OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 075 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, April 28, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 28, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 075 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 075 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 075 (Version officielle) 147 075 28 04 2014 2014/04/28 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers (1100) [ English ] Vacancy Whitby—Oshawa The Speaker : It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons for the electoral district of Whitby—Oshawa in the province of Ontario by reason of the passing of the Hon. Jim Flaherty. [ Translation ] Pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

[ English ] Points of Order Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food Points of Order Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to respond to the point of order raised on April 10 by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert respecting the amendments to Bill C-30 , the fair rail for grain farmers act, contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food presented on Tuesday, April 8. The government disagrees with the assessment offered by the hon. member.

The amendment in question, which adds clause 5.1 to the bill, is relevant to the subject matter of Bill C-30 . It respects the rules and usual practices of the House. It would amend a part of the Canada Transportation Act, a law that is already under consideration in Bill C-30. The

summary of Bill C-30 clearly states that a goal of the legislation, and in particular the part which would amend the Canada Transportation Act, is to “facilitate the movement of grain by rail”. This amendment would provide the tools required in the supply chain to make sure all parties are committed to making this happen. The sponsor of the bill clearly believes that this clause is relevant and consistent with his policy intentions or he would not have asked his parliamentary secretary to propose that amendment.

Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill followed an ambitious and full series of meetings by the agriculture committee. Many witnesses with interests in this legislation appeared and gave evidence. The government heard what witnesses asked for. In response, it drafted an amendment to fulfill the desire of witnesses. Furthermore, I understand that the amendment was considered at committee without objection. Not only was it considered without procedural objection, it was adopted by a recorded vote of nine to zero. Every member of the committee voted for and supported the amendment.

A competent and informed decision was made when each member reviewed, considered, and voted for the amendment. The unanimously adopted amendment aids and advances the bill's purpose of facilitating the movement of grain by rail.

As the Speaker knows, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, at page 766 states: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill...Similarly, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negation of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading is out of order. An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill...

Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure , 24th edition, helpfully defines the scope of a bill at page 6564: Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its

long title, although the

long title may help to determine the scope. Bill C-30's

long title is

An Act to Amend the Canada Grain Act and Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures. Clearly clause 5.1, which would amend the Canada Transportation Act, meets this threshold. Let me add from page 565 of Erskine May: An amendment which is outside the scope of a clause may be admissible if presented as a new clause, provided that it is within the scope of the bill. As I have previously mentioned, clause 5.1 joins other amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to facilitate the movement of grain by rail.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms , 6th edition, addresses the admissibility of amendments to legislation at citation 698. Let me quote from some of the paragraphs of this citation. Paragraph (1) says: An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope, or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived. That is not the case here. Paragraph (2) reads: An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

(1105) This amendment complements and enhances the purpose of the bill. It absolutely is not inconsistent with the bill. Paragraph 5 informs us that “An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.” However, this is not applicable because the amendment does not overturn the principle of the bill. I could offer even more quotes from citation 698 to make my case, but in the interest of time, I will not.

Let me take a brief moment, especially as a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, to acknowledge and thank the opposition members for the work they did; and in fact the non-partisan work they all did, as well as the cordial approach taken during the committee's work to see this important bill considered promptly, expeditiously, and thoroughly. Members of the House understand extremely well that this amendment is important because it gives tools to the shippers who enter service level agreements.

In fact, the proposed amendment further facilitates the movement of grain by rail through the creation of a better balance and accountability between shippers and railways and the strengthening of the strong foundation provided for effective and reliable service. The amendment is something that many witnesses from all commodities have asked for at the committee.

The Alberta Wheat Commission said this recently: AWC would like to recognize the members of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the amendments made to strengthen the legislation and the potential for effective Service Level Agreements between railways and shippers. [...]The need for financial penalties was identified by AWC as a necessary component for Service Level Agreements. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that you should find it easy to reject the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton—St.

Albert and find in order the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on Bill C-30 , the fair rail for grain farmers act. The Speaker : I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his contribution to this question. We will come back to the House in due course.

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business [ Translation ] National Capital Act The House resumed from March 7, consideration of the motion that Bill C-565,

An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-565. Second reading Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, at this stage of our debate on Gatineau Park, it is important to note that all members of the House agree that Gatineau Park is an immensely beautiful treasure that needs better protection. Unfortunately, that is where our agreement ends right now.

We do not agree on what kind of legal protection Parliament should provide for that park, which we all love so much. The member for Hull—Aylmer believes that her bill, which we are debating here today, Bill C-565,

An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act , is adequate. The Conservative government would rather focus on its own bill, which it promises to introduce soon and which it claims is very similar to bills it has introduced in the past. The Liberal caucus believes that both the NDP and Conservative approaches are inadequate and do not provide sufficient protection for Gatineau Park while respecting the rights of property owners.

However, the Liberal caucus is prepared to support Bill C-565 at second reading so that a committee can examine it and make amendments. Let us consider the magnitude of the problem. Gatineau Park is the only federal park that is not protected by Parliament. Unlike national parks, this park's boundaries can be modified and its land sold, and roads can be built through it without Parliament's involvement. Gatineau Park is managed by the National Capital Commission, which does not ban commercial or industrial activities or land development.

As a result of inadequate legal protection, Gatineau Park has lost a significant amount of land. When the National Capital Commission redrew the park's boundaries in the 1990s, it severed 48 properties, for a total of 1,508 acres. At the same time, 334 acres were allotted for the construction of roads, which were built in violation of the commitments made in the master plan, bringing the total number of acres severed up to 1,842, or nearly 5 km 2 . All this was done without Parliament's knowledge, let alone its approval.

This would not have happened if Gatineau Park were protected under the Canada National Parks Act, which establishes in subsection 5(3) that the size of the park can only be reduced by

an act of Parliament. In addition, because the land management system is inadequate, the NCC has allowed considerable urbanization within the park. Since 1992, 125 residences have been built inside the park. (1110) [ English ] Despite repeated NCC commitments to acquire private property, some 296 private properties, consisting of 2,112 acres, remain within Gatineau Park.

Moreover, several large private properties remain inside the park that risk being turned into major subdivisions, which would impede the park's evolution as a conservation site intended for public enjoyment. [ Translation ] Gatineau Park must be given the same kind of legal protection and parliamentary oversight as Canada's national parks. Through amendments to the National Capital Act, the park must acquire the legal status, borders and land management mechanism needed to ensure transparency in its administration and guarantee its long-term protection.

We must give this park the protection framework that various citizens' groups have been advocating for decades and help the NCC fulfill its commitment to gradually acquire the private properties, while respecting landowners' rights to continue to live in the park. Today, the Conservatives are saying they want to come back to this issue with something equivalent to their Bills C-37 and C-20 , which died on the order paper in 2009 and 2011.

That is not exactly reassuring. [ English ] These bills did not offer Gatineau a proper legislative framework, failed to meet basic park protection criteria, perpetuated developments and road building, and would have impaired the park's ecological integrity. [ Translation ] Under these bills, the park boundaries could be changed by administrative decree, without oversight or parliamentary debate. [ English ] Now we have the NDP Bill C-565 . This bill establishes but a moral obligation to ecological integrity.

Measures to ensure the protection, preservation, and management of Gatineau Park for the benefit of current and future generations are put forth with little framework and no real legislative backbone. (1115) [ Translation ] In fact, at least three aspects of Bill C-565 could represent setbacks. First, although Bill C-565 gives the NCC the mandate of acquiring the real property situated in Gatineau Park, it stipulates that: 10.1

(2) The Commission may not, in pursuing its objectives, infringe upon the property rights attached to any real property...located within Gatineau Park. By so doing, Bill C-565 weakens the NCC, since the existing National Capital Act allows the NCC to expropriate private lands whenever it becomes necessary for the purposes of its mandate. Bill C-565 will create a dangerous precedent by removing the NCC's ability to expropriate land.

It will allow large landowners to divide their land and build new residences in the middle of the park, which would be completely contrary to the park's public and ecological purpose and all the park master plans. The problem with Bill C-565 is that it does not include a mechanism for acquiring the land. [ English ] This is why there is a need for a right of first refusal.

Clear regulations would give the NCC the first chance to purchase private property should the private landowner decide to sell, subsequent to which, parkland may be bought and sold on the open market. [ Translation ] People who own land in Gatineau Park could continue to live there and leave their property to their children through estates and trusts. It is important to note that the NCC supported the use of such a right of first refusal when it appeared before a Senate committee in 2007.

Second, although the most recent Gatineau Park master plan clearly establishes that the park's ecological integrity is a management priority, clause 2 of Bill C-565 simply states that the NCC will “protect Gatineau Park’s natural biodiversity, as well as its underlying ecological structure and environmental processes”. Simply saying that the NCC is to protect the park's natural biodiversity is not as strong a mechanism for preserving the park's ecological integrity as making that protection the first priority.

Let us remember that the Canada National Parks Act considers protecting ecological integrity to be a management priority. Third, Bill C-565 could open the door to hunting in Gatineau Park. Right now, fishing is allowed in the park, but hunting is prohibited. [ English ] It is clear that serious amendments are needed to Bill C-565 , to better back the NCC objectives of long-term ecological integrity while respecting the rights of landowners. Many amendments would be required.

Indeed, the bill provides no mechanism for public consultation, completely ignores the issue of Quebec's territorial integrity, and fails to make conservation the first priority of park management, which, as I said, is a cornerstone of the Canada National Parks Act. Above all, the bill should provide, subsequent to consultations with the Quebec provincial government, a real protective legislation for Gatineau Park via an amendment to the National Capital Act.

Such a legislative framework by Parliament would support the NCC's role as park manager and would give the park the same kind of statutory protection and adequate parliamentary oversight that is given to national parks throughout Canada. [ Translation ] We have our work cut out for us. We need to conduct an in-depth examination of this issue in committee in order to find legal protection that works for our beloved Gatineau Park. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-565 , concerning Gatineau Park.

