Bill C-30 (Historical)

Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act

An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, which requires telecommunications service providers to put in place and maintain certain capabilities that facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by telecommunications and to provide basic information about their subscribers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and any police service constituted under the laws of a province.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code in respect of authorizations to intercept private communications, warrants and orders and adds to that Act new investigative powers in relation to computer crime and the use of new technologies in the commission of crimes. Among other things, it
(a) provides that if an authorization is given under certain provisions of Part VI, the judge may at the same time issue a warrant or make an order that relates to the investigation in respect of which the authorization is given;
(b) provides that the rules respecting confidentiality that apply in respect of a request for an authorization to intercept private communications also apply in respect of a request for a related warrant or order;
(c) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to report on the interceptions of private communications made without authorizations;
(d) provides that a person who has been the object of an interception made without an authorization must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(e) permits a peace officer or a public officer, in certain circumstances, to install and make use of a number recorder without a warrant;
(f) extends to one year the maximum period of validity of a warrant for a tracking device and a number recorder if the warrant is issued in respect of a terrorism offence or an offence relating to a criminal organization;
(g) provides the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(h) provides new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(i) provides a warrant to obtain transmission data that will extend to all means of telecommunication the investigative powers that are currently restricted to data associated with telephones; and
(j) provides warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake.
It also amends offences in the Criminal Code relating to hate propaganda and its communication over the Internet, false information, indecent communications, harassing communications, devices used to obtain telecommunication services without payment and devices used to obtain the unauthorized use of computer systems or to commit mischief.
Part 2 also amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.
Lastly, it amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and coming-into-force provisions.

Protection of Children

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Ontario, particularly the town of Glen Morris.

The petitioners call on the House to look very closely at Bill C-30, the so-called Internet surveillance act, labelled “Protecting Children from Internet Predators”, which is not the purpose of the act. They call on the House to in fact protect the privacy of Canadians, review the act and ensure Canadians know that they are not being spied upon without proper access and warrants.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague across the way back to this session. It is as boisterous as when we left it.

In an effort to provide some hope for Canadians that Parliament can work together, my Thursday question this week cites legislation that the NDP, the official opposition, would be keen to work with the government in getting these bills to committee stage. I will name them specifically and see if my hon. colleague can make some mention of them: Bill C-21, political loans; Bill C-30, the lawful access, which has only five more hours of debate until it goes to committee before second reading; Bill C-32, the civil marriage act; and Bill C-37, the victims surcharge act.

The opposition is interested in working with the government to see all of those go through to committee stage and seeks to start this parliamentary session in a hopefully more productive tone than the one that we ended with last session.

Telecommunications

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition urges the House of Commons to not pass Bill C-30 and to reject any proposals that would allow the authorities to obtain the private information of Internet users without a warrant.

[Michael MacDonald]

The powers that are found in the current draft bill, Bill C-30, are one part of the critical puzzle of all efforts to combat terrorism, keeping in that strict interpretation, yes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think I can oblige, as I'll ask a couple of questions precisely on that.

I think Mr. Rathgeber is correct. It seems to be little touched upon in the resilience strategy.

In the cyber infrastructure discussion, there's no mention of a bill that the ministry was obviously sponsoring at the same time it was preparing this report, and that's Bill C-30 on Internet surveillance. Now it's called the child predator something or other act, but in fact it covers all crimes and any criminal investigations where there's Internet data relevant to crimes. It's not only about child predators. That's one of the things we've learned in the whole episode.

I have a quick question. Because you're attempting to have a fairly integrated, holistic approach, is Bill C-30 integral to the counter-terrorism strategy set out in this document?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Surely you know, Minister, that a lot is going to be put on the shoulders of the Privacy Commissioner. She will supposedly be required to scrutinize the measures that you've introduced under Bill C-30. Now she'll have to vet agreements with non-traditional partners, yet her budget has been cut. So how is she going to get all of this work done?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take a few moments to thank you for being here and also for the quality of your presentations and your answers. This is really a very interesting meeting. The subject is fascinating and your comments make it all the more relevant.

A number of years ago, I was struck, as many are, by George Orwell's novel 1984. In the novel, the all-powerful government takes on the form of Big Brother watching over people's lives. The picture you are painting gives us the impression that the government could actually be a Big Brother. When the Conservatives introduce a bill like Bill C-30, we get chills up our spines, and with good reason.

