Debates of Feb. 25th, 2013

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague builds on some of his early comments about the government's pattern of behaviour in bringing forward legislation that it knows to be unconstitutional. I would like him to address this while taking into account three things.

The first is that the government has already been found to be in contempt by the Speaker of the House of Commons for the first time, not just in Canadian history but commonwealth history, for not bringing forward costs on crime bills.

The second thing I would like him to take into account is that there is a legal duty on the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation that is deemed to be constitutional and, I would argue, goes further because, as a lawyer, the Minister of Justice is bound as an officer of the court to do so.

The third is that the day after David Daubney retired, a former Conservative member of Parliament who used to head up the criminal law policy unit for the Department of Justice, he assaulted the government for forcing that unit to be unable to deliver up options which it told the government would be constitutional with its crime bills.

Could my colleague explain the pattern of this kind of deceptive and unacceptable behaviour?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's expertise in the law. He has tremendous and lengthy experience in the legal profession. I, on the other hand, am not a lawyer, but I will attempt to answer his questions the best I can.

I believe it is because the government is in a permanent campaign. Therefore, it thinks it can simplify and spin, with a view to scoring political points. When dealing with important legislation after the campaign is over, that attitude should be put on the shelf. It is time to get down to serious business.

On the other matter of whether the minister is properly vetting legislation or instructing his ministry to vet legislation against charter principles, if I were the Minister of Justice, which I will not be because I am not a lawyer, I know that if the Prime Minister said not to worry about charter concerns, that we would adopt a sue-me-later attitude, I would respectfully tell the Prime Minister that I could not do it and that my professional ethics made other demands on me.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question but I am curious. He just told us what he would do if he were the Minister of Justice. We are not there yet, but I have a question for him in his capacity as an MP who works on the justice file.

We know that Bill C-30 was introduced and practically caused an uproar. The NDP wants to ensure that the new Bill C-55, which we are discussing today, is in line with the charter and the new parameters set out by the court for protecting people's right to privacy.

What does my colleague think we should do while examining Bill C-55 to ensure that the charter and the right to privacy are respected? What procedures need to be followed? What should be done before the bill is passed?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I read the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. Tse very closely. I read the decision with Bill C-55 in hand, and I was able to see that this bill follows the court's privacy directives.

Some of the bill's wording bothers me, though, and the member for Gatineau mentioned one example. Does the term “peace officers” include private sector security guards? Is the definition that broad?

I expect the government to agree to have subject matter experts testify before the committee and to give these experts the latitude to fully address the issue.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that we would support the bill going to committee, but I have two specific questions.

First, is there any advice he can provide the committee that would be studying the bill in terms of amendments or areas of improvement to the bill?

Second, could the member comment on the extent to which the drafters of the bill have heeded the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada? Is all of the advice contained in the Tse decision incorporated into the bill or is there room for improvement?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is another fine member of the bar.

Based on my reading of the decision, the bill responds to the concerns and directives expressed in the decision. However, as I mentioned in my speech, I am a little curious as to why the government went further in some way than the court requested when it came to the applicability of section 184.4 to offences.

The court was quite clear in its decision that section 184.4 did not have to apply exclusively to the offences in section 183. Yet the government seems to have narrowed the scope of section 184.4 to only those offences. If the government really wants to prevent harm to persons or property, why does it not take the broader perspective that the court recommended?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent, elegant, hard-working and resourceful member for Halifax. She will be using the second half of the time allotted for this speech, so we will have the opportunity to hear from her.

I am rising after the member for Gatineau, who gave a wonderful speech about this issue.

We will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, it is unbelievable that the government is introducing a bill now, even though it knew for a year that changes were needed.

The Conservatives did nothing for a year. They introduced Bill C-30, which the public clearly rejected. The government even tried to denounce those who were opposed to their ill-conceived bill. The government reacted, but luckily, pressure from the Canadian people eventually forced it to abandon the bill.

Now the Conservatives have introduced Bill C-55, only 19 days before the deadline of April 13, 2013, which was imposed by the Supreme Court.

