House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 22% of the vote.
Justice March 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we cannot put a price on protecting the public. Every government, be it the Government of Quebec or of any other province, must set priorities. This government's priority is to protect Canadians and put victims' rights first. That is what we promised to do and that is what we are doing.
Justice March 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. minister said, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-10 that would prevent Quebec from adapting its rehabilitation system however it likes. In fact, some initial guidelines have been given to the courts to protect the public. A balance must be struck between rehabilitation and protecting the public in order to protect Canadians and Quebeckers.
Justice March 13th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening was an historic evening for Canadians. The safe streets and communities bill passed in this House and will soon receive royal assent.
Victims, police officers and honest citizens have long been asking for criminals to receive sentences that fit the severity of their crimes.
For too long, under the revolving door justice system we inherited from the previous Liberal government, victims would be shocked when those who were victimized were given house arrest. We promised that we would fix such injustices, and we have delivered.
A major component of the safe streets and communities act targets criminals who sexually exploit children. Because of this government, every such offender is guaranteed to serve time in jail. Our children deserve no less. In addition, the safe streets and communities act ended house arrest for serious crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking.
Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities and that means keeping dangerous criminals off our streets. We will continue to fight crime and protect Canadians so their communities will be safe places to live, raise their families and do business.
Criminal Code March 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in favour of the private member's bill of the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting), as amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Bill C-290 itself is very brief, being only two clauses long. Clause 1 of the bill would repeal paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code. Clause 2, which is the standing committee's only amendment, is a coming into force clause that would see the bill come into force on a date to be fixed by order in council.
The repeal of paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code would have the effect of permitting provincial governments to conduct and manage lottery schemes that involve bets made on a race, fight, single sports event or athletic contest.
Bill C-290 would leave it to each province or territory to decide whether to offer single sports event betting and, if so, whether to operate the betting by telephone, Internet and/or land-based locations. Such provincial-territorial decision-making is precisely what now exists in section 207 of the Criminal Code with respect to other forms of lottery schemes, such as video lottery terminals and slot machines.
For example, under the current lottery scheme provision of the Criminal Code, only a provincial or territorial government may conduct a lottery scheme that is operated on or through a computer, slot machine or video device. A province or territory may not licence others to do so. Some provinces currently place video lottery terminals and slot machines in a land-based location such as a casino or a race track or another location. Similarly, under Bill C-290, a province or territory could place a single sports event betting operation in a casino, race track or any other location it might choose.
Furthermore, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a province or territory may also conduct a lottery scheme in co-operation with another province. We know that the provinces and territories, using this authorization, have worked together to offer such national ticket lottery schemes, such as Lotto 6/49. Similar inter-jurisdictional co-operation would be possible under the amendment proposed in Bill C-290 for single event sports betting. A province or territory could choose to work co-operatively with another province or territory as it sees fit.
As I have previously indicated, it is important to note that Bill C-290 would leave it to each province or territory to decide whether or not to offer single sports event betting, and if so whether to operate the betting by telephone, by Internet, and/or at land-based locations.
Conversely, it would be up to the provinces and territories to ensure that they consulted with sport organizations to ensure the integrity of the games on which single sports betting were offered, and it would also be up to the provinces and territories to consult with problem gambling service providers to ensure that single sports event bettors gambled responsibly.
On the issue of problem gambling, I would note that provinces in Canada have already dedicated major funding for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. In this regard, the provinces are far ahead of their counterparts in the United States and, possibly, the world. Quite rightly, Canadian provinces have addressed problem gambling because they hold the constitutional legislative authority for matters relating to health, including problem gambling.
Provinces and territories have had many years experience in conducting a broad range of lottery schemes. It makes sense that the range of lottery schemes that they are authorized to conduct be expanded to include single sports event betting.
It would also make a lot of sense to keep Canadian gambling dollars within a province or territory rather than sending that money to illegal bookmakers in Canada, or to offshore Internet betting sites that poach Canadian bettors, regardless of whether those offshore sites are legal or illegal in another country. Bill C-290 would be a step in that direction.
