Evidence of meeting #45 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:32 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
And none of this is bad, if you know what I'm saying?
4:32 p.m.
Conservative
4:32 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
My question is.... It's not huge. We're approving a budget. But it would seem to me that if we've had witnesses already—some of them seem to be from away—the expense has already been incurred. It has perhaps not been submitted, Mr. Fast. But how much of it—
4:32 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
It would have been incurred. But of course the witnesses need to submit the expenses, and then they're reimbursed; you understand that. I don't think we have an actual figure for what that would be. Until those expenses are submitted, we won't know what they are. We would probably have a rough idea, but I don't believe the clerk wants to guess.
4:32 p.m.
Liberal
4:32 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes, we'll discuss it tomorrow. Thank you.
We have a motion to approve this budget.
Mr. Comartin.
4:32 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm concerned, Mr. Chair. I have witnesses I want called who are coming from both coasts. This budget as passed will not be sufficient to cover them. I believe the understanding is that this will only be for the witnesses who have already testified.
4:32 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
No. The ones who are coming on Monday are also covered under this budget.
4:32 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I have others who aren't yet on the list, since I didn't have any idea that we were moving on this as quickly as you want to. I'm just advising the committee that I will be seeking those witnesses, and obviously their expenses will need to be covered.
I quite frankly think that what we should do is put this off until we have our meeting tomorrow.
4:32 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Comartin, the request for witnesses was sent out by e-mail, I believe, on December 7 or 8. That was over a month and a half ago. I believe the clerk also followed up with a phone call.
I see this as being a recurring problem at this committee: the requests go out; no one acts on them until we're essentially considering the bill and are close to doing clause-by-clause; then suddenly we have suggestions that more witnesses are required.
We have added more witnesses. But surely, with a month and a half's notice, we could have placed those into our calendar and also reflected them in our budget.
I've spoken to the clerk. The clerk has advised that if there are further costs for witnesses, a supplementary or an amended budget would be presented to committee, and we could pass that as well.
What I'm asking for right now is based on the witnesses we've already heard and the witnesses already scheduled. We have a budget here. Could we get that approved, knowing full well that a supplementary budget could be approved later, as well?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
On that understanding, I have no problem. I'll support the motion.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right. We have a motion on the table.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Now we'll go back to our witnesses. We welcome to the table Matthias Villetorte.
Mr. Lee, you have five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you very much.
Firstly, the minister referred to the entrapment sections of the Criminal Code. I presume that had to do with entrapment defences, either case law or in the code. May I ask that you either refer to them now and put them on the record, or, if you want to advise me later, that's okay too. I would just like to have a chance to walk through those and compare them with the scenarios under this section.
4:35 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The defence of entrapment is available at common law. So it's not in the Criminal Code.
But to assist you with this, section 172.1—the existing “luring a child” offence on which both new offences are modelled—engages similar types of practices to those you heard about from the witness from the OPP on Monday.
If the committee is interested, I can refer you to two cases. In one case under Internet luring the entrapment defence was successful, and in the other case the entrapment defence was unsuccessful. So it is available, it is argued, and it is argued specifically in this context.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Okay. I'll think about that.
Now let's go on to other issues.
I notice that in this legislation the government has put forward a bill that changes the term “Internet” to “telecommunication”. That's an advertent change. I think I'm correct in this. We're moving from the currently used term “Internet”—doing these things on the Internet, using the Internet. We have taken out the word “Internet” and have inserted the term “telecommunication”. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The amendment that you see in clause 15 replaces the word that is currently.... For example, currently section 172.1—luring a child—talks about someone who, using “a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) communicates with”. This is replacing the language there and in the new offences with “telecommunication”, because this is the language that's also being proposed more broadly in what is currently Bill C-51, which was previously Bill C-46, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. So it's a consistency to broaden the capture of the types of communications that are at play.
Bill C-54 still uses the terminology “Internet”, as you'll see in the offence. We use language for definition of the Internet here that is consistent with Bill C-30, I believe it is—the Copyright Act, which also has that language.
So the intention here is not.... The bill still does use “Internet”, but the use of “telecommunications” would be consistent here with its use in Bills C-51 and C-52.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'm interested in this just because we're passing legislation and I want to know what is comprehended by the term we're using. We're criminalizing certain conduct, and it's conduct involving the use of telecommunications.
I understand what you've said. You're saying the change in terminology is for the purpose of imposing consistency between different statutes and the Criminal Code.
Can I ask whether the term “telecommunications”, the word now used in the bill, is defined already in the Criminal Code?
4:35 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I believe the term is originating in what is now Bill C-51.
4:35 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You'll see the reference to “telecommunications” there, because the offence you're talking about, which is now found in clause 15, was originally in the predecessor to Bill C-51; it was in Bill C-46. So for consistency purposes, this is using the same language.
The intention here, though, in replacing “computer system” with “telecommunication” is to use the term that is the broadest term to capture all kinds of technology that will fit under it. It's not just a computer system, for example, on your desktop; it may be your iPhone that has a computer system, a telecommunication system.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I understand that, but that's a significant change. We're going from a “computer system” and are now legislating all telecommunications devices; it would be everything. So I'm interested in that definition. And I'll have to go and read that definition, because obviously we've already passed the definition of “means of telecommunication” in the other statute.
I will leave that. The answer is already in the other bill--is that right?
4:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I might also add that my colleague has just reminded me that the Interpretation Act also has a definition of telecommunications. So concerning the intention here, you're correct. It is to—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
We have just criminalized.... Before, what was criminalized was what you would send around on your computer. Now we've also criminalized what would happen on your telephone.