Dave MacKenzie

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to its study on the state of organized crime in Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Automotive Industry, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have some great news to bring to the attention of this House. Because of investments our government made to ensure increased productivity and greener production, Toyota Canada is investing in Woodstock in my riding. Production of their Rav4 crossover vehicles will see 400 new jobs in the Woodstock area early next year. Production will increase by 50,000 vehicles at the plant. Toyota Canada's chairman, Ray Tanguay, is optimistic that the market is coming back. Previously they announced that their first electric vehicle in North America will be built at the Woodstock plant beginning this year.

Our Conservative government is focused on Canadians' top priority: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Our plan is working for the hard-working families in Woodstock, across my riding and all across Canada.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-310, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[National Flag of Canada Act, March 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-288, an act respecting the National Flag of Canada, a bill brought forward by my colleague from Don Valley West, someone we have been waiting for a while to be elected to the House. We are happy to have him here.

I was also very pleased to hear my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor compliment the member. His comments with respect to how committees have worked in a majority government as opposed to how they sometimes did not work in a minority government speak volumes about the quality of the people on both sides of the House who are willing to make these things happen.

All of us have huge pride as Canadians. As my colleague has already said, beginning in 1965 when it was designated as Canada's national flag, the red and white maple leaf is identified around the world as a symbol of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity. I do not think there are many of us who have not travelled around the world with a pocketful of flag pins. We are very pleased to hand them out to people we meet. We feel proud when they recognize the pins as Canadian. The way Canadians are respected around the world is a great thing. The pin designating the flag is a huge symbol of Canada's pride around the world.

The Canadian flag is flown from Afghanistan to Brazil, from China to Dubai. Canada's brand is instantly recognized on the backpacks of travellers and on the uniforms of the brave men and women who serve as peacekeepers or members of the armed forces. The flag flies from the tops of buildings and from the rafters of hockey arenas in every community. Canadians wave the flag on Canada Day to the latest hits of musicians, showcasing the amazing talent this country has to offer.

We are debating a bill that proposes to enshrine in law the respect we all share for our greatest national symbol, a symbol of freedom, a symbol of hope. The purpose of this debate is that wherever Canadians live across this great country, they should be able to fly the flag and celebrate what brings us together, from Canada Day to new year's day, from citizenship ceremonies to backyard barbecues.

Canadians already have much to celebrate and over the next few years will be brought together as never before. In 2012, we join the rest of the Commonwealth in wishing Her Majesty the Queen all the best for her diamond jubilee. In June, we will commemorate the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812, a war that shaped the country Canada would become. Later in the summer, the flag will take its proud place among the flags of the world in London for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Sooner than we imagine, Canada will celebrate its 150th anniversary as a nation, when the flag will have been part of our shared history for more than 50 years. For every important event over those 50 years, the flag has been present.

Over the last few weeks I have been struck by the fact that hon. members on both sides of the chamber agree on its importance and the good intentions of the hon. member for Don Valley West. My friend across the aisle mentioned that. It is important that we all have the ability to show our attachment to the flag that symbolizes so much for every Canadian. This bill would ensure that all of us will be able to do so no matter where we live. Practically speaking, this bill would encourage a discussion between homeowners, tenants, boards, management companies and condominium associations regarding the best way for Canadians to display their patriotism and not prevent anyone from expressing their attachment.

In spite of many differences, we are all Canadians and the flag unites us. We are all responsible for ensuring the flag endures for many more anniversaries. Canadians should never feel restricted from respectfully displaying their patriotism. When we celebrate Canada's birthday every July 1, we show our pride by waving the flag. When we sing our national anthem, the flag is there. When we send brave serving men and women into danger, they wear a flag that protects them more than any suit of armour. When Canada receives its newest citizens, it welcomes them with the flag. The flag is proudly flown from the Parliament buildings all day, every day.

As the lawmakers for this great country, we should support this bill to encourage that the flag continues to fly on buildings, in backyards and beyond.

I am proud to speak today in support of this bill and to encourage the flying of flags by all Canadians. I would just like to go back to one little thing. We are going to fly that flag in London, England during the Olympics and I feel confident that flag will fly high as Canadian athletes are recognized for the expertise and excellence they will display. I know that the pride of Canadians will show through. I think this is a fantastic bill.

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, committees are the authors of whatever they wish to do in their committees.

Quite frankly, I would wonder why Liberal members would not be standing up supporting this. They have brought it forward in three different parliaments. I do not know what their big problem is. This bill does protect the privacy of Canadians. It provides judicial oversight for that which is being done without judicial oversight.

This is a good piece of legislation. With every bill that goes to committee there is an opportunity for all kinds of input. In this case, I think the member should be supportive of the bill and deal with it in committee.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite understands what he is talking about. Subclause 33(1) says the minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the proposed act. That is this act.

The member gets way past what he is talking about. What we are talking about is the collection of information by lawful authorities that is done under a warrant, under judicial order. It is a whole different thing. There are lots of inspectors out there who inspect a variety of things. This would be an inspector for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the proposed act only. If he were to go on through it he would see that it is for verifying compliance with the act.