But my impression is that we have a whole lot of “Medium Brothers” in the form of large Internet companies. They are getting to know our lives, to watch us, to know what we like and do not like, what we buy and do not buy, what interests us and what does not. Then they can go into action.

Is it your impression that online social media have become a bunch of Big Brothers?

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Michael Geist. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I was a member of the national Task Force on Spam, and I currently serve on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's expert advisory committee, but I appear before this committee today in a personal capacity representing only my own views.

My opening comments will identify several areas for potential government action, but I want to provide a bit of context with three key caveats.

First, which I think may be stating the obvious, is that social media is an enormously important and positive development. The number of users is staggering and its role as a key source for communication, community, and political activity grows by the day. The opportunities presented by social media should be embraced, not demonized, in my view, and government should be actively working to ensure that it incorporates social media into its policy consultation processes.

Second, Canada has played a leadership role, to a certain extent, in the use and regulation of social media. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada was the first to conduct a major privacy investigation into Facebook and has led on other issues with respect to social media and Internet companies.

Third, while we have had some influence through those investigations, Canada has not led in creating the social media services used by millions around the world. I believe that the failure to articulate and implement a national digital economy strategy comes back to haunt us in these circumstances, where the ability to place an unmistakable Canadian stamp on social media is undermined by the policy failures that have done little to encourage the development of Canadian e-commerce and social media.

With those caveats, what is there to be done? I'd like to focus on four areas of interest.

First, I think we need to finish what we've started.

The government has introduced and even passed legislation that can be helpful in addressing some of the concerns that arise from social media, yet these initiatives have stalled short of the finish line. Anti-spam legislation, for example, received royal assent in 2010, yet has still not taken effect as final regulations have not been approved. In fact, Industry Canada officials now indicate that it could be well into 2013 before the regulations take effect. Given the amount of work that went into this legislation, I find it shocking that it has been left in limbo.

Moreover, Bill C-12, the PIPEDA reform bill that seeks changes arising from the 2006 privacy review continues to lag in the House of Commons, with there frankly seeming to be no interest in moving forward with the bill. Indeed, I'd argue that the bill is even now outdated, and a full PIPEDA review to address emerging concerns such as order-making power—as you just heard—and damages, and tougher security breach requirements than those found in the bill is needed. In fact, the Bill C-12 security breach reporting rules are primarily bark with little bite, given the absence of penalties for failure to comply.

Successive governments have promised a digital economy strategy for years and have failed to deliver. The strategy has come to be known as the “Penske file”, a reference to the Seinfeld episode that involves working on an imaginary file. While other countries are now years into implementing their strategies, in Canada we still lag behind.

I think it also should be noted that these issues must increasingly be addressed in concert with the provinces. The line between federal and provincial jurisdiction on many of these issues is blurry, and legal challenges against federal legislation is a real possibility. Work is needed to begin to develop minimum standards that can be implemented at the provincial level, should federal leadership be challenged in the courts by companies seeking to circumvent their privacy obligations.

Second, the devil is in the defaults. In many respects, social media and Internet companies are the most powerful decision-makers when it comes to privacy choices. As my colleague Professor Ian Kerr says, the devil is in the defaults. In other words, the choices made by leading social media companies with respect to default privacy settings are the de facto privacy choice for millions of users. Given the increasing pressure to generate revenues, we can expect that those default choices are going to change in more aggressive ways to make use of user data.

There are examples of companies that are doing good work in this area. Twitter recently implemented do-not-track options that won plaudits from the Federal Trade Commission in the United States. Google offers its users transparency tools so they can obtain detailed information about what information is collected, some of the ways Google uses it, and how they can modify some of their privacy choices. The company has also been transparent about law enforcement requests for information and copyright takedown demands.

There needs to be continued work on these defaults, as well as initiatives to provide users with greater information and transparency, and steps to ensure that companies live by their privacy commitments.

Third is the issue of lawful access. The introduction of Bill C-30 brought with it an avalanche of public outrage and concern over proposed Internet surveillance legislation. While much of the focus was on mandatory warrantless disclosure of subscriber information by telecom service providers, the potential for social media and big data Internet sites to serve much the same purpose cannot be overlooked.