We have 19 days in total to debate it at second reading and to examine it in committee. We have 19 days to hear from witnesses from all over and to do the clause-by-clause study in order to avoid problems and ensure that the Supreme Court does not have to deal with another botched bill from this government. We have 19 days to get to third reading, to consider proposed amendments and to have a final debate and vote. That is completely ridiculous, when we have known for a full year that the government had work to do on this.

Once again, the government did not do its job. This is not the first time. We on this side of the House see this as a real problem.

As the hon. member for Gatineau put it so well, this government's bills are botched, improvised, flawed and nonsensical.

When our work is not done in the House, when witnesses do not have time to come and share their expertise, and when members do not have time to do the clause-by-clause and amend a bill based on what witnesses tell us, what happens?

True to form, the government moves a closure motion, and the bill passes, even if it is a bad, improvised bill. Canadian taxpayers are then forced to pay judges to examine the merits of the bill.

When the government does not do its job and disrespects the opposition members, Canada as a whole pays the price. Now the Supreme Court has to examine several Conservative bills that are botched, flawed and improvised. In fact, the Conservatives introduced yet another botched bill here today.

The Conservatives continue to have an attitude of entitlement. They think that they can introduce any bill in the House and that it does not matter if it is flawed. As a result, we end up spending a lot more time and tax dollars to fix these botched bills than we would if the Conservatives were disciplined and did their homework properly from the start. I think that Canadians are fed up with this.

That is one of the many reasons why more and more Canadians are saying that they look forward to 2015, when they will be able to get rid of this government and bring in a government that will introduce well-written bills, listen to witnesses and amend its bills accordingly.

In a democracy, it takes time to listen to the opinions of people across this diverse country and to fine-tune bills.

The government is being irresponsible and taking that time away from us. Even if we could work together since the deadline is 19 days away, the reality is that, if the government refuses to co-operate and tries to impose its opinion, then we will once again end up with a Conservative bill that is likely to be challenged in the courts.

If the government refuses to co-operate and tries to impose its opinion, we will once again end up with a Conservative bill that will be challenged in the courts, as we heard this morning and as we have been seeing for months. That is not what Canadians want. They want us to take the time to do things right here in Parliament.

We now have 19 days to put forward this piece of legislation. We have 19 days to get through every single level of speaking, hear from witnesses and get through all of this work. All of this could have been avoided if the government had simply done its work a year ago. After the judgment came forward from the Supreme Court, the government could have moved forward in a responsible way. It chose not to.

Yet again, we have the Conservatives basically asking the NDP to fix the mistakes they have made. Very many Canadians are looking forward to the day when we will not have to have Conservative mistakes fixed, when we will have an NDP government that can bring forward legislation that actually meets that test and receives the consent of the population.

I want to talk about the broader justice agenda. Bill C-55 is part of it. It is symptomatic of just how bad the Conservatives are on justice issues. We had crime prevention programs in the country that were doing a remarkable job. Crime prevention programs are a good investment for Canadians. When we put $1 into crime prevention, we save $6 later on in policing costs, court costs and prison costs. For every buck put into crime prevention, we see a $6 return. More importantly, we do not see victims, because the crime is never committed in the first place. That has always been the foundation of how the NDP has approached justice issues.

What did the Conservatives do? They gutted crime prevention programs. They destroyed them across the country. In my area and elsewhere, Conservatives have gutted the funding that would allow crime prevention programs to stop the crime before it is even committed, to stop having victims because the crime is not committed, saving $6 in policing costs, court costs and prison costs for every $1 spent on crime prevention.

The Conservatives have done far more in a negative way for Canada. The whole issue of putting more front-line police officers in place was a commitment made by our former leader, Jack Layton, and by the Conservatives before the last election. What have the Conservatives done? Nothing. They have failed on that front-line policing duty.

Most egregious, and there is only one way to put this, is the Conservatives' complete lack of respect for our nation's police officers and firefighters in terms of the public safety officer compensation fund. Members will recall that six years ago, before the Conservatives were elected, they voted for and committed to putting in place a public safety officer compensation program so that when our nation's police officers or firefighters are killed in the line of duty, killed protecting the Canadian public, their families are taken care of.

