Debates of Feb. 28th, 2012

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a short question and a short response.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to clear up a mystery for me. I attended the briefing held by the Minister of Public Safety on the morning of the bill's first reading. There were no copies available for us in that lock-up, which was unheard of in my experience. I did get a copy of the bill called the lawful access act when I went to the opposition lobby.

I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary why the bill was changed to the offensive title of protecting children from Internet predators act. When was the decision taken? Why was the decision taken at the last minute, with the result that there were no copies of the bill available in the opposition lobby at first reading?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that relates to the process as opposed to the actual details of the bill. Some might not find the title offensive. I am sorry if my colleague does find it offensive.

It is important for us to talk about the specifics of the bill. If there are ways that we can improve it, to continue to protect Canadians' privacy while at the same time giving police the tools that they need, then let us do that. I am glad the member has the bill today and she had the bill in a timely manner.

I respectfully say I do not think at this point in time that dealing with this silly motion by the Liberals is a really important issue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion, which calls upon the government to respect principles of due process, privacy and the presumption of innocence. Our government firmly believes in these principles.

I would like to recognize the member for Toronto Centre for his apology in the House yesterday and for bringing this motion forward today. We know that the Liberal Party attempted to introduce lawful access legislation in the past and that it is a concern of great importance for all Canadians. Let us recognize what the debate is really about. We are not here to debate a bill that allows law enforcement to spy on innocent, law-abiding Canadians without judicial oversight because that is not what Bill C-30 proposes. The core issue is far more important. The core issue is how we as members of Parliament protect the interests of Canadians in a world that is moving forward and toward the Internet. Let us stop to think for a moment about the importance of the issue.

Recently it was revealed that Nortel Networks had been hacked and seriously compromised. Intellectual property, bidding documents, business and marketing strategies, research and development and research papers were all alleged to have been compromised. While we often reflect on the fact that Canada is a country rich in natural resources, we sometimes overlook that we are also a country rich in intellectual property. Where is much of Canada's intellectual property found and stored? Online.

Recently we learned that the website of the Association of Chiefs of Police had been hacked and accessed. The fact is that hackers have demonstrated they have no problem accessing our personal information, even personal information belonging to law enforcement. There are seniors in my riding who have lost their life savings to online fraud. Working families have been victimized by online identity theft. Worse, innocent children have been targeted by deviants. In some areas of this country we have witnessed teenage suicide as a result of cyberbullying. Today these unfortunate incidents are the exception, but what about tomorrow? These crimes are becoming more common, not less.

Let us also recognize that more and more Canadians depend on the Internet for their banking and investments and it does not end there. E-commerce is creating jobs across our country. Existing businesses have found new customers, but it does not end there. Many regions are moving toward electronic health records online. This not only creates huge efficiencies in our health care community, but it can also greatly enhance patient care, more so in the emergency room environment.

Even we as members of the House increasingly rely on the Internet and electronic means to help us do our jobs. This is not a partisan issue. This is a reality.

Canada as a country is increasingly moving online, but as we move online, our ability to secure, police and protect our citizens is falling further and further behind. In fact, we must recognize that as it stands today, our law enforcement community currently has more tools to investigate a basic hit-and-run accident than it does to investigate serious online crime. Let me expand on that thought for a moment.

If a vehicle is observed to be in a hit-and-run accident and the suspect vehicle licence plate is recorded, it is understood that with that information, law enforcement, without a warrant, can obtain basic information about that vehicle, such as who the owner is and where the owner resides, and basic contact information. This type of information is used to further investigate an incident. We understand that law enforcement has the ability to obtain basic personal information without judicial authorization, but we also understand that this basic contact information available to law enforcement that can help locate a hit-and-run driver does not, I repeat does not, enable law enforcement to access personal communications without a warrant.

Should the same basic tools that are available to law enforcement in the real world not be available to fight crime in the online cyberworld? These are ultimately the questions we need to be asking in this debate, because the types of tools that have been available to Canadian police in mainstream society for many decades, fully subject to the Criminal Code of Canada and judicial oversight, do not currently exist online. That is ultimately what this debate is about.

We as parliamentarians have an obligation to protect Canadians and our national interests. The life savings of our citizens, the innocence of our youth, the intellectual property of our research and development sector, our e-commerce and soon even our health records depend on our ability to safeguard that information.