In my opinion, this park is a real jewel in the Outaouais and surrounding regions. This natural gem is a mere 15 minutes from Parliament. It is incredible how much there is to do in the park, at any time of year: hiking, swimming, cycling, skiing, camping, picnics, canoeing and so on. There is something for everyone, regardless of age or personal preference. People who live in the Ottawa-Gatineau area love planning their activities there because there is so much to do.

In its 2007 report on the Act to amend the National Capital Act (establishment and protection of Gatineau Park), the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources proposed amendments. At the beginning, the report states: Gatineau Park is hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and it shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

It also states: Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Commission when considering all aspects of the management of Gatineau Park. Those are both important points, and they are in line with Bill C-565 's objectives, which are to keep the park from being sold off in small parcels by real estate developers, ensure that future generations can benefit from using the park just the way it is, and preserve all of the biodiversity contained in the park.

In particular, I am talking about the large number of threatened plant and animal species that are found in the park. In fact, Gatineau Park is home to the largest concentration of threatened species. The number of visitors to Gatineau Park has grown steadily over the years, as can be seen from the numbers. According to statistics, it is one of the most visited parks in Canada. In 2011, the park received more than 2.7 million visits and generated more than $25 million in annual economic spinoffs.

However, although this is great news for the region, there are some valid concerns, since all of these visitors could put an already fragile treasure at risk. I will explain, and I want to draw a parallel to another park in the region I am from, just a few kilometres from the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , which I represent. I want to share a little of the history of Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, which is located just a few minutes from my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

This park, which is 670 km 2 in area, is located 30 minutes outside Quebec City, in the Jacques-Cartier River valley, in Quebec. It has over 100 km of walking trails and is frequently visited by people in my riding and the entire region. In 1895, the Province of Quebec created Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier to be an area protected from colonization and a place for fishing and hunting. In 1972, more than 20,000 residents of Quebec City signed a petition within a few days to oppose the creation of a hydroelectric dam on the Jacques-Cartier River. The park has been legally protected only since 1981.

If the public had not opposed the dam and the park had not received legal protection in 1981, the entire valley would have been flooded and urban development, which already exists in Stoneham-et-Tewkesbury, would have taken over by now. Obviously, these days, the people who benefit most from the park are the people who live in the region, including those who live in my riding, as well as all of the new generations who are happy to have access to a wonderful historic park. I want to point out that the NDP has been fighting for Gatineau Park for almost nine years.

This issue is very important to us and to the public, and we will not give up. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer , for the excellent work she has done on her Bill C-565 and for picking up where my colleagues from Ottawa—Centre left off. They tried to get a bill passed to have Parliament protect Gatineau Park in 2005, 2006 and 2009. When we have something precious, our first instinct is to protect it. I do not think Gatineau Park is any different. It is something precious not only for visitors, but also for nature itself and for future generations, as I explained.

(1120) Therefore, the NDP is asking that Gatineau Park's boundaries be enshrined in law and given parliamentary protection. The NDP continues to insist on this because Gatineau Park is not currently protected by parliamentary law and can be sold one small parcel at a time to private interests without parliamentarians being able to do anything about it. Furthermore, we are unsure of the limits and boundaries of the park.

That is one more reason why we should clarify the status of the area that we want to keep out of the hands of private interests for the benefit of the general public and all those who want to visit the park and enjoy the activities available. We, the NDP members, want the park to have the same legal protections as our national parks. However, we want to be very clear that we are not asking for Gatineau Park to be designated a national park. I would like to return to the background of this park and the problems it faces.

Gatineau Park is operated by the National Capital Commission and for 75 years has not had any special status. Thus, unlike national parks, it has no legal protections or official status. At present, 2% of the land located within Gatineau Park belongs to private interests. What could happen is that development arising from the growing demand for housing could encroach on Gatineau Park. All available data indicates that the region's population will grow significantly in the years to come. This leads us to believe that real estate developers will look to Gatineau Park for housing sites.

That is one of the threats to Gatineau Park that we want to stave off by providing this parliamentary protection and nothing less. There are many advantages to passing Bill C-565 that will benefit the inhabitants, the environment, biodiversity, future generations and the first nations. By passing this bill, we can prevent the sale of public land in the park and also give the National Capital Commission the mandate to purchase the 2% of private property within the park.

By passing this bill, we are also ensuring that we can maintain the biodiversity of any endangered animal and plant species in Gatineau Park, which, as I said earlier, is home to the largest concentration of species at risk. By passing this bill, we can leave this heritage for future generations and protect the environment. By passing this bill, we are reminding Canadians of the importance of the historical ties linking Gatineau Park and the Algonquin people, who roamed the Gatineau hills long before the arrival of Europeans.

It is not just the NDP that wants this special protection: many stakeholders support our position. I am talking about Nature Québec, the Conseil régional de l'environnement et du développement durable de l'Outaouais, and the Ottawa Valley

chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, to name a few. There is also the petition circulated by my colleague, who sponsored Bill C-565 . That petition has gathered nearly 5,000 signatures. That many signatures clearly proves that the people overwhelmingly support our initiative. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by Le Droit in 2009, 86% of respondents wanted the government to bring in legislation to protect Gatineau Park. The government has even shown some signs of openness on this issue. Now we want it to translate words into actions by supporting Bill C-565 .

After all, the government has recognized that “Gatineau Park is a precious natural resource”. Accordingly, all that remains to be done is to vote in favour of Bill C-565 , which is a good bill, because as I said earlier, the NDP has been fighting to get it passed for over eight years now. (1125) [ English ] Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak here in the House of Commons, representing my constituents from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and today, more specifically, all Canadians, as we debate Bill C-565 .

I would like to use this time to address an integral issue at the heart of this debate on Gatineau Park, which is the effective and realistic protection of Gatineau Park, its beauty, biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as its integrity, status, and significance as an integral part of Canada's capital region, a larger region that also requires protection for generations to come. The government has a record of trying to move forward with proposals to amend the National Capital Act that would offer strong and effective protection to not only the park but also the entire national capital region.

This record includes Bill C-37 in 2009 and Bill C-20 in 2010, both of which unfortunately died on the order paper, as well the signalled intention to introduce a similar government bill in the near future. On the other hand, the latest attempt by the opposition to pre-empt our efforts, as embodied in Bill C-565 , comes up short by being too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

I think we can all agree that the key to ensuring the beauty and vitality of not only Gatineau Park but also the entire capital region for generations to come is by taking concrete legislative and administrative steps to protect the natural gifts that we have. Recognizing this fact, over the past several years the government has introduced Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 , both of which sought to strengthen and update environmental protections for the entire national capital region, including the greenbelt and Gatineau Park.

These bills sought to legislate the national interest land mass, or NILM, concept, a designation applied to both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt, which would offer strong protections and oversight, including requiring project proposals to be reviewed by the National Capital Commission and prohibiting the disposition or transfer of property within these green spaces without Governor in Council approval. Under these previous bills, the Governor in Council would also have enjoyed the authority to oversee the criteria and process for designating property in the national capital region as NILM land.

Additionally, these bills required the NCC to manage its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, which would have obligated the NCC to always consider possible environmental impacts when managing its properties in the entire national capital region. By contrast, Bill C-565 is unnecessarily restrictive as it only applies protections to Gatineau Park. As my fellow colleagues have pointed out previously, there is a lot more to the national capital region than Gatineau Park alone.

We are also surrounded by the greenbelt and multiple urban green spaces that fall under federal authority and the NCC's stewardship. Bill C-565 , curiously, unfortunately, and needlessly, introduces measures to protect only one of these parks: Gatineau Park. This approach in Bill C-565 is overly narrow and we must ensure that any re-opening of the National Capital Act enhances the protection of all green spaces in the capital region, including both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt.

With regard to protecting the integrity of Gatineau Park and its boundaries specifically, and in addition to their designation of the entire park as national interest land mass, the previously mentioned government bills sought to legislate defined boundaries for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt. By explicitly defining the boundaries in the National Capital Act, these bills would have ensured that the park was protected and that its boundaries could only be altered by the Governor in Council when absolutely necessary, such as when required for the public benefit, for example.

This would combine active protection of the park with a necessary degree of flexibility in recognition of the unique characteristics and location of this natural asset. Let us talk about the environment protection of Gatineau Park specifically. Protection of the natural systems and internal integrity of the park figured prominently in the previous government bills in this area, and I can assure the House that these imperatives remain a priority for this government.

As already emphasized during our previous debates on this issue, the government remains fully committed to the protection and maintenance of the park as a destination of natural beauty and recreation for all Canadians as well as for international visitors to our capital. This commitment to environmental protection was evidenced in the previous government bills through their application of the concept of “ecological integrity”.

(1130) Ecological integrity is a concept used in the Canada National Parks Act and is applicable to all of Canada's federal parks, with a view to ensuring their protection and preservation. Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 both sought to apply this concept to Gatineau Park, including to all of its ecosystems and biodiversity, in order to provide the park with this high degree of environmental protection. At the same time, one of the key proposals to protect Gatineau Park in the member's bill is the imposition of an obligation on the NCC to purchase all privately owned properties in the park.

We are talking about approximately 377 properties in the park with a roughly estimated current market value of $100 million. Furthermore, this $100 million does not take into account the inflation in property prices that would almost certainly materialize as a result of this legislative obligation. This proposal is also unnecessary. The NCC already has the authority, pursuant to a 2008 order in council, to purchase private properties in the park without seeking Governor in Council approval for each specific purchase.

This has permitted the NCC to increase its ownership of properties in the park while also taking into account the availability and prices of the properties, the resources it has available, and the strategic importance of the sites for significant ecosystems, in prioritizing its property purchases in the park. This, in our view, is the most fiscally and environmentally responsible course of action for Gatineau Park and Canadian taxpayers. Speaking of protecting Gatineau Park for all visitors, I want to address a problematic component of Bill C-565 that seeks to provide hunting rights in the park.

