in the digital age should have been revised years ago and are now unsuitable for protecting the public and our children.

In my time as opposition critic for digital issues, I have seen not one but four different pieces of legislation introduced in the House that would facilitate government snooping instead of fixing the problem.

Canadians are worried. They are right to be. The Internet that they have known as an open and free space for social and political discussions is threatened by the snooping of their very own government. Law-abiding citizens should be able to benefit from the Internet without the threat of being treated like common criminals.

I ask all my colleagues to vote in favour of our motion in order to restore Canadians' trust in matters concerning the protection of their privacy and of the Internet as the social and political tool it should be.

Privacy

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not surprised to see the Conservatives stooping so low, as they typically do, on an issue as serious as cyberbullying.

This bill has been before the House for months now. Canadians want transparency on how their personal information is being handled. They do not want political games or troubling provisions on electronic surveillance brought in through the back door in a bill on cyberbullying.

Why are the Conservatives afraid of debating their own provisions on surveillance in Bill C-13?

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that if it means saving lives, yes.

Bill C-13 combines a proposed new offence, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, to address cyberbullying, along with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but also other, existing offences.

The member is right; we are committed to policing the Internet via judicially authorized authority that involves electronic evidence.

The elements of this bill are intricately connected. Why would we pass a law and then go about bringing in other legislation to allow enforcement? This bill is in concert with the same theme of helping to protect people from abuse on the Internet.

We are proceeding in this fashion to give police the tools to do their important work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points to raise.

First, the minister is saying that this is an urgent matter, that it is time for action and not debate. In 2012, the Conservative government defeated my bill that sought to implement a national bullying prevention strategy. Apparently, the matter was not so urgent then. However, it seems that in 2014, it is urgent. I find that the minister is being quite inconsistent.

Recently, this same government took a month off by proroguing the House. If it had not taken a month off at the taxpayers' expense, then we might have had more time to pass this bill and debate it with more experts.

I have been working on this issue for two and a half years, and I have not yet been able to speak to Bill C-13. There are so many of us in the NDP who wish to speak to this that there is a good chance that I will not be able to as a result of this time allocation motion.

Does the minister not want to hear what I, as an expert on the matter, have to say about this bill?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether, during the course of his consultations across the country on justice issues, he had the opportunity to speak to family members of loved ones who have been affected by cyberbullying. I wonder if he would take a moment to tell us about some of the things he heard about during those consultations and since the introduction of Bill C-13 and tell us why it is imperative that we get the bill to committee as soon as possible.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has partly answered her own question; she just said there have been 13 speakers. I indicated at the time that we wanted, not only time in the House, which is of course important, but time to get the bill to committee.

That is the reality. In order for bills to progress, and the member has been here for some time, they have to go to committee. That is where we get in-depth study, witnesses, and we have an opportunity to delve into the detail, as opposed to the toing and froing, and often the partisan digression, that occurs in debate.

Members had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-13. I am sure we are all very much looking forward to expert witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Their knowledge with respect to the bill will also provide a broader perspective for a more informed debate.

We have an opportunity to move this bill forward and send it to committee for study.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not get the response from the Minister of Justice about this very undemocratic way of bringing in a 58th time allocation motion.

I find this all the more outrageous because on March 6 or thereabouts, if I am not mistaken, I asked the minister a specific question when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My question was about Bill C-13 because we were hearing all kinds of rumours from the Conservative benches about how the official opposition was preventing the government from putting Bill C-13 on the agenda. Only 17 people were given the chance to debate the bill over a period of just three days. I asked him if he supported giving all members of the House, no matter their party, ample time for debate so that we could study it responsibly, according to our principles. The minister replied:

We want to give not only the House [so he was including the House] but this committee in particular ample opportunity to hear from witnesses and to give it proper examination.

I would like the minister to explain the contradiction between what he told us on March 6 and what is happening now. We were supposed to continue the debate today, but here they are with their time allocation motion.

Bill C-13--Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for the opposition for her very kind comments about the abilities on this side of the House with regard to procedure. Of course, I am only as good as the team that I have.

However, I will say that one thing I have tried to outline and to make clear over some period of time is that the use of time allocation is very distinct from the use of closure. We have chosen an approach in this government to use time allocation as a scheduling device to set an amount of time that we believe is appropriate for debate on any particular issue, which, as the hon. member in her own comments confirmed, in some cases results in even more time being allocated than is necessary for debate.