I have read Bill C-30 and I believe it would update our laws to help safeguard the interests of Canadians. It also would provide a balance that would recognize the privacy rights of personal communications while providing basic contact information which law enforcement could use to investigate crime.

Over the recent break, I had a chance to speak with many citizens, including a group of retired police officers, about this bill. Being able to gain basic information is critically important. It helps to solve crime. Bill C-30 would ensure that basic contact information would be available to our law enforcement. In some cases that information would be freely volunteered and in other cases it would not. I recognize there needs to be more consistency in this area. It is also important to be able to secure evidence before it can be deleted or destroyed, and that is addressed by Bill C-30. Those processes also involve judicial oversight. Most importantly, the bill would ensure that providers of online Internet services would ultimately acquire the technology to deal with Internet crime once it arises, which again would be subject to judicial overview.

Is there a cost to achieve this? That is a perfectly reasonable question. Absolutely there is, but there are also costs to remaining with the status quo and doing nothing. Think of our national research and development and our vast intellectual property. For decades our country has invested in innovation and technology.

In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, we have the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre which has been working in partnership and has developed new food packaging technology which is very important for the agricultural sector. This will greatly increase the shelf life of produce and extend shipping times and open up new markets. This has huge economic potential for many regions, not just my own. We must be able to protect our intellectual property and capital.

I submit those costs required for our Internet providers to be able to take action against online criminals far outweigh the investment required. We must ensure that we have online technology in our great country that can take action to protect Canadians. Some critics suggest we should be concerned about granting new powers to the police. However, when we read Bill C-30 it is clear that the changes being contemplated in the bill would not actually create new powers for the police at all. Rather, they would ensure that existing policing tools, which have existed in some cases for decades, would also apply to the online community. The question we should be asking is why some interests think the Internet should be a safe haven immune from any type of oversight whatsoever.

In closing, I will leave this thought with the House. Our future is increasingly online. Perhaps that is one point in the debate on which all of us can agree. If we are truly to protect the interests of Canadians and keep our country strong, then I submit we must overcome our partisan differences and respect that protecting the private information of Canadians online is in the national interest of our great country. The criminals, hackers, the anonymous of the cybercrime world have already proven they can access that information without incident. Is it not time that we ensured that law enforcement had these same basic abilities as well? I submit that it is. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for being part of this important debate.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the use of fear-mongering terms was not helpful in this debate, but I cannot help but make reference to the public safety minister's comments that people can either stand with the government or with the child pornographers. I really do not find that helpful or constructive in this debate.

The member talked about safeguarding the interests of Canadians. Obviously, all of us in the House have an interest in safeguarding the interests of Canadians, but there is also the issue of legislation going too far. Former public safety minister Stockwell Day stated in 2007:

We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from Internet companies without a warrant. That’s never been a proposal. It may make some investigations more difficult, but our expectation is rights to our privacy are such that we do not plan, nor will we have in place, something that would allow the police to get that information.

The minister was saying that a warrant is needed to search for personal data. I am wondering why the government is now proposing such a change in direction.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the break back in my riding many citizens raised a whole bunch of questions, primarily why the government supports being able to spy on Canadians. I just want to reassure people, particularly in my riding, that the bill proposes the exact opposite. Bill C-30 ensures the government can protect Canadian interests and online privacy by enabling law enforcement to have the tools to track down and prosecute those who would spy on Canadians.

Hackers, as we know, are hacking into people's personal information. As I mentioned in my speech, as we continue moving forward with electronic health records, we need to make sure that information remains secure. Bill C-30 would do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to law enforcement officers. Whether it is today or after the bill eventually passes in whatever amended form that it passes, could the member give a clear indication that a law enforcement officer would not have the ability to find out a website that has been visited or to read someone's email without having a warrant from a judge?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we see now is that because there is no policy covering this particular area of the Internet, an ISP could tell the RCMP or another police agency to go pound sand. In another case there might be an ISP that says it will work with the police. Another ISP might say it would give the information but would inform its customer.

Right now the policy is not set in a way that the RCMP can get basic information. That basic information would allow the police to get a warrant to look at materials that may help in a criminal investigation. We are codifying it. We are looking to protect Canadian interests.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question asked by the Liberal member. Just to be very clear, perhaps my hon. colleague could reiterate that police would not be able to access an individual's emails or web browsing history without a warrant.

