As the House will know, this legislation was brought forward in place of or at least after Bill C-30 was withdrawn. It was the so-called protecting children from Internet predators act. I do understand the reasons for urgency.

[CgePKf0unvQ]

This legislation, Bill C-55, is in direct response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Tse, in which the court found that the current emergency wiretap provisions failed the charter test. The court suspended its ruling for 12 months to allow the House to remedy those sections of the Criminal Code such that they would conform with the charter. The clock started ticking when the Supreme Court rendered its decision, which was April 13 last year. We have a small amount of time to correct those mistakes.

I want to start my discussion of the amendments I am putting forward by stressing that I also support Bill C-55. It is, overall, well crafted and meets the challenge of ensuring that this extraordinary power of the state to obtain emergency wiretaps without a warrant—and this is what we are talking about—which is quite an egregious invasion of the privacy of the individual citizen, is balanced and only justified in exigent circumstances when certain standards have been met. It is only charter compliant, according to the Supreme Court decision in R v. Tse, if there are adequate oversight mechanisms put in place.

My amendments go directly to the point that we do not want Bill C-55 to be struck down by a future court because we failed to put in place the adequate oversight provisions and because we failed to get the balance just right, based on the advice of the Supreme Court.

I am just going to take a moment to go back to the ways in which the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions around these matters have evolved in very recent years. It was not long ago that our major authority, the precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada that governed in this area, was a 1990 case, R v. Duarte, in which Mr. Justice La Forest found that:

as a general proposition, surreptitious electronic surveillance of the individual by an agency of the state constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

It takes quite a bit of evolution within court decisions to ask how we justify sections 183 and 184 of the Criminal Code in allowing the state, without access to a warrant or even judicial review of any kind, to go forward and wiretap private communications.

That process is now settled in a new precedent of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Tse, in which the court ruled in the majority that yes, in these exigent circumstances, where, for instance, there is a kidnapping or another criminal event where a life is at stake and there legitimately is not time to get to a judge for a warrant, it is now going to be acceptable under the charter.

What is not acceptable under the charter is when these powers are not adequately supervised. I think that needs to be a foundational point that is stressed here. These are intrusions into the private lives of Canadians that in any other circumstance would be viewed as charter violations. This House must craft, very carefully, that rare exception when we are going to let the state intrude on our personal communications.

I am troubled, sometimes, when I hear the comment: “Why would we worry if people want to wiretap criminals? The only people who would be worried about that would be people who have something to hide”.

We need in this country to constantly remind ourselves why we prize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms why western democracies, the British Empire, our common law, and centuries of practice and respect for the rule of law recognized that the state has no business knocking down a person’s door. It is literally pushing through doors and breaking into houses and invading our privacy, which in an electronic era includes wiretapping.

We have to remind ourselves why civil liberties matter. We have to remind ourselves of this fairly constantly, because in not just this instance but in other laws passed through this place, we are seeing an erosion of our respect for the idea of civil liberties through resort to such rhetoric as “Well, only criminals need to worry” and “We shouldn’t be so worried about criminals as we should be about victims.” A victim of an injustice of the state invading our civil liberties is no less a victim than the person mugged on the street. We need to pay attention to civil liberties. That is why I am putting forward my amendments.

The court ruled very clearly in R. v. Tse that the failure of the current Criminal Code provisions was a failure to have adequate accountability measures. The court did not set out what the accountability measures should look like with any degree of specificity, so Bill C-55 attempts to, and does, put forward accountability measures; however, will they pass the charter test in a future Supreme Court case? My submission to the House—and I urge other members to vote with me—is that we make the bill much safer and more secure against being struck down later by improving the accountability measures.

The amendments I put forward would ensure, for instance, that the intercepted communications would require an Attorney General report, which would include records of all those wiretaps for which no charges were ever laid and would require the police officer in question to memorialize the reasonable grounds he or she had at the time for seeking warrantless wiretap evidence. We would record and report as much information as possible to ensure that the oversight statutory process in Bill C-55 would meet any future charter challenge.

My amendments are based on recommendations primarily from three groups that testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. Those three bodies recommended, in the language I have used, the amendments I am putting forward today.

They strive to ensure that there be a requirement to publicly report the numbers of persons whose communications were intercepted but who were not subsequently charged. They include a requirement for the police officer’s justification for the interception to be recorded and memorialized and would also ensure that if subsequent judicial authorizations were obtained on the same grounds as for the interception under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, evidence obtained by a further section 184.4 interception may be ruled inadmissible.

