House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-30.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair and allow the member who has the floor to complete her answer.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, had my colleague listened to my speech, she would know that I never said that the government would have access to the content because, in fact, that is false and it is not in the bill.

Clause 16—I invite my colleague to read the bill—lists six types of identifiers. As for clause 64, it allows the government to add others. In my opinion this will allow the government to create a profile, identify the geographic location and eliminate the anonymity of the Internet user.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety spoke earlier today he said that the government would not be adding additional identifiers. That puzzles me. Why is there a regulation in the bill to allow for additional identifiers? Maybe the member could clarify this for me. May more identifiers be added later on?

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As indicated in paragraphs 64(1)(q) and 64(1)(r), the government is giving itself the power to add identifiers. Does the government intend to add others? We do not know, but why else would this provision have been drafted?

I would also like to point out that, as I mentioned in my speech, there are concerns about the number of identifiers. This is more information than what is found in a telephone book, and it is personal information that will be accessed without a warrant. They have reduced the number of identifiers from 11 to 6, but by adding this provision in a clause, they are giving themselves the power to add identifiers, and that raises questions.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals introduced this legislation back in 2005 and also in 2007. They seem to be flip-flopping on this right now. Could the member comment on that?

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I find the Liberals' position interesting these days because they used to be in favour of this bill; they were the ones who came up with it originally. While I am pleased to see that they have changed their stance and will vote against the bill, I am nevertheless quite surprised at their change of heart.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, I find today's debate interesting. We are learning many things. I would like to begin by talking a bit about the nature of technology.

Bill C-30 is fundamentally about technology, very complex and rapidly evolving technology that we use daily, but which we do not always fully understand.

However, Canadians are beginning to understand that digital communications technology and its associated everyday practical applications, like email, the Internet and hands-free communications through portable devices such as smart phones is eroding individual privacy. There have been two distinct reactions to this fact.

On the one hand there are those who say this is disconcerting, that we need to act to prevent further erosion of privacy in this brave new world of electronic communications. On the other hand there are those who say to get used to it, that there is nothing we can do. They say that we have to learn to live with this new way of being and communicating, that in the end no one really cares about the details of our private lives. They say that we are all in the same boat, that we should let go of our concerns, adjust and adapt.

The latter view will strike someone who has been refused a job because of his or her careless and sophomoric Facebook entry years ago as patently naive to think that we should just learn to live with the new breaches of privacy.

I will digress to talk about the inherent nature of technology. This understanding is based on my reading many years ago of a book by a famous Canadian political philosopher, George Grant, entitled, Technology and Justice.

What I took from that book is that technology is not neutral. Many will say that this is obvious, that this is commonplace, that technology can be used for the good or it can be enlisted for less noble ends. For example, nuclear technology can be used for medical diagnosis and energy production to supply hospitals, homes and businesses with power, or it can be used for mutually destructive war. I think we all get this. I think that is obvious to all of us.

Grant's argument goes a bit deeper. Technology is not neutral in the sense that it is not simply developed to satisfy a curiosity or to be left on the shelf. We are not talking about pure research, which is often about scientists playing with ideas and discovering the unexpected simply to satisfy their curiosity. A theoretical physicist might say that is what occupies his or her day. It is simply the exploration of ideas and the playing of ideas for the sake of it, and then something drops out of it unexpectedly.

We feel compelled to use technology once we have it. In fact, that is why we develop it in the first place, to fashion our reality, to fashion our environment, to suit our practical needs and interests.

Obviously in developing technology most of us feel that our goal is a noble one, even when we drift into using technology for questionable or downright destructive ends in retrospect.

Technology is meant to be used. It is intended to be used to manipulate or control our reality for our own self-interest as human beings, for our benefit as human beings, whether we are talking about medical treatment to make people healthy or to transform the Alberta oil sands into profit, thus benefiting our balance of trade.