Let me say that it is an absolute imperative of this government to protect and ensure the safety of all Canadians as well as international visitors to the park. We are talking about an area visited by over 2.7 million people per year, many of them young children. In light of these facts, it seems rather irresponsible to be proposing such hunting rights in a shared space, which could seriously jeopardize the safety of visitors to the park. I would suggest that there is little debate that the National Capital Act, enacted 55 years ago, in 1959, could use a significant update.

Although the act still effectively governs the National Capital Commission and its activities in the national capital region, it is clear that the NCC could benefit from updated enabling legislation in order to even more effectively administer its mandate in the national capital region, including the continued protection of Gatineau Park. That being said, Bill C-565 does not enhance those protections in an effective or appropriate way and is, at the same time, unnecessarily narrow in its application solely to Gatineau Park.

In our view, the bill would have negative consequences for the park, the region, and Canadian taxpayers. This government has repeatedly introduced legislation in recent years to amend the National Capital Act in order to improve the NCC's transparency and governance structure, strengthen environmental protections, and provide the commission with effective and modernized tools to manage and protect its properties in the national capital region.

These legislative proposals are evidence that we are working toward implementing a clear and comprehensive vision tor the continued protection and improvement of the entire national capital region and are seeking to provide the NCC with updated legislation to accomplish this goal. I anticipate that the next government bill in this area will provide another embodiment of this commitment and our continued perseverance in this endeavour and I look forward to its introduction.

(1135) Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill in front of us, I would like to take the opportunity to provide condolences to the family of Marc Robert Nelson, whom people in the House will know as the worker who died recently at the Bank of Canada. This is a day of mourning for injured workers and those who have been killed on the job. I want to provide condolences on behalf of our party and Parliament to Marc Robert Nelson's family. It is a tragic loss, and something that reminds us of the need to look out for job safety everywhere.

The bill we have in front of us has a fairly long history. As has been noted by my colleague from across the way, there have been different iterations of the bill. They have been from me, from the government a couple of times, and now from my colleague. One thing we should understand is the reason for having this bill in front of us. As has been noted by all members who have spoken to the bill, it is the need to protect a park that many people thought already had protections. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have gone there with your family, as others have.

When people come to Ottawa, they do not only come to the House of Commons; they usually take the opportunity to visit the region. Gatineau Park is fundamental to the identity of the national capital region. When we talked to people about Gatineau Park, it was a great surprise to many to find out that it is not a park, in essence, with protections. Rather, it is a park in name.

When we think about all of the other parks—frankly, the government has done some good work in protecting parks and creating new parks—the fact that we have not protected Gatineau Park and given it the fundamental protections it needs is something most people find very surprising. The good news for people who want to see Gatineau Park protected is that I do not see any contention at all with anyone that it should be a park, that it should be protected, and that we should have some legislation to protect it.

When people look at Parliament, they often see that there is derision and that people cannot agree on the day of the week. When it comes to Gatineau Park, people agree, and we have heard agreement from the government side, that there should be protections. In fact, Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 of previous Parliaments would have given just that. I worked with the government on Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 when they came before the House. They were government bills. As I mentioned, I also had a bill of my own.

We actually worked together to try and move things forward to protect Gatineau Park for reasons that have been mentioned and are probably worthy of reiteration. It is a place of history. It is a place of biodiversity. It is a place for recreation. It is a place where people come to enjoy and to protect nature. It is a fundamental piece of history for first nations, who were the stewards of the land before there was European contact. It embodies many of the values, symbols, and history of our country. That is why I am passionate about Gatineau Park.

Yes, I am the member for Ottawa Centre, but for people in Ottawa and for those who have experienced the national capital region, Gatineau Park is a shared place. It is not one entity for only those people who live in and around the park. That is why it is so important. As I said, there is consensus to protect the park. It was interesting that back in 2008, we were looking at bringing forward legislation to protect the park. I worked with the government at the time. I had my own bill. The government then brought in its legislation.

I had a campaign going to get public support behind this, as my colleague from Hull—Aylmer has done. It was then a matter of consulting the community and getting the park going. Bill C-37 was brought forward. What was not mentioned by the government, just for the sake of facts, is that the reason Bill C-37 did not go forward was that Parliament was prorogued. Let us put that on the record. It could have been passed. We would now be talking about how great the Gatineau Park bill is and that all the things we want to see being done had been done.

(1140) Alas, as everyone knows, when Parliament is prorogued, government bills die. Fine, that was okay. We came back and worked with the government on Bill C-20 , a government bill, to strengthen the bill, and it was a good experience. It was not a priority of the government. It finally brought it forward just before the 2011 election, and there was not time for it to make its way through. I had pleaded with my friend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs , to get it going and fast-track it, and we could have had it done. That is by way of background.

The government has picked out a couple of things it thinks is worthy of note to suggest that we should oppose the bill. I appeal to those who look at the role of backbenchers and individual members of Parliament to look at the bill and what the government is saying in its critique of it, particularly my friend from the Hamilton region. In his speech, he noted things that could be changed at committee. If the government wants to protect the greenbelt in Ottawa, there is nothing in the way of doing that.

With respect to my friend across the way and the government members who have been given their points as to why they should oppose the bill, they should actually reflect on the argument. Their argument is that the Gatineau Park bill is too restrictive and does not include the greenbelt here in Ottawa. It is a simple thing to amend it at committee. We could support that. We have no problem with that. In fact, that is what we did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 . Note that when private members' bills come forward, members want to make sure that there is a chance that a bill can be passed.

They sometimes bring forward bills and the government will say that they are too big. My friend from Hull—Aylmer put this very specifically with respect to Gatineau Park. If the government wants to make the scope bigger, fine, we have no problem with that and will support that. With regard to some of the other issues, they really are not worth killing the bill. I know that there is a Conservative member bringing forward an initiative to allow members to have more say in legislation. One of the things we should honour is that if a bill is not too controversial, we should allow it to at least get to second reading.

After all, we only get one shot at this, whether we are on the government side or in opposition. Respectfully, if there is good intent, as there is in this bill, at least let us get it to committee. I plead to the government, because there will be a change of government sometime. Members will be in a position when they will want to bring their private members' bills forward, and we should remember that, because this is about how Parliament functions. The bill could be amended by bringing in best ideas. I was recently at a conference with legislators from the U.K. and the U.S.

When they bring forward legislation and members get behind bills, there is an opportunity to have debate and input. We do it at second reading. It gives life to an issue. I would plead with the government to think about this. This is about protecting the park, but it is also about protecting the integrity of our Parliament. If the bill is not up to the standard the government or backbenchers or frontbenchers or anyone wants, then that can be dealt with at committee. Let me finish with the following. Everyone agrees that we should protect Gatineau Park. Let the bill get to committee.

Let members of Parliament play their role as representatives of their constituents, and let good ideas go forward. Let us not get in the way of a good idea and the participation of everyday members of Parliament on the bill. People want to protect the park. Members agree on that. Let us get the bill to committee so Parliament can do its work, so MPs can do their work, and so citizens can see the value of the work we do here.

(1145) Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts with this House on Bill C-565 . It is flawed, it is inefficient, and it would cost taxpayers an estimate of up to $100 million, if not more, which is unacceptable. It also would create administrative confusion between provincial and federal jurisdictions, and of course, the National Capital Commission. The National Capital Act was passed over 50 years ago, in 1959.

It continues, without major updates, to successfully govern one of the most important crown corporations in the capital region, the National Capital Commission. The NCC is mandated by the government to prepare plans to assist in the development, conservation, and improvement of the national capital region so that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada reflect its national significance. The commission is the steward of all federal lands in the national capital region, including Gatineau Park.

In collaboration with the NCC, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the NCC can continue to effectively fulfill all of its functions, including the protection of Gatineau Park. That being said, Bill C-565 does not offer any proposals to assist the NCC in accomplishing its mandate in the capital region as a whole. In more specific terms, Bill C-565 lacks any effective or appropriate mechanisms for future generations. First, the bill would result in the misspending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

The bill would amend the mandate of the NCC to require it to purchase all available properties in the park. There are currently 377 privately owned properties in the park. In a normal market, and extrapolating from the prices of acquisitions in the past, the cost to purchase all of these 377 properties would be over $100 million. If that figure were not big enough, multiply that $100 million many times over, based on the strong possibility that this legal obligation of the NCC to purchase properties would lead to exponential inflation of private property prices in the park.

The result of this scenario would be the NCC being legally obligated to buy hundreds of properties at prices far above their normal market value. Meanwhile, this money could be better spent on the park's protection and maintenance while acquisitions continue to be prioritized based on how they contribute to the long-term sustainability and well-being of the park. Second, the bill goes into great detail concerning the NCC's obligation to protect biodiversity and to promote education and leisure activities in the park.

These ideas are far from revolutionary, as the previous government bills introduced in 2009 and 2010 proposed similar obligations. However, these previous government bills took a more appropriate approach by utilizing the concepts of ecological integrity and environmental stewardship, which are foundations of existing federal parks legislation, including the Canada National Parks Act. The forthcoming government bill would continue to make use of these concepts.

Third, although I appreciate that the bill sets out the same boundaries for the delineation of Gatineau Park used in our previous bills, that is where the similarities end and the problems with the member's bill begin. The bill would absolutely prohibit a sale or transfer of any public lands within these boundaries. This inclusion shows a lack of understanding of how a park with the size and unique character of Gatineau Park needs to be managed. Sometimes it is necessary, in the public interest or in the interest of the park itself, to perform minor alterations to the boundaries.

The NCC requires a mechanism that allows government oversight of the transfer or disposition of a piece of property, as long as the overall area of the park remains the same. Our government bill would ensure that the integrity of the park was protected while the NCC was provided with this necessary flexibility. In the meantime, the NCC already has in place a designation called a national interest land mass, or NILM. A property designated NILM cannot be sold or transferred without government oversight and approval. Gatineau Park is designated an NILM.

This designation has been successfully used for many years in the capital region to protect and manage property the government wishes to maintain for future generations, which includes, of course, Gatineau Park. Fourth, the bill would create preferential treatment in Gatineau Park for aboriginal peoples and local communities regarding rights of subsistence. It is my opinion that this refers to hunting and fishing rights in the park.