Could my hon. colleague please answer that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Canadian law enforcement does not have the same abilities online as it has had in the real world for decades. If the opposition believes that Canadians should continue to be victimized by criminals and foreign interests, our government respectfully disagrees with that. We will stand up and protect Canadians' online privacy against online criminals.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I rise to speak to the Liberal opposition day motion introduced by our leader, calling on the House to recognize the fundamental right of all Canadians to freedom of speech, communication and privacy. The motion is in response to the Conservative government's invasive Bill C-30.

If Canada is to remain a truly democratic society, it must strike the correct balance between security and civil liberties and individual rights and freedoms. As written, Bill C-30 does not ensure a balance among those principles.

At the outset, the Conservatives demonstrated their disregard for Canadian civil liberties and individual rights. Rather than sit down and discuss with Canadians and have an honest debate about the strengths and weaknesses of Bill C-30, the government attempted to irresponsibly frame the debate in rhetoric.

The Minister of Public Safety even went so far as to berate one of my colleagues, who was merely bringing the concerns of countless Canadians into the debate, by telling him that he, “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers”.

Attempts to demonize opponents of Bill C-30, many of whom are in my riding as well, and characterize them as friends of child pornographers is not only reckless, but completely unwarranted. The Minister of Public Safety still has not apologized for offending those Canadians who have difficulty with some of the aspects of Bill C-30.

Understandably, Canadians from coast to coast to coast do not trust the government with their personal information. After all, the Conservatives do not exactly have a glowing track record when it comes to managing the personal information of individual Canadians.

Through creeping individual's Facebook accounts and using personal profile information to restrict Canadians from attending public election rallies, sifting through personal medical records of veterans who asked too many questions or inappropriately using voter identification databases to make robocalls that are all about election fraud, the government has worked hard to earn the mistrust of Canadians.

In its current form, Bill C-30 forces Internet service providers to track, save and hand over Canadians' personal subscriber information, including their email and IP addresses, upon request without a warrant. This means that the Prime Minister's people would now have the legal right to monitor the emails of Canadians and track their movements online without any kind of judicial discretion.

The Conservatives destroyed the critical long from census because they claimed it was too intrusive into the personal lives of Canadians. Yet they now propose legislation that encroaches deep into the lives of Canadians and treats all Internet users as criminals. There are innocent Canadians out there.

The public outcry from Canadians and the Liberal Party, following the introduction of Bill C-30, forced the government to admit its legislation was far from perfect and it took the unusual step of shepherding its own legislation to committee before being debated so it could be fixed. The government has said that it will consider amendments from the opposition, and we welcome that.

Unfortunately, that is the same government that has abused its majority at committees to conduct business behind closed doors, making committee business the most secretive it has ever been and requests to do otherwise continue to fall on deaf ears. If the government forces the committee behind closed doors, it can oppose the reasonable and fair amendments that Liberals will be proposing without any public oversight, and this is a serious concern.

Sending Bill C-30 straight to committee for amendments is an important first step in admitting that Bill C-30 is highly flawed, but actions speak louder than words. The true measure of the Conservative government's commitment will be tested and witnessed during the committee proceedings. If the Conservatives truly believe that Canadians have the right to determine how their personal information is handled, then the Conservatives should be forthcoming and accept Liberal amendments at committee.

Canadians, including my constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's, are listening with interest and taking note of the debate over Bill C-30. One of my constituents aptly described the bill when he said, “This bill is a total invasion of privacy”.

Another constituent wrote to tell me that he was concerned about the legislation. He said, “This would be a breach of the basic human rights of all Canadians. It almost goes without saying that giving this kind of power to any institution is ripe for potential abuse”. He goes on further to state, “Not only that, we citizens, will have to pay for it out of our taxpayers wallets. There is also the dangerous potential of criminals having another gateway for hacking into people's accounts”.

Another constituent wrote to me to say that he was equally concerned about the legislation, writing “The online spying ("Lawful Access") bills are poorly thought out, and irresponsibly allow a range of authorities to access my personal data without a warrant”.

A different constituent from my riding went further saying, “Unchecked mass surveillance is a breach of my fundamental right to privacy”.