Let us look at computer technology. Computers allow for compiling databases. This was one of their first uses. Computerized databases are useful. Once we have the capability to do so, as some lament, we want to catalogue everything. We want to collect information, sometimes just for the sake of it, until we figure out what to do with that data. We do not need to go far to see how databases are used, and sometimes quite aggressively, to attain a specific goal.

Political parties use databases to contact voters, build support and raise money. These databases have the capacity to be used in an underhanded way, as we are seeing emerge in the current Conservative robocall scandal, but that is not the main point of my discussion.

As in the case with society as a whole, technology has changed policing. Policing used to simply be about catching law-breakers or first deterring crime by the fact of a police presence, like a cop on the beat. Now, in the words of David Lyon, the world-leading surveillance studies scholar:

As with database marketing, the policing systems are symptomatic of broader trends. In this case the trend is towards attempting prediction and pre-emption of behaviors, and of a shift to what is called “actuarial justice” in which communication of knowledge about probabilities plays a greatly increased role in assessments of risk.

What the above quote means is that modern policing is more and more about data collection, necessarily through surveillance and building profiles through data collection and then tracking individuals who could theoretically pose a problem for public security.

That is all well and good. We want to prevent crime. We want the police to be proactive and vigilant in preventing crime. However, the new technologically sophisticated crime prevention tools also come with side effects. Some of these we may not want to live with or otherwise want to constrain through rigorous, effective and wise laws, or by standing up to hold the government to account when it introduces legislation that is rooted in this human fascination with the power and possibilities of technology in allowing us to control our surroundings.

Proponents of greater state surveillance say that we have nothing to be worried about if we are not doing anything wrong. However, that attitude, apart from sounding like it comes from big brother's two-way television monitor, ignores the fact that individuals can suffer the consequences of surveillance even if they have done nothing wrong. We only need to think of Maher Arar and others who have been unjustly detained at the border or at airports and who were completely innocent. Surveillance technology has placed them in the wrong category, under the wrong tab, in the big brother database, even though they had nothing to hide.

This is where modern surveillance technology can lead us if we are not careful to constrain and control it through good laws that protect our charter right to privacy and our right to live in a healthy free-thinking democracy. These new Internet surveillance technologies can catch the innocent in its ever-expanding web.

Christopher Parsons, at the University of Victoria, has described how this can happen. We need to consider the following scenario, and I will quote because I do not think anyone could have put it better. He says:

In college/university/your private life you...communicate with individuals who have, or presently do, agitate peacefully against certain state [behaviours]. You may or may not be aware that those individuals behaviour...[or perhaps you know nothing about it]. [In any case,] you...engage in discussions with those people online, either on websites that those opposed to certain state behaviours, or in the comments section of newspaper articles, or other electronic formats. Should the police be interested in tracking the individuals invested in an issue (e.g. legalization of marijuana [or] protest against federal decisions concerning Sri Lankan immigrants...[with whom you have been talking] [your]...subscriber records for all who have participated in the online discussion. Now, let’s...assume that you were not supportive of opposition to an official government position and...aren’t necessarily of direct interest to authorities. Regardless, your subscriber data and that of everyone else engaged in these discussions might be requested by the police. No warrant is required to provide this information. ... They would get the same information for every participant of the discussion. With this information they could turn to whomever provided the email account, as well as contact the ISP who provisioned the IP address at the specific time that you posted your message. With information from the email provider they may be able to definitely identify the ISP that you use and, from there, your name, address, and so forth. ... [You] will never know that [you were] added into such a database because the service provider could not legally disclose that the information had been released and, as a result, [your] life prospects may change for legally associating and speaking with those who were similarly engaged in legal speech and association.

Some people will say that they would never have these kinds of discussions online, only over the phone. Bill C-30's provisions, allowing the state to obtain six pieces of subscriber information without a warrant, still leaves a law-abiding citizen vulnerable. If people have a cellphone and are downtown shopping and they happen to walk by a protest, such as a G20 protest, stop with a friend to observe this because it is something they do not see everyday; or they visit an occupy camp; or were a passive spectator in the 2011 Vancouver hockey riots, their cellphone's identity may be captured by police. This can happen because police can use a technology known in the U.S. as a Stringray IMSI catcher, which is a piece of equipment that emulates a cellphone tower and captures IMSI numbers within several kilometres of the capture.