(1150) At this time, no hunting is allowed in the park, while a few provincial lakes allow licensed fishing. Hunting is inappropriate and unsafe in a park that hosts more than 2.7 million visitors per year from around the world. Clearly, there is a safety hazard there. Furthermore, the bill would put the NCC in the precarious position of deciding who is allowed to do what in the park and who would require regulation and enforcement, at a very high cost to taxpayers.

This provision would effectively pit the local community against visitors in a park that is meant to be enjoyed equally by everyone as part of a capital region shared by all Canadians. Fifth, the bill could potentially infringe on provincial jurisdiction as well as federal relations. The bill states that the NCC may not, in pursuing its objectives, infringe on real property rights. I would like to remind members that real property rights in Gatineau Park are already protected by the Code civil du Québec. This inclusion in the bill is therefore redundant and unnecessary.

I do not know why the chief opposition whip thinks it is necessary for the federal government, through its legislation, to pronounce and interfere on issues of provincial jurisdiction. The final issue with the bill is its unnecessary amendment of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. The rationale for this inclusion comes from the transfer of the activity and events mandate in the national capital region from the NCC to the Department of Canadian Heritage, pursuant to economic action plan 2013.

However, the member should know that subsequent to this transfer, the NCC and the Department of Canadian Heritage entered into a memorandum of understanding under which the NCC would continue to handle these responsibilities for, among other places, Gatineau Park and the Mackenzie King Estate, while the Department of Canadian Heritage would be responsible for these activities in urban areas of the capital region. This is another example of the lack of understanding and nuance that permeates the opposition whip's bill. In conclusion, the bill is irreparably flawed.

It must be opposed, as it would be extremely costly to taxpayers. It is unnecessarily rigid, blunt, and at times, quite redundant. It could potentially present issues relating to provincial jurisdiction and federal-provincial relations and could create favouritism and controversy regarding hunting and fishing rights in the park. It is unnecessarily narrow in addressing only Gatineau Park within a much larger national capital region. Shortly the Government of Canada will introduce

an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts that will be similar to the previous government bills. The intention of this forthcoming legislation is to provide the National Capital Commission with all the tools it needs to continue to successfully fulfill its mandate. For these reasons, I would like to inform the chief opposition whip and members of this House that I oppose Bill C-565 . (1155) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to Bill C-565 , a very important bill introduced by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer , who is also the chief opposition whip. This bill must certainly have meaning for most members of the House because it aims to protect one of the national capital's treasures. I was somewhat familiar with this region before, but I have learned more about it in recent years, now that I come here quite regularly as part of my duties as the MP for Sherbrooke. Tourists certainly know about the park—it attracts 2.7 million visitors a year. That is quite impressive.

One of the reasons why I am pleased to be speaking to this bill is that I love the national capital region, the Outaouais. Of course, I prefer the Eastern Townships, but that is a debate for another day. There has been some debate about protecting parks in the Eastern Townships. For example, Mont-Orford provincial park created a lot of buzz in the Eastern Townships. The leader of the official opposition knows that topic well, as he was the Quebec minister of the environment at the time.

That is why I think it is important to support the bill introduced by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer , which is designed to protect Gatineau Park. I imagine that the majority of my colleagues' ridings include a number of parks or protected areas. For example, Sherbrooke has Bois-Beckett park, a wonderful spot that is protected by a municipal bylaw. There are provincial parks such as Mont-Orford. I am sure that there are parks in every riding. I believe that Drummondville has Voltigeurs park and, of course, the Boisé Marconi wooded area.

Those are areas where biodiversity is protected by municipal, provincial or federal regulations. Today in Parliament, we are talking about a park under federal protection. We need to protect the biodiversity of all these protected areas, giving animals a place to take shelter when there is a lot of construction and more and more people living on their land. It is important to preserve places where biodiversity can continue to grow. Gatineau Park is one of those important places in the region.

This immense park, which covers 7.8% of the greater national capital region, allows species threatened by the growth of areas inhabited by humans to go to places that are safer for them. That is why I support Bill C-565 . Here are some key facts to further the public's knowledge of this park. The park recently celebrated its 75th anniversary and is currently managed by the National Capital Commission. Unfortunately, Gatineau Park is currently not protected.

(1200) That is why the bill was introduced. The park currently has no protection. It can be sold to real estate developers. Houses can be built there. The law does not set any limits. The bill would ensure that real estate developers could not start a project in Gatineau Park without approval by Parliament, as is the case for all of Canada's national parks. Giving an extremely important park like Gatineau Park similar protection—even if it is not exactly the same—is the least we can do. That is what the bill proposes.

The bill would not make Gatineau Park a national park like all the others, but it would give it similar protections in order to protect the biodiversity so that the park's 2.7 million annual visitors can continue to enjoy it for years to come and our children and grandchildren can enjoy it as well. This is how we can ensure the sustainability of this massive green space that is part of the region. It is also important to note that two official residences are located in Gatineau Park, including the residence of the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, you do not live there, but as the current occupant of the chair, you are entitled to live in the residence, which is located in the park. The Prime Minister's country retreat is also located in Gatineau Park. The bill proposes a number of things. I cannot list them all, but the bill's main purpose is to establish the park's boundaries and to prevent the sale of public land within Gatineau Park. This bill was drafted following a number of consultations held by my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer , who circulated petitions on this matter. It was one of my colleague's campaign promises.

This bill is the result of extensive consultations and did not just appear out of thin air. Other members have introduced bills in this regard. In the past, the government itself introduced bills concerning the park. Unfortunately, although the park has existed for 75 years, nothing has been done to this point. When we vote on the bill in a few days, I hope that all my colleagues will follow my example and vote for this bill at second reading. We have heard that some Conservative members want to vote against it. However, I hope that they will change their minds so that we can at least send the bill to committee.

I have heard some criticism from the Conservatives, but if the bill does not go to committee, it will be impossible to improve it. I urge those members to vote for the bill at second reading. If they have suggestions on how to improve the bill, they can bring them forward in committee. I urge all my colleagues to vote for Bill C-565 , as I will be doing. Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their participation in this debate, which is particularly important to the people of Hull—Aylmer.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the dozens of volunteers involved in my “Together let's protect Gatineau Park” campaign. Their passion for our park is truly inspirational. What I heard during this debate is that, like these volunteers, MPs recognize the exceptional value of Gatineau Park. We all hope that it will be preserved. However, as we know, good intentions are not enough to protect the park. We now have a responsibility to put words into action. Over the past seven years, the House has examined several NDP initiatives to meet this objective. All of them died on the order paper.

There is no more room for failure. We must move forward if we want to leave a healthy park to future generations. Whether it be because of its rich biodiversity or its contribution to the economic development of our region, Gatineau Park is clearly a genuine national treasure. It is unacceptable that Gatineau Park is the only major federal park that has no legal standing and no legal protection. The measures proposed in my bill are simple. They will remedy this situation by giving our park protections similar to those in place for our national parks.

In practical terms, this means that Gatineau Park would be granted real legal standing. Its boundaries would be entrenched in law and could no longer be secretly changed. The National Capital Commission's mission would also be changed to include the responsibility to protect Gatineau Park's ecological integrity and to acquire the real property located within the park. This bill will finally give Gatineau Park—a park that was created 76 years ago—the protection it deserves.

When I launched the “Together let's protect Gatineau Park” campaign in 2012, I quickly realized that the protection of this park is a cause that goes beyond political allegiance. By signing my petition to protect Gatineau Park, thousands of people in the Outaouais region and throughout Canada have already given me their support. I also have the support of non-governmental organizations known for their expertise in this area, such as Nature Canada and the Ottawa Valley

chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Today, I urge all members from all parties to support this bill. I urge them to send the bill to committee so that we can truly discuss the very foundation of the bill and its benefits and, by working together, find a solution to protect our park. I urge them to respond to the call of our volunteers from across the country, from citizens and organizations who care about the future of Gatineau Park. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by once again. I know that people are hesitant and have questions, but those cannot be sorted out in the House.

We can only answer these questions by sending this bill to committee, having an open discussion, and listening to the public and organizations as they make recommendations, offer suggestions and tell us exactly what they expect. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, everyone agrees that Gatineau Park needs to be protected. In 20 years, we will no longer be able to say that we forgot, that we dropped the ball and that we should have done something when we had the chance in the House. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to think about this and to protect our park together.

(1205) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It being 12:09 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen:

(1210) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 30, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. Division on motion deferred

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act The House resumed from November 29, 2013 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-13. Second reading Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-13 , the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which would update the Criminal Code to respond to the pernicious issue of cyberbullying. Bill C-13 achieves this goal by proposing new criminal offences of distribution of intimate images without the consent of the persons depicted.

Further, to ensure that police are properly equipped to investigate and enforce the proposed new offences and other criminal offences that involve the use of the Internet or that leave behind electronic evidence, the bill also proposes to modernize the Criminal Code's investigative tools. Similar modernization updates are being done to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Competition Act to ensure that they remain responsive and relevant to the requirements of modern technology.

The bill has received considerable attention in the media, including for the proposed amendments to the investigative tools. I would like to focus my remarks on those elements of Bill C-13 that deal with the investigative tools amendments. It is not uncommon to hear people talking about how technology has changed their lives. The Internet allows us to book airline tickets from the comfort of our homes, at any time of day or night. GPS systems allow us to get from Montreal to Saskatoon without a road map and without stopping to ask for directions. It has also changed the way that we communicate with each other.

Mobile phones keep us connected to each other no matter where we are, and text messaging has made communications so fast and cheap that it is easy to stay in touch with people halfway around the world. Canadians are world leaders when it comes to using the Internet. In 2012, 83% of Canadians over the age of 16 used the Internet in their personal lives, and that number continues to rise. The possibilities and opportunities that these technologies open up for us are nothing short of incredible. However, just as these technologies can be used to bring people together, they can be used for nefarious ends.