I spoke to the owner of an Internet providing agency that does a great deal of business in Southwestern Ontario. He told me that he read the bill. He said that it would put into place all kinds of safeguards that do not exist. I would think that if the member were really interested in this bill and the privacy of Canadians, he would support the bill.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I will begin by thanking the hon. member for Toronto Centre for his motion. I will limit my response to the hon. member's contention that the collection by government of personal information without limits, rules and judicial oversight constitutes a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That implies that Bill C-30 would provide the state with an unlimited authority to intrude on the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. This is profoundly misleading. Bill C-30 was carefully crafted to ensure a continuing respect for privacy and civil liberties are maintained and/or strengthened. Bill C-30 has as its primary objective providing the police and national security agencies with the investigative powers they need to combat 21st century crime.

The data preservation scheme proposed in Bill C-30, for instance, is an important investigative tool that would permit the police to order or demand the temporary preservation of computer data. It would not allow for the disclosure of this information without a warrant. Computer data is highly volatile. Telecommunication service providers, for example, routinely delete computer data as a matter of routine business practice. That is why it is imperative that the police have the power to ensure that computer data that might contain important evidence of a crime does not get deleted by a third party before the police have enough time to obtain it by using a judicially authorized warrant or production order.

Limited timelines are provided for the preservation of this information. After 21 days, the preservation demand, which would be made by the police and is intended to cover the time it takes to get the preservation order, would expire. The order, which would require judicial authorization, would then expire after 90 days. I do not know of anyone in the House who has had the opportunity to apply for a warrant in front of a justice. It takes a great deal of time and is not something where one knocks on the door and the justice simply issues it. Once that order expires, the bill would require that all data retained for the purposes of the investigation and not otherwise kept pursuant to regular business practices be destroyed. This objective is achieved in a manner that is respectful of privacy.

I will now elaborate with reference to the proposed transmission data recorder warrant and production order. The Criminal Code currently contains what is called a dialled number recorder warrant, as well as a production order for the same information. These tools allow investigators to collect and produce phone numbers, for instance the number of a phone used by a suspect in an investigation. The transmission data recorder warrant and production order would update the dialled number recorder warrant and production order in recognition of the fact that day-to-day communications are no longer restricted to the telephone. Rather, people now communicate using a variety of different technologies, such as email and text messaging. Technology has even advanced to the point where the lines between technologies have been blurred so that phone calls can be made over the Internet and cellphones can be used to search the World Wide Web.

It is clear that an investigative tool restricted to the collection of phone numbers is not only out of date but severely limits its usefulness. As a result, the new warrant and production order would now allow for the collection and production of data to traditional telephone numbers, but also found in the Internet world.

Like the existing warrant, the transmission data recorder warrant would be obtained when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the data being sought would assist in the investigation of a crime. Like the existing warrant, the data that could be collected using the warrant would be limited to routing data and telephone numbers. The content of the communications themselves would never be provided under this warrant. To ensure that this power is never used to gain access to the substance of communications, this is written into the definition of transmission data in Bill C-30.

If I were to conclude my remarks at this point, I might leave the impression that Bill C-30 is more or less privacy neutral, that it just maintains the existing safeguards and replicates those safeguards for new investigative powers. However, such an approach without more would fail to take stock of the profound effect that technological advances over the past few decades have had on privacy.

Judicial oversight would ensure an investigation strikes the right balance between individual privacy and the public good. Warrants would be tailored to ensure that the standards guiding that oversight fit with the type of technique at issue. Since tracking people clearly has more privacy implications than tracking cars or other things, the bill would make the standard for getting a warrant to track people higher than that for tracking cars or other objects.

Amendments in the bill would make it necessary for police to prove to judges that they have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that the evidence would assist in the investigation before they are granted the warrant to track people.

Much of Bill C-30 is premised on the idea that each investigative technique the police have at their disposal should have a corresponding investigative power. That is why if data needed to be preserved for the purposes of investigation, Bill C-30 would create a specific way for the police to accomplish that. If the police then needed to obtain that preserved data, they could get a judicially authorized warrant or production order.

The bill in fact follows very closely on three previous bills that have been tabled in the House by Liberal members of the House in 2005, 2007 and 2009.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my remarks have clarified some misconceptions regarding Bill C-30. I do hope, however, that Parliament will take the time to thoroughly study the bill to ensure that it achieves its purpose to better protect Canadians while also ensuring their right to privacy is protected.

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting).

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

[Senator Robert Carrall, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a local unsung hero, Senator Robert Carrall.

Senator Carrall, originally from Ingersoll in my riding of Oxford, received his MD from McGill University in 1859. He used his medical talents as an assistant surgeon for the Union Army during the American Civil War. Upon his return to Canada in 1865, he continued working as a doctor and played an active part in the Cariboo gold rush. In 1868, he was elected to the Legislative Council of British Columbia and was one of three delegates who went to Ottawa to negotiate British Columbia's joining Confederation.

In 1871 he was summoned to the Senate of Canada and was a confidante to Sir John A. Macdonald. He supported the construction of the CP railroad and petitioned Parliament to pass a bill instating the holiday we now know as Canada Day, before dying at the age of 42.

Senator Carrall's story remained largely untold until recently, when Irene Crawford-Siano, of Woodstock, published her ninth book, entitled Senator Robert Carrall and Dominion Day.

We thank Senator Carrall for his inspiring work on behalf of Canadians and Irene for sharing his story.