These are just a few examples of the correspondence that I have received. It is what Canadians are saying, and I am sure all members in the House are hearing the same thing from coast to coast to coast. I have yet to receive a letter in support of Bill C-30.

Privacy is a fundamental freedom enshrined in our charter and Canadians have every right to be worried about heightened surveillance of their online activities. Warrantless use of personal information is an inappropriate violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Liberals are seriously concerned that the lack of judicial oversight in the bill relating to subscriber data and that forcing ISP and telecomm providers to have the capacity to trace all communications in their system could create a very slippery slope.

For example, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, agrees. Her office, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, is charged with overseeing compliance with both the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Exercising her mission to protect and promote the privacy rights of individuals, last October she wrote the Minister of Public Safety detailing her concerns with the government's lawful access proposal. She said:

I am...concerned about the adoption of lower thresholds for obtaining personal information from commercial enterprises. The new powers envisaged are not limited to specific, serious offences or urgent or exceptional situations. In the case of access to subscriber data, there is not even a requirement for the commission of a crime to justify access to personal information – real names, home address, unlisted numbers, email addresses, IP addresses and much more – without a warrant.

Apart from what we are hearing from Canadians throughout the country, this is coming from the Privacy Commissioner.

The government must ensure the protection of the online privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. Again, there are innocent Canadians out there. The warrantless tracking of Canadians' online activity would unfairly treat all Canadian online users as criminals.

Through Bill C-30, the omnibus crime Bill C-10, Bill C-4 and others, the government has raised serious questions about whether they respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Liberals will be focused at committee, finding logical solutions that strike the correct balance between public safety and privacy.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the Prime Minister 's men would have access to emails. The member should know full well that police, RCMP and CSIS are at arm's-length and are professional. It certainly sullies their name. I would like the member to consider apologizing in the House for making an accusation on such independent agencies.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the hon. member's comments, let me point to my colleague who was investigated by the Department of National Defence when he dared to question the Minister of National Defence's use of a helicopter. The member should not talk to me about what they will or will not do. That is a case in point, where they looked to an individual to find out exactly what he had done.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, we discussed hit-and-run drivers. The police have access to plenty of information to find the vehicle involved, but that does not give them the right to search the interior of the vehicle. That is a good analogy. If a site is identified as potentially suspicious, that does not give law enforcement permission to go fishing and collect personal information from the site.

Does the problem of cybercrime not have more to do with a shortage of police officers assigned to these cases? Is it not simply about a shortage of police officers and resources to combat this new kind of crime? What does my colleague think?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the point he makes.

We are seeing a failure to recognize that there are Canadians who are innocent. What we are experiencing with the government is that it is treating everyone as criminals.

Absolutely, we want to ensure that police officers have the tools they need to do their jobs in the 21st century. There is no question about that. However, in giving them the tools, let us also ensure that they have the person power they need to deliver.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity in my former career as a lawyer to act for service providers. From time to time, the police would show up and ask for information. Every time they would call me and ask if they should give the information or ask the police to get a warrant. I told them to get a warrant. Not once did those police officers ever complain that in some way that service provider was frustrating the course of justice. They always came back with that warrant.

My question to my colleague, who gave incredible remarks about the issue of privacy, is this. Clause 34 goes beyond the police and would allow the minister to appoint agents and those agents could go in and second the use of the staff at the service provider's office and demand access to any information whatsoever and take people with them when they were doing it.

What does my friend have to say about that pervasive section?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a case in point that shows Canadians are concerned and they are speaking out about this. They know exactly what will happen if the minister has the ability to do that.

They have seen it with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. They have seen ministers taking untold abilities to do things that ministers should not have the ability to do. They are getting unfettered access, and this is something Canadians are really concerned about because they are seeing more and more of it from the Conservative government.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, how can my colleague explain that when the Liberals were the government, they had a number of different initiatives that actually went on to propose what has been proposed in this type of legislation, with even weaker protection for privacy rights, and now that they are the opposition, they are outraged?

How can the member justify these two contrasting positions, the one the Liberals had when they were in power versus the one they have now in opposition, and the two completely different points of view on what is basically very similar legislation?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it may be the interpretation of my colleague opposite that they are very similar bills, but they are different bills.