Technology can facilitate a wide range of criminal behaviour, including the sexual exploitation of children, identity fraud and, as we have seen most recently, serious forms of cyberbullying. Technology has also introduced us to new crimes that simply did not exist before there were computers. Crimes like computer hacking and denial of service attacks have been added to the criminal justice lexicon. Technology has changed the types of evidence that are left behind after a crime has been committed.

Previously, a telephone number may have revealed the identity of a suspect; this information may now be found in the transmission data of an email. Conspiracies can be created in online chat rooms, and people even speak of electronic fingerprints. It is time to update the offences in the Criminal Code to reflect these new ways of committing old crimes, as is the case when we think about bullying versus cyberbullying.

The amendments in Bill C-13 would update the investigative powers in the Criminal Code and the Competition Act to ensure that investigators have the tools they need to deal with the evidence in this new technological environment. Some of the proposed Criminal Code modernization amendments found in Bill C-13 would update existing offences, while some of them would update existing investigative tools or create new ones. With regard to the existing Criminal Code offences, Bill C-13 proposes to update the crimes of conveying false information, indecent communications, and harassing telephone calls found in

section 372. Currently these three offences contain language related to outdated technologies, such as the telephone and telegraph. With the proposed amendments, these same acts would be punishable when committed using email, text messaging, or any means of telecommunications. As much of the prohibited conduct in

section 372 is currently relevant to traditional bullying, for example, repeated and harassing phone calls, the proposed amendments would ensure that these offences are also responsive to cyberbullying. Further, the bill proposes minor updates to other Criminal Code offences. The amendments are part of the government's efforts to modernize the Criminal Code as it relates to new technologies.

For example, amendments to the offence of possession of a device to obtain telecommunications services are also being made to another possession offence in the Criminal Code in relation to the possession of computer hacking tools. These amendments make the two similar provisions consistent with each other and, in an effort to increase transparency, update them to reflect the current jurisprudence in the areas that hold that a device includes a computer program. On this particular issue, it has been very wrongly reported in the media that Bill C-13 proposes to criminalize the theft of cable signals.

In fact, the theft of cable signals has been in the Criminal Code since 1960.

(1215) As to Bill C-13 's proposed modernization of investigative tools, these amendments are designed to target electronic devices and tailored to ensure minimal intrusion on privacy and civil liberties. There has been some confusion about some of the investigative tools included in the bill. I hope to dispel some of these myths today as I explain the rationale and the reasoning behind these necessary changes to the criminal law. First, the bill proposes two new tools aimed at preserving volatile electronic evidence. They are called preservation demand and preservation orders.

I would like to emphasize that preservation should not be confused with data retention schemes. Nothing in this legislation would require Internet service providers to collect everyone's information and keep it on hand indefinitely. A preservation demand or order would require a person or a business that is not the target of the investigation to preserve a prescribed set of computer data, for example, an intimate image found on a website. The data could be preserved only for a limited amount of time in association with a specific investigation.

A good way to think of this particular tool is as a “do not delete” order; it simply asks the person to preserve or save the information already in his or her possession for a limited period of time. This tool is essential to enable the police to conduct effective investigations in the area where crucial evidence can be deleted with a simple keystroke. The preservation demand or preservation order would provide the police with enough time to go to a judge and get the warrants or orders needed to obtain the highly volatile evidence.

The police can do this without fear that the data they need will be lost or deleted, either intentionally or inadvertently as a matter of regular business practices, during the period that it takes to obtain a warrant or production order for that data. The duration of the preservation order would be limited to 21 days for domestic investigations and 90 days for international ones. This means that if a police officer does not get the court order or a warrant obtained for the preserved data before the demand expires, that data would not be retained in the ordinary course of business and would be destroyed.

The data would not be provided to the police without a court order or warrant. If the duration of the preservation order needs to be extended, the police would have to return to a judge or justice to obtain a preservation order. The police would then be given up to 90 days to get the production order or a warrant to obtain the data that has been preserved. If the police do not get the production order or the warrant by the time the preservation order expires, the person in possession of the preserved data is required to destroy it, unless his or her business practices otherwise require that it be retained.

This means that only specific computer data would be preserved under this scheme for a limited period of time and only for the purpose of an investigation. An even more fundamental privacy safeguard of the scheme is that the computer data that would not otherwise be kept by a business would be destroyed as soon as it is no longer needed for an investigation. These safeguards exemplify our efforts to respect privacy throughout the bill, and to respect privacy under Canadian law. In addition to the preservation scheme, the bill proposes to update the existing production order regime.

A production order is a judicial order that requires third parties, such as a bank, to provide the police with documents containing data in connection with an investigation. This is in contrast to a search warrant that would also be issued judicially but would allow the police to search for the material themselves. There are currently two types of production orders in the Criminal Code.

These are production orders for a very particular type of basic financial information, such as the status and type of bank account, as well as the more general production order for any type of data that might be needed to conduct an investigation. Often the requirements of an investigation are quite targeted, and general production orders could provide the police with a lot more information than they require in certain circumstances.

In those cases, it makes sense to have specific tools, such as a financial data production order, that would allow the police to obtain the specific data they are looking for and that are designed to reflect the expected privacy associated with that particular type of data. One way of thinking about this kind of tailoring is as privacy with precision. Instead of using one big tool for every problem, we would be providing several tools that are more precisely suited to specific types of problems. The bill proposes to retain two existing categories of production orders already found in the existing Criminal Code.

In addition, it is proposing three more to deal with specific types of data associated with modern technology.

(1220) In particular, Bill C-13 proposes to create production orders for historic tracking data, which would permit police to determine, for example, the pattern of bank card usage for a period of time; historic data related to the routing of telecommunications, such as the time an email was sent, and to which address, which would be known as transmission data; and historic data designed to trace specific communications.

The last type of production order would be a very important tool to address the complexities of modern communication, as it would allow the police to trace the origin of communications that may have gone through several different service providers before it reached its destination. Other changes that are being proposed in Bill C-13 would impact the existing tracking warrant provisions. This is different from the production order for tracking data which provides information about past movements.

Police have been able to get judicially authorization tracking warrants for over 20 years, which permit them to track the whereabouts of a person in real time. As one can imagine, technology has changed a lot in that time. Where police were once able to track people with limited accuracy, there are now technologies that can track objects much more precisely and closely. Bill C-13 proposes to split the existing tracking warrant provisions into two types of warrants: one for tracking people, and one for tracking the location of a transaction or the movement of such things as a car.

The warrant for tracking things would continue to be available on the standard of reasonable grounds to suspect, like the existing tracking warrant provision. However, this legislation proposes to increase the threshold necessary to get a tracking warrant in the situation where people would be tracked. This would mean that when police officers apply to the judge or justice for a warrant to do this more continuous and accurate type of tracking, the officer would have to meet a higher test to convince the judge that the tracking warrant is needed.

This is a dual approach, which would allow the police to retain the efficiency of the lower threshold warrant while increasing the privacy protections in situations where the greater privacy interests are at play. Another warrant provision which Bill C-13 is proposing to update is currently known as the number recorder warrant. This permits the police to monitor the phone numbers dialed from a particular telephone and the numbers which call a particular telephone. Although it is true that some of us still use traditional telephones to communicate, few old-fashioned dialing mechanisms are still in use.

An increasing number of Canadians are using smart phones, text messaging, email, and other high-tech methods to communicate. Police need to be able to capture the routing information that these new technologies produce, the same way that we can currently capture the phone numbers under existing warrants. The proposed transmission data recorder warrant and the new production order for transmission data would allow police to do just that.

Where police could previously only get the phone number of someone who was dialing, they would now be able to get parallel updated forms of communication destination information like email addresses as well. This would provide for much-needed modernization in this area, since technology has moved well beyond telephone dialing. I think it is important to emphasize that this warrant would retain the Criminal Code's existing privacy protections. Neither the warrant nor the production order would allow police to obtain the content of people's emails, text messages, or phone calls.

They would not even get the subject line of emails using this warrant. In essence, Bill C-13 would permit police to get information about where a communication is coming from or where it is going to. That is the only kind of information they are going to get with this warrant and production order. Besides these new and improved investigative tools, Bill C-13 also proposes to clarify and safeguard the common law powers of police.

Section 487.014 would be amended to remove the requirement for police to be administering or enforcing

an act of Parliament before they can ask for information. The current wording has been creating problems for the police in performing everyday duties, such as getting information for the purpose of notifying a next of kin. There has been some concern about this amendment removing the limits on what police can ask of persons who voluntarily provide information. Let me be clear. The common law powers of the police are rooted in legitimate police business, which is one limit. Further, the existing restrictions on the provider of the information would remain.

They can only provide information that they are not otherwise prohibited by law from disclosing. Indeed, providers of information will be governed by federal or provincial privacy legislation that will restrict the disclosure of personal information. To be clear, the primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that police do not need a production order every time they want to ask a question. These amendments are the result of extensive consultations, both on the elements relating to the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and on the modernization of investigative tools.

(1225) The proposals in Bill C-13 were recommended in recent federal, provincial, territorial reports on the issue on cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which was released in July 2013 and supported by the federal, provincial, territorial ministers in November 2013. The report strongly recommends both the proposed new offences and the reintroduction of the elements related to the modernization of investigative tools. The report also recommends that the enactment of new offences be supported by updated investigative tools.

Bill C-13 would provide police with a set of tools which would allow them to be effective and efficient in conducting a complex investigation in the modern world. This would apply to serious forms of cyberbullying, including the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well, or other offences that occurred in cases of cyberbullying, such as criminal harassment or extortion. Our government is committed to combatting cybercrime in all forms. This bill is a necessary addition to the legislative tool kit.

When we look at the legislation, it is important that we really highlight the fact of what is going on. The reality is technology has changed, the environment in which our police services work in has changed, and they need modernization of the tools so they can go about doing the job they have been asked to do for many years. We need to ensure they have access to the tools and the information, so we can still protect our families and our loved ones when they are victims of cyberbullying or cybercrime.