I support private member's Bill C-290 and will be voting in favour of it. Provinces and territories certainly have the experience to offer this form of betting, it that is what their electorate wants. On the other hand, if a province or territory chooses not to go in that direction, that would be its local decision.
I see this private member's bill as responding to a growing demand and as modernizing the Criminal Code's lottery scheme provision to reflect our circumstances in the 21st century. That is the direction we want to take.
New Democratic Party of Canada February 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the NDP has started talking about harsher penalties for people who attack transit workers. Unfortunately, far too often the NDP's position on victims is usually to blame and attack them, as do the members for Winnipeg Centre and Gatineau.
It is unfortunate that the soft on crime NDP do not stand up for victims and have voted against victims several times. For example, the soft on crime NDP voted against the elimination of the faint hope clause for murderers and opposes the safe streets and communities act, which would give a greater voice to victims in our justice system. In fact, the NDP wants to silence victims. Amazingly, the NDP recently urged a well-known victims' advocate to stop speaking about Canada's justice system.
Our government will keep bringing forward legislation that gives victims a voice and keeps our streets and communities safe.
Instead of pretending to support victims, the NDP should step up and start supporting victims.
Business of Supply February 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there is a similarity in the sense that there are law-abiding citizens who use the Internet just as there are law-abiding sport shooters and duck hunters who use the Internet. They have that in common. All we are trying to do is to protect people from being victimized. Both acts go in that direction. The similarity is in protecting people and standing up for victims. It is not taking the flavour of the day to gain points with the media.
Business of Supply February 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, regretfully, probing into the Liberal mindset is somewhat difficult. The Liberals are full of free principles and ideas and will adopt whatever position they think is possible on the issue of the day. It is really difficult to put oneself in the mind of the Liberal Party at that time or now. However, it is obviously a moving target with the Liberals and they will adopt whatever position seems to be in their favour on any day for the sake of argument and media telecast.
Business of Supply February 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, obviously the bill will be going to committee at which time many recommendations from all parties will be examined tentatively to make sure that a balance is struck between the right of the state to protect its citizens and the right to public information. It is premature at this time to say what the final form of the bill will be, but the equilibrium required to balance those interests is the one which will be struck in its final form.
Business of Supply February 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East.
I am pleased to rise today to address the motion. Bill C-30 provides law enforcement and national security agencies with the necessary tools to conduct their investigations in a world where telephone calls and ordinary email are being replaced by constantly changing communications technology. Even though its main objective is to ensure that the criminal justice system keeps pace with these changes and new criminal techniques, the government is paying attention to the concerns expressed about privacy and certain investigative techniques.
For that reason, we made considerable efforts to consult Canadians and stakeholders. These consultations went on for years and included discussions with the federal and provincial privacy commissioners. This allowed us to craft the bill before us today. I can assure you that each of the investigative powers set out in the bill was carefully developed with privacy considerations in mind.
We are talking here about new measures that precisely guarantee the privacy of personal information. However, it seems that some people fear that the bill will change the fundamental way in which Canadians' privacy is protected and that it will give the police wide-ranging new powers that will give them free access to our private lives.
These concerns are unfounded. In certain cases, people may have misunderstood the complex proposals designed to take into account increasingly modern means of telecommunications. I would like to assure all the members of the House and all Canadians that the purpose of Bill C-30 has never been to intercept Canadians' private communications and telecommunications. Bill C-30 was never designed to monitor Canadians' Web activity or to prevent them from sending emails anonymously. The purpose of Bill C-30 has always been to ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to stay on top of new communication technologies.
In response to these concerns, I would like to present some facts. Since the 1970s, Canadian police have been able to intercept private communications when given a court's authorization to do so, under the Criminal Code. In such cases, the judge has to be convinced that justice would be best served if the communication were intercepted and that the police tried other investigative methods but were unsuccessful. It is only in rare and urgent circumstances, such as a kidnapping or bomb threat, where time is of the essence, that law enforcement agencies are able to intercept private communications without a judge's authorization.