The one thing I can assure him is the Liberals will listen to Canadians, they will take advice at committee and at the end of the day, the bill will be one that is in consideration of all rights of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the debate is actually finished over here. As a child, I used to think that sitting in the corner of a room had no excitement whatsoever. Since coming here to the House of Commons, the corner of this House is quite exciting, quite frankly. The debates are quite vigorous, if not to say less entertaining.

I am grateful to be allowed a few moments to speak to this particular motion. I do want to extend my congratulations to all who have spoken here today on this particular measure that has been thrust upon us in the past little while and, certainly, created a lot of attention across this country. The electronic data that has moved around this country and the world, for that matter, regarding this bill has been quite substantial and come at a time when we should probably have this debate before considering the bill at committee, in this case before second reading.

A lot of people have asked me about the ramifications of that. I say that I applaud the government for sending the bill to committee before second reading because, fundamentally, by doing so it is now allowing substantial amendments to be made before second reading. The problem otherwise, if it goes to second reading first, is that if we have a debate in the House and vote on it, we then have to accept the principles of the bill. The majority of the House would do that. Subsequent to that, any amendments coming forward could be ruled out of order by the Speaker if these go against the fundamental principles and the scope of the bill in question, that being Bill C-30.

Therefore, I am glad that the current motion is being debated today, because without that motion we would not have had the opportunity to debate the bill in the House before it went to committee. The government says it wants to expedite this, to put it through committee and to have a fruitful conversation about this. Certainly, I would like to have this debate in the House before we send the bill to committee, because if we send the bill to committee before second reading, it means that we then have the ability as the House of Commons to enact legislation with major amendments that cannot be quashed by the Speaker or anyone else in the House. The procedure dictates that we can make substantial changes. Why not have a debate in the House that precedes anything going to committee?

The House recognizes the fundamental right of all Canadians to the freedoms of speech, communication and privacy, and that there must be a clear affirmation of the need for these rights to be respected in all forms of communications.

We all know, as my hon. colleague for Lac-Saint-Louis pointed out earlier, that the technology involved here is evolving now on a monthly basis. We talked about every 10 or 15 years when I first got here in 2004. In those days it was changing every four or five years. Now it seems to be changing every year, certainly in the aspect of social media. We saw Facebook thrust upon the world in a very short period of time, and now of course Twitter as well in this situation.

When I first got here, politics was judged by eight-second soundbites. Now politics and political discourse are judged by 140 characters or less, so we can see how we have gone from the realm of broadcasting to the realm of social media. Now breaking news is a part of the Twitterverse. It is not necessarily a part of the 24/7, 500-channel universe any more. We have now pushed ourselves into that.

However, let us bear in mind that the social media is doing something in addition to what was done in the old days of the 500-channel universe. Not only do we receive information at a moment's notice when it happens, or instantaneously, we are also now providing that information instantaneously, at a moment's notice, in the heat of the moment, whatever it may be. Nonetheless, we are not using traditional ways, with the exception of telephone, I guess, of sending information to people with whom we are in contact. We are now using electronic media to such a great extent that a lot of information is being put through private companies such as ISPs, and thus a vast amount of our lives, secret or not, is now transported through electronic data. Therefore, the ability to look into this is a lot more invasive than it used to be, if indeed the intention is to get all of the information that is out there about a particular person.

Sometimes people disseminate information that does not pertain to their intent. Per the example used earlier by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, someone with a cellphone can transport pictures at a protest and the authorities have the ability to look into the transmission of these photos at particular protests, even when the person concerned is an innocent bystander and not an active participant, and not doing anything nefarious, but simply present and transmitting what is happening.

I return to the motion that we moved in the House: “That the House recognize...that Canadians who have expressed deep concerns about Bill C-30 should not be described as being friends of child pornography or advocates of criminal activity; that the Charter is the guarantor of the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians; and that the Charter is paramount to any provision of the Criminal Code of Canada; and accordingly the House calls on the Prime Minister to ensure that any legislation put forward by his government respects the provisions of the Charter and its commitment to the principles of due process, respect for privacy and the presumption of innocence”.

The point about the presumption of innocence is a good one, because it seems to have been lost in all of this. When the Minister of Public Safety caused a huge fuss in the media about our being either on the side of them or others, that is what I fear about discourse and debate in the House. We now state things in absolute terms. In other words, we are saying to people that it is a black and white situation when in fact it is not. We are dealing with a very complex piece of legislation that has to receive a fair amount of discussion, debate and input from those across the country to allow us to have strong opinions, but at least our strong opinions are well-informed.