When we see situations where someone is trying to entice someone to do something wrong, or when we see situations where people are being bullied or harassed, we will have the tools to prevent that from leading to something more serious. It is important that we see proper legislation move forward. It is very important that we balance the privacy rights of the individuals with the rights of the police and the rights of the victim. The way this legislation is drafted, we have done just that.

We will allow the data to be retained, but at the same time the police officers involved will have to receive the warrant before they can use the data. That is relevant and it makes a lot of common sense. I think a lot of Canadians would understand that. I just hope that all members appreciate the importance of this bill.

It is very important that we modernize our laws and our abilities to take advantage of new technologies as they become available, and to take on new criminal activities that are using the new technologies, ensuring we have the tools for our police officers to ensure these new technologies are not abused but are used for what they were originally intended, for public good. I hope all members of the House will support the need for modern tools for modern times. Bill C-13 would provide just that. I look forward to questions. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the NDP will be voting in favour of this bill, because it is very similar to the bill introduced by my colleague from Nova Scotia. However, I find the lack of prevention included in the bill really unfortunate. I understand that the government wanted to focus on criminalization, but could the bill not have been improved by placing greater emphasis on prevention, as well as criminalization? The House of Commons wants to protect as many young people as possible from the scourge of bullying, and right now, I do not see much in the way of prevention in this bill. [ English ] Mr. Randy Hoback : Mr.

Speaker, the member brings up a good point. The bill is one part of the equation. I am sure the Minister of Justice and others would agree with this, but I do not want to speak on their behalf. If we look at this, it is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to cyberbullying. Education as well as the exact things the member is looking for are very important things that we should be considering as we debate the bill through committee. The reality is we need to ensure we put the tools in place for the police forces so they have the ability to take on these criminals.

That does not mean this is the end all and be all. This does not solve what we are looking at; it is part of the puzzle to solve the equation. Education and other factors need to be looked at. We have to ensure that our kids are kept safe. Not only that, we have to ensure that our kids understand the consequences of their actions when they send text messages or images. They need to understand there are consequences, and that they could be hurting someone when they make that anonymous note in an email, text or tweet. Their actions will have consequences and will impact someone's life.

Just because we are not looking at them, we should not think it is not happening. It is very important that this be a part of many things to tackle cyberbullying.

(1230) Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for outlining some of the effects of Bill C-13 and how it would help to modernize the tools available to our police forces to investigate, to actually reflect the fact that there are many changes in modern technology. A number of years ago I introduced a private member's motion in the House, Motion No. 388, which sought to clarify an offence in the Criminal Code of encouraging someone to die by suicide.

While it currently is an offence in the Criminal Code, it was not clear in the code as to whether that included telecommunications and Internet technology. Motion No. 388, which passed unanimously in the House, called on government to implement some of those changes. I was pleased to note that in the comments made by my colleague and also some comments I was able to read that the bill would actually give police better tools to track and trace telecommunications, their origins and destinations.

Could my colleague highlight how the bill would make it impossible for those who would presume to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to continue to do that kind of devious work? Mr. Randy Hoback : Mr. Speaker, it is a disgusting act to go online to convince somebody to take his or her own life. I think everybody in the House would agree with my colleague that his motion was an honourable one, a motion that definitely needed to come forward. I hope to see it enacted as we move forward.

One of the important things we are seeing in this, and which he highlighted in his question, is the fact that we are giving police the tools to actually trace where information comes from and who is doing this type of stuff. It is not being done to just one person; it is being done to multiple people. It is a sickness that needs to be dealt with. I call it a sickness because I do not know what else to call it. It is very disgusting when someone takes on the role of convincing somebody else to take his or her own life. Having said that, we need to ensure we have balance.

We need to ensure we preserve people's rights, dignity and privacy, and we want to ensure that exists. We also want to ensure that when we come across a situation where this is happening, police officers can have the data preserved so they can get court orders and warrants to do the proper investigation. There has to be a proper process put in place, which has been done in Bill C-13 . I look forward to seeing what impact these changes would have and that hopefully this bill would solve the issues involved in cyberbullying and the people who are disgusting enough to try to convince somebody else to commit suicide.

Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for me this issue is very important. As a young woman, I have grown up with a lot of technology around and have learned to be wary over the years. Certainly young people need to know how to protect themselves, et cetera. My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord raised the importance of preventive measures. He presented a motion on a national strategy to prevent and end bullying. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against that.

I would like to know why my colleague voted against that and believed it was not a good way forward to prevent bullying. Mr. Randy Hoback : Mr. Speaker, preventive measures are very important, which I think we would all agree on, but we also have to ensure we put a process in the bill, which we have done, that allows individual privacy to be protected, data to be retained and preserved, and a court order to be garnered before existing data is used. Police officers cannot simply say that they are going to start an investigation and grab all the information just for information sake.

They actually have to ask for it to be preserved. They have to go the court to seek the appropriate legal warrant to use the data and then proceed with the criminal investigation. That is why Bill C-13 is so much better than what was proposed by the opposition. (1235) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin : Mr. Speaker, the hon. Conservative member opposite mentioned that the government's approach was better than the approach taken in the two bills introduced by the opposition, the NDP. Based on my motion calling for a national bullying prevention strategy, we could have tackled many different kinds of cyberbullying.

The Conservative bill deals only with sharing intimate photographs without people's consent. Many young people in Canada are being bullied in ways that do not include nude pictures being passed around. This can include hateful or threatening comments. Unfortunately, the government bill does not cover that. Not only does the Conservative bill not meet Canadians' expectations, but it covers only one small part of the equation of cyberbullying.

Given what I just said, how can my Conservative colleague say that the NDP approach, which was more comprehensive, was not as good as the government's approach, which covers only the sharing of intimate photographs without consent? [ English ] Mr. Randy Hoback : Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we look at what we are trying to achieve here. We are not trying to get into partisan politics. We are not trying to say that ours is better than theirs, or theirs is better than ours. What we are really trying to do is focus on the fact people out there are being cyberbullied.

There is a process that needs to be put in place. There are tools available to the police services that they are not able to utilize. This bill would allow them to be utilized. It would also take on the fact that privacy would have to be respected. The bill would put in place a process to not only protect the data, but to ensure that the RCMP or the police services involved would have to get the legal warrant before they could continue on with their investigation. The bill would safeguard privacy and would put in place tools so police forces could be effective in doing their job.

These are tools that the police, at this point in time, are unable to use. I am not going to get into partisan politics on which bill is better or who could do this better. I look forward to the debate at committee, because it is a great place for all of that to be discussed. There might be some better ideas that need to be added. The reality is that this is a really good step. This proposed bill will save lives. It will address cyberbullying. It will address intimate images being used in cyberbullying attacks.

I hope the bill will also address the disgusting act of convincing somebody to commit suicide over the Internet. It is a step in the right direction. Not only that, it is part of the bigger picture and the bigger puzzle. Education and other items of knowledge need to be passed to our kids so they understand exactly what they are doing when they send that text message or that email. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I must start by thanking my NDP colleagues for allowing me to speak on Bill C-13 today, because as a result of the application of time allocation for what I think was the 58th time, many of my colleagues will not have an opportunity to speak on this bill. Despite all of my colleagues obviously being New Democrats, we are a very diverse caucus with different experiences, and we represent different kinds of ridings here in the House of Commons. I have risen to speak in favour of Bill C-13 , but I do so with some reservations.

Unfortunately, the bill is, in effect, yet another omnibus bill that mixes together many other issues with the one that should have been central—that is, bullying and cyberbullying. Instead we have a rather mixed bag of provisions instead of a focused response to the urgent challenges of bullying and cyberbullying. Rather than trying to address all the issues in the bill, I want to focus my remarks today on two aspects: first, the need for effective action to combat bullying; second, the proposed amendment to the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code which, surprisingly, also appears in the bill in clause 12. Since 2011, we in this House have had several opportunities to act on the issues of bullying and cyberbullying, but unfortunately we have made little progress. Nearly 18 months ago my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord , put forward a motion, Motion No. 385, which called upon the federal government to develop a national strategy with concrete steps to combat bullying.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted down the motion, dismissing it as a call for further study, when in fact it was a call for leadership from the federal government in the fight against bullying and cyberbullying. Last summer, on June 17, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-540 , which would amend the Criminal Code in order to make the non-consensual making or distribution of intimate images a criminal offence.

At that time, we asked the government to expedite passage of the bill in order to try to prevent further tragedies like the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, which took place as a result of cyberbullying. Unfortunately, the government preferred to wait for its own bill, which has delayed action on this critical issue for nearly a year. What we have before us now in Bill C-13 is much narrower than a strategy to combat cyberbullying, though it does have some provisions similar to those the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour proposed many months ago.

We are, of course, supporting the bill going to committee, precisely because some legislative action against cyberbullying is necessary, but again I want to emphasize that focusing on bullying after the fact can only be part of the solution. Today I want to reiterate two points I made when speaking 18 months ago in support of our motion for a national anti-bullying strategy. They relate to the pervasiveness of bullying in our society and to its amplification by the existence of new technologies. The prevalence and pervasiveness of bullying in Canada is truly shocking.

In fact, bullying is happening around us all the time. In one analysis of Toronto-area schools, it was found that a student is bullied every seven seconds. Egale Canada conducted a survey of homophobia and transphobia in schools across Canada. It found that 74% of transidentified students, 55% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, and 26% of non-LGBTQ students reported being verbally harassed. More than half of those reported that this bullying occurred on a daily or weekly basis. One UBC study of students in grades 8 to 10 found that 64% of students reported they had been bullied.

Even more saddening for me is their acceptance of that inevitability, because 64% of these same students said they found bullying to be a normal part of school life. People are bullied for an almost infinite number of reasons, but almost all of those reasons are connected to hostility toward deviation from the perceived norm: for being too short, too tall, too fat, too thin; for where they were born, the colour of their skin, the language they speak at home; for having an accent, for the clothes they wear, for sexual orientation, for their gender, for their gender presentation, for what they are able to afford.

