I would not go so far as to say that the budget is an attack on younger Canadians. I will not use that kind of intemperate language. However, I will say that the budget is neglectful of younger Canadians. It fails to consider their legitimate needs and, as a result, it fails to build for the country’s future.

Canada needs to excel as a knowledge economy if we wish to prosper in the world of the 21st century. However, the budget does nothing specific to encourage young people to pursue a post-secondary education or otherwise to reduce the financial barriers that prevent some from pursuing such an education.

There is nothing in this budget, like Paul Martin’s highly successful cash grant, for those who invest in a registered education savings plan for their children’s post-secondary education. As we know, the federal government today contributes $2 for every $10 Canadians invest in their children’s RESP. Nor do we see the budget introduce a version of the Canadian learning passport.

The Canadian learning passport was an idea in the 2011 Liberal election platform. It was based on the principle that, “if you gets the grades, you get to go”. The idea of the passport was to offer all high school students intending to go on to college or university $1,000 in trust for each year of anticipated post-secondary education up to a maximum of $4,000 and $1,500 per year up to a maximum of $6,000 for students from low-income families.

Now that is smart public policy that would achieve a triple objective: first, supplying our economy with the skilled labour it needs for the 21st century; second, preparing our youth for the jobs of tomorrow; and third, achieving an important measure of social justice by removing barriers to education for all youth, including those from low-income families.

On another matter of importance to Canada’s future, we must not ignore the relationship between university scientific research and the education and career success of today’s young people. University research produces concrete benefits for student researchers. It provides students with an important practical avenue of intellectual development so they can later make a meaningful contribution to a science-based economy. I noticed in this regard that the budget eliminates a very financially modest but highly successful program in the area of science and engineering research: the research tools and infrastructure program, known as RTI.

RTI provides funding for the purchase and repair of lab equipment of a value of up to $150,000. This amount is way below the threshold for CFI funding that targets multi-million dollar multi-applicant projects. It is not an exaggeration to say that the RTI program is the lifeblood of most NSERC-funded university research because it provides researchers with a reasonable chance of obtaining the equipment they need to do their work.

As my colleague from Kingston said last week in a question he asked in this House, for research scientists, eliminating the RTI is like sending a carpenter to work without a hammer. Furthermore, a well-known university researcher in Montreal has written to me to say that by the government nixing the RTI, “We will lose staff, we will lose students, we will lose knowledge”. I do not know why the government made such a short-sighted decision.

Speaking of opportunities for young people, we must not forget the brutal cancellation of Katimavik. Katimavik provides a unique experience for young people seeking to discover their strengths, skills and independence at a difficult crossroads in their life.

After the announcement of Katimavik’s demise, Katie Wheatley, a constituent of mine and a Katimavik alumni, wrote to me with the following testimonial, “Coming out of the Katimavik program has left me with complete bilingualism, invaluable work experience, an incredible sense of accomplishment and empowerment, and a brighter future”. What more is there to say?

What leads us to question the government’s objectivity in its decision to terminate Katimavik is the fact that the decision is retroactive. It has left candidates already accepted for next year’s edition of the program flat-footed, deeply deflated and scrambling to make new plans. One could even say that the decision is, if not legally then morally, tantamount to a breach of contract. This breach of contract carries an air of vindictiveness. It is an open secret that the government pulled the plug on Katimavik mostly because the program was the brainchild of the Trudeau government.

Finally, the change to OAS eligibility will impact on younger Canadians since the change will apply to anyone born after 1958. The generations that will be hit by this change include those whose members’ professional careers often took longer to launch than what was the case for previous generations. Many younger Canadians today are struggling with career and income and this change will exacerbate the challenges they face down the line.

The Liberal opposition is four-square against the budget’s change to OAS eligibility for other reasons as well. First, various experts have argued convincingly that raising the age of eligibility to receive OAS is not necessary to sustain the system.

Second, the Liberals believe that many Canadians who have held physically demanding jobs may find it very difficult to work beyond age 65. Many, in fact, will be forced to retire before age 65. An example is nurses.

A constituent, Anna-Mae Barrett, called my office to remind the government that being a nurse is a physically demanding job, with overtime, staff shortages and increasingly longer shifts and yet the government’s decision on OAS eligibility appears to ignore this reality.