A recent investigation by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into Nexopia, a Canadian social network, identified hundreds of law-enforcement requests for customer name and address information, frequently for accounts that should have been deleted months earlier. Social media, as we've heard, generates a treasure trove of personal information that must enjoy full privacy protection and court oversight before disclosure. Indeed, documents that I recently obtained under access to information indicate that Public Safety is thinking about how these rules are applied to social media sites and services. I believe that Bill C-30 needs to go back to the drawing board to effectively account for these privacy concerns.

Fourth is the question of new legal issues, which Professor Scassa has identified a number of. I would argue that while much can be done to use or augment existing rules, social media and Internet sites do raise some unique issues that may require targeted responses. In the interest of time I would like to quickly identify two.

First is the issue of “do not track”. As you may know, cookies can be used to trace the web-browsing habits of users, including when they visit third-party sites. For example, Facebook inserts a cookie on user browsers that traces your activity as you surf the Internet. Any site with nothing more than a Facebook “like” button, as found on Conservative, NDP, and Liberal websites, means that Facebook records a visit to that site and retains that information for months. A growing number of sites, including Yahoo, AOL, and Twitter, respect the functionality found in Firefox browsers that allows users to choose not to be tracked. Google has said it will implement similar technology in its Chrome browser.

However, many sites have been slow to adopt the do not track option, and Facebook has thus far declined to do so. Given the failure of the industry to self-regulate, it is appropriate for government to step in with stronger measures to ensure that this form of user choice is implemented and respected.

Second is the growing problem of social media misuse. For example, in recent months there has been an increasing number of stories of employers requiring employees to provide their Facebook user ID and password as a condition of a job interview. Seeking the same information with direct questions would typically be prohibited, so this is used to circumvent long-standing standards and principles within employment law. In response, the State of Maryland recently passed a law banning employers from requiring employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital and social media accounts. Several other states in the United States are working on similar legislation, and I believe that Canada should follow suit.

Thanks very much for your attention.

Public Safety

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying what complete misrepresentation that member of Parliament has just displayed, which shows why that party is over there in the corner with a reduced amount of seats. Canadians recognize that the Liberal Party unfortunately has lost complete touch with the Canadian people.

The government will send Bill C-30 to committee for major review before proceeding further. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was introduced by the previous Liberal government with fewer privacy safeguards.

We have answered this question. We have indicated what our government is prepared to do.

What is very disturbing is what appears to be complete hypocrisy on the side of the Liberal third party in regard to this issue. It is disturbing to hear that member talk about the bill and this issue with complete disregard for what his party did previously on this issue.

As I said, the bill will be sent to committee before we proceed any further. We are listening to Canadians on this issue and we will continue to listen.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, I asked the government the following question.

Madam Speaker, my question is for the government's chief spymaster who is so intent on snooping into Canadians' private emails and the laptops of the nation. However, Conservatives are not stopping at emails. The minister's bill would allow government agents to enter on an Internet service provider when they wanted, without a warrant and demand to see absolutely everything and even to copy it all.

My question was:

Why does the government see every Canadian as an enemy of the state and why has the minister given Conservative agents absolute power to pry?

As one might imagine, I received a non-answer from the government, in fact from a senior minister. Instead of getting an answer, I received a rant and an attack against the NDP.

The question really was in relation to the provisions of Bill C-30, which was introduced with much fanfare in February of this year and now seems to have disappeared from the order paper.

The concerns expressed by Canadians across the country were consistent. This legislation was designed to enable the government to gain a level of surveillance that has not been seen in this country ever.

However, the government's clear view is that anyone who criticizes its actions, questions them in any way, is described as an enemy, as a radical, as being un-Canadian. Members may remember the Minister of Public Safety's ludicrous remark that one is either with the government or with the child pornographers. These are the kinds of intemperate, belligerent and disgraceful characterizations the government uses against Canadians who raise even legitimate and appropriate questions against the government.

Although this legislation is off the order paper, the Minister of Public Safety seems to have made it clear recently that it will be coming up again in the fall.

This legislation and the elements of intrusion, which have nothing to do with the real issues, should have been the end result of serious consultations, a process the Conservative government seems to know nothing about. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development the other day in her comments on employment insurance said she consulted. Premiers have come out and said they have not been consulted. As far as we know the unemployed have not been consulted.

Do ministers think consultation means sitting down with a business partner or a friend and having a glass of wine? That is not consultation. If the government is going to do consultations, they have to be wide open, transparent and public. That is not what the government has done.