IMSI means international mobile subscriber identity number. This number can be taken to a mobile phone provider and used under clause 16(1) of Bill C-30 to obtain one's name, address and Internet protocol number. In other words, the cellphone subscriber can find his or her information sent to police and entered into a police database.

As a result of clause 23 of Bill C-30, the telecommunications service provider would be prohibited from disclosing to a subscriber that his or her basic subscriber information has been submitted upon request to a law enforcement agency. As Christopher Parsons concluded:

The capacity to acquire IMSI numbers en masse, combined with legal powers to compel subscriber information, creates the perfect framework for mass fishing expeditions based on where citizens are physically present.

Some might say that the police would never track people in this way nor would they go to the next step of gathering information on people's friends and acquaintances. However, the evidence confirms otherwise. In fact, at the Vancouver Olympics, people who were conducting legal actions and protests of the games became the targets of a surveillance apparatus that followed their entries on web forums even though disclosed memos obtained in the lead up to the Olympics found that no specific credible threat existed.

Furthermore, he states:

Surveillance and intelligence gathering did not solely focus on citizens involved...but also their contacts, friends, students, former partners, and academic and professional acquaintances.

Efforts were made to recruit neighbours, friends and acquaintances to spy on suspected activists.

This concern about Bill C-30 opening the door further to the state being able to track protestors who are legally voicing their views in a democracy was the motivation and the essence of my question for the Minister of Public Safety on February 14 when the minister, through his answer, triggered a national firestorm by his disproportionate answer to that question.

Proponents of expanding the surveillance powers through the adoption of Bill C-30 claim that these powers would be used to investigate the most serious crimes only. However, this is not what the experience in other countries shows. In other jurisdictions, similar powers have been used to investigate less serious offences.

According to Nestor Arellano, there is no shortage of research which indicates that the implementation of an online surveillance regime in the European Union and the United States has been fraught with flaws, abuse and costs ultimately shouldered by Internet service providers tasked by government to essentially snoop on their customers.

More than 10 years ago, the United Kingdom passed the regulation of investigatory powers act to extend law enforcement agencies access to communication systems to help police battle crime and terrorist related activity. Under a voluntary code of practice, ISPs retain data such as content of email servers, email server logs, IP addresses, SMS messages and others from six to twelve months. Reports from the interception commissioner, which provides a yearly assessment of interception of communication traffic, indicate that a growing number of interception errors are occurring. In 2007, there were 24 interception errors and breaches found, which the commissioner deemed to be too high, according to Mr. Parsons.

In 2009, there were 36 interception errors and breaches attributed to the general communications headquarters of the secret service, Her Majesty's Revenue Agency and Customs Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Scottish government, the metropolitan police counterterrorism command and the National Technical Assistance Centre. During that year, there were a total of 525,130 requests for communications data that resulted in 661 reported errors.

A report released by the U.K. civil liberties group Big Brother Watch paints a troubling picture of how law enforcement agents handle data that passes through their hands. The organization found that, between 2007 and 2010, 243 police officers and staff received criminal convictions for breaking the country's data protection act; 98 police officers and staff were terminated for breaching the data protection act; and 904 police officers and staff were subjected to internal disciplinary procedures for breaching the data protection act. In one notable case, no less than 208 officers and staff received legal caution for viewing computer records related to a high profile crime. In another, a staff member was dismissed for discussing police information on Facebook. Numerous others were found to have access to criminal records and personal data for no obvious policing purposes.

In the United States, the problem is more significant, according to Parsons who says that the country “suffers from endemic inappropriate surveillance”. He said that the National Security Agency reportedly runs a warrantless wiretapping system with the assistance of major telecom providers, such as AT&T. A large amount of the surveillance conducted by state and federal agencies goes unreported.