Third, the OAS provides much needed financial assistance to many would be low-income seniors who would otherwise find themselves below the poverty line.

Fourth, many women who chose to stay at home may not have other pensions to draw on at 65 years of age. This new delay in receiving OAS will prejudice these Canadians and deny them a measure of economic freedom they were counting on.

I would add that I believe it is vital for a healthy democracy that Canadians be able to trust their government. Many Canadians will consider the decision to change the age of eligibility for OAS a betrayal of that trust, especially in light of the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the recent election campaign that a Conservative government would not change retirement benefits. A Liberal government would reverse the change to OAS eligibility, bringing the age at which all Canadians would be eligible to receive this benefit back to 65.

Another Liberal idea that was promoted during the last election campaign is missing from this budget, the idea of a supplemental Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is extremely well-managed. It is recognized internationally as a very low cost, cheap to administer program that brings higher rates of return than other large pension plans. Therefore, why not allow Canadians to invest even more in this high return pension system? Why not commit to working with the provinces to devise a pan-Canadian improvement to the CPP-QPP system that would allow Canadians who might have extra money to save for retirement to invest that money with the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board?

Those are the kinds of constructive suggestions that, if included in the budget, might allow the opposition to see things a little differently.

Since my colleague from Papineau is here, I would like to comment on a video I saw recently of the very first televised question period in the House of Commons. The question was from the hon. Joe Clark and the economic situation was quite similar at the time to today. Mr. Clark asked a respectful question of the government about its plan for economic recovery. The prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, stood and, instead of slamming the opposition and impugning its motives, he said that the Liberals were hoping that the opposition would provide some constructive ideas that the government could include in its plan for economic recovery. That is the kind of openness we need today in our democracy.

“I have written to the Minister for an explanation of the rationale for the 15-metre cut-off, as most people would agree an installation of that height constitutes a major structure, especially in a residential neighbourhood,” said the Montreal West Island M.P. “That number seems arbitrary to me and I would like a full explanation on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are very concerned about the proliferation of cell-phone towers in their community.”

Scarpaleggia also noted that despite the regulatory exemption for smaller towers, service providers are strongly encouraged to consult before installing even such exempted structures.

“It is quite clear that Rogers had a duty to consult Kirkland city council and local residents before contracting with a homeowner to locate the tower in question on their property, even if there was no legal requirement to do so,” said Scarpaleggia. Section 6 of the Client Procedures Circular on Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Antenna Systems states that “new antenna systems [...] with a height of less than 15 metres above ground level” are “excluded from the requirement to consult.” However, the document goes on to say that “individual circumstances vary with each antenna system [...and...] it may be prudent for the proponent to consult [...] even though the proponent meets [exclusion criteria...and when applying the criteria for exclusion] proponents should consider such things as the antenna system’s physical dimensions [...] the location of the proposed antenna on the property and its proximity to neighbouring residences [and] the likelihood of an area being a community-sensitive location.”

- 30 -

For more information, please contact Laura Gareau, Assistant to Francis Scarpaleggia, at 613-995-8281 or francis.scarpaleggia.a3@parl.gc.ca.

I have been paying close attention to this issue for some time now for two reasons. First, as you know, since coming to Parliament, I have been trying to raise the profile of water quality issues in Canada. This motion squares well with my objective. Second, during the previous Parliament, this matter was raised a number of times by the then-member for Québec, Christiane Gagnon, who regularly asked questions about this issue in the House.

I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague on pursuing the debate on behalf of the people connected to the Valcartier base and Shannon. When I read the motion, I was not aware that the member comes from a family with a military tradition. I congratulate her for that.

The Liberal party will support this motion.

I will list the reasons why we support this motion.

First, we stand by those who do not have access to drinking water, or at least to clean, uncontaminated water, in Canada and abroad. We stand by those, including first nations people, who have to deal with substandard drinking water, which can be hazardous to their health. We stand by those who fear that their health is at risk because they have drunk contaminated water.

If I may, I would like to talk about an incident that took place last fall in my riding, Lac-Saint-Louis, and on the West Island of Montreal in general.