One of the benefits, though, is that the time does not have to be used. If all speakers complete their discussion of the subject, the debate can collapse and we can move on to other matters. So, really, no time is to be lost from that approach. It is a very positive thing, one that allows certainty for the benefit of all members about how much debate we will have, when votes will happen, and when decisions will be made. That is the most important thing for us in our work up here: making decisions and getting the job done.

As for this morning, I know that the NDP keeps seeing conspiracies and ghosts behind curtains, particularly the House leader for the NDP, who has that concern.

I think everyone knows that the only time one can move these time allocation motions—and we do not need to have a great command of the Standing Orders to know this—is at the start of government orders, at the start of the day. So I really had no choice.

However, the committee had considerable flexibility, which it did exercise. There was no conspiracy. There was no obstruction.

I hope that the opposition House leader will take the benefit of the two weeks to calm down, hopefully look around, see that there are no people waiting behind every curtain and every tree, out to get him, and that some of the conspiracies he imagines are simply not there. It will lower his blood pressure. It will make his life much more comfortable, in total.

I know that the opposition whip will share that advice from me, with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-20, Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act.

Then, we will return to our constituencies, where we will have a chance to reconnect with our real bosses.

When we return on Monday, March 24, the House will have the seventh and final allotted day. At the end of that day, we will consider the supplementary estimates, as well as interim supply, so that these bills will be able to pass through the other place before the end of our fiscal year.

The government's legislative agenda for the balance of that week will focus on protecting Canadians. Tuesday, March 25 will see us start the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, a bill that will implement world-class safety standards in the offshore and nuclear sectors. That evening we will finish the debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the foreign affairs committee respecting the situation of Jewish refugees.

On Wednesday, March 26, we will consider Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at report stage and third reading. This bill will complement legislation already passed by the provincial legislatures in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, given the shared jurisdiction that exists in the offshore sector.

On Thursday, March 27, we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Through this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and online exploitation.

Finally, on Friday, March 28, I hope that we will be able to start the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, also known as Vanessa's law.

Cyberbullying

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the ministers of justice and public safety launched our government's anti-cyberbullying public awareness campaign: Stop Hating Online. The campaign raises awareness of the impact of cyberbullying and makes sure youth know that this behaviour often amounts to criminal activity. Our government took concrete action by introducing the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which would create a new criminal offence to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This bill would give police the tools they need to do their job.

We have also launched a Stop Hating Online website as a comprehensive resource for parents and youth, with the information and tools they need to prevent and stop cyberbullying.

I am pleased that our government is taking strong steps to help protect our children and youth from cyberbullying. They deserve it.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising today to speak to Bill C-15. I would like to first indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I would like to begin my speech in the chamber today by first congratulating the member for Western Arctic, who has done an immense amount of work on this file and represents his constituents very well. I would like to mention, most notably, his private member's bill in the House that he presented to increase the borrowing power of the Northwest Territories. He has worked tirelessly in the House to represent his constituents and ensure that the Northwest Territories develop in ways that are sustainable and to increase the ability of his constituents to participate in their own democracy.

Bill C-15 is an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other acts and certain orders and regulations. The short title of this bill is the “devolution implementation bill”. The length of the title of the bill is an indicator of the length of the bill itself, a 240 page omnibus bill. Preparing for this speech, I went through many cups of coffee. As I will mention later, it is customary for the government to present omnibus bills in the House.

I would also like to congratulate Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, for his work on this file as well.

Before delving into the content of this bill, I would like to briefly talk about the process and the form of it. As I mentioned, this is a 240 page omnibus bill. The Conservative government in this case has lumped issues that are less contentious in the bill, issues that the opposition parties could actually get on board with, such as devolution, with issues that are a bit more contentious, including the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects in part 4 of the bill.

Unfortunately, rather than separating these parts of the bill in order to get the support of opposition parties, the government put them into the same bill. This has occurred in other bills and it is the common practice of the Conservative government, which has not behaved in a very democratic way in Parliament. We saw this occur in the case of Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill protecting Canadians from the online crime act, which was introduced by the justice minister last week.

The bill would stipulate up to five years in prison for individuals who published intimate images of people without their express permission and would also give police greater ability to investigate cyberbullying. This is something the opposition parties could get on board with, especially as we have seen these tragic cases of teenagers being cyberbullied across the country, with tragic results.

