Bill C-13 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, most notably, for
(a) a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well as complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images and the restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender;
(b) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(c) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(d) a warrant that will extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications;
(e) warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake; and
(f) a streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to an authorization to intercept private communications by ensuring that those warrants and orders can be issued by a judge who issues the authorization and by specifying that all documents relating to a request for a related warrant or order are automatically subject to the same rules respecting confidentiality as the request for authorization.
The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouse is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution with respect to the new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
It 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. Thank you for coming. We're the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 24. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday April 28, 2014, involve Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

We have a number of witnesses here today to talk about their own personal aspects regarding Bill C-13.

You do see, committee members, that we have committee business, the votes on the estimates. If we run out of time, we'll put that on Thursday's meeting. But if we have time, we'll do it quickly today.

Today our panellists are Carol Todd, Allan Hubley, Glenford Canning, and Alycha Reda. Kimberly Chiles is with us by video conference.

Our first presenter for 10 minutes is Ms. Todd.

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

In terms of the reference to Bill C-13, the explanation that has been provided to the committee is that the bill would enable law enforcement to ask for material that can be disclosed voluntarily now, that's not prohibited, for example, by PIPEDA.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, as you know, we presently have before this committee Bill C-13. One of the most troublesome aspects of that bill is the non-consensual, warrantless, but lawful, disclosure on a voluntary basis by Internet service providers. It has come to light that there are a million requests a year for information from Internet service providers and that in some instances the Government of Canada pays for this information.

How much money are we being asked to approve for payment to Internet service providers for non-consensual, warrantless, but lawful, disclosure of information?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The last time you came before committee, we were talking about Bill C-13. You and your officials were either reluctant or outright refused to talk about the interaction between Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. I trust that you've had an opportunity to review the testimony of a fellow Nova Scotian, David Fraser, on this topic.

Is it still your position, Mr. Minister, that there is no relationship between the bill that's presently before the Senate with respect to online privacy and Bill C-13, the so-called cyberbullying legislation?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

By and large, it's safe to say that all parties appear to have accepted the necessity of curbing Internet crime, and of course, sexual abuse online. A number of parties and a rather wide spectrum have backed the government up on this bill. For instance, according to Lianna McDonald from the Centre for Child Protection, Bill C-13:

...will assist in stopping the misuse of technology and help numerous young people impacted and devastated by this type of [crime].

You mentioned Amanda Todd. Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda, who was a victim, declared to Canada AM on November 22, 2013:

I see this as a good step forward because there has to be consequences for actions and instead of this being a grey area; it’s more black and white.

David Butt, counsel for the Kids Internet Safety Alliance, in The Globe and Mail, November 21, 2013, said:

...the new bill is a great improvement over trying to fit the round peg of this particular problem into the square hole of our existing child pornography laws.

This is from Wayne MacKay of Dalhousie's law school:

The Criminal Code is our biggest sanction and making it an offence sends a clear signal.

Allan Hubley, Ottawa city councillor and father of a bullied teen who took his own life, said on Canada AM:

When we were younger, you always knew who your bully was, you could do something about it. Now, up until the time this legislation gets enacted, they can hide behind that.

They have the anonymity. He continues:

Not only does it start to take the mask off of them, through this legislation there is serious consequences for their actions.

So victims are saying it's time for this law to be enacted, and of course, there has been some fear that there would be intrusion into privacy. How is this act and the ability to gather information and evidence on Internet crime balanced with the need to protect privacy?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Minister, and I thank the officials for coming today to what will be a shortened event, but we'll certainly plod through it.

Minister, I'd like to talk to you about Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill. I know this is something that's close to your heart with the Rehtaeh Parsons issue in your home province.

We've seen an increase in criminal activities on the Internet and we know that youth are especially vulnerable to online exploitation. Their search for acceptance, their perception of anonymity, and the privacy online can also lower their inhibitions, and of course, this leaves them open to manipulation by others. In a recent review of case law involving the offence of online luring of child victims who did report concerns, 75% of the children had already been sexually abused or exploited prior to coming forward.

Canadian parents, we know, do not want their children victims of crime on the Internet or to fall into the hands of some predators. How does this bill balance the need to gather information regarding criminal activity with the need to protect the personal privacy of Canadians?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I am delighted to be here with you this morning.

I'm pleased to appear before this committee to answer your questions regarding items in the main estimates. I note this is my 45th appearance before a parliamentary committee, which is a very important part of our parliamentary accountability process.

Mr. Chair, joining me today eventually will be Brian Saunders, George Dolhai, of course my deputy minister, William Pentney, and Marie-Josée Thivierge.

Chair, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I'm responsible for helping and in some cases shepherding our justice system through various iterations of our efforts to remain relevant, fair, accessible, and of course, to support Canadians in many ways. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, as the old well-worn legal maximum says. This is what Canadians expect.

The items that the Department of Justice has submitted to be tabled under main estimates will further our work to ensure just that—that our justice system continues to evolve, to be fairer and more inclusive, and enhances the personal safety and security and confidence of Canadians through our criminal laws, policies, and programs.

To turn to the numbers, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $630.6 million in the year 2014-15. Of these slightly more than half is allocated to grants and contributions, 38% is allocated to operating expenditures, while the remainder is allocated to statutory expenditures.

This spending will support the wide-ranging and important services that the government provides to all of government. That is to suggest that the Department of Justice provides those legal services across many departments, which includes a large number with respect to litigation, legislation, and advisory services.

These figures also represent a net spending decrease of $26.9 million from the 2013-14 main estimates. The decrease I can note is mainly attributable to the cost savings found through the strategic operating review as well as sunsetting of several initiatives.

Mr. Chair, while the choices that facilitated the cost saving required the prioritization of programs, it illustrates the department's commitment to supporting the government's economic action plan and to achieving savings for Canadians, where possible, through innovation and modernization to ensure that we better meet the needs of today, never losing sight of the importance of providing meaningful support and access to justice for Canadians.

One important area of expenditure, representing an increase of $1.4 million, enhances the victims fund and expands the reach of the federal victims strategy, specifically for time-limited operational funding to non-governmental organizations serving victims of crime and in particular the child advocacy centres. These centres, which now span the country, are one of the most innovative, compassionate, and important contributions that I have seen in my time as both a practising lawyer and as Minister of Justice. These centres provide crucial services to young victims of abuse and their families. I believe their contribution is offering front-line services day to day that make a real difference in the lives of youth.

Mr. Chair, there has also been an increase of $3.98 million, in addition to the initial funding of $40.17 million under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2013-2018 for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.

The initiatives described earlier will enable the Minister of Justice to build a justice system that is more equitable, that will improve access to justice in both official languages and that will meet the ever-changing needs of Canadians across the country.

In addition to our current success, the future is promising. The Government of Canada has taken action with respect to a number of criminal justice priorities in order to guarantee rights and make communities safer for us to live in, thrive and raise our families.

Mr. Chair, on April 3 of this year, the Prime Minister and my predecessor, Mr. Nicholson, announced historic legislation that would transform the way victims of crime are treated in our country's justice system. After extensive cross-country consultation with numerous individuals and stakeholder groups, I had the honour to table in the House of Commons the victims bill of rights.

This is intended to establish statutory rights for information, protection, participation, and restitution, and to ensure that a complaint process is in place to deal with breaches of these rights. This legislation would entrench the rights of victims of crime at the federal level. Protecting victims and providing them with a more effective voice in our justice system is a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, inclusion, and respect—basic rights, in my view, necessary for public confidence and trust in our justice system.

Chair, colleagues, above all Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe. Public safety is a fundamental and foremost responsibility of any government. The government understands this expectation and is committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. Our laws and current legislation reflect our commitment to this responsibility.

To that end, the government introduced Bill C-14, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, which received royal assent on April 10, 2014. The bill helps protect Canadians from persons who are found to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and who pose a higher risk of committing violence if released. This, I should note, is a very small percentage of individuals who are actually deemed not criminally responsible, and is somewhat akin to the dangerous offender applications and findings in our Criminal Code.

The legislation enhances the safety and confidence of victims specifically by considering them when decisions are being made about mentally disordered accused persons, making sure victims are notified when accused are being discharged, and where they intend to reside, if the victim desires, and allowing for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim.

In addition, Mr. Chair, our government will continue to take action to protect the most vulnerable through the tougher penalties for child predators act, as well as Bill C-13, the cyber bill. We are working to maintain the safety and security of our communities and our streets by ensuring that legislation responds to the evolution that naturally occurs, and that includes, of course, the Supreme Court's ruling in Bedford, which struck down Criminal Code sanctions as they pertain to prostitution.

So to conclude, Mr. Chair, our government is committed to maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system. We are strengthening that commitment with the level of funding that the Department of Justice portfolio has received, and the funding that Justice has received delivers concrete results for Canadians. I'll continue to do my best to see that those taxpayer funds are spent wisely, while ensuring that Canadians have a fair, relevant, and accessible justice system.

I want to thank you and the committee members for the essential work that you do for providing our department with the opportunity to make these comments and to interact in a way that I hope is meaningful for all.

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses today. It was an excellent discussion of Bill C-13 and the issues this committee is facing.

On Thursday of this week, we have the minister and officials coming to talk about the main estimates, and then we'll be back dealing with Bill C-13 likely into the first week, at least, of June, and then we'll be doing clause-by-clause. So just keep an eye on it. That's the timeframe.

With that, I'll adjourn.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to you, Mr. Fraser. On Thursday we had the minister and some officials come before the committee. They were either reticent or outright refused to talk about the relationship between Bill S-4 and Bill C-13.

Why should the minister, why should his officials, and why should we care about the relationship between Bill S-4 and Bill C-13?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

They don't always know either. Sometimes they feel ashamed, or they're not too sure what they want to do. They feel like they've done something wrong. It might not be so easy.

There will be a need for much more than Bill C-13.

[Fahd Alhattab]

Who's going to let the kids know? I'm a youth worker—I'm at the Boys and Girls Club—and I find out that one of the kids I'm working with is having trouble. If I'm educated about Bill C-13, I'd say, “Okay, let's talk to Mom and Dad about what we're going to do”. If I'm a teacher or a coach, and I hear about it—and we hear sometimes, and we see, and we don't always know what next step to take.

[Marlene Deboisbriand]

I think you are right. If Bill C-13 is passed, it does not mean that kids will instinctively call the police. Most of them will not even know about it, actually. That is how kids are.

However, I feel guilty answering that way, because if one young person does something to prevent a tragic situation like the ones we have seen, the ones you have mentioned, that is something important to hold onto. That is why, in the brief we submitted, we indicated that we are not opposed to it. You cannot be against it, but, at the same time, we must not tell ourselves that it will be a magic solution that is going to put an end to the situations we are familiar with. Thinking that would be a little much.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I find Mr. Dechert's questions interesting.

I think people are afraid that there may be a kind of laissez-faire, a free-for-all, because things move very quickly, because information is accessible, because you can use your Z30 in a flash and get access to all kinds of information. At some stage, it may become a bit of a mess because you can now get warrants in ways that are very different from when I started practicing 30 years ago. You can get warrants in any number of ways. Mr. Dechert's concerns, which are leading him to widen the scope of some matters, do not seem very well founded to me.

However, one thing he said got an immediate reaction from me. Clearly, Bill C-13 has been sold to us as a reaction to the tragic events that ended with the deaths of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Jamie Hubley and so on. The people from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada could certainly provide us with a number of tragic cases.

In terms of Bill C-13, the million-dollar question is the one Amanda Todd's mother asked: would Bill C-13 have saved Amanda's life? Her answer was yes because she is an optimist. I would like to be able to say yes too as she did, but we will have the opportunity to talk to her about it again next week.

However, as Mr. Dechert said,

she came forward.

In my opinion, government members are making a mistake to think that, if Bill C-13 is passed, young people who find themselves involved in something tragic on the Internet will automatically call the police. Some of them may perhaps think that they will be able to get back the photo that they had sent in return to someone who sent them a cute photo. But that person could be the biggest pedophile on the face of the earth. I think that we are putting too much stock in Bill C-13's ability to do that. I do not think that is going to happen; it will be

business as usual.

How will our police forces react in terms of education? Are they going to be patrolling various places? Will there be an Internet police? Will they be looking for things like that? Are they going to do the things that have to be done, as they do when they drive through our neighbourhoods with their patrol cars? Are they going to be patrolling websites too? Just because Bill C-13 has been passed, I am not sure that kids are going to say—

let's call the cops.

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

She's a young person. She doesn't know who she's dealing with over the Internet. She gives an intimate image. At that point in time, she steps forward and expresses her concern. She says that she gave somebody an image and that she's not sure what they're going to do about.

Under Bill C-13, the courts are provided with the power to essentially impose an injunction against further use of that image and to order the destruction of that image. How can you do that if you don't know who has that image? She goes to the police. The police go to her ISP provider and say, “Can you tell us where that message came from?” If the ISP provider discloses the information without a warrant, you think that they should be civilly liable for doing so if it turns out that the individual who took that image hadn't committed an offence at that point and maybe wasn't intending to commit an offence? Why should they have civil liability for doing something that surely we can agree is in the public good?

My concern is, what's the greater public good in this situation, the preservation of harm to that young woman or the preservation of the privacy of the individual who has her intimate image?

[David Fraser]

I think it's probably dangerous to ask me to summarize Bill C-13 or my concerns.