This leads me to my conclusion. Privacy is fundamental in a healthy democracy, which is why our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains section 8. Section 8 of the charter provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with our primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in a pat-down or entering someone's property on surveillance.

Why is privacy fundamental? If law-abiding citizens feel they are being spied on, they begin to withdraw from the normal activities of life, like expressing themselves freely and legitimately, including nowadays through digital communication. When they withdraw, the seed of fear grows and whenever there is fear there is potential for manipulation by those in charge. Those in charge, who, understandably, like their powerful position, will drift, perhaps unconsciously, toward using that power to accumulate even more power. They will always do so under the pretense that the additional power is being used for the good. Those same people in charge, at least the less discerning and perhaps more sincere ones, will believe in their hearts that the system of increased state power they are building is for the larger good.

We hear from proponents of Bill C-30 that we must emulate other countries. However, we are not Europe and we are not the United States. We have the most modern rights charter of any of those countries. We are highly evolved and often ahead of the pack when it comes to respect for individual liberties. As Parsons has said, there is no need for cross-jurisdictional envy in these matters.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Portage—Lisgar Manitoba

Conservative

Candice Bergen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Madam Speaker, I know all of us in this place agree that we want to fight online predators while at the same time respect Canadians' privacy.

What still is not clear to me is that the Liberals introduced this type of legislation not just once but three times with much less privacy protection. There were 11 indicators that police and law enforcement would have access to, whereas we have brought it down to 6. We could discuss why the different indicators, whether it is 11 or 6, but the principle here is that it appears that the Liberals, instead of being principled and standing firm on what they believe is best for the country and for law enforcement, have now been swayed by this avalanche of misinformation. Unfortunately, it looks like this is political expediency as opposed to doing the right thing for Canadians and for police.

I would ask very respectfully how the Liberals could have introduced this three times and supported it and now do this complete flip-flop. It is very disturbing and I think Canadians, who have been watching this, not just over the last couple of months but over the last many years, would be very disturbed by this.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, a version of this bill was introduced in 2005, seven years ago. In the world of technology, things move very quickly. In 2005, many people did not use the Internet. Facebook and Twitter did not exist. The world evolved and we need to take account of the implications of that evolution. That is the context in which we have to see the point that the hon. member raised.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, in 2002, when the Liberal government at that time launched its consultations on lawful access, it received feedback from the Privacy and Information Commissioners. Some of the feedback said:

The proposed measures go far beyond what is necessary to maintain existing capabilities and authorities in the face of modern communications technology.

With that feedback, I wonder why the Liberal government continued down the path of creating legislation measures and why now today the Liberals criticize the current legislation, Bill C-30, which is in front of us. In their legislation, it contained warrantless access provisions and intercept ready standards for TSPs. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment on why the sudden change in tune and approach here.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the sincere questions by the member.

I wish I could shed light on all the discussions around that bill, but unfortunately I was not in cabinet and am not aware of some of those discussions. However, I will say that the bill never reached the second reading stage.

Had the bill reached debate stage at second reading it is quite possible that the same concerns would have been expressed, though I have a feeling that maybe they would not have, because this was seven years ago. It was pre Facebook, pre Twitter, and we were maybe not as aware of the erosion of privacy in the communications age as we are today. Perhaps if the bill had been debated at second reading, the government might have benefited from the wisdom of members such as the hon. member, me and others.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, in the context of his very helpful comments about Bill C-30, I ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis about the following.

I put it to him that in the last number of years we have seen a sequence of decisions that have undermined the charter, the rule of law and respect for these institutions, beginning with the elimination of the Law Reform Commission, including the elimination of the court challenges program, as well as the government's ignoring of the decision of the courts relating to the charter rights of Omar Khadr.

In that context, I wonder if we are seeing, as this opposition motion seems to suggest, a lack of understanding of the critical importance of the charter in our daily lives.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting comment and it may be very true.