The government is not just using surveillance and basically spying on people as an attack on democracy. The government monitors and cuts funding to organizations that disagree with it. We just need to look at the KAIROS funding. That organization has done tremendous work internationally. There have been cuts to peace and development. The public service has expressed fear, with public servants scared to even use their own personal email and Facebook as a result of the government's tactics.

Instead of acting like a legitimate democracy, the Conservative government is instilling fear in people with the kind of attitude it is portraying toward Canadian citizens.

Telecommunications

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition I am presenting today is on the so-called lawful access legislation, Bill C-30, which the government has not brought back into the House.

We do not know where it is, but the people in my riding hope that when it does come back it will have significant changes. One of the major changes needed is to the following. In the current configuration, telecommunications companies would be compelled to maintain people's private and personal information, and law enforcement agencies would be able to access that without a warrant. That greatly disturbs and concerns members of my riding.

Privacy

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 30 or so people from Sherbrooke who oppose Bill C-30. They are asking that Bill C-30, which would make it possible to spy on Internet users without a warrant, not be passed.

Such access to the personal information of Internet users violates the rights and freedoms guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and unfairly treats all law-abiding Internet users like criminals. These people are opposed to Bill C-30. I have the honour to present their opinions here today.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to address you, Commissioner, and your colleagues and I thank you for being here today.

As I've listened to your testimony and read the reports, I have to admit I marvel at the scope of your mandate. It's a big job and I commend you on the work you do. I think we're all thankful to have you in the role of carrying out the tasks at hand.

You've spoken today after eight years in your job and the changes you've witnessed, certainly in technology, which affects your role every day just as it affects our lives. We see it in the Internet and all the different spots. My colleagues opposite like to reference Bill C-30, a bill that's coming before this House and one that has raised intense concern on their side.

You mentioned that you have some concerns with that legislation and, I presume, with its predecessor legislation as well, going back to the previous Liberal government. I'm sure you'll be attending committee and will bring your thoughts forward. I look forward to that because I think you'll bring productive and beneficial input into that debate; that's something that I hope you will do.

As an aside, or as an extension of that, in the report on plans and priorities, one of the concerns I had was how you manage the change, day to day, in your organization. I notice that you mitigate some of the risk by implementing your change management strategy or talent management program. Is it enough to keep pace?

Additionally, because this is probably the last question you're going to hear today, as you think about the change management strategy, are you able to do enough to keep pace with the change that's coming at you? In addition, in the short and medium term, what major issues do you see facing your office, and again, coping with those within your department?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

In answer to Mr. Rathgeber, I have to say that I read this provision in its entirety. So I want to draw his attention to the definitions in section 319(7), which specifically states that "identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318. Sometimes, you have to read the whole thing. So do not worry, I did my homework before expressing my views on this issue.

I appreciate my colleague's comments but I am still as concerned. In order to make sure that Mr. Rathgeber understands, I will add that in the definitions given in the last subsection of section 319, it is specified that "identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318. This is why I said that women are excluded. This is indeed the case.

That being said, you have to realize that Bill C-30 is just that, a bill. We know there are several problems with this legislation. I do not think our committee will deal with it. So we hope this point will be corrected because it is obviously an oversight.

This is all I have to say. We can get back to this issue if the day comes when I start to make mistakes about definitions in legislation. This does not happen very often.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reiterate that our government is very concerned about human rights, and the protection of human rights. This is something for which I think Canada has an enviable reputation in the way we have stood up for them.

Mr. Scott is quite correct that the Canadian Human Rights Act, taken in its totality, is a good piece of legislation and it's one we have come to rely on.

However, amending section 13 does not deal with many of the issues raised by the witnesses today, such as multiplicity of venues, the inability to order costs where it has been brought frivolously. There are many problems with the way that particular section has wound its way through the tribunal and commission processes.

If it was missed before, I have a comment on this. I want to point out that Bill C-30, which has already been introduced in the House, as part of the non-exhaustive list, puts “sex” in again for both sections 318 and 319. That is specifically where the protection for women will come, which is something I know we share a concern about.

We are taking measures already to improve the Criminal Code provisions. There was a lot of thoughtful comment today, which I suspect we will all be giving a lot of thought to moving forward in terms of what we can do legislatively to protect Canadians.

I think we are headed in the right direction.