We are used to having an ample supply of clean drinking water. We have two or three water treatment plants on the West Island. Like other places in Canada, we are very fortunate to have uninterrupted access to drinking water. Last fall, in October or November, the water treatment plant in Pointe-Claire had a problem. Leaves had accumulated at the water entrance, forcing the filtration system to work harder. This sounded the alarm, warning that the water entering the system was perhaps contaminated and that the filtration system was unable to treat the water. The Kirkland and Pointe-Claire municipalities had to deal with the problem immediately.

As I recall, it was a Friday night and the two municipalities had recruited volunteers to go door to door at 10 p.m. Someone came and knocked on our door in Kirkland at 10 p.m., telling us not to drink the water. It was not even a question of boiling water before drinking or using it; we were not supposed to drink it at all or even brush our teeth with it. The in-person warning was followed by two automated calls from the City of Montreal, from the Island of Montreal public health department, telling us to not drink the water.

It was shocking for us, because we had never been in such a situation. We wondered if we had brushed our teeth with contaminated water and if we were going to have digestive problems as a result.

This just goes to show just how little it takes to throw the public off balance and to raise fears about the possibility of contaminated drinking water.

I would like to point out, incidentally, that in the end, the water was fine and the City of Pointe-Claire took prudent action in an exemplary fashion in dealing with this public safety concern.

The people of the West Island know all about the threat of contaminated water. We stand in solidarity with the people of Shannon and the Valcartier base on this issue.

In passing, I would like to mention the issue of the international human right to water because it was raised in one of the questions my colleague was asked. I would like to point out that, this very morning, the very well known Kielburger brothers, Craig and Marc, published an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun urging the Government of Canada to support the international human right to water. I also learned that Marc Kielburger was a page in this House in the 1990s.

The second reason we support this motion is that we believe, in principle, that the federal government must focus more on the issue of water in Canada. We feel that the government is trying to distance itself from the issue by stating that water is a provincial jurisdiction and that it will leave it to the provinces. We believe that the opposite holds true. We believe that water is becoming more of a national priority and that the Conservative government must pay even more attention to it.

On the issue of jurisdiction over water in Canada, it is quite true that, for all intents and purposes, water is a provincial responsibility under the Canadian Constitution since it is a natural resource. However, a 2009 survey asked Canadians across the country who is responsible for water in Canada. Even though the Constitution states that, strictly speaking, water is a provincial responsibility, a large number of Canadians—I believe it was 42% of respondents from outside Quebec—responded that water was a federal jurisdiction. This shows the extent to which Canadians want the federal government to act firmly and quickly on water-related issues.

We could say that the province of Quebec jealously guards its jurisdiction over water. In fact, the Bloc Québécois often votes against initiatives in the House that would give the federal government a larger say in water issues. Every time, they tell us that it is because water is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. However, this survey demonstrates that, even in Quebec, a province that is very aware of jurisdictional issues, 77% of respondents believe that water is a shared responsibility.

The federal government must take action and become involved in water-related issues.

I hope this motion is part of this ongoing initiative to pressure the federal government to put more emphasis on water-related issues in Canada.

The third reason we believe that the government must pay attention to the spirit of this motion is that we believe in accountability. We believe that individuals and governments must take responsibility for the choices they make and the actions they take and must take their share of responsibility when those actions have adverse effects or consequences, in this case for the environment and for the health of Quebeckers.

Public transit is key to alleviating urban congestion, the negative effects on human health of air pollution, and the climate-altering impacts of greenhouse-gas emissions.

There is perhaps no place in Canada with a greater need for improved public transit than the West Island of Montreal.

Currently, the West Island is forced to tolerate a commuter rail service hampered by the necessity of sharing the same track as freight trains.

Over a decade ago, I had the opportunity to work on a local task force my predecessor Clifford Lincoln launched to implement his vision for better commuter train service for West Islanders.

Clifford Lincoln continues to spearhead this vision which is today known as the Train de l’Ouest project.

The Quebec government has already committed $200 million to facilitate expanded rail transit from the West Island to the city’s downtown core.

It’s time for the federal government to express its support for the Train de l’Ouest so that improved daily rail service can become a reality for thousands of West Island commuters.

Scarpaleggia also takes the opportunity to congratulate Clifford Lincoln for his tenacious and unflagging civic leadership, as well as mayors Bill McMurchie, Maria Tutino, David Pollock, John Meaney, Francis Deroo, George McLeish and Monique Worth for their steadfast commitment to the Train de l’Ouest project as a means of sustaining local prosperity and fostering an even better quality of life for their constituents.