Since that time, I have talked to families who have lost their homes, kids who have had to quit university, and spouses who have had to try to put something together to keep the family together, because the Conservatives broke their promise to the nation's police officers and firefighters. For six long years now, firefighters and police officers have been coming to Parliament Hill. For six long years, the Conservatives have given them nothing more than the back of their hands. That is deplorable.

In 2015, when an NDP government is elected, what we are going to see is respect for the nation's police officers and firefighters. We are going to see in place a public safety officer compensation fund. We will never again see the families of our nation's police officers and firefighters left to fend for themselves because the federal government does not respect them and does not care about them.

We in the NDP take a different approach on these issues. We actually believe that bills should be brought forward in the House of Commons in a respectful way. We should hear from witnesses, improve the legislation, and make sure that it is not the type of legislation that is then subject to court challenges just to fix the mistakes the government has made.

We would take a more mature and more professional approach to justice issues. Like so many other Canadians, I can hardly wait for 2015.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. As always, his passion for the legislative process is evident. He pointed out the Conservatives' shortcomings in some areas, including the fact that it does not allow us enough time to examine bills that it introduces. The bills should also not be bricks.

I would like to hear what he has to say about the fact that MPs once again have limited time to speak, all because the government has been dragging its feet. Does this not remind him of all the times debate on other bills has been cut short? It is a similar tactic used in a different way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is a strong advocate for her constituents and all Canadians in this House. I appreciate her work in the House and thank her for her question.

That is precisely the problem. I am talking about those who voted for the Conservative Party, and I know there are fewer and fewer of them. In my riding, the people who voted for the Conservative Party last time have no intention of doing so next time because of things like this. The government hands Parliament sloppy bills, and these bills then get passed because the government moves closure motions. These same bills end up being challenged in court. Then, taxpayers end up on the hook for the court costs to fix the problems.

Although we sometimes agree with the principles of certain bills, they are patched together and are so poorly drafted that taxpayers are forced to spend more of their hard-earned money to fix the Conservatives' mistakes. Canadians deserve better than that.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia on his awesome speech. He talked about all the promises the Conservatives made to the police officers and firefighters six years ago. We could hear them yip-yapping in the background. We can still hear them.

Now they have a chance to stand and ask questions, but they are not. What is happening on the other side? Are they maybe ashamed of having promised these firefighters and police officers that they would do something to help their families, and now that it is time to do it, they are not doing anything?

Would the member give his opinion on that, please?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt is a terrific member to work with. I work with him on the natural resources committee. He has been a very strong representative for Nickel Belt in the House of Commons. He is very eloquent and very knowledgeable, so I appreciate his question.

It is absolutely shameful treatment. It is shameful for the Conservatives to have voted to bring in the NDP bill and to have promised in the election campaign that they would bring it in. For six years police officers and firefighters have been asking, “Can you take care of our families when we pass on? When I die in the line of duty, can you take care of my family?” Is that too much to ask so that they do not have to sell their homes, so that the kids do not have to quit school, and so that they are actually taken care of by a grateful nation? That is what New Democrats stand for. That is what Canadians stand for: respect for our nation's police officers and firefighters.

I have no doubt that the Conservatives should be ashamed of the behaviour they have exhibited over the last six years by giving the back of their hands to firefighters and police officers in our country.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note the heckling from the other side about “hug-a-thug” and that kind of nonsense. It is pretty depressing to be here and to hear that kind of talk, when it is very clear that the hecklers on the other side have not actually read this legislation and do not really know what it is about. This is a serious issue in front of us. This is a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has instructed Parliament to change the Criminal Code of Canada.

Let us do a legal analysis of the bill. We will start with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, let us start with section 8, which provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. There are very few words, but there is a lot packed into that section.