Canadians look to the government for guidance on issues and to reaffirm values such as those in the charter. Yet we see the government not being enthusiastic about supporting the charter or the rule of law. For example, we saw the Minister of Public Safety, I think for the third time in six weeks, being told by the court that he was wrong in refusing a prisoner transfer. In fact, he had no legal basis for making his decision.

Therefore, when we have a minister of the crown constantly forcing the courts to override him, that leaves a question in the minds of many Canadians as to whether our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is indeed sacrosanct.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would have us believe that they have reduced the number of identifiers from 11 to 6, and that those 11 were previously introduced by the Liberals. However, the Conservatives do not tell Canadians that they have left the back door open. They can add additional identifiers through regulation and without any scrutiny by this House. I would ask my Liberal colleague to comment on that.

Could additional identifiers be added, maybe even more than the 11 the Liberals previously had?

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the government has shown that it is ready to change its mind as political circumstances evolve. For example, former Minister Stockwell Day said that he would not allow any identifiers to be accessed without a warrant. The new minister, once the government had its majority tucked under its arm, quickly changed that position.

I agree with the hon. member: I do not think we can trust much that comes from the government. It can change its positions depending on how political circumstances change.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, to follow up, I asked my hon. colleague a question about the double standard that the Liberals appear to have. His answer was that the bill was only introduced in 2005. I want to inform him that it was reintroduced by his party in 2007 and 2009. In fact, I will quote the MP for Beauséjour, who said in March of 2009:

I have a sense that in terms of the tools that police forces need to really deal with the growing problem of organized crime, the laws haven't kept up in terms of ability to get search warrants. I know that since 2005 there have been proposals around modernizing investigative techniques, specifically with respect to intercepting cell phones, e-mails, BlackBerrys.

This was said by a Liberal. He continued:

The old tools, the old laws and regulations, and common law around search warrants, lawful access, etc., haven't kept up with the technology that organized crime is using.

There needs to be a principled answer by the Liberals. We need to know why they are flip-flopping and changing their minds. It is pure political expediency instead of being honest with Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, if I recall, and I was there, the Liberals did not form government in 2006, so we could not have brought in a Liberal bill after November 2005.

With regard to her other comments, I will let other members answer for themselves.

We essentially are trying to make this a better bill. I would turn the table on the parliamentary secretary by saying that when the bill was introduced February 13 or 14, the government said it had struck the proper balance between privacy rights and public safety. It flipped its position and will now submit the bill to committee after first reading, which obviously means there is not a balance.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Portage—Lisgar Manitoba

Conservative

Candice Bergen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I am pleased to be able to rise today and join this debate on the motion by the interim Liberal leader. I am also pleased to have the opportunity to try to correct the avalanche of rhetoric, misinformation and lack of understanding that has been levelled at Bill C-30, which the member for Toronto Centre has based this motion around.

Our government has proposed legislation to ensure that Canada's laws adequately protect Canadians online. We expect Parliament to conduct a thorough review of our proposed legislation to ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting Canadians from crime while respecting Canadians' privacy rights.

I want to reiterate that point. I believe all of us in this House have the same goals in mind: we want to protect Canadians and to make sure that criminals are not able to access the Internet and use it to harm the most vulnerable in our society, especially our children. At the same time, we want to protect Canadians' privacy. I think this is a great opportunity for us to show leadership and together to make the changes, if they are necessary, to keep the tools the police need while striking a balance with privacy.

I go back to my point that the Liberals have supported this type of legislation for 10 years, albeit with weaker privacy protections in fact. Liberal MPs have tabled legislation on three separate occasions, in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Obviously, the members opposite realize that they can table legislation, that is, private members' bills, even if their party is not in government. Indeed, in 2007 and 2009 private members' bills on this were introduced by Liberal members of Parliament and were fully supported by the Liberals.

Once again, this is a very disturbing example of a double standard. The NDP members have been very consistent in their opposition and I give them credit for that, though I wish they would be a little more accurate in their debating. However, the Liberals have been completely inconsistent. It really is disappointing. It appears that the Liberals do not have ideas of their own and are constantly making decisions based on whatever way the wind is blowing and whatever they see as politically expedient. It is disturbing for democracy and for Canadians, wherever they may stand on this issue.