For further information, contact Ludmilla von Hoyningen Huene, at (613) 995-8281 or francis.scarpaleggia.a2@parl.gc.ca

- 30 -

Since its inception nearly 20 years ago, World Water Day has provided the opportunity for the world’s citizens and their governments to reflect on the universal and vital importance of water. This year there is positive news to celebrate and ongoing challenges to address.

The United Nations recently announced that one of the millennium development goals, namely, the goal of cutting in half the number of people worldwide without access to safe drinking water, has been met five years early. Yet, sadly, there remain many first nations communities right here in Canada that still lack basic access to safe drinking water.

The federal, provincial and municipal governments must ensure responsible management of fresh water, which is essential to our identity, our environment and our economy, as well as to the health of Canadians.

As World Water Day approaches, I call on all members of the House to commit to working together to make the protection of Canada’s most vital resource a national priority.

Bill C-267, An Act respecting the preservation of Canada’s water resources was defeated by a vote of 156 to 125, with the Liberals, NDP and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May voting in support of the bill. Two Conservative MPs broke ranks with their party’s directive and also supported the bill. The bill would have de facto prohibited bulk water exports by banning large-scale transfers of water between major drainage basins within Canada.

“Conservatives have sent mixed signals for years about their commitment to protecting Canada’s water security and sovereignty,” said the Liberal Water Critic whose riding sits on the St. Lawrence River at the western end of the island of Montreal.

In 1988, the Mulroney government tabled a bill to ban bulk water exports in an effort to quell fears the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement would give the U.S. wholesale access to Canada’s freshwater. The bill, however, died when Parliament was dissolved for the “free trade” election and was never re-introduced by the re-elected Conservative government.

After Scarpaleggia first introduced Bill C-267 (at the time called Bill C-535), the Harper government promised to introduce its own legislation to prohibit inter-basin water transfers within Canada. However, it never really followed through on this promise, even though in opposition the Canadian Alliance argued NAFTA leaves Canada vulnerable to market-driven bulk water exports because water is not exempt from the agreement.

Bill C-267 was developed with the expertise of Canada’s foremost water-policy experts. The bill would not only have protected Canada against bulk water exports, it would have protected the country’s ecosystems from the spread of invasive species that can occur when water is transferred from one basin to another.

“This has been a missed opportunity on which Canadians will someday look back and pass harsh judgement on the Harper government,” said Scarpaleggia.

- 30 -

For more information, please contact Laura Gareau, Assistant to Francis Scarpaleggia, at 613-995-8281 or francis.scarpaleggia.a3@parl.gc.ca.

In the 2008 election campaign the Conservatives said that they agreed with the principle of a federal ban on bulk water exports through a prohibition on interbasin transfers of water within Canada. This was in response to the then recently published recommendations of the Canadian Water Issues Council working in collaboration with the program on water issues at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. These recommendations were incorporated in the earlier version of Bill C-267, which I introduced in the House of Commons prior to that election.

In the November 2008 throne speech which immediately followed the election, the government clearly committed to introducing legislation like Bill C-267. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said in her speech that water is a resource and as such it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

Water is not a resource like any other. Water is not oil or copper or nickel, resources that are locked in the ground and not part and parcel of living ecosystems. Oil may be the lifeblood of the economy, but it is far from the lifeblood of the environment.

What is more, natural resources like oil are static. In their natural state they do not move across provincial and international boundaries, either above ground in rivers or underground in aquifers like water does. If they did, they might likely have been designated a shared federal-provincial responsibility, or even an exclusive federal jurisdiction in the manner of another well-known resource that moves freely through Canada’s natural environment without regard for political borders, namely fish.

My colleague also said that there is no constitutional justification or rationale for federal “incursion” into the matter of prohibiting bulk water exports, that for example, the federal role does not accrue in this case under the federal residual power of peace, order and good government. However, it is not necessary to invoke this residual power to justify a federal role in limiting water transfers and exports.

If the federal government has the power to prohibit activities harmful to the environment, such as pollution, it is not because it was granted this power under a Canadian Constitution that predates the word “environmentalism”, nor is it because of the federal residual power of peace, order and good government. Rather, it is because the court has ruled that society has evolved and that environmental protection in the political and economic context of the late 20th century is a matter worthy of Criminal Code protection.

