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.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Bill C-13 has received wide media attention, and almost every Canadian who has heard about it has had an opinion on it. Unfortunately, much of what has been reported in the media has disregarded the spirit of this legislation, and this has hampered an informed debate on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-13, in simple terms, would do three very important things that would help make the world safer for Canadians.

First, it proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, or what some refer to as “revenge porn”. Bill C-13 would also update existing offences, such as the harassing telephone call provision, to make them relevant in the Internet age. Some of these amendments would be particularly useful for police in relation to cyberbullying cases.

The second important component of Bill C-13 is the proposed enhancement of the investigative toolkit police use to deal with cybercrimes and electronic evidence. These amendments, which comprise the modernization of existing investigative powers as well as the creation of new production orders for specific information, would provide Canadian police with the tools that many other police in other countries have been using for over 10 years. The modernization of the toolkit would ensure that police could access the information they need, and only the information they need, to advance an investigation into an offence.

By providing police with these modern tools, Parliament would not only be facilitating the investigation of crimes involving electronic evidence in Canada but would be enhancing privacy protection for Canadians generally by requiring the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for all information in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Finally, Bill C-13 will allow Canada to access and provide greater international cooperation in criminal matters. This is of vital importance because so much evidence in relation to cybercrimes, such as that related to cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, is stored and located outside of Canada. In many cases, where there is no international cooperation, no investigation can proceed.

As was previously pointed out at the report stage, Bill C-13 was thoroughly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The review involved 10 committee meetings and appearances by over 40 witnesses. While there were appearances by witnesses who opposed aspects of the bill, primarily the investigative tools, many of the witnesses were supportive of the entire legislation package. However, it should be noted that the new intimate images offence received almost universal support, including from members of the opposition.

During his testimony before the justice committee, the Minister of Justice explained that the proposed non-consensual distribution of intimate images offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images without the consent of the person depicted. It is most important to respond in this manner to cyberbullying that involves this activity, which can cruelly humiliate and shame its target and cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to the victim, particularly Canadian youth. The minister