The bill does not change this approach at all. In fact, the bill proposes additional protective measures that go above and beyond the provisions of the Criminal Code related to the authorization of interception in exceptional circumstances, which are set out in section 184.4.
I would like to clear up another misconception, namely that law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be able to obtain basic subscriber information. Law enforcement and national security officers are already authorized to request subscriber information from service providers. However, that information is shared by the service providers on a strictly voluntary basis and there are very few monitoring and review mechanisms at this time. This approach is problematic because some service providers hand over the information on request, while others take a long time doing so or simply refuse to co-operate.
As a result, we have a discretionary and inconsistent system across the country, which threatens the safety of Canadians. The bill proposes a fair and uniform process that will facilitate access to basic subscriber information when needed. It also provides for a solid reporting and verification system, which is currently lacking.
Access to basic subscriber information, such as names and postal and electronic addresses, is especially important when computer technology is involved, because criminals use the Internet to conduct their activities anonymously.
A 2011 investigation into a case of child exploitation on the Internet in my province, New Brunswick, was delayed by more than six months because the authorities had difficulty obtaining basic subscriber information from a service provider. When they finally obtained the desired information, the authorities learned that an adolescent from the region had been the victim of abuse by the suspect. This type of situation is unacceptable.
With Bill C-30, not only will we prevent this type of situation, but we will be implementing various mechanisms to ensure the accountability of those who access the basic subscriber information. Again, this is a measure that does not yet exist.
The bill will require the authorities to keep a log of all requests for access to basic subscriber information, to conduct verifications and to produce regular reports.
What is more, the bill reinforces the role of watchdogs like the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in ensuring an audit of the agencies under their jurisdiction.
The bill also compels the authorities to issue a written notice when using wiretapping in their investigations in exceptional circumstances and to produce a report in that regard.
These obligations already exist for other activities, including wiretaps authorized by the Criminal Code, and it is only logical to also implement them in this case.
As for electronic surveillance, in addition to ministerial approval, checks and balances are already in place to ensure accountability for the law enforcement agencies that exercise these exceptional powers. For instance, the individuals designated under sections 185, 186 and 188 of the Criminal Code must obtain authorization from a judge in order to intercept private communications, and this goes for each case under investigation. Evidence must be submitted under oath during any criminal proceedings that result from investigations. The Minister of Public Safety must present an annual report on any interceptions relating to an offence for which proceedings may be commenced by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. This report, based on the information provided by police forces, must be presented to Parliament pursuant to the legislation.
Any time important rights are at stake, such as a person's reasonable expectations of privacy, it is in everyone's interest to know when and how investigative powers like the one in question are used.
Collecting data and statistics regarding the exercise of these investigative powers will help us to inform the public and determine usage practices so we can amend them as needed.
We do not have to choose between safety and respect for our rights. We need to find a balanced, happy medium. Our government believes that this bill achieves this balance. However, we also believe that Parliament has a duty to examine this bill in order to ensure that this balance was in fact achieved. We hope it will be examined in a non-partisan environment without any misinformation from the opposition parties.
Member for Papineau February 15th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal member for Papineau made a surprising statement. He said that he might think about wanting to make Quebec a country. This is shocking coming from someone who grew up hearing about the virtues of a united Canada. What can we expect from a member of a federalist party who is suddenly considering Quebec's separation from Canada?
For our government, there is no doubt. We are committed to making Canada a strong and united country in which Quebec has an important place. In order to do so, our Conservative government recognized Quebec as a nation within a united Canada, restored fiscal balance with the provinces and established a formal role for Quebec at UNESCO.
Mr. Speaker, while the member is looking for reasons for Quebec to separate from Canada, our government is ensuring that Canada remains a strong and united country.