I refer the parliamentary secretary to the 1997 Supreme Court decision in the case of Regina v. Hydro-Québec, where the utility challenged Ottawa’s authority to use an interim order under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to stop the provincial utility from depositing toxic substances into a watercourse in Quebec. Hydro-Québec argued that Ottawa’s interim order could not be justified either by virtue of the federal criminal power or as a matter of national concern under the peace, order and good government residual power in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the interim order and its enabling legislation, CEPA, were valid because the protection of the environment is a major challenge of our time that constitutes “a wholly legitimate public objective in the exercise of the criminal law power”, and that “the stewardship of the environment is a fundamental value of our society and that Parliament may use its criminal law power to underline that value”. I believe the court would view Bill C-267 in very much the same light.

The Supreme Court decision was close, five to four. The dissenters held that Ottawa was not authorized to act in the matter because CEPA’s purpose is to regulate, not prohibit, and that regulation is not a matter of criminal law which is normally aimed at prohibiting a deleterious action.

I would submit that Bill C-267 is not intended to regulate water removal but rather to prohibit it outright. This legislation would pass muster at the Supreme Court. In any event, the intent behind the bill is to have Ottawa engage and work with the provinces to make the current national consensus against bulk water exports watertight into the future.

In conclusion, Canadians want a government of courage and character prepared to assume federal leadership when it counts. They do not want a federal government that shrinks from involvement with the provinces on matters of profound national concern, like Canada’s water sovereignty and security.

There are currently prohibitions in all provinces against bulk water exports. (New Brunswick has yet to formally legislate a ban on water exports but has a policy against them.) However, these provincial prohibitions do not employ a consistent approach: some are based on political boundaries that can be interpreted as trade-restricting measures while others wisely focus on keeping water within its natural basins for reasons of environmental protection.

Any trade-based approach to keeping water within Canada’s borders is vulnerable to a NAFTA challenge. However, trade challenge or not, any province can lift its prohibition against water exports at any time in response to internal political or economic pressures. There is a need, therefore, for federal safety-net legislation to shut the door once and for all to Canada someday selling its water abroad by means, for example, of river diversion, pipeline, tanker ship, or large floating water bag. Such legislation should cover exports from lakes, coastal streams, and all rivers. It should not focus only on banning the export of water through rivers that cross the Canada-U.S. border.

Any legislative initiative to protect Canada’s freshwater sovereignty must be rooted in cooperative federalism, yet at the same time be unapologetic about the exercise of federal leadership on an issue—water—that is important to all Canadians. A federal law to protect against bulk water exports should apply only where a province lifts its own prohibition against massive water removals or fails to amend that prohibition to reflect a consistent pan-Canadian and environmentally-motivated (i.e. not trade-based) approach to banning bulk transfers of water within Canada and—by extension—to areas abroad.

A uniform and environmentally-based ban on domestic inter-basin water transfers would inoculate Canada against a future NAFTA challenge on water and give force to Canadians’ profound desire to keep this resource within our national borders. A law specifically banning the export of Canada’s water, on the other hand, could land Ottawa before a NAFTA arbitration panel where, ironically, it would be forced to argue that water is not a tradable commodity, this after having adopted legislation that treats it exactly as such.

My private member’s bill, Bill C-267, would prevent bulk water exports through a pan-Canadian prohibition against inter-basin transfers. By focussing on banning water removals across natural basin boundaries rather than political ones, the bill would protect the health of ecosystems while virtually eliminating the possibility of a NAFTA challenge.

Conservatives have long sent contradictory signals on the issue of bulk water exports; beginning with the Mulroney government through to the Canadian Alliance and the current Harper government.

In order to allay fears that free trade with the U.S. would result in Canada eventually having to export its water south of the border, the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-156 banning large-scale water exports. The bill died when Parliament was dissolved for the 1988 “free trade” election. It was not revived after the Conservatives were returned to power in that election. Thus, there are those who believe the bill was merely a symbolic gesture meant to blunt opposition to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement from those who feared a sellout of Canada’s water resources.