However, Bill C-13 includes measures that are completely unrelated to cyberbullying. It includes measures on terrorism, organized crime and hate propaganda. It gives police greater leeway to access online communications and contains provisions for jail sentences of up to two years for poaching cable and satellite TV transmissions. It is hard to see how these measures directly relate to the issue of cyberbullying. It is another cynical move by the Conservatives to try to push through their agenda in these bills that the opposition, unfortunately, cannot agree with wholeheartedly.

I will now discuss the content of Bill C-15. As we know, this bill has four parts. Part 1 would enact the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resource Devolution Agreement and amend and repeal other acts and certain orders and regulations. Essentially, the Northwest Territories Act is the territories' foundational act. Part 1 would transfer powers to regulate oil and gas pipelines from the federal government to the territorial government as long as these remained onshore.

Part 2 would amend the Territorial Lands Act, part 3 would amend the Northwest Territories Waters Act and part 4 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As we have heard from my colleagues on the NDP side, this is the part that is the most contentious, perhaps, and this is the section that replaces regional management boards with a single 11-member board.

Those listening at home and those in my home province of Quebec might be interested to know that the Northwest Territories actually has responsibilities similar to provinces. In the late 1980s, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories government also has responsibility over education, social services, highways and airport administration, which are roles that would normally be considered to be under provincial jurisdiction.

This process has been ongoing throughout the history of the Northwest Territories, beginning with the Carruthers Commission in 1966, which actually moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats to Yellowknife. There is a history that leads up to the nineties, in which there were many constitutional development caucuses in the north, so this is a debate that has been going on for decades.

The NDP is in favour of devolution. This is actually the part of the bill we would support. As I explained, the people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like power for decades. I would support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. This is because we believe that the Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories. I commend the Premier, Bob McLeod, for his work.

However, there are many contentious issues with Bill C-15, so we would expect the government side to listen to our suggestions in committee and to amend the bill in order to take into account the expectations of northerners and to address some of the concerns that were raised around the Conservatives' move to lump in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The role of committee is crucial to the bill, and the Conservatives should benefit from committee and bring in experts and stakeholders and actually amend the bill so that it has wide consensus from those whom it concerns.

At this point we are concerned with the government's previous inability to make amendments to bills in committee. Notably there is the case of the Conservatives actually rejecting an amendment from the opposition side. That was an amendment concerning a grammatical mistake that was found in a bill, but they categorically objected to this amendment simply because it came from the opposition. Following that, the Conservatives had to bring forward the amendment again to change the small grammatical error in the bill.

We would actually expect the government members to listen to opposition members and to testimony, instead of governing with their ears and eyes closed to those who would propose constructive changes to the legislation.

Part 4 of the bill, the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects, we find contentious. On this point I would like to refer to the speech in this House of my colleague from the Western Arctic, in which he raised important concerns with this part of the bill: “There has been no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision”. We do see that the Conservative government is trying to ram through its agenda without actually giving an adequate say to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I will finish by citing the importance of taking into account the specific realities of the Northwest Territories in considering the bill, namely the presence of many aboriginal peoples in the north. Also, as my colleagues have raised, one of the main problems concerning land and water use certainty is the lack of progress in aboriginal land claim settlements.

We would raise that as a point, one which we could possibly discuss at committee. I would like to support the bill in principle. I would like to support the idea of devolution and giving the Northwest Territories more power, although I have serious concerns with the content of the bill and would suggest that the government accept our amendments during committee stage.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with regard to restrictions on offenders.

On the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Malpeque, I am pleased to say that in the House, perfection is never the enemy of the good.

This bill has received the unanimous support of all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough review and for reporting back so quickly to the House.

Before I get into the amendments adopted by the committee, I would like to congratulate the member for Langley, British Columbia. I note his important work in promoting the interests of victims, of which this bill is a direct result. I would also note how the member for Langley worked with all parties to gain support for this bill and was open to a number of suggestions to improve the bill, all of which, I believe, makes this bill worthy of the unanimous support of the House.

The government indicated its support for the objectives of this bill, given its consistency with the government's commitment to the rights of victims of crime. In previous Parliaments, this government has taken bold and decisive action in this area, including the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which, among other things, established a new and higher mandatory minimum sentence for sexual offences against children, eliminated conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes, and eliminated record suspensions, formerly known as pardons, for serious offences.