The list goes on and on, but the result is always the same: creating a sense of exclusion for the victims of bullying. As technology has advanced, so has the means of bullying, with social networking, smart phones, and the Internet becoming second nature to people in Canada, especially young people. So has utilizing these resources for bullying. As a result, bullying has become intensified and its impacts more widely distributed. Bullying is no longer a problem that only happens at school, on the school bus, or on the playground. It is no longer just a workplace problem.

It can now follow victims home and invade their lives 24 hours a day each and every day of the year.

(1240) The consequences of bullying and the effects of bullying need to be taken seriously. We all know that the impacts of bullying on youth can be drastic and long-lasting. Young people who are bullied are more likely to face depression. It is estimated that male victims of bullying are five times more likely, and females victims three times more likely, to be depressed than their non-bullied classmates. People who are victims of bullying are more susceptible to low self-esteem and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and illnesses.

Young people who are bullied are more likely to engage in substance abuse and self-harm, and in recent years we have seen the tragic rise in the trend toward youth bullycide. The list of those young people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying is already too long, and unfortunately continues to grow. The costs of bullying are found not just on its impact on individuals. Bullying has wider social costs. One study has found that of elementary school bullies, one in four will have a criminal record by the time they are 30 years old.

We can and must move beyond our platitudes and expressions of concern about bullying and not limit our responses only to actions taken after the damage has already been done. We all know that these bullying behaviours are learned. People are not born with hearts full of hate. At the root of our response to bullying must be efforts to build a more open and accepting society. If there was a real intolerance for discrimination and hate, then bullying clearly would not be so pervasive. We could make a good start by calling bullying what it really is.

We need to recognize that most bullying is rooted in sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism. These are serious prejudices that most Canadians find unacceptable in theory, but for some reason they are deemed acceptable when they are expressed in the form of bullying. The need for a broad strategy as well as for anti-bullying legislation is so obvious. Unfortunately, what we find in the rest of the bill is a mixed bag of only tangentially related provisions, some with no clear connection to the problem at all.

Some things in the bill have been brought forward from the previously failed Bill C-30 , but fortunately in this version it looks as if the important principle of judicial oversight of police access to Internet communications may be preserved. I look forward to hearing from Canadians about this aspect again when the bill reaches committee. One surprise in Bill C-13 was the inclusion of clause 12. This

section proposes the addition of some important provisions to the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code. I am at a loss to explain why this proposal has suddenly appeared in the bill, but I think it is a positive thing. Bill C-13 suggests adding national origins, age, sex, and mental or physical disability to the existing provisions of the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code. While the connection to the other aspect of the bill is not immediately obvious, as I said, I do believe this is a good thing, but what is missing from this

section is gender identity. This House has twice voted in favour of adding gender identity to the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code, yet it is not included in clause 12 of the bill. My own private member's bill, Bill C-279 , is still stuck in the Senate more than a year after being passed in this House, and while I remain hopeful it will be adopted soon, there is an obvious potential problem in the conflict between Bill C-13 and my own private member's bill. Unfortunately, if the Senate does pass Bill C-279, clause 12 of Bill C-13 would inadvertently undo half that progress. Bill C-13 in its present form would actually remove gender identity from the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code if my private member's bill has already passed, so when we get to committee, we will be having a serious discussion about an amendment to add gender identity to fix this omission. It was more than three years ago that this House, in a minority Parliament, voted to add gender identity to the hate crime

section of the Criminal Code, and, as I said, more than a year ago we voted to do that in my own private member's bill, so I am hoping that this proposed amendment to the hate crime

section was inadvertent in its omission of gender identity and that this omission can be fixed in committee. Let me return to what I believe is the important question that should be at the centre of Bill C-13 , which is that there is an urgent need for Parliament to provide national leadership in the fight against bullying. Despite our concerns about the bill being an omnibus bill and despite many of the other things stuffed into Bill C-13 , we are supporting sending the bill to committee so that we can continue the dialogue on the important issue of bullying and cyberbullying.

What is of concern to me, as I mentioned at the outset, is the attitude that has become prevalent on the other side of the House that when three or four members have spoken, it is time to end debate. The very root of the word “Parliament” means a place where we can talk about the important national issues.

(1245) I feel it is a great privilege to stand here and speak to Bill C-13 as a man who comes from the LGBTQ community, which suffers inordinately from bullying. I think I bring a perspective somewhat different from that of some other members of the House. As someone from Vancouver Island, where we have a lot of early adapters of new technology, I know we see huge problems of bullying and cyberbullying in local schools. Frankly, teachers are at their wits' end in trying to find ways to deal effectively with it.

One thing that has been common in the responses I have received is a warning that we not look simply to criminal sanctions for youth to combat cyberbullying and that criminalizing bullying for young people could in fact be a serious problem. I come back to the idea that we cannot just focus on what happens after the bullying. We have to provide national leadership in coming up with ways to attack this problem before the damage actually takes place.

Some may say that is not a federal responsibility, but it is in the sense that when bullying and cyberbullying reach their most vicious levels, they often result in criminal acts. Since the Criminal Code is the responsibility of this federal Parliament, then we do have a responsibility for crime prevention. I would argue very strongly that a national strategy to prevent bullying and cyberbullying is a matter of crime prevention. On the other side of the House we hear a lot of discussion about victims.

We share the concern for victims in Canadian society, but how can we do our best job in addressing the needs of victims? We can do that by preventing victimization. Once again, there is a responsibility for the House to look at what we can do to make sure that victims are not created through bullying and cyberbullying. When we get to committee, I would ask members on the other side to keep an open mind about those other things that we can do.

We do not need just to find criminal sanctions, although there are some things here that I agree are necessary and that will be useful in the most extreme cases, but there are many more things we can do to make this the Canada that we all love and believe is a great place that includes a space for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the evidence of bullying and cyberbullying shows that is not always the case.

Whether we are talking about immigrant communities and their desire to contribute to Canada fully or whether we are talking about the LGBTQ community and our desire to be accepted in Canadian society and play our role very fully or whether we are talking about those with disabilities who are often sidelined in our society, we have to take all the measures that we can to make our country more inclusive and make it one we can all be even prouder of than we are now. How do we do that? I come back to this argument again and again.

We put forward a motion calling for a national strategy to combat bullying and cyberbullying, and this is where Bill C-13 falls short. It has measures looking at what we can do after the fact to investigate criminal cases of bullying. It has measures to help apprehend those people who ultimately have performed criminal acts when it comes to bullying, but it does not have measures that would help reduce this problem in our society. I will return to my concern over Bill C-279 . It is a difficult situation for some people to understand. My bill should have already passed through the Senate and should already be law.

We now have a situation in which transgendered Canadians are subject to hate crimes and bullying and are the group most subject to violence of all groups in our society. If that private member's bill—which passed the House a year ago, as I said several times today—had already been passed, we would have some of the tools we need to combat the epidemic of violence against transgendered people in Canada. Canada is not alone. Transgendered people are the most subject to violence everywhere around the world. I remain very sad that the Senate has taken so long to get down to business on passing Bill C-279 .

It held hearings and heard witnesses a year ago in June at the human rights committee. It essentially finished the process of examining the bill and found it acceptable; then, because of prorogation, the process had to start over.

(1250) I am at a loss to see why the bill has to go back to another committee, this time to a legislative and constitutional affairs committee. We have had the promise from the senators that they will take up the bill in committee soon; however, that promise was made in February and we are now in April. I am emphasizing this in Bill C-13 because this is where the two bills come together: in clause 12 and those amendments to the hate crimes

section of the Criminal Code that are in this bill but fail to include gender identity. We have this unfortunate grinding of gears between the two Houses here. If in committee we are able to add gender identity to Bill C-13, that would be a good thing, because as a government bill it would make its way through the Senate expeditiously. I have now begun to fear that Bill C-279 will face the same fate as the previous bill on transgender rights and that it will die in the Senate without action before the next election. If we can get half a loaf here in Bill C-13 , I am prepared to work for that.

I look for support from the other side in correcting what I hope was an inadvertent omission of gender identity from those amendments that are in clause 12. When we go back to our ridings when Bill C-13 is in committee, I know that all of us will hear from members of our communities about the urgency of what we are doing, and I know we will hear again from the Conservatives about the urgency. However, I have to emphasize that we have had many opportunities since 2011 to actually take action on what I call “remedial actions”, those things that take place after the fact.

Again, I remain disappointed that the Conservatives would not expedite the private member's bill from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour , and we could have already had the non-consensual distribution of sexual images in the Criminal Code by this time. We would not still be waiting for that to happen. Of course, we could have already had a committee that had prepared a national strategy with concrete actions to combat bullying and cyberbullying. As we near the summer recess, I am hoping Bill C-13 will actually get through, but then it also would face the hurdle of the Senate.

Would the Senate deal expeditiously with this bill? Would it actually get these provisions passed in a timely manner? I can only hope that it would, but the irony is that Bill C-13 would go to the Constitution and legal affairs committee of the Senate where my private member's bill is also supposed to be going. The chances of both getting through before we get to summer seems kind of small. We have both the broader group of all those who face bullying and the narrower group of those trans Canadians who are depending on the Senate to take effective action soon.

However, that just does not seem to be the way the Senate proceeds. An hon. member: It is a mystery.

(1255) Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is a mystery to me. We had Amnesty International provide leadership in creating a letter from 100 civil society organizations, which was sent to the Senate earlier this year, asking it to take urgent action on Bill C-279 . Within two days there was a response saying that it would act immediately, but nothing has happened, so obviously the sense of what “immediate” means in the Senate and in this House is quite different.

My plea with senators today is to deal with Bill C-279 expeditiously and also, when this bill gets to them, as I am sure it will before we recess for the summer, to also deal with Bill C-13 expeditiously. I have to say that I am not optimistic that this will actually happen. In conclusion, let me say I am proud to stand in this House today and speak to Bill C-13 .