Later, the opposition Canadian Alliance admitted that Canada ultimately lacks control of its freshwater resources because NAFTA leaves it vulnerable to market-driven bulk water exports. Speaking in the House of Commons at the time, Deepak Obhrai, the current parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, thus advocated for re-opening NAFTA to insert a specific exemption for water similar to that which the agreement granted to Canada’s cultural industries.

More recently, in its 2008 Speech from the Throne, the Harper government promised to introduce legislation to ban bulk water exports by prohibiting inter-basin transfers within Canada. This commitment reversed the government’s position to that point that federal action on the issue of bulk water exports was unnecessary because of existing provincial prohibitions. The government, however, never followed through on its commitment, arguing as recently as this past fall that federal safety-net legislation against bulk water exports remains unnecessary.

Many studies advocating for the lifting of current provincial prohibitions against bulk water exports have originated from right-wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute or the Montreal Economic Institute. Does this explain the Harper government’s refusal to support Bill C-267? Or is engaging the provinces on an issue that is so central to our country’s identity, environment, and economy too tall an order for a government that seems allergic to pursuing robust federal leadership on issues that matter to Canadians?

Francis Scarpaleggia is the Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis and the Liberal Water Critic.

I would like to know how the Prime Minister would explain this strange coincidence. Also, how would he explain it given the fact that there were no Liberal robocalls in Lac-Saint-Louis during the election campaign?

Bill C-30 is fundamentally about technology, very complex and rapidly evolving technology that we use daily, but which we do not always fully understand.

However, Canadians are beginning to understand that digital communications technology and its associated everyday practical applications, like email, the Internet and hands-free communications through portable devices such as smart phones is eroding individual privacy. There have been two distinct reactions to this fact.

On the one hand there are those who say this is disconcerting, that we need to act to prevent further erosion of privacy in this brave new world of electronic communications. On the other hand there are those who say to get used to it, that there is nothing we can do. They say that we have to learn to live with this new way of being and communicating, that in the end no one really cares about the details of our private lives. They say that we are all in the same boat, that we should let go of our concerns, adjust and adapt.

The latter view will strike someone who has been refused a job because of his or her careless and sophomoric Facebook entry years ago as patently naive to think that we should just learn to live with the new breaches of privacy.

I will digress to talk about the inherent nature of technology. This understanding is based on my reading many years ago of a book by a famous Canadian political philosopher, George Grant, entitled, Technology and Justice.

What I took from that book is that technology is not neutral. Many will say that this is obvious, that this is commonplace, that technology can be used for the good or it can be enlisted for less noble ends. For example, nuclear technology can be used for medical diagnosis and energy production to supply hospitals, homes and businesses with power, or it can be used for mutually destructive war. I think we all get this. I think that is obvious to all of us.

Grant’s argument goes a bit deeper. Technology is not neutral in the sense that it is not simply developed to satisfy a curiosity or to be left on the shelf. We are not talking about pure research, which is often about scientists playing with ideas and discovering the unexpected simply to satisfy their curiosity. A theoretical physicist might say that is what occupies his or her day. It is simply the exploration of ideas and the playing of ideas for the sake of it, and then something drops out of it unexpectedly.

We feel compelled to use technology once we have it. In fact, that is why we develop it in the first place, to fashion our reality, to fashion our environment, to suit our practical needs and interests.

Obviously in developing technology most of us feel that our goal is a noble one, even when we drift into using technology for questionable or downright destructive ends in retrospect.

Technology is meant to be used. It is intended to be used to manipulate or control our reality for our own self-interest as human beings, for our benefit as human beings, whether we are talking about medical treatment to make people healthy or to transform the Alberta oil sands into profit, thus benefiting our balance of trade.

Let us look at computer technology. Computers allow for compiling databases. This was one of their first uses. Computerized databases are useful. Once we have the capability to do so, as some lament, we want to catalogue everything. We want to collect information, sometimes just for the sake of it, until we figure out what to do with that data. We do not need to go far to see how databases are used, and sometimes quite aggressively, to attain a specific goal.

Political parties use databases to contact voters, build support and raise money. These databases have the capacity to be used in an underhanded way, as we are seeing emerge in the current Conservative robocall scandal, but that is not the main point of my discussion.

