I think in the final analysis a warrant will be required whenever foreign surveillance involves covert interception of telecommunications. I also believe the amendments [to the law] may be interpreted as requiring a warrant any time an operation may violate international or foreign law. These would be sensible standards, but because the bill is not emphatic, establishing these standards may require another round of litigation. Therefore I strongly urge the committee to pre-empt the necessity of another half-decade of uncertainty by adding clear language on the trigger for seeking a foreign surveillance warrant.

In committee, we tried just that. We wanted to introduce an amendment, but in the end it was not needed, because another member of the opposition tried something similar. However, it started with the words “for greater certainty” and then said that a warrant would be needed where investigative activities conducted outside of Canada would normally require a warrant if conducted inside of Canada—by reason of the charter—or if the activity may be inconsistent with international law or the law of the foreign state.

Therefore, in tandem with what Professor Forcese said, the official opposition is firmly of the view that this is already implicit in the law, even though the government has chosen not to clarify what standard is needed for a warrant to be requested on a mandatory basis. It is very clear, at a minimum, that the standard I just read out, and which was offered up by Professor Forcese, is what clearly the courts will read into the law. This is the official opposition's understanding of the very minimum requirements for a warrant.

Motions in amendmentProtection of Canada from Terrorists ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth will have approximately eight minutes when we resume debate on the bill.

The House resumed consideration from December 5 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-43.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The question is on Motion No. 47. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 48.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize, but I was so dazzled and mesmerized by the splendour of the tie of the President of the Treasury Board that I think I may have been overlooked in the voting. I wish to indicate that I am voting in support.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #302

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I declare Motion No. 47 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 48 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 50.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 51.

(The House divided on Motion No. 50, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #303

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders

7 p.m.