Justice Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your attendance here today. Thank you to your departmental officials, as well.

I would like to congratulate you, not only on this bill but on the government's entire history on the safe communities agenda. As you know, there is Bill C-16, ending house arrest, Bill C-21, ending the faint hope clause, and sentencing for fraud. And the list goes on and on.

Minister, I know that you frequently consult with interest groups that have an interest in these particular pieces of legislation. I'm curious, with respect to this bill that's before this committee, about who some of those interest groups might be and what they've been telling you about it and if there's any opposition. Quite frankly, I can't see any. I can't imagine why anybody would be opposed to this bill, but I might be wrong.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Rathgeber, and thank you very much for your interest and concern and participation on this committee.

You're quite correct. In my travels across this country, when I discuss this with constituents in my riding of Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake, when I talk to law enforcement agencies. and particularly when I talk to victims groups, they are unanimous in their support of initiatives like this to better protect children from sexual exploitation, children who are the victims of child pornography.

When I listen to the suggestions, when I hear the stories of victims groups.... You mentioned a couple of pieces of legislation. The faint hope clause is an excellent example. It's victims groups who tell me that they don't want to be victimized over and over again, and that's what happens on something like the faint hope clause. That being said, we try to give some voice to those victims across this country who want their voices heard in Ottawa. They want to see changes that will better protect them.

When I talk to them about better protecting children from sexual exploitation, they are very supportive of those measures. I've said this over the years as justice minister. When people go back to their constituencies, as I do, and tell people that this is what they're thinking of doing in Ottawa, I think overwhelmingly people will say yes, you're on the right track; we have to do these things.

Thank you again for your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have half a minute.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Very quickly, to follow up on my friend Mr. Murphy's question, would you agree with me that this legislation is in fact companion legislation to the initiatives of the provinces, as opposed to what he suggested, which is that it is somehow a weak-kneed approach?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, we're not at odds with anything that can be done by the child and family services departments within municipalities and provinces. We want their help. We work hand in hand with them. It's not a case of us doing something and you doing something. We're all in this together. We all have an interest in protecting children.

With respect to Internet service providers, the major ones are cooperative. My point is that it's not enough to be cooperative. It's not enough for you to do the right things. You must, in my opinion, have a legal obligation to do that, and it has to apply to everyone who is in this area. This is exactly what this legislation does.

Anything the provinces can do to assist in combatting child pornography and sexual exploitation of children will of course be welcomed and applauded by this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Ms. Jennings. You're going to split your time with Mr. Lee. Is that correct? You have five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes, I am. We have five minutes, so two and a half for me and two and a half for him.

Thank you, Minister.

As my colleague Brian Murphy stated, Liberals do support this bill. We support the aims of this bill.

We do have a couple of concerns. One is concerning the agency to which any person would report if they suspected or had reasonable belief. Have you determined yet which agency that will be? Will it be Cybertip.ca, as it is in Manitoba, and if that is the case, is any funding going to be flowing from the federal government to Cybertip.ca to handle the work?

Second, and very briefly, on the issue of the kind of information the ISP or other person providing Internet services must report to the police, subclause 2(1) of the bill talks about computer data, and it's quite broadly defined, whereas in the United States it is very specific. I'm wondering exactly what information is to be reported, and if it is identical or if you are expecting it to be similar to what's required in the United States, why has that not been specified in the bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With respect to the designated agency, as I indicated to Mr. Comartin, I have made no announcement on that.

You asked whether there was funding or whether there would be funding to a group like Cybertip. They do get federal funding right now. They do get funding from the federal government on a regular basis, and my experience with that organization—I'll say it publicly—has been that this is money well spent by the people of this country in support of that organization.

I take note of the fact that you have some concerns about the bill. Again, the drafting of this was very careful. And yes, we look at what our counterparts in other jurisdictions do, but in the end we drafted according to our needs and the requirements we have, and I think those have been addressed.

Did you want to add anything to that, Mr. Wong?

[Normand Wong]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just to address the computer data issue, the definition we're using is very similar to the one currently in the Criminal Code, and it's to cover as broad a scope as possible to include any information that would be computer-data-related to an offence under this act.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Would that mean then that if the service provider identified actual files containing child pornography images, those files would be reported and transferred to the police?

[Normand Wong]

The provision requires them to safeguard that evidence--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

For 21 days.

[Normand Wong]

--for 21 days, and police would be required to obtain a warrant or a production order in order to obtain those things. But yes, it would cover any electronic file, including image files or any transaction logs.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have a minute and a half.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, can you indicate to the committee under which head of federal jurisdiction this legislation would fall, under section 91 of the Constitution Act?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's called the Criminal Code provisions, the criminal power of the federal government.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This is under the criminal power? Then could you explain why it says in clause 13 of the bill that the Governor in Council--that is, the king--may make regulations generally for the purposes and provisions of this act? Does that mean the king is, by regulation, going to create another criminal offence? Normally the House would never ever allow that to happen, so is this clause to be constrained in some respect, or is the cabinet and Governor in Council going to take it upon itself to create a new criminal offence?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The bill doesn't actually refer to the king. It would refer to the head of state. You're referring to--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Governor in Council. I'm using the term very.... It's the Governor in Council. You're a member. You know exactly what it is.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There we are: the Governor in Council. Okay, thank you.

Again, that's with respect to the regulations. Among the regulations that could be promulgated under that is, for instance, an answer to Mr. Comartin's question. It was followed up by your colleague. We could designate the agency. That would be done by an order in council--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This is open-ended, Minister. Are you saying that the cabinet never would or could, under this provision, enact something tantamount to being a Criminal Code provision, that a new criminal offence is not possible under paragraph 13(f)? That's what I want to hear, because if it is I won't want to support it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Just a second, Mr. Lee. I do want you to support this, so I don't want this to get off track with you or any of your colleagues.

These are the regulations that come as a result of the passage of the Criminal Code amendments. They're all within the Criminal Code power that is given to the federal government under the Constitution of this country, but there are regulations that can be enacted through the orders in council of the type that I suggest you know. The regulations won't be used to create a new or a second Criminal Code. I will take my chances in a minority Parliament to try to get these things passed.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We're out of time.

We'll go to Monsieur Lemay for five minutes.