The throwing around of labels at the very beginning of debate is what bothers me. I use that as an example, but let us not kid ourselves and instead recognize that all 308 members of Parliament have fallen into that trap on occasion. We need to be honest with ourselves. Sometimes we have to pull back from that. Sometimes a simple apology is overdue and perhaps sometimes we should have that mature debate to allow ourselves to delve into the issues. I hear members talk about mature debate all the time, but for some reason it never happens. They may have a point: it is time for us to practise what we preach. Having this debate in the House on these particular measures is worthy of note. A debate in the House before we send it to committee and second reading is essentially what we are aiming for.

I congratulate the member for Toronto Centre for doing such and I congratulate anyone who speaks to this issue because it is of great importance.

Several experts have highlighted some of the key components of the legislation that are troublesome. On the one hand, we do want the police to have the tools to exercise their jobs. I know many police in my riding would agree with that and would like to have these tools. Then we have section 8 of the charter, which we are referring to when we say that people have a right to privacy in this country. Some of the people who have written about that include Michael Geist, who says:

While some of that information may seem relatively harmless, the ability to link it with other data will often open the door to a detailed profile about an identifiable person. Given its potential sensitivity, the decision to require disclosure without any oversight should raise concerns within the Canadian privacy community.

Jennifer Stoddart, as my hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's pointed out as well, also had the same reservations about it.

The intent of the bill is one that has to be looked at as well. When the government puts out a public safety message and allows a transition period of 18 months and reduces the requirements for smaller service providers for the first three years, that is all great and fine, but not only do we have the ability to do this technologically but we also need the ability to debate it and make sure that we are doing the right thing before we realize that we have to go back and make changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this quite interesting. Here is a party that actually tabled similar legislation back in 2005 and again in 2007. In 2002, it also launched consultations on lawful access.

In looking at this, one of my questions for my colleague is about the census. When we look at the information that would be deciphered as a result of this bill, I wonder if he could comment on whether he finds it outrageous that we have a government that gets rid of the census and then tables legislation that allows access to the private information of Canadians.

My further question is whether Liberals, because they tabled legislation on this before, will be supporting Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid point about the long form census, which I never thought of including in my speech. Certainly the member raises a valid point in the sense that the long form census provides information to policy-makers and allows open debate and allows them to make workable public policy in this country. However, that counteracts what we are seeing in this particular situation, where the government wants to get information from ISPs to allow it to monitor and really dig deep into what an individual person's life is all about. As I said earlier, certainly our lives are out there now, more than they have ever been, with the advent of online banking in particular and online surveys and measurements. Therefore, I see her point in that particular case.

Perhaps I could answer the second part of the member's question later on, when there is time.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the tone of my colleague's remarks.

However, I want to get some more understanding of the Liberal motion today. Does this member believe that the efforts by Liberal MPs in 2005, 2007 and 2009 were on bills consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, per the debate today? Does he agree with the Privacy Commissioner, who has expressed some concerns about Bill C-30 but also that the legislation tabled by this government is an improvement with respect to privacy rights over the legislation tabled in 2005?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can only change things by that much and consider it improvement. Let us be honest.

When the hon. member talks about the bill's compliance with the charter, I would say that we never debated at the time how this would run up against the charter and whether challenges would ensue. I agree with his point and the fact that now we are going through this process that allows us to do that. Again, I congratulate him for bringing this to committee before second reading. My understanding is that if anything were awry when it came to the application of the charter, it certainly would have been discovered in that particular place.

This is why I like this motion, because it allows us to debate the bill before we send it off to committee. Remember this is not going to happen overnight. If members think the copyright legislation was considered for a long time in committee, I suspect this will take even longer, given the fact that we will not have to vote on it before it goes to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the NDP and the Conservatives seem to be speaking from the same notes, in talking about 2002, 2005 and 2007. They forgot 1981. It was the Liberals who brought in the Charter of Rights, which is in fact what this opposition motion is about, the Charter of Rights and ensuring that Canadians have privacy.

Could the member comment on 1981 Liberal initiative, the Charter of Rights guaranteeing that we have privacy legislation?