The courts have held that a search without a warrant is unreasonable. The standard for determining whether a search is reasonable is to have it brought before a judge. There must be a neutral and impartial party, such as a judge, who can determine if a search is unreasonable. However, the courts have noted, in particular Justice Dickson in Hunter v. Southam that:

[I]t may not be reasonable in every instance to insist on prior authorization in order to validate governmental intrusions upon individuals' expectations of privacy. Nevertheless, where it is feasible to obtain prior authorization, I would hold that such authorization is a precondition for a valid search and seizure.

However, there is also a long line of case law that states that judicial authorization can actually be waived if there is potential for serious and immediate harm or exigent circumstances. I use those words purposely: serious and immediate harm. For example, when a person calls 911, the police are actually permitted to enter the home without a warrant. Why? It is because it has been held that the police duty to protect life warrants and justifies a forced entry into the home in order to figure out if the person is safe. Section 184 of the code says that violations of privacy are against the law, but then we say that this can be violated or waived with judicial authority. However, judicial authority can be waived if there is potential for serious and immediate harm. That is the chain of thinking.

Bill C-55 is an attempt to update the wiretapping provisions in section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Why? The government is making an attempt to update the code after the Supreme Court of Canada's decision R. v. Tse struck down the wiretapping provisions in the Criminal Code because they violated section 8 of the charter, which I described, which is the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

It is worth noting that the court gave us the deadline of April 13, 2013 to correct the decision, but here we are in February 2013 debating this legislation.

I will move on to the analysis. Before we can analyze Bill C-55 and the government's proposal, we need to take a close look at what the Supreme Court said about section 184.4. We need to understand the problems with section 184.4 and why it was struck down if we are going to be able to understand whether this attempt by the government actually fixes those problems or whether we are going to have the same constitutional problems.

The court stated that:

[I]n principle, it would seem that Parliament may craft a narrow emergency wiretap authority for exigent circumstances to prevent serious harm if judicial authorization is not available through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

These are lots of words, but let us unpack them.

When section 184.4 made its way through Parliament in 1993, there was testimony at committee about the need for this kind of emergency power for situations such as hostage takings, bomb threats and armed standoffs. These are pretty serious situations. There was also testimony that this was necessary for very short periods of time during which it might be possible to actually stop that threat and prevent harm from occurring.

I will return later to the phrase “peace officers” in the wording of section 184.4.

Peace officers may only use the power to wiretap without judicial authority if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the urgency of the situation is such that authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision in the part, so there are four key concepts there.

What happened? The Supreme Court of Canada found that section 184.4 does not meet accountability standards because it does not provide any accountability measures. If we think about it, wiretapping is not at all like a 911 emergency call.

I want to quote something important from the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada quoted Justice Davies who, I believe, wrote the court of appeal decision:

The interception of private communications in exigent circumstances is not like situations of hot pursuit, entry into a dwelling place to respond to a 9-1-1 call, or searches incidental to arrest when public safety is engaged. In those circumstances, the person who has been the subject of a search will immediately be aware of both the circumstances and consequences of police action. The invasion of privacy by interception of private communications will, however, be undetectable, unknown and undiscoverable by those targeted unless the state seeks to rely on the results of its intentionally secretive activities in a subsequent prosecution.

In other words, it would actually come out in court. In this case, however, a person could actually be wiretapped and never know it. There is no accountability here.

Another piece that the Supreme Court quoted was the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers Association, and I think this is really interesting:

...notice is neither irrelevant to section 8 protection, nor is it a “weak” way of protecting section 8 rights, simply because it occurs after the invasion of privacy. A requirement of after-the-fact notice casts a constitutionally important light back on the statutorily authorised intrusion. The right to privacy implies not just freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but also the ability to identify and challenge such invasions, and to seek a meaningful remedy. Notice would enhance all these interests. In the case of a secret warrantless wiretap, notice to intercepted person stands almost alone as an external safeguard.

As we can see, it is not at all like a 911 call, and we need to have notice. As was pointed out, notice after the fact is still notice. There needs to be an accountability provision, and the Supreme Court of Canada found that Parliament actually failed to provide adequate safeguards to address the issue of accountability in relation to unwarranted wiretaps and went on to outline why this charter breach was not saved by section 1 of the charter.

Parliament was tasked with drafting a constitutionally compliant provision. How has the government attempted to deal with these accountability provisions?