I will begin by clearing the record. This bill is not about police snooping or spying on Canadians. It is not about accessing their chat logs or web visits, nor is it about reading emails or looking at their Facebook pages. This is about equipping law enforcement officers with the tools they need to do their job to protect our children and our families from harm.

Let us be clear. The opposition have made some outrageous allegations, such as that the police will be trolling law-abiding Canadians, looking for information, reading emails and looking at their web activity. This is outrageous. It is completely inaccurate and, sadly, it has taken the debate on this bill to a very disturbing and destructive level. It has been personally destructive for certain members in this House. It has been destructive for democracy. I am hoping that today we can turn a new page and speak about the bill truthfully and debate it with respect, and maybe agree to disagree. We can take it to committee and make modifications. However, I am hoping that we can turn a new page and have a respectful and honest debate where people are not personally attacked. Sometimes families are hurt very badly by what goes on here.

I also just want to mention that I have been able to speak with a number of police officers, police chiefs and police forces dealing with online criminal activity. When I speak to police officers, they tell me they need resources and that they are still reeling from the Liberal cuts of the 1990s, including the decision to shut down RCMP Depot.

I want to outline why police are speaking with one voice, including front-line officers, officers who are on the ground, and police associations. They are speaking with one voice on Bill C-30 and looking to all of us in this chamber to stop trying to score cheap political points by fearmongering and using terms such as “prisoner bracelets” in talking about this bill. Police want us to bring the level of rhetoric down and not fearmonger but rather talk about this in an honest way again. Canadians have asked police to do a very difficult job, especially in tracking and trying to combat child pornography, for example. They need the tools from us to do their jobs.

Law enforcement officials from across the country have come together with the request that we provide them with 21st century tools and technologies to fight 21st century criminals, and not leave them handcuffed while criminals have their way.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said it well when he said that right now we are asking police to rely on “typewriters and rotary phones while criminals have smart phones and tablets.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police endorsed lawful access legislation when it was first introduced by former Liberal minister of public safety Anne McLellan over a decade ago. Canadians recognize the incredible growth in technology which has occurred in recent years. The Liberals' argument that somehow, because technology has gotten even smarter, faster and more advanced in the last few years, we do not need smarter and more advanced laws is completely ridiculous. It is because of that that we need to have laws in place and tools for police.

Law enforcement officials are being asked to protect the people and the communities of this country with legislation dating to the 1970s and the days of the rotary phone. Police require lawful access to communications and information in time-sensitive investigations into online child sexual abuse but also in cases of organized crime, drug trafficking and terrorism.

It is also important in certain non-criminal areas, like attempted suicide and missing persons cases. In such cases, basic subscriber information is the starting point in an investigation and perhaps the key to saving a life. There are those who suggest that a court order be sought in every single instance, that every request for basic subscriber information have a court order.

I would ask that all of us consider this snapshot of the state of online child sexual exploitation in Canada. According to the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre or NCECC, in the last 30 days alone there were 7,890 Canadian IP addresses from Internet forums involved in sharing or distributing child pornography online. That is just in the last 30 days, and those are just the ones that were accessed by the NCECC.

Consider if telecom service providers refused to provide basic subscriber information. This would translate into 7,890 requests for production orders. A straightforward production order is estimated to take up to three days of work, which translates into 23,670 days of work for those 7,000-plus production orders. We are talking about addresses that are directly involved with producing and distributing child pornography in Canada.

On the other hand, when service providers comply promptly, the same information can be obtained in a matter of hours. More time spent chasing down court orders for basic customer information is less time assessing files and, more importantly, less time rescuing our kids.

Imagine the burden on our justice system and resources if police had to get a warrant every time they needed this basic information, which is the equivalent of information in a modern phone book or a licence plate. If someone drives past a police checkpoint and the police run a licence plate number, they will get more detailed information than the information that would be detailed through this bill.