The other piece I want to mention briefly is something that was not part of the res judicata of R. v. Tse but that was certainly significant obiter dicta, and that was the court’s concern that the definition of “peace officer” was overly broad. I cite the decision of the court on this matter, and there was not a dissent. At paragraph 57 of R. v. Tse, the court noted it would agree that:

We, too, have reservations about the wide range of people who, by virtue of the broad definition of “peace officer”, can invoke extraordinary measures permitted under s. 184.4. That provision may be constitutionally vulnerable for that reason.

I am not saying that the Minister of Justice has not taken account of this obiter dicta. The revised Bill C-55 no longer uses the term “peace officer”. The revised Bill C-55, in clause 2, changes the term “peace officer”, which was overly broad and could include anything from mayors and reeves and so on, to “police officer”, but then in the definition adds an element of overly broad definition by saying:

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

I remain concerned despite the quite interesting testimony, and I thank the justice critic for the official opposition, who pursued this point with the Minister of Justice. I am less sanguine about leaving in the term “or other person”, so one of my amendments would remove the term “or other person” to further clarify the act and ensure that it is not constitutionally vulnerable.

I will conclude by saying that my amendments are put forward in the interests of ensuring that Bill C-55 will survive any future charter challenge and I recommend them to my colleagues.

The post An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Bill C-55) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The announcement that the so-called “Protecting children from Internet Predators Act,” originally called “lawful access,” and dubbed so effectively by openmedia.ca as the “online spying bill,” C-30 will be withdrawn is news worth celebrating.

The elements of success are also worth identifying and noting for the next campaign.  I don’t think this bill would ever have been withdrawn if not for the amazing on-line community.  The work of openmedia.ca was critical.  That they were ready and fully prepared with great tv ads, which ended up more watched on youtube and discussed by media than actually appearing in paid for advertising spots really increased awareness.

Some think Vic Toews’ now infamous “Stand with us or with child pornographers” was a gaffe.  I think that the lumping of opponents to the government’s agenda with child pornographers was  PMO-approved, spin-doctor messaging.  Otherwise, why the very last minute change in the title of the bill from “Lawful Access” to “Protecting children from internet predators act?”  The change was so very last minute that, at First Reading, no copies of the bill with the correct title were available in the advance lock-up nor in the Opposition Lobby.   All the circulated versions still read “lawful access.”  Only the PMO could have approved a change in the bill’s title.

I do not think the effort to reduce barriers to warrantless access are over, but we should pause and say “Thank you!!” to openmedia.ca, to all of you who signed petitions, wrote letters and used social media to spread the word.

It is proof that citizen engagement still works!! And we need to encourage each other and use the tools that worked to be watchful for any new legislation to the same ends as C-30.  We also need to see the potential from this victory to demand climate action, justice for First Nations, protection of our waters and wilderness.  Ultimately, the fight of our lives is likely to use the tools of effective citizenship in a democracy to protect democracy itself.

So, thank you! Celebrate! And re-commit to being an engaged and effective citizen.

The post The Death of Bill C-30 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Committee members heard a number of compelling cases where Canadians’ lives were improved through the usage of “telehealth” or “eHealth” services provided through collaboration between provincial and federal governments. These services make use of mobile internet and telecommunications technology to help patients monitor their own health and to provide them with information to make better health choices. Witnesses told the committee that cost savings and better healthcare delivery possible through these kinds of innovations make federal attention on the topic worthwhile.

A number of witnesses drew particular attention to the benefit that could be accrued from using these kinds of innovations in rural or isolated communities whose medical facilities and practitioners are strained by lack of resources. First Nations communities were highlighted as potential beneficiaries from expanded access to telehealth services.

The committee meeting on October 25th was called to order later than originally scheduled due to votes occurring in the House of Commons. During the same meeting, Vice-Chair Hedy Fry attempted to introduce a motion during the public portion of the meeting that the committee undertake a study on Part 4, Division 13 of Bill C-45, and report its findings on the study to the House no later than November 5th 2012, but she was instructed by the Chair that she had to wait until after the witnesses had left. Consequently, her motion to study the budget implementation bill was not to be acted upon until the meeting resumed ‘in camera’. The Minutes of that in camera meeting can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Health (HESA) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We believe that the process should be transparent. This agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors with a level of secrecy that is completely unacceptable in a democratic society.

The Right to Set Our Own Laws

The governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand traditionally have the right to set down their own laws for the good of public health, consumers, workers and the environment.

Leaked details of the TPPA reveal that, foreign investors and firms could sue Canada or New Zealand in a private international tribunal if their parliaments or local councils pass laws that reduce their profits or adversely affect their businesses. This could include laws such as:

• a requirement for large graphic warnings or plain packaging of cigarettes and other tobacco products (such as in Canada and Australia, and forthcoming in NZ);
• laws requiring labelling of genetically-modified food and drink (NZ); and
• retention of agricultural regulations such as Canada’s supply management system for dairy, which aims to preserve farmers’ livelihoods.

