Jean Rousseau

[The Criminal Code, March 19th, 2013]

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

In R. v. Tse, it is clear that the justices wanted to call the government to order and force it to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rights in general, and, especially, privacy. That was the crux of the decision.

The decision also accords certain rights to the judiciary and police in the case of urgent or extreme cases. Such cases must be able to be defined, and the scope and the limitations of these measures must always be known in order to be consistent with the charter, and respect individual rights.

Why must we always wait for a Supreme Court decision before the government is brought into line? This has happened several times, not only with the current government, but with previous governments. There are people who can get this done by simply reading the document properly and listening to witnesses with a view to proposing laws that are balanced and fair to all Canadians.

[The Criminal Code, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Drummond for his question.

Every bill that is introduced in the House, and studied in committee, must respect the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is essential. This is especially so in the case of bills dealing with public safety and justice.

There always needs to be some flexibility, but this flexibility must always be exercised in a manner that respects people’s integrity. Human rights and the right to organize have been flouted since this government came into power. This was not the time to see the practice resurface with wiretapping, which makes it possible to obtain information using a wiretapping device.

Why is it important to always respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Because Canada is a country where the rule of law is important and where human rights are essential, that is if we want democracy and an equal measure of justice for all.

[The Criminal Code, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, provides safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Among other things, this enactment 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. This was a glaring omission in the previous bill.

It also provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period, which has yet to be defined. We are probably going to need another case before the Supreme Court to define that period. The bill also narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. I will spare hon. members the hundreds of offences listed in that section.

These measures are the Conservative government's answer to the humiliating failure, for the Minister of Public Safety, of Bill C-30, and to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse. Despite the issues we have raised, we will support this new version at third reading stage, because the Supreme Court response provides enough new parameters to protect privacy, and because we really believe that this bill complies with those standards.

For the NDP, basic human rights are essential to ensuring that justice is done in this country. We are receptive to all initiatives that are in line with that. Unfortunately, Canadians have seen this Conservative government make many errors in judgment since it got, or rather borrowed, a majority in the last election. Consequently, they have good reasons to be concerned and even worried about Conservative bills that deal with their privacy.

The Conservatives' record in this regard is less than stellar. However, we remain convinced that Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, respects the rule of the law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which is more important? Protecting privacy to safeguard individual interests, or invading privacy by means of various provisions in the interest of national public safety? In both instances, where do the limits lie? These questions are essential to understanding today's debate on this bill.

Unfortunately, owing to a shortage of information about certain issues, we will not be discussing section 184.4, particularly its excessive scope resulting from the power it can give peace officers other than police officers. On this point, we do not believe that Bill C-55 contains enough definitions to delineate the scope of certain adjustments to the section in question. Who can be a peace officer? Can it be a private agency? Who precisely can it be? More details should have been provided about this to prevent the Supreme Court from having to redefine a number of matters in a specific case.

R. v. Tse challenged the constitutionality of the emergency wiretapping provisions allowed under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

The presiding judge ruled that this provision breached the right guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. However, the Supreme Court justice in this case also ruled that emergency wiretaps without the authorization of the court could be justified under the charter. Which brings us back to the same question. What is more important, the right to privacy or national public safety? The answer is not clear. Eventually, we will need an answer.

According to the decision, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it does not have accountability measures with respect to wiretapping. That is why the court specified a time limit for us, the legislators, to amend the provision to make it constitutional.

The proposed amendments are a direct response to this decision. The bill would require notification within 90 days to any person whose private communications have been intercepted in circumstances of imminent harm. The bill would also require the preparation of annual reports on the use of wiretapping under the section in question. The amendments would also limit police authorization to use this provision and would restrict its use to the offences listed at length in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

The key question in all of this is whether the power conferred under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code establishes a constitutional balance between an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and society’s interest in preventing serious harm. We know, since 9/11, the Air India attack and a number of other major incidents that many issues have been raised with respect to wiretapping and the disclosure of information through these procedures.

Correctly interpreted, these conditions would ensure that the power to intercept private communications without judicial authorization can only be exercised in urgent situations in order to avoid serious harm. This clause strikes a fair balance between the rights guaranteed under section 8 of the charter and society's interest in preventing serious harm. The legislation does not provide for accountability though, in that it does not set out a mechanism for oversight of the police use of the power.

A troubling aspect of section 184.4 is the fact that a person does not need to be notified if their private communications have been intercepted. That is why section 184.4 violates section 8 of the charter. However, we feel that Bill C-55 is a sufficient response to Bill C-30 and to all of the questions that were raised.

To conclude, we have long been calling on the Conservative government to introduce a bill that responds to the ruling in R. v. Tse. This response is very last-minute. Why did the government wait so long? Why did it not listen to what all the witnesses in committee had to say about this issue again? Debate must take place here, but also in committee. We have a wonderful justice critic—the member for Gatineau. She does an excellent job on the committee and in her role.

Once again, why the last-minute response? Why not listen to the stakeholders? We know that technology is evolving so quickly that there will still be work to do in the coming years.

[Regional Economic Development, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same old thing with the Conservatives: they make promises and then they break them.

Worse yet, they are attacking our regions' economies. They have abandoned our forestry industry, gutted the employment insurance program, closed post offices and now they are cutting $55 million from the budget for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec.

Consolidating the agency's activities and saving money cannot be done without sacrificing services.

Why are the Conservatives cutting front-line services again by closing regional offices and moving the services to urban areas?

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture is one of the key drivers of economic development in many regions, including the Eastern Townships. Less than a month from now, Quebec farmers will begin their work, yet many of them are still waiting to hear that their requests to hire foreign workers have been approved. The Conservatives' amateur ways are threatening the harvest. It is not surprising that farmers are once again feeling betrayed by this government that promised to give power to the regions.