As indicated in the Speech from the Throne on October 16, 2013, this government has committed to introduce and support new legislation that follows through on our belief that victims come before criminals. The Minister of Justice has already fulfilled one important government commitment to crack down on cyberbullying with the introduction of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, on November 20, 2013.

Bill C-489 is completely consistent with the government's commitment to strengthen the rights of victims at every stage of the criminal justice process. This bill would require judges to either impose or fully consider specific conditions prohibiting contact between offenders and their victims, witnesses, or other individuals to protect them against contact from offenders.

The bill proposes to amend provisions of the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would allow courts and the Parole Board of Canada to impose conditions on offenders released into the community. These include prohibitions for child sexual offenders orders, probation orders, conditional sentences, peace bonds for child sexual offences, and federal penitentiary conditional release orders.

It is estimated that about 110,000 offenders each year would be subject to this new requirement proposed by Bill C-489. The source for this figure is the 2012 Juristat, Statistics Canada, and the Parole Board of Canada's annual report on conditional releases.

Turning to the report of the justice committee, I note that a number of amendments to the bill were adopted by the committee. I would like to briefly summarize these amendments.

The bill proposes to amend section 161 of the Criminal Code. This is a prohibition order that currently requires a judge sentencing a child sexual offender to consider imposing specific prohibitions on the offender that come into effect once the offender is released into the community. These can include prohibitions to stay away from specific places where children might be present and/or not to work or volunteer with children.

The bill proposes to also require the court to consider prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of any dwelling house in which the victim can reasonably be expected to be present without a parent or guardian. In considering this proposal, the justice committee expressed concern that it was too rigid, as the court would only have two choices: either impose a two-kilometre restriction or impose no restrictions at all.

While a two-kilometre restriction might well be appropriate in many cases, the committee expressed concern that in many instances it might be too big or possibly not even a big enough distance to achieve the objectives of preventing contact between the victim and the offender. As a result, the committee adopted a motion to require judges to consider conditions of two kilometres or any other distance. I believe this change in the bill makes sense and I will fully support it.

The justice committee also adopted a motion to require the court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting an offender from being in a private vehicle with a child. In adopting this change, the committee recognized that the recent Safe Streets and Communities Act had already enacted a new condition against any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 16.

Bill C-489 would also require a court to impose mandatory non-contact conditions for all prohibition and conditional sentences under the Criminal Cod”, although there is some discretion retained by the court not to impose such a condition if it finds there are “exceptional circumstances”. In addition, the condition can be waived by the victim if they consent to the contact. The provision would also require a court to provide its reasons in writing if it does find that “exceptional circumstances” exist.

The justice committee also adopted a small number of amendments to these proposals. First, the bill was amended to change the requirement that the judge give written reasons to require the judge to provide reasons in the record.

The committee felt this change was important, as the requirement to provide reasons in writing would have a potentially significant impact on court resources. The new formulation of requiring reasons to be stated in the record would still achieve the desired results of the original clause.

Second, the committee amended these proposals in cases where the identified victim consents to the contact by the offender to require that the victim's consent be in writing or in some other form specified by the court. This would ensure certainty in subsequent proceedings regarding whether or not there was in fact consent. Again, I believe these amendments make sense, and I support them as well.

Bill C-489 proposes to include similar non-contact conditions for section 810.1, peace bonds that are imposed on suspected child sexual offenders. This provision in the Criminal Code allows a recognizance with conditions to be imposed on any individual by a court if there is a reasonable fear that the defendant will commit a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

To maintain consistency and to avoid any confusion in the courts, Bill C-489 has been amended to remove the reference to “exceptional circumstances” in this provision, given the fact that the judge has full discretion to impose any of the listed conditions under section 810.1.

The bill has also been amended to remove the requirement of the court to provide written reasons for the peace bond condition, given that all peace bonds are already required to be provided in writing and filed with the court.

As introduced, the bill also proposed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that the releasing authority has the ability to impose non-contact conditions on offenders as well as geographic restrictions.

While the Corrections and Conditional Release Act currently authorizes conditions to be imposed upon an offender when granted conditional release, there is no specific obligation to consider the input of victims in determining appropriate conditions.

The committee adopted an amendment to require the releasing authority, either the Parole Board of Canada or the head of the institution, to impose reasonable and necessary conditions on offenders, including non-communication or geographic restrictions if a victim or other person has provided a statement regarding the harm done to them, the continuing impact of the offence, or their safety.