Between 2009 and 2011, there has been a steady increase of approximately 1,000 reports per year of child pornography referred to the NCECC from Cybertip, domestic and international law enforcement agencies and the public. Bear in mind, one report can have 1,000 Canadian IP addresses attached to it. The fact is that as technology advances, these types of crimes become easier and faster for criminals.

It is also very important to note that while we have been debating this, yesterday the interim Liberal leader, the mover of this motion, confirmed that one of his senior staff members, Adam Carroll, had engaged in negative and very personal attacks on the Minister of Public Safety. I am very glad to see that this individual resigned, though only, it appears, after he was caught by you, Mr. Speaker.

However, it does leave some serious unanswered questions. Did Adam Carroll and the Liberal Research Bureau use taxpayers' dollars and resources in order to conduct this sleazy secret campaign? If so, how much? We hope that—

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was out of order, naming an individual person in the House of Commons whether it is in a speech or in a question. Is that not out of order?

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It is permissible to raise the names of third parties. Members are always cautioned to use such references in a way so as not to impute any diminution of character. Other than using caution, there is no particular Standing Order against the usage. But we will take the caution and recognize again the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I really hope that the interim leader of the Liberal Party will answer some of these questions for Canadians to get to the bottom of it. I also think it is important that we know how the member for Papineau was involved in this campaign. We know that he was active in perpetuating it. Liberals need to come clean. There has been a double standard.

At the end of the day, we all want to protect the most vulnerable in our country. We want to respect the privacy of Canadians. We look forward to looking at the bill thoughtfully and respectfully, and dealing with it in the best interests of Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will avoid partisan arguments, of which there may be too many in this House. My question for the parliamentary secretary is basically very simple. Currently, legal procedures such as the use of telewarrants make it possible to obtain warrants extremely quickly.

Why is this bill relevant if law enforcement can legally obtain information without violating individual rights and freedoms? Why go over a judge's head? That is an important question.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, the challenge that police officers face when it comes to online criminal activity is they need some basic information about where the criminal activity might be coming from to even obtain a warrant. For example, if there is an IP address, officers obviously do not know the name of the individual or the address that is attached to that IP address. They cannot try to get a warrant.

That is why the bill is very specific. It refers to a limited amount of information. Again, this is information that would be accessible in a phone book or through a CPIC check. Then if a judge agrees that more information is needed, that the IP address needs to be monitored and tracked, that the police should have more powers, the judge would be able to give that warrant. It is so the police can have the initial information in order to obtain a warrant in a timely manner.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member is so out of tune with reality I will have to reserve my full comments for when I am provided the opportunity to address the bill itself.

At the end of the day, the member has to recognize that her own legislation is so fundamentally flawed that the government has recognized that it needs to go to committee even before second reading. I give the government credit for doing that. However, it took the public to collectively slap the hands of the minister because the minister did not do his job in the first place in bringing forward legislation that would have gained the public's support. That is why it is going to second reading.

Does the member believe that the government will listen to what Canadians are saying on this legislation before it comes back for second reading? Is the government actually going to listen to what Canadians have to say about this very important issue?

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and FreedomsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I find this unbelievable and ridiculous. If members do not have a point to make, they holler and scream and think that will make their point clear. It does not. Canadians see that. Frankly, it is disgusting behaviour.

Let us look at what the Liberals said. On March 30, 2009, Ujjal Dosanjh said:

This particular organization of investigative techniques, MITA, as it's called, was brought forward in 2005 by then Minister Anne McLellan. It died on the order paper. You don't have to do any more drafting. It's done. It's sitting there within the justice department. Why have you not moved on it? Why do you not think this is important for the police? They want to be able to apprehend or disrupt gang activity and they are at a disadvantage because of the state of the law in this area. It goes back over 30 years.

While the Liberals are screaming and hollering, they have introduced this motion today purely based on political expediency, with no principle, no reason behind it except that they put their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. That is the Liberal--