It does contain things that we need to take action on, but, and there is always this unfortunate “but” when it comes to legislation from the current government, too many things have been stuffed into the same bill and so we are going to have to have some serious discussions in committee about some of the other things that have been tacked on to this bill. One of those is something I am very interested in and that is the question of gender identity in the hate crimes

section of the Criminal Code. I hope we will have co-operation in committee and that we will be able to get that amendment made, get Bill C-13 through this House, and take at least some limited action against bullying and cyberbullying before we recess for the summer. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is right that this bill is a bit of an omnibus bill. It covers everything from terrorism to telemarketing, cable stealing and hate speech.

I wonder if the member, who is very rightly concerned about the overlap between this bill and his private member's bill, Bill C-279 , which is stuck in the Senate, thinks that splitting off all the provisions that relate to cyberbullying into a separate bill, which would allow the committee to leave aside examining the other parts of the bill, would be a better strategy to at least pass part of the bill and make sure it is coordinated with his own private member's bill and get it through the Senate before we rise for the summer. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr.

Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands takes a reasonable approach to these matters. I would point out that when Bill C-13 was introduced, on this side we offered exactly what the member suggested. We told the government we were prepared to take out those urgent matters dealing with cyberbullying, have them in a separate bill, and pass them expeditiously through the House. It rejected that approach to doing so.

Therefore, while I take seriously that the government wants this action to happen, I remain concerned that at each turn there is more and more delay on things that could have been done much earlier in the House. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the tireless work he does on behalf of transgendered people. I feel it is important to mention during this debate that the NDP has tabled bullying prevention measures.

I would like to mention the initiative of my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour , who introduced Bill C-540 , as well as the work done by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord , who moved Motion No. 385 to create a national bullying prevention strategy. We asked the Conservatives to work with us but, unfortunately, they played petty politics with this very important issue. As my colleague mentioned, the government often uses its bills to impose measures that have nothing to do with the bill's objective. We have seen the same thing with omnibus bills.

Could my colleague explain the link between cyberbullying and the fact that this bill includes a two-year sentence for stealing cable signals? (1300) [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that there be theft of cable signals in this bill. It is a good example of this tendency to stuff a bunch of other things into a bill which is called the prevention of cybercrime as kind of a catch-all title for the bill. Therefore, it makes it very difficult for us as members of Parliament to debate and vote on bills when the government has a bunch of unrelated things put into the same bill.

As I have mentioned, in this case we have seen bills that were dropped, such as Bill C-30 , brought back into this bill, admittedly in a better form. However, I am not sure what that has to do with bullying or cyberbullying. There have been a lot of things mixed together in this bill, which makes it difficult for us to debate and make decisions on this. When we get to committee, perhaps there will be some opportunity to narrow the focus of the bill or improve the focus of the bill. I certainly hope that is the case. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague, who spoke so well, talks about the privilege of speaking here today. I have to say I do feel privileged as well on this issue, especially with respect to the comments regarding the LGBTQ community. My riding of Burnaby—Douglas was home to the great Svend Robinson, who was the first openly gay MP, and Bill Siksay, who was the tireless champion of the LGBTQ community. Now I have the privilege of sitting beside my friend, who is our critic for this area and who I would say is probably the foremost champion of LGBTQ community issues in the House. I thank him for his work.

I was struck by his comments about the absence of transgender rights in this bill and was wondering if he cared to comment on that more and what we should do to fix that in committee. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comments. It is a privilege to share a desk with him here in the House of Commons. I get the benefit of his very sharp sense of humour, which does not always appear through the microphones. I thank him for his kind words. Like all members of the NDP caucus, he has been a firm supporter of LGBTQ rights, and I am very proud to be the spokesperson for our party.

It is the only party that has a spokesperson for LGBTQ rights in the House of Commons. I guess that I am feeling charitable today. I am going to say that I hope that the omission of gender identity from the additions to the hate crimes

section was inadvertent. Sometimes, we make Machiavellian conclusions about what is happening in the House when they are not really deserved. I am just not sure. If we were going to amend that

section and the House has already pronounced twice on the issue, it would seem to be obvious then that gender identity should have gone into clause 12 of Bill C-13 . When we get to committee, we will certainly be suggesting that it be dealt with at the committee stage. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague for the work he is doing on bullying and to also thank my colleagues from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour . They are part of a group of MPs who have worked very hard on this issue over the past few years.

The specific question I have is about one of the subjects the member alluded to during his speech, namely the fact that new technologies sometimes make bullying harder on young people. Bullying used to happen in the schoolyard and, once students were out of the yard, there were far fewer ways to connect with young people than there are today. Why is it important that we, as legislators, adjust our laws to these new technologies, which make it possible to engage in other types of bullying? (1305) [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr.

Speaker, the member's question reminded me of my own experience, which was of course back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in elementary school. I lived in a rural area, and the bus ride home was hell for me because I was perceived, even at that age, to be insufficiently masculine. As a result, I faced severe bullying on the school bus each and every day. I have to say that I did not face it in the classroom at school and, of course, I did not face it at home.

I was literally terrorized by the bus ride every day, and my parents had a hard time understanding why I begged them to drive me to school and begged my grandparents to take me to school. I never wanted to ride the bus. However, for me, it was a very short period of the day when I was subjected to it. Once I was home, either at my parents' home or my grandparents' home, where I spent a lot of time, I was safe from that bullying. That is the big difference now. Technology has brought that bullying into peoples' homes.

It has made it not just a short period of the day, but something that people have to live with and deal with constantly. Additionally, the anonymity that is sometimes provided by the Internet gives people licence to be even meaner, more vindictive, and more prejudiced than they might otherwise be if their names and faces were assigned to the comments that they are making. Technology has expanded the time and the places in which individuals are subject to bullying, and it has expanded the intensity of that bullying. It is time to recognize the difference. It is not the bullying that took place when I was a kid.

This is something new that is much more pervasive and much more intense. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13 , the protecting Canadians from online crime act. I would like to first set out a bit of context in terms of where we have come from. Members might be aware that it was 25 years ago when the first test was done on the World Wide Web. We have to look at how far we have come in 25 years. Facebook, a powerful tool, was introduced in 2004.

I might be dating myself a bit, but I remember going to my first tutorial to learn about the World Wide Web, and it was very complicated. There were DOS commands and giant computers. Now we have the ability to take a picture with something the size of our palm and distribute it immediately around the world. That is an absolutely incredible change over a relatively short 25 years. Before I go into the details of the bill and why it is so important, I need to reflect on the fact that this tool in some ways has been fabulous for Canadians and people around the world.

I remember a colleague telling me how his grandmother in Argentina every night read a book over Skype to put his child to bed. We have the ability to pay our bills by email. We have the ability to interact immediately with family around the world. It is much easier to keep those connections we treasure and value. As politicians we have seen the dark side of the Internet. Anyone who has a Twitter account or a Facebook account regularly sees some of the very vicious comments that come in through those forums. As my colleague across the aisle just said, these comments are often anonymous and vicious.

As politicians, we deal with that, but that is nothing compared to really overstepping the bounds and the issues some children and adults have had to deal with. A quick Google search on cyberbullying immediately brings up hundreds of names. There is Ryan's story, Bronagh's story, and Megan's story. Look at Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. Just recently we heard the she allegedly fell victim to someone on the other side of the world. Times have changed incredibly, and we need to change with the times.

This legislation proposes changes to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The bill would create a law to address the behaviour that can occur in cases of cyberbullying. This new offence would be called non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Investigative powers need to be updated to ensure that they are in line with the modern technology I just talked about, where in one minute, something as small as one's hand reaches across the world.

I would like to expand a bit on the amendments to the Criminal Code and highlight how they are designed to ensure appropriate privacy protection in the face of the new technology. It is a difficult balancing act, because we need to ensure that privacy is protected while providing the tools to tackle these horrendous issues. There are a few areas I would like to talk about.

I will start with preservation orders and demands and updates to the tracking warrant provisions, which are essential tools to ensure that effective investigations are conducted in Canada when the police are faced with crimes involving technology. What is this new preservation order? The preservation order would create new powers, to be used in both Criminal Code and Competition Act contraventions. The goal of these two new provisions is to ensure that volatile computer data will not be deleted before the police have time to get a warrant or court order to collect it for investigations.

The need for these tools is obvious. Not only is computer data easily deleted but it can also easily be lost through carelessness or just in day-to-day business practice. A preservation order or demand would legally require a person to keep the computer data that is vital to an investigation long enough for the police to seek the judicial warrants and orders necessary to obtain the information. This tool would ensure that the police could get the investigation under way without the loss of really important evidence.

(1310) People may have concerns about the impact of these amendments on a person's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. They might have heard about Europe's data retention regime and worry that our legislation is going to import that to Canada. That is not what Bill C-13 is doing. Data retention would allow the collection of a range of data for all telephone and Internet service subscribers for a defined period of time, regardless of whether or not the data was connected with the investigation. Bill C-13 does not provide for data retention.

It provides for data preservation, and that is a very important fact. It would require that specified computer data in connection with a specific investigation and specific people be preserved for a limited period of time. It is important to understand that this data would not be turned over to the police unless they first obtained a judicial warrant or court order for that disclosure. Also, any of the data that was preserved and whose presentation was not otherwise required for regular business purposes would have to be destroyed as soon as it was no longer needed for the investigation.

This would protect the privacy of Canadians. This would also ensure that the regime created in this bill did not inadvertently result in the kind of data retention I have just described. As members can see, the data preservation scheme the government is proposing is actually quite constrained in its focus and has been designed as a stop-gap measure so that the judicial warrants and the court order police obtain subsequent to access to the evidence are not rendered useless. Again, it is a really important intermittent tool.

Another change Bill C-13 proposes is updating the Criminal Code's existing tracking warrant provision. Of course, this warrant was created in the early 1990s. Police could obtain and use this warrant to track people, cars, or objects. Again, as I described earlier, so much has changed in tracking technology since then and in the accuracy of this tracking technology. The continuity with which it can track things has also improved. Because of the improvements, the existing tracking warrant is outdated, and its privacy safeguards no longer reflec