The Australian government has indicated it will not agree to these clauses intended to protect multinational businesses from the impact of policy decisions, but New Zealand and Canada’s leaders refuse to do the same (even after Canada was on the receiving end of costly lawsuits under NAFTA).

The End of a Free Internet

We believe the TPPA is being used to sneak in measures to bind its member countries to extensive and harsh laws on Internet use that wouldn’t be acceptable at the domestic level – including harsher criminal penalties for minor, non-commercial copyright infringements, a ‘take-down and ask questions later’ approach to pages and content alleged to breach copyright, and the possibility of Internet providers having to disclose personal information to authorities without safeguards for privacy. The European Parliament voted 478-39 against the international ACTA treaty, which was trying to create similar standards. Now, the same type of regulation is being attempted under the TPPA.

More IP Rights for the Big Players

The Intellectual Property Rights chapter of the TPPA was leaked in draft form in February 2011. We anticipate that unless a more moderate and balanced version is adopted, NZ, Canada and Australia’s shoppers, schools and libraries would end up paying more for their books and DVD’s  because it would let copyright holders veto parallel importing. Small and medium-sized software and IT businesses would have their innovative visions stifled by constraining patent laws. Finally, large pharmaceutical companies could use the legislation to deny state drug-buying agencies like those in Australia and NZ access to reliable, low cost medicines.

Behind Closed Doors

Almost everything we have learnt about the TPPA’s contents comes from leaked documents that the negotiators didn’t want the public to see. No agreement this important should be finalised without the informed input of the ordinary people it will affect.

Yet while representatives of AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, major pharmaceutical companies and the Motion Picture Association of America have access to the text, democratically elected members of parliament, advocacy organisations for healthcare and the environment and ordinary citizens are being left out in the cold.

Governments, including the US, have opened up to the public in the past by releasing the draft text of agreements. In 2001, all nine chapters of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement were released. At the time, this was called an ‘important step’ that would make the trade negotiation process ‘more transparent and accessible’. If this was the standard for public accountability in 2001, it is disconcerting that similar standards are not in play in 2012.

Together, we Green Parties are declaring that we will only support a fair, genuinely progressive trade agreement that promotes sustainable development and the creation of new jobs alongside the protection of the environment and human rights (including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining). We call on our current governments to remove the veil of secrecy surrounding this agreement and to open these negotiations to public input and comment.

The post Joint Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Former Bill C-50, C-51 and C-52 will be brought forward as part of an omnibus crime bill, though they deal with internet surveillance laws. “This proposed legislation has critical implications for data security and deserves proper Parliamentary hearings,” said May.  “Folding these issues into a larger bill with no hearings is unacceptable.”

The proposed legislation would force every phone and Internet provider to provide access to subscriber data without a warrant, even when that information is not part of any investigation. A recent survey conducted by the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found eight in ten of those polled “opposed giving police and intelligence agencies the power to access e-mail records and other Internet usage data without a warrant from the courts.”

“”It’s like having a CCTV camera in your home, and at your office watching every email you send, every phone call you make and every web site you click on. It’s creepy, it violates personal security and is inappropriate. The police should not be reading your email without a warrant first,” said Emma Jane Hogbin, Green Party Science and Technology Critic.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, and her provincial and territorial counterparts, have objected to the proposed legislations because of privacy risks, stating in a letter that they have concerns over “the absence of limits on the access powers, the wide scope of information required to be collected and provided by telecommunications companies without a warrant and the inadequacy of internal controls and the legislative gaps in the oversight model.”

“I’ve been hearing from other Canadians that they share the concerns of the privacy Commissioner.  Canadian law enforcement obviously needs access to a certain amount of data in order to properly investigate crimes.  But these bills push that access way over the top to a point where it becomes an infringement on civil liberties. I encourage Citizens to work with OpenMedia.ca to educate their fellow Canadians about this plan for invasive surveillance,” said May.

The post Electronic surveillance laws go too far appeared first on Elizabeth May.

And if that isn’t bad enough, big phone and cable companies now want to also put pay meters on Internet use. This means we could be looking at a future where these corporations charge per byte for Internet use, the way they do with smart phones.

Internet pricing is currently under review by the CRTC, Canada’s telecommunications regulator, and we have a unique opportunity to stop this price-gouging scheme.  The Green Party will continue to take a strong stand for fairness, your family budget, and our digital economy.

Canadians are joining together to send the CRTC a clear message, that we refuse to be gouged by big phone and cable companies by signing the Stop The Meter petition. Elizabeth May encourages everyone to join her in signing the Stop The Meter petition at http://www.StopTheMeter.ca

Together we can ensure all Canadians have access to an open and affordable Internet.

The post Keep the Internet open and affordable! appeared first on Elizabeth May.