It did introduce a new provision that the authorization should be reported back to Parliament by the Minister of Public Safety.

Like any law student, I took criminal law, but I am far from a criminal law expert. However, it strikes me that this might actually be a creative way of addressing this issue, the issue of accountability.

Offhand, I cannot think of any similar accountability provisions whereby the accountability problem is solved through annual reports to Parliament. In a way it reminds me a bit of a sunset clause, when legislation is debated and is brought back to the House for debate again, but at the same time, it is really quite different. Through this way of dealing with the report, quite a number of details would be introduced in section 195 of the Criminal Code.

It is interesting, it is potentially very creative, and I am curious about how it would work. My first instinct is to think that it just might work, but then I remember where I am. I am in the House of Commons in the 41st Parliament, with a Conservative government that refuses to accept amendments to legislation, that invokes closure or time allocation to stifle debate, that buries important legislative policies and changes in omnibus legislation.

I would like to see the bill go to committee not just to find out if this is a creative and interesting accountability solution that might work but also to find out if it would work in the context of a government that has such disdain for parliamentary oversight.

I cannot say I have the answer to those questions right now, but I really do think Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the legislation, because the government's record on privacy is not very encouraging.

I very much look forward to the testimony at committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight what we believe is a big issue with the government, and that is negligence in terms of procedure and the way it brings things into the House. The member made reference to this as she started to wind up her speech.

It is important that we recognize that the government is now expecting us to pass the bill through the House, committee, back into the House and so forth, between now and April 13. That is not a reasonable timeframe. However, because the government was so negligent by not bringing the bill forward in a more timely fashion, the type of due diligence the House should be giving to legislation of this nature is going to be put into question. We see the benefits in its going to committee, but I wonder if she might want to comment about the timeframe and the idea that the bill has to be passed by April 13. Would she agree that it is highly irresponsible of the government to do it in such a poor fashion?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that question because I did not have time to address it in my speech.

I do not have answers to the questions I raised here today and I am not sure we are going to be able to get to them in about 19 days. I think this is negligent attention to parliamentary duty. I do not think the government has acted. It did bring forward Bill C-30. We see a lot of the provisions of Bill C-30 now in Bill C-55, but Bill C-30 was a total, utter, abject failure, and Canadians cried out against it. Rightly, finally, the government did withdraw that piece of legislation.

However, here we are. The clock is ticking. It has been practically a year, and now we have this legislation in front of us and we are just supposed to agree and vote for it. That is not responsible decision-making. That is not a responsible way to make legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, compared to Bill C-30, this bill is focused. It is looking at the specific issues of how we appropriately balance warrantless access to anything. I stress warrantless. It is not as though our police forces, even prior to the Criminal Code sections that were found offensive by the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent court case, did not have access, but the idea of warrantless access is inimical to democracy.

It is worrying to say there is not time to go to a judge to get a warrant before intruding in someone's affairs if there is otherwise no lawful access to that information. Clearly, in emergency situations such as kidnapping and so on, we want police to do everything they can to save lives. Does the hon. member for Halifax have any sense at this point whether the public report that would be required at the end of each year would be sufficient to meet the Supreme Court's concerns?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that warrantless searches like this are worrying. However, the courts have determined that in principle Parliament may—and that is a key word—craft a narrow—another key word—emergency wiretap authority for these kinds of circumstances.

Will the report be the balance we need for that extreme violation of our charter rights? I cannot answer that question. This is yet another reason we have to get this bill to committee. We have to have the proper legal analysis.

We also have to have more than 19 days to get this done. The government has not allowed us to do our duty as legislators and properly review this legislation, given the time constraints that the Supreme Court of Canada has given to us.

It is worrying. I absolutely agree with her on that point.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

Although it did not render a ruling, the Supreme Court also considered the issue of the definition of “peace officer”. Could my colleague expand on her extraordinary analysis of the bill by sharing her thoughts with those of us who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who will be debating this issue?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to answer this question as well because I did not have a chance to get to it in my speech.