Finally, the committee amended the bill to come into force three months after receiving royal assent to provide adequate opportunity for courts and correctional institutions to prepare for these reforms.

I fully support the efforts of the sponsor of the bill to enhance the level of protection afforded to victims when offenders are released into the community.

Bill C-489, as amended by the justice committee, goes a long way to address concerns that all too often offenders are able to come into close proximity to their victims. I agree that Bill C-489 will help to ensure that victims, their families, witnesses, and other individuals will feel safe in their homes and in their communities when offenders are released.

I hope all hon. members will join me in passing the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader with regard to the difficulties and uncertainty of scheduling when we are not using the scheduling devices that are available to us under the Standing Orders. I am certain that he will find that he is able to cope with that, but perhaps I will take his advice and his concern about the lack of proper scheduling here under consideration and see if there is an opportunity to please him by once again returning to it.

Before I turn to the business of the House for the week ahead, let me congratulate those who won Monday's by-elections and will soon be joining us as members. Once returning officers have done their part of the job, which gives them the title upon the return of the writs of election, and after the new MPs have taken the oath, we will have their introductions here in this chamber, which will be a very special memory for them and for all of us.

Since this will probably be the last opportunity to use their names in the House, I will say that we on the Conservative benches are especially looking forward to welcoming Ted Falk and Larry Maguire. Larry proved to be an outstanding campaigner when it really counted. He overcame what expert pollsters said was a 29-point deficit in just 24 hours to win Brandon—Souris. This abrupt collapse of Liberal support must be troubling to the Liberal leader.

This afternoon, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and, again, tomorrow. If we have extra time, we will take up Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading.

Bill C-13 will, as we heard from the Attorney General yesterday, ensure children are better protected against bullying, including cyberbullying, by making the distribution of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted a criminal offence.

Following on this morning’s report from the chair of the hard-working, productive and orderly Standing Committee on Finance, we will consider Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, at report stage, and hopefully third reading, on Monday and Tuesday.

This bill would provide support for job creators, for example, by extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses; and it would also close tax loopholes, combat tax evasion and respect taxpayer dollars. Overall, it is an important part of our government's ongoing agenda to place, as our top priorities, economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity; indeed, they are priorities for most Canadians. I also will set aside Friday of next week for this important economic bill, if we need a third day to pass it.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, we will debate a bill to implement the devolution agreement reached with the Northwest Territories, for which the House adopted a ways and means motion this morning. If we can pass that bill at second reading before the end of Thursday, we would then return to the debates on Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act, and Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

To help with the committees' forward planning, Monday, December 9, shall be the fifth and final allotted day of the autumn.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I can attest that I and our government find it regrettable, to say the very least, that we hear comments such as this from the House leader of the official opposition when, in fact, the opposition members themselves are delaying important pieces of legislation through the continuance of filibustering and delaying tactics here in the House and at committee.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you and the opposition House leader that we will continue debating the NDP's regrettable amendment to block second reading of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. However, if the opposition members finally allow some progress on that critical file, we will turn to Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at second reading.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act.

Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act. After question period, we will return to Bill C-12.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

That debate will continue on Thursday, but if we cannot finish Bill C-2 today, we will make time for that debate on Thursday morning.

Tuesday, November 26, as the government House leader announced earlier in the week, will be the fourth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated.

During the constituency week, the member for Papineau certainly put forward a number of unusual ideas, some of which, or maybe one of which, may be put forward as a motion for the Liberals' allotted day. Some of those unusual ideas include the member for Papineau, the leader of the third party, saying that he admired the dictatorship in Communist China. He also advocated to minors the legalization of drugs. Finally, the leader seemed to suggest that he is putting the interests of criminals ahead of those of their victims by reducing sentences for serious crimes.

We find that reprehensible, but we have yet to see how the Liberals will approach those very important issues, in the eyes of the Liberals, come their allotted day next Tuesday.

Cyberbullying

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators. Yesterday we delivered on our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from cyberbullying by introducing the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Cyberbullying goes far beyond average schoolyard bullying and, in many cases, crosses the line into criminal activity. Our legislation would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It would empower the courts to remove intimate images from the Internet and give them the power to order the seizure of computers, cellphones, and other devices used to commit the offence.

As we have seen far too often, cyberbullying destroys the lives of children. It clearly demands a stronger criminal justice response. That is what this legislation would provide. I ask all members of the House to stand up, protect the children of this nation, and support this legislation.