Hélène LeBlanc

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-55, which amends the Criminal Code to provide, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse, safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of that Act. I would like to mention the four main points included in the bill's summary.

(a) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4; (b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period; (c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception; and (d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

I am emphasizing these four points because one would expect to find these clearly defined points in the bill.

I would like to begin with an argument that was already raised by our justice critic and that is the definition of “police officer”. It is important that this term be better defined in committee. The definition has been narrowed. It reads:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace...

We will have to provide additional clarification. I would also like to point out that the bill in fact updates the wiretap provisions that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. This reminds us of the saga of Bill C-30. Today, we find ourselves in the House with only a few days to study the bill. When the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the number of days left to thoroughly study the bill will pose a problem. A timeline more in keeping with the importance of this bill should have been established in order to properly define the notions covered by this bill.

I would also like to mention that it is vital that this bill include mechanisms to provide oversight and accountability for the investigative measures. As I mentioned with respect to the four points, they must be well defined and there must be accountability. As English members say, there needs to be checks and balances.

We also mentioned that this bill must balance the need for surveillance with specific conditions and exceptional circumstances that have been well defined. These measures must only be used in exceptional circumstances. There must also be accountability for the frequency with which this mechanism is used and the methods used to inform people that they have been affected by this type of interception.

Another point must be clarified. I am the industry critic. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology conducted a study of electronic commerce. We need not look any further to know that our world is ever-changing and that technology is evolving at incredible speed. New technologies are introduced every day. We are surrounded by all manner of electronic devices.

Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code mentions police officers, which, as I said, will have to be defined, because it also mentions “other person”. It states:

A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that

I see “or other” there. I would like to know what this “other” refers to and what it includes. Industry Canada requested and held public consultations regarding the 700 MHz spectrum auction.

Some points were raised during these consultations. I am referring to the documents written by Chris Parsons, a man who follows everything to do with electronics very closely, particularly since the introduction of Bill C-30. Mr. Parsons—and others; this is public information—pointed out that the people who appeared to testify were asked to talk about providing information through other means, such as the Internet, for example.

I will read what was requested of the participants:

The consultation has asked participants to provide comments on a variety of issues. What I focus on are the proposals revolving around 'lawful intercept' conditions of licensing Canadian radio spectrum. These conditions are addressed in paragraphs...operating as a service provider using an interconnected radio-based transmission facility.

Then, witnesses, people from various associations—in the online sector, for example—asked whether it was realistic to ask them how they do things when the legislation is silent on the issue. Bill C-30 had yet to be examined, so people were wondering. For example, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association said:

The Department’s proposal to replace “circuit-switched voice telephony systems” with “interconnected radio-based transmission facility for compensation,” opens up several additional services to interception requirements, including internet services...

They went even further, saying that it was not up to them to act and that legislation needed to be put in place so they could understand where they stood.

That is why I wanted to mention those points. Bill C-55 is very important in the sense that everything in it must be clearly defined, particularly when it states that an officer may “intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication” while respecting public safety requirements in exceptional circumstances. However, I feel it is very important, as do the people of LaSalle—Émard, that a person's privacy be respected.

That is very important. Oversight and accountability mechanisms must be written into a bill such as Bill C-55.

I believe that the members will agree that these requests are completely fair and justified, especially in the interest of the common good and peoples' rights.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

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

I would like her to tell us more about the difficulties we sometimes have in committee. Amendments are often proposed in committee.

Is she confident that the government will listen carefully to us when this bill is examined?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to comment on the importance of accountability. Under the bill, this type of interception is used in exceptional circumstances.

I would also like the hon. member to comment on the importance of always having accountability mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms and well-established conditions in bills, but also on the importance of accountability if this type of monitoring is used.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

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.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gatineau, our justice critic, for her exceptional work on this issue. It is truly remarkable.

This type of bill needs to strike a balance between exceptional circumstances and privacy protection. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this bill achieves that balance. If not, what recommendations would she make to that end?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

In my opinion, we should consult the experts on this. Unfortunately, I cannot say when would be the ideal time to do this. I believe that my colleague has raised a very important point, that is when would be the best time to introduce this type of legislation in order to properly inform all taxpayers, corporations and businesses about their tax returns.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for the question.