As in the case with society as a whole, technology has changed policing. Policing used to simply be about catching law-breakers or first deterring crime by the fact of a police presence, like a cop on the beat. Now, in the words of David Lyon, the world-leading surveillance studies scholar:

As with database marketing, the policing systems are symptomatic of broader trends. In this case the trend is towards attempting prediction and pre-emption of behaviors, and of a shift to what is called “actuarial justice” in which communication of knowledge about probabilities plays a greatly increased role in assessments of risk.

What the above quote means is that modern policing is more and more about data collection, necessarily through surveillance and building profiles through data collection and then tracking individuals who could theoretically pose a problem for public security.

That is all well and good. We want to prevent crime. We want the police to be proactive and vigilant in preventing crime. However, the new technologically sophisticated crime prevention tools also come with side effects. Some of these we may not want to live with or otherwise want to constrain through rigorous, effective and wise laws, or by standing up to hold the government to account when it introduces legislation that is rooted in this human fascination with the power and possibilities of technology in allowing us to control our surroundings.

Proponents of greater state surveillance say that we have nothing to be worried about if we are not doing anything wrong. However, that attitude, apart from sounding like it comes from big brother’s two-way television monitor, ignores the fact that individuals can suffer the consequences of surveillance even if they have done nothing wrong. We only need to think of Maher Arar and others who have been unjustly detained at the border or at airports and who were completely innocent. Surveillance technology has placed them in the wrong category, under the wrong tab, in the big brother database, even though they had nothing to hide.

This is where modern surveillance technology can lead us if we are not careful to constrain and control it through good laws that protect our charter right to privacy and our right to live in a healthy free-thinking democracy. These new Internet surveillance technologies can catch the innocent in its ever-expanding web.

Christopher Parsons, at the University of Victoria, has described how this can happen. We need to consider the following scenario, and I will quote because I do not think anyone could have put it better. He says:

In college/university/your private life you…communicate with individuals who have, or presently do, agitate peacefully against certain state [behaviours]. You may or may not be aware that those individuals behaviour…[or perhaps you know nothing about it]. [In any case,] you…engage in discussions with those people online, either on websites that those opposed to certain state behaviours, or in the comments section of newspaper articles, or other electronic formats. Should the police be interested in tracking the individuals invested in an issue (e.g. legalization of marijuana [or] protest against federal decisions concerning Sri Lankan immigrants…[with whom you have been talking] [your]…subscriber records for all who have participated in the online discussion. Now, let’s…assume that you were not supportive of opposition to an official government position and…aren’t necessarily of direct interest to authorities. Regardless, your subscriber data and that of everyone else engaged in these discussions might be requested by the police. No warrant is required to provide this information. … They would get the same information for every participant of the discussion. With this information they could turn to whomever provided the email account, as well as contact the ISP who provisioned the IP address at the specific time that you posted your message. With information from the email provider they may be able to definitely identify the ISP that you use and, from there, your name, address, and so forth. … [You] will never know that [you were] added into such a database because the service provider could not legally disclose that the information had been released and, as a result, [your] life prospects may change for legally associating and speaking with those who were similarly engaged in legal speech and association.

Some people will say that they would never have these kinds of discussions online, only over the phone. Bill C-30′s provisions, allowing the state to obtain six pieces of subscriber information without a warrant, still leaves a law-abiding citizen vulnerable. If people have a cellphone and are downtown shopping and they happen to walk by a protest, such as a G20 protest, stop with a friend to observe this because it is something they do not see everyday; or they visit an occupy camp; or were a passive spectator in the 2011 Vancouver hockey riots, their cellphone’s identity may be captured by police. This can happen because police can use a technology known in the U.S. as a Stringray IMSI catcher, which is a piece of equipment that emulates a cellphone tower and captures IMSI numbers within several kilometres of the capture.

IMSI means international mobile subscriber identity number. This number can be taken to a mobile phone provider and used under clause 16(1) of Bill C-30 to obtain one’s name, address and Internet protocol number. In other words, the cellphone subscriber can find his or her information sent to police and entered into a police database.

As a result of clause 23 of Bill C-30, the telecommunications service provider would be prohibited from disclosing to a subscriber that his or her basic subscriber information has been submitted upon request to a law enforcement agency. As Christopher Parsons concluded:

The capacity to acquire IMSI numbers en masse, combined with legal powers to compel subscriber information, creates the perfect framework for mass fishing expeditions based on where citizens are physically present.

