Justice Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Minister, nobody can be against virtue. As my colleague Serge Ménard and all those gathered here today said, everyone is in favour of this bill. It's an important, necessary and useful piece of legislation. In addition, I think we have been calling for such a bill for about 10 years. When I was a practising lawyer, there was talk about it. Adopting this bill is becoming increasingly urgent.

This bill should work its way through the legislative process quickly. I think that everyone is in favour of it. Let's assume it will be adopted before the end of December. Regulations related to its implementation are set out in clause 13. Has your department already started thinking about draft regulations? In addition, have you started estimating the costs of the application and the implementation of this extremely important bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've covered a number of areas, Monsieur Lemay. I'm encouraged by your opening comment. The translation was that nobody can be against virtue. I'm happy to hear that. I'm going to remember that quote and I thank you for it.

You said we can take it for granted that we'll get this bill passed. I can tell you that in now almost four years as justice minister, believe me, I take nothing for granted to get through Parliament. Whether it's the House of Commons or the Senate, we watch them very carefully. And I want to make very clear that on this or on any piece of legislation in the criminal justice area, I do not take anything for granted.

In terms of implementing this, yes, we do want to implement this, proclaim these sections into effect. We do want to designate the agency that would be designated. And if the agency that was suggested to me by one of your colleagues is used, federal moneys are already in place to go to these organizations.

Again, with respect to the policing in this country, whether it be the RCMP or municipal, our regional police forces are already in place. They do receive this information and they will continue to get it.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to know why, under clause 5, a person is obligated to preserve data for a period of only 21 days. Why did you decide on that number of days? That's perhaps the only comment I have. I would suggest that this time period be extended. Reducing it would be difficult, but it would be possible to extend it. I had in mind an extension to a minimum of one month.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, I know it's consistent with other provisions within the Criminal Code, and they tried to get these so that they are in fact.... Twenty-one days is a reasonable period of time, for whoever is making the investigation or going to court, to get the order on this. It's a reasonable period of time for them to get the information.

As you know, Monsieur Lemay--or perhaps don't know--many times information that is either on the Internet or the computer is almost instantaneously cleaned out and disappears. It becomes very problematic at that point in trying to gather evidence. But once an Internet service provider has been given notification under this particular legislation, we believe that three weeks is an appropriate time for the police, or whoever is doing the investigation, to do that, to get the appropriate court order to preserve that evidence. That's the time that we arrived at, and it's consistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Subclause 5(2) talks about a judicial order. Would that order be similar to a search warrant or be handed down by a court? Who will issue that order? Unless the person is required to preserve the computer data by a judicial order made under any other act of Parliament or legislature of a province.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It would be similar to a search warrant. The authorities that issue them would be empowered to do it as well.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Dechert for five minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here this afternoon and for putting this bill before the House. I want to thank you as well for your leadership in the many pieces of legislation in our government's criminal justice agenda that you have brought to the House and that will, in my opinion, help make our communities and our families safer.

I'm also encouraged by what I've heard today from our friends on the other side of this table about their support for this bill. I hope they will move expeditiously to the clause-by-clause review of this bill so that we can send it back to the House for final approval.

Every time the government comes forward with new legislation, Minister, there is inevitably the question of why. In my opinion, it's extremely important that government continue to look at ways to improve our criminal justice system and to ensure the safety of law-abiding Canadians, especially our most vulnerable and our youth. However, in the case of this bill, some people would ask whether or not Internet service providers are currently neglecting to report incidences of Internet child pornography.

Minister, can you please inform this committee on how this bill will make a difference?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, I think you're correct in one sense with respect to Internet service providers. The major ones report this information on a voluntary basis right now. But it's not just the major ones that are involved with this. As I indicated in my testimony, there are about 300 other Internet service providers that are also in the business of providing Internet services to people.

Again, it seems to me that it's not good enough that somebody has a moral obligation to do this. It's not enough that somebody should do this because it's the right thing. They should do it, and people do have a moral obligation to support the investigation of Internet pornography. But I believe there should be a legal duty, and I believe this is the next step in updating and modernizing our child pornography laws.

We have to do that. The level of sophistication of this type of business is astounding. In my trip to Washington, as I mentioned, I heard a presentation from the Attorney General of the United States and those who work with him, and I was blown away by the fact that people are becoming so sophisticated in their pursuit of exploiting children. Again, it underlies the message to all of us in the world that we have to continuously be looking at our laws to make sure they respond to this type of plague and that law enforcement agencies have the tools at their disposal to help thwart this terrible crime.

So in answer to your question of why, it's because it's the right thing to do. It's the moral thing to do. We should be doing this to better protect the children of this country and better protect children from around the world. What they tell me is that very often these images of child sexual exploitation are not being filmed in Canada; very often these are outside of Canada's borders. We want to work with law enforcement agencies outside of this country to get the protection to those children that they so desperately need.

Again, this is a step forward in the right direction. I don't take this bill for granted. I get concerned when people say there are concerns about it. This is straightforward. It gets the job done. It should be supported as quickly as possible.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Is there time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'd like to defer to Mr. Woodworth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

First of all, Minister, I want to join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation. I think this is another good example of a moderate and balanced bill that is fine-tuning our justice system and contributing to safer streets. In particular, I think it can be obviously said that this bill is going to assist authorities in identifying offenders and also rescuing children from sexual exploitation.

I notice that the information does indicate that suppliers are not required to send personal subscriber information under the statute. I'm wondering what kind of information it is that suppliers would be giving to the agency that's going to be designated under the regulations.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, the quick answer is the URL, the Internet address, and the appropriate investigation that would take place after that. There are legitimate concerns of people concerning privacy with respect to these issues, but at the same time we have this overriding concern. So that's what we're asking them to turn over.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Is the distinction, then, that we're going to be asking for information about the source, not the consumers, if I can put it that way?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's the source that we want to get at, obviously. For instance, I want to make it clear if you're downloading child pornography, that is already covered under the Criminal Code, and that's an offence in this country. But you're quite correct in indicating that this is to get at those sources, the suppliers, and we have to put one more tool in the hands of law enforcement agencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We've completed two full rounds, so I'm going to allow the minister to leave and I'm going to ask Jean-François Noël to join the table.

We'll suspend for two minutes while the minister leaves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll reconvene the meeting.

We're going to move to Mr. Lee, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

As I look at the definition of Internet service, and I'm just using the words “electronic mail” that are in the definition section of the bill, Internet service includes other things, but one of them is electronic mail. So if you go down to clause 3, one of the charging sections, and exchange the words “electronic mail” for “Internet service” and I read it, it says, “If a person is advised in the course of providing electronic mail...”—e-mail—“...to the public of an IP address...”, etc.

As I read that, the charging section seems to implicate a person who, in the course of sending out an e-mail to the public, becomes aware of this information. They would then become subject to the provisions of this snitch law. And I use the term “snitch law” because that's what it is. As much as the objective of the bill is a noble one, this is a perfectly simple snitch law, like the kind they had in East Germany after the Second World War.

Anyway, could I ask you to please confirm to me that an individual in that circumstance, sending out an e-mail to the public, would be charged with the obligation in this clause, and if he or she did not report, he or she would be subject to a charge and conviction under this law?

[Normand Wong]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Lee.

The definition of Internet service provider is to capture as many people as possible who provide Internet services to the public. So this includes e-mail service providers, as you've indicated, but it's—

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

No, I didn't say an e-mail service provider; I'm saying a sender of e-mail to the public.

[Normand Wong]

I'm basically trying to clarify that it only applies to e-mail service providers, so—

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

Does it say that somewhere?