The Supreme Court of Canada did have a problem with the fact that the wiretap power could be granted to peace officers who were not police officers. The government has, it seems, addressed this problem and has narrowed it to police officers. It potentially looks like a good step. I look forward to the testimony at committee.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I appreciated and enjoyed the presentation from the member for Halifax, who has the constituency adjacent to mine. I know that she and her constituents enjoy looking across at the wonderful constituency of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

We were provided some wonderful information about the Supreme Court decision that led to Bill C-55. I do not have the capacity to engage in the type of legal analysis my colleague did. However, on the question of legislative procedure, there is a need for all members of this House to understand what their responsibilities are and to ensure that they follow through on those responsibilities, so that each and every piece of legislation tabled in this House does not leave the House unless it has been fully examined and vetted and until we have ensured that it is the best possible piece of legislation that it can be.

These are the laws of our country. These are the laws that affect all of our constituents. These are the laws that will continue to exist long after we have left here. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we dot the is and cross the ts so that a piece of legislation does not leave here and immediately get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, because we did not show due diligence.

Members should understand that this bill, which is a direct response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, is being introduced in this House with a time limit of 19 sitting days to deal with it. It is absurd that the government, in all seriousness, would expect members of this House to deal with a piece of legislation of this magnitude—one as detailed and specific as this is, and one with such serious ramifications for privacy and for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada—in 19 sitting days. That means the justice committee will have about two days to examine this important piece of legislation.

Let us not forget that the current government does not have a very good record when it comes to issues of privacy or when it comes to introducing legislation and trying to ram it through this House.

We have already seen provisions in some of its justice legislation struck down and seriously questioned by some of the courts in this land. We know what happened to the bill that was supposed to take care of this, the bill that preceded this, Bill C-30, which was tabled approximately a year ago in this House. It was torqued up by the minister, who tabled it in such a partisan, mean and ugly manner that Canadians from one end of this country to the other responded with outrage at the manner in which the government and that minister were dealing with such a sensitive and important issue to all Canadians.

They spoke with one voice. They said that it was simply unacceptable that the Government of Canada would deal with a very important issue in such a partisan and irresponsible manner. It was later determined, as people sifted through the details of the legislation, that the government did not do what it said it would do, that it was flawed in so many ways that finally the minister and the government tried to kick it under the carpet, pretend they had never tabled it and that they did not know what people were talking about when discussing the infamous Bill C-30.

What I remember, and I suggest what many members on this side and many Canadians remember, was the second attempt, in part to deal with something that Bill C-30 was supposedly to deal with. The government tells us not to worry, that it has been dealt with it, that it has responded to what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, that it has been very specific, that it has limited it to the particular provision as it relates to section 184.4 and that it has it covered. Therefore, there is no need for members to be concerned or engage in a great deal of debate, so we do not need a lot of time.

The NDP critic, who gave such an eloquent and informative speech at the beginning of this debate, suggested that the government often introduced legislation with a sense of arrogance and knowing what was best: regardless of the members opposite and the constituents they represented had to say, the Conservatives were the ones who had all the answers, so when they brought in legislation that they said was good to go, we should say “fine” and let it go. However, that is not what we were sent here to do.

The government has shown that we have to be on our toes because it does not do its job. It has been raised in the House by members on this side on a number of occasions. They wonder why the government does not properly vet legislation. We understand that the demands of the Supreme Court are such that we are not, with completely certainty, able to say that a piece of drafted legislation will pass muster in the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely the government takes the time, and we have not had the answer, to ensure there has been some examination and sense of proportionality that any particular piece of legislation will pass muster in the Supreme Court of Canada, but it has not given us that assurance.

In terms of the legislation the government has presented to the House since May of 2011, much of it has been flawed in detail and substance. It sometimes seems that when the government produces legislation, it is more concerned with the title and politics of the legislation than it is with the details, the substance, the implications and the impact that changing the laws of our country will have on Canadians. That is very much a case of the government thumbing its nose at members of the chamber.