In fact, what I noted and what I would like to point out about this bill is the fact that it closes the loopholes in the current taxation system that people and corporations were using to avoid paying income taxes. Those individuals and corporations will now have to pay their share and comply with the Income Tax Act. I think this bill is a good way to settle these technical issues so that the Government of Canada can collect the taxes it is owed.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, definitely, the fact that this bill is so huge implies a certain complexity. We hope that this complexity will actually lead to greater clarity, and that all taxpayers will find the system easier to understand. What we really want to emphasize here is the importance of establishing clear rules and preventing tax evasion.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when Canadians are going to have to start thinking about completing their income tax returns. It is not something Canadians necessarily enjoy doing, but whether we like it or not, it is a tradition. Sharing wealth is also one of Canada's traditions. Doing so enables us to have social programs so that when people fall ill, they can seek the help of a doctor, go to the hospital, and receive universal health care that is both free and accessible.

Our taxes also provide us with programs such as employment insurance. This program ensures that if a person is unfortunate enough to lose his or her job or get laid off during a plant closure—as we have seen occur over recent years—the family will still have an income. Single people will still have a roof over their heads and be able to purchase essential items, such as groceries.

Our taxes and laws also make it possible to have shared programs with the provinces for infrastructure and public transport. All of this contributes to the common good.

I am very pleased, therefore, to rise to speak about C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

This bill is large and contains over 1000 pages. I have often risen in this House to denounce large bills, including the omnibus bills that the government has introduced as so-called budget implementation bills. The NDP has taken a strong stand against this type of legislation because many of the measures are not necessarily related to the budget. They contain any number of amendments to various pieces of legislation, and there is not sufficient time to review the measures in committee. In any event, we have been denied the opportunity to study these omnibus bills in specific committees. We have voiced our opposition to this and we shall continue to do so as much as possible in the House.

The difference in this case is that the bill amends acts that are similar and that deal with related issues. The reason it is so bulky is that over the years—in fact, since 2001—previous governments dragged their feet. They did not follow the sound advice of the Auditor General to correct things. They should have acted, they should have amended acts, but they waited and let the years go by. That is why we now have such a bulky bill. Such changes should be done on an ad hoc basis, but we did not do our homework. We did not do what should have been done.

The NDP supports Bill C-48 because it is important that this legislation continues to focus on compliance to guarantee the integrity of the tax system.

We say that tax loopholes must be eliminated in a timely fashion. This bill is very important to protect the integrity of our tax system and to have all the winning conditions.

I want to underline three points. We must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This bill is a step in the right direction.

We support the changes proposed in this bill, including those that seek to reduce tax avoidance.

Again, this is a bulky bill. I explained why earlier. I believe we can do better, and Canadians deserve better. Over the years, it will be important to conduct regular and ad hoc reviews of the tax system.

Unlike the previous omnibus bill that brought major changes to all sorts of acts, this legislation proposes technical amendments to a number of acts that are closely related. We will have to ensure that ad hoc reviews are conducted.

In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada was concerned about the fact that at least 400 technical amendments had not been enacted through legislation.

Bill C-48 enacts more than 200 of these changes. There is still work to be done. It can be done, but we need to ensure that our tax system is fair and that all of the loopholes have been eliminated.

The bill has a number of parts. I would like to speak specifically about part 5 of the bill, which would implement various technical amendments, some from as far back as 2002.

I am not going to go into the history of these changes, but part 5 includes anti-avoidance measures for specified leasing property, measures to ensure that income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, measures to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators for the purpose of avoiding foreign tax, and measures to clarify rules on taxable Canadian property for non-residents and migrants. It also provides an information regime for tax avoidance.

Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Additional reporting will be required in cases where the transaction raises red flags about its legitimacy.

According to experts, the majority of these changes were already in place and should have been even earlier. We hope that this bill will provide effective measures for fighting tax evasion. A review mechanism should also be put in place so that we do not find ourselves with another bill of this size in 10 years.

Canadians will appreciate it and it will make our work as parliamentarians easier.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He did a good job of explaining why these measures should have been in place many years ago. It is clear that, over the years, several experts, including the auditor general of Canada, have raised the issue of considerable delays.

As the member clearly explained, we are now dealing with an extremely large and complex document, and conducting a thorough review of it is no easy feat.

Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to talk about the important provisions of Bill C-48 that the NDP supports.