Will the Conservatives ensure that our farms can count on all the foreign workers they need? Those workers are essential to the farm operations.

The government has abandoned the regions. We will put an end to this devastation. We will put an end to—

[Religious Freedom, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, right now, we are witnessing persecution here in Canada by the phoneys who are in power. Just think about unemployed workers or the various environmental advocacy groups. The government is going to change the definition to include them on the list of terrorist groups. That is shameful. And it is just the beginning.

It is also surprising that, to date, no Muslim organizations have been invited to participate in the consultations related to the creation of the office in question, and neither have any human rights advocacy groups, such as Amnesty International.

In closing, here is an excerpt from a Jimi Hendrix song:

Freedom, that's what I am. “If you wanna get out of here alive, Freedom, give it to me.”

[Religious freedom, March 5th, 2013]

At first glance, this motion was written for the clear purpose of upsetting the opposition parties. It also includes a section regarding the current Minister of Foreign Affairs that is inappropriate and unconscionable from a parliamentary ethics perspective. This has become somewhat frustrating coming from this government.

The sections that are not designed to upset us do nothing but duplicate the work that is already being done by consular offices.

In many areas of the world, religious persecution is commonplace. That is very unfortunate. Foreign consulates have often shared what is happening through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

However, the Conservatives promised to create such an office in the 2011 election campaign. This motion promotes the creation of that office.

The three priorities of this new office will be to protect and advocate on behalf of religious minorities under threat, to oppose religious hatred and intolerance, and to promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.

What about promoting these values in Canada, these values of pluralism, multi-ethnicity and the basis of our inclusive society? Why not address what is going on here first? Why not build up our credibility and then promote it abroad?

The estimated cost of creating this office is $5 million a year. Work to create this office would already be under way, but it seems that there has been some difficulty finding an ambassador, which is causing a delay.

And although we know that the office will have a vague mandate of fighting religious persecution in the world, we are not really sure how the office will be run or what its promotion duties will entail.

This certainly has a whiff of the former government's firearms registry about it, with its mismanagement and skyrocketing costs.

Let us look a little closer at the content of this motion. The sponsor of this motion, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, wants the House to agree:

That…the government should: (a) continue to recognize as part of Canadian foreign policy that (i) everyone has the right to freedom of religion and conscience, including the freedom to change religion…

Of course, all this is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains the basic principles and elements for fair respect of individual rights, which should also be promoted here.

We live in a society of law where reasonable and justifiable limits can be demonstrated in a free and democratic society. Do we currently have in Canada this context that allows a free and democratic society to flourish and grow?

One part of the motion seeks to support article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since when have we given up these principles?

Article 18 says that “[Everyone] has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion...”. I would say this is a carbon copy.

The motion also says that the official statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom are to be promoted. Is it not already his role as a representative of a free and democratic country to denounce these things? His duties abroad include denouncing such things. Do we need an office to promote that?

The motion also talks about supporting opposition to laws that use “defamation of religion” and “blasphemy”, both within states and internationally, and encouraging Canadian missions to report incidents of violence.

Quite frankly, our consulates and the Minister of Foreign Affairs should already be condemning these acts. What we want is for this government to be responsible and credible when it speaks out against events abroad.

I have already said that this is a very noble motion and we will support it. However, as you know, I have been criticizing for some time this government to which I belong indirectly because I want it to be credible. I am a member of the official opposition. I have the right to criticize my government, but I also have the right to participate in its activities, for example, by proposing amendments to bills in committee so that we can discuss them together. We must be able to talk about the issues. It is part and parcel of the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and the freedom of thought. In a democracy it is essential that these freedoms be recognized and promoted.

In closing, I will mention one last small thing. We are a little concerned that freedom of religion, that we will be promoting abroad, will conflict with other human rights, such as the rights of women, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, and also of first nations and aboriginal peoples. There are many people who belong to these groups in other countries, and we must protect their rights and freedoms and respect their traditions.

As I was saying earlier, we are still not quite sure how this famous office will work or what it will do. It—

[Religious freedom, March 5th, 2013]

“Tarbarnouche” is not a swear word. It is just Quebec slang, like “câline” and “ah”.

[Religious freedom, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all this talk about a motion to set up an office to promote religious freedom and the comments from government members saying that they are making a commitment leave me feeling skeptical.

The motion's intentions are excellent. I do not have a problem with them. However, I do have a problem with the credibility of this government that wants to open such an office abroad, when every day it is violating most of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government introduces vicious bills that attack fundamental human rights and the freedom of association in our own country.

Before promoting these values abroad—values that are essential to community development—the government needs to take a stand and promote them in our country. I have not seen the Conservatives do so since I have been here.

Hon. members will recall that, in June 2011, we had to filibuster for 56 hours because the rights of postal workers were being violated. These were fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, the right to associate and to stand together in the defence of rights.

With regard to credibility, this bill is far from anything individuals or society could accept.

The Conservatives are defending a noble bill. It is a good example but, tarbarnouche, the fundamental rules governing rights and freedoms—

[Northern Jobs and Growth Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of not consulting and not respecting these populations can include serious environmental repercussions in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This could have an extremely harmful impact on the environment. We are already having problems with climate change, melting glaciers and declining fish stocks that can no longer meet the needs of coastal fisheries.

The most important consideration is the repercussions and consequences of this for people, for natural habitats. This government claims to listen to people from coast to coast to coast. There is enormous potential for growth on the northern coast, but we must show respect. Development will bring royalties. We want to enable these nations to evolve, but in keeping with their traditions, their culture, which is hundreds if not thousands of years old, since these populations were here long before us.

Once again, it is unacceptable for this government to completely ignore all the consultations and all the amendments that were proposed.