On initial review of this bill, we hope it will do what the government says it will in relation to the Supreme Court decision. There will be an examination of the bill at the justice committee. Let us hope we get the opportunity to examine the bill to ensure that when it heads out of the House, we have made sure it is in fact the best piece of legislation it can be.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on this question. I expect that will happen sometime later this afternoon.

Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday February 17, I had the privilege to present the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal to 17 outstanding individuals from within the Scarborough community. Among the recipients were two metro Toronto auxiliary police, two World War II veterans and five others who have served or are currently serving in our military.

Today I wish to honour Master Corporal Alan Watson and Master Corporal Calvin Lui.

Master Corporal Watson is a chief trainer with the Toronto Scottish Regiment and has provided over 10 years of honourable service to our nation.

Master Corporal Lui has been a member of the armed forces for seven years and has stood in defence of Canada at home and abroad.

Both men have served in Afghanistan. In fact, Master Corporal Lui has served two terms and during the ceremony I learned later that evening he was returning overseas.

It was truly an honour as a member of Parliament to present medals to such deserving individuals. I invite all members of the House to join me in recognizing these brave young men.

Black History Month

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Black History Month draws to a close, I rise to recognize Windsor-Essex's role as the gateway to freedom for untold thousands of men, women and children fleeing the insidious evil of slavery and to commend those fearless Canadians of conscience who, even in the face of grave personal risk, assisted their flight.

Over 40,000 would seek and find in Canada the liberty that was their birthright by way of that great conspiracy of conscience, the underground railroad.

The impact of these newly liberated and their descendants is felt to this day on both sides of the Detroit River. Even in the face of persistent systemic discrimination, they have made invaluable contributions to Canadian society in the fields of politics, the arts, education, commerce and the law, to name just a few.

I urge all Canadians to explore this proud legacy of redemption, which vindicated an oppressed but irrepressible people's belief that somewhere beneath that unwavering star lay the true north—indeed strong, but most important above all, free.

Infrastructure

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure to announce several funding announcements in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

In Area A of the Regional District of East Kootenay, $5.4 million was provided through the gas tax fund for upgrades to an aging sewer system in West Fernie. This will remove septic systems and provide for safe disposal of effluent.

In Fernie, B.C. over $600,000 was provided to upgrade an outflow system for effluent that flows to the Elk River.

In Sparwood, B.C. over $750,000 was provided to upgrade the heating system in the recreation facility. By trapping excess steam from the boiler system, the entire facility will be heated with better efficiency.

These, along with a number of CIIF grants throughout the Kootenay—Columbia riding, continue to create jobs, growth and prosperity, making the Rocky Mountains one of the most sought after places in Canada to live and recreate.

Miss Ally

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the House are aware of the terrible tragedy that happened on Sunday, February 17 when the fishing boat the Miss Ally went down off Nova Scotia with the loss of five lives.

All of us, including my hon. colleague for South Shore—St. Margaret's, in whose riding the community of Woods Harbour is, and all those members across the country who have either through direct experience living near fishing communities or having visited the coast of the country and other parts of the country where there are fishing communities, recognize what a dangerous lifestyle it is to go out on the sea and fish, particularly in a month like February.

All my colleagues, like my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's, join me and the Liberal Party in expressing our condolences, our heartfelt sympathies to the people of Woods Harbour, especially the families affected by this terrible tragedy.

Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Repulse

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one month ago today I had the honour of attending the change of command ceremony for the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Repulse. The ceremony represented the transfer of command from commanding officer Lieutenant Commander David Anderson to the new CO and first female CO of Repulse, Lieutenant Carol Weston.

During Lieutenant Commander Anderson's six years in command, he oversaw many triumphs in the face of adversity for Sarnia's sea cadet corps. From negotiating serious tax issues to overcoming the near closure of the cadet sail centre, David Anderson gave countless hours of dedicated service to address extreme challenges.

His leadership was a major factor in Repulse procuring the Libro ship simulator, making it the only corps in Canada with a DNV-qualified full bridge simulator. Other accomplishments are too numerous to list.

I thank Lieutenant Commander Anderson for his dedicated service and wish him well in future endeavours. I also wish his successor the best as she guides the Repulse for many more years of success.