Some might say that the police would never track people in this way nor would they go to the next step of gathering information on people’s friends and acquaintances. However, the evidence confirms otherwise. In fact, at the Vancouver Olympics, people who were conducting legal actions and protests of the games became the targets of a surveillance apparatus that followed their entries on web forums even though disclosed memos obtained in the lead up to the Olympics found that no specific credible threat existed.

Furthermore, he states:

Surveillance and intelligence gathering did not solely focus on citizens involved…but also their contacts, friends, students, former partners, and academic and professional acquaintances.

Efforts were made to recruit neighbours, friends and acquaintances to spy on suspected activists.

This concern about Bill C-30 opening the door further to the state being able to track protestors who are legally voicing their views in a democracy was the motivation and the essence of my question for the Minister of Public Safety on February 14 when the minister, through his answer, triggered a national firestorm by his disproportionate answer to that question.

Proponents of expanding the surveillance powers through the adoption of Bill C-30 claim that these powers would be used to investigate the most serious crimes only. However, this is not what the experience in other countries shows. In other jurisdictions, similar powers have been used to investigate less serious offences.

According to Nestor Arellano, there is no shortage of research which indicates that the implementation of an online surveillance regime in the European Union and the United States has been fraught with flaws, abuse and costs ultimately shouldered by Internet service providers tasked by government to essentially snoop on their customers.

More than 10 years ago, the United Kingdom passed the regulation of investigatory powers act to extend law enforcement agencies access to communication systems to help police battle crime and terrorist related activity. Under a voluntary code of practice, ISPs retain data such as content of email servers, email server logs, IP addresses, SMS messages and others from six to twelve months. Reports from the interception commissioner, which provides a yearly assessment of interception of communication traffic, indicate that a growing number of interception errors are occurring. In 2007, there were 24 interception errors and breaches found, which the commissioner deemed to be too high, according to Mr. Parsons.

In 2009, there were 36 interception errors and breaches attributed to the general communications headquarters of the secret service, Her Majesty’s Revenue Agency and Customs Agency, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Scottish government, the metropolitan police counterterrorism command and the National Technical Assistance Centre. During that year, there were a total of 525,130 requests for communications data that resulted in 661 reported errors.

A report released by the U.K. civil liberties group Big Brother Watch paints a troubling picture of how law enforcement agents handle data that passes through their hands. The organization found that, between 2007 and 2010, 243 police officers and staff received criminal convictions for breaking the country’s data protection act; 98 police officers and staff were terminated for breaching the data protection act; and 904 police officers and staff were subjected to internal disciplinary procedures for breaching the data protection act. In one notable case, no less than 208 officers and staff received legal caution for viewing computer records related to a high profile crime. In another, a staff member was dismissed for discussing police information on Facebook. Numerous others were found to have access to criminal records and personal data for no obvious policing purposes.

In the United States, the problem is more significant, according to Parsons who says that the country “suffers from endemic inappropriate surveillance”. He said that the National Security Agency reportedly runs a warrantless wiretapping system with the assistance of major telecom providers, such as AT&T. A large amount of the surveillance conducted by state and federal agencies goes unreported.

This leads me to my conclusion. Privacy is fundamental in a healthy democracy, which is why our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains section 8. Section 8 of the charter provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with our primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in a pat-down or entering someone’s property on surveillance.

Why is privacy fundamental? If law-abiding citizens feel they are being spied on, they begin to withdraw from the normal activities of life, like expressing themselves freely and legitimately, including nowadays through digital communication. When they withdraw, the seed of fear grows and whenever there is fear there is potential for manipulation by those in charge. Those in charge, who, understandably, like their powerful position, will drift, perhaps unconsciously, toward using that power to accumulate even more power. They will always do so under the pretence that the additional power is being used for the good. Those same people in charge, at least the less discerning and perhaps more sincere ones, will believe in their hearts that the system of increased state power they are building is for the larger good.

We hear from proponents of Bill C-30 that we must emulate other countries. However, we are not Europe and we are not the United States. We have the most modern rights charter of any of those countries. We are highly evolved and often ahead of the pack when it comes to respect for individual liberties. As Parsons has said, there is no need for cross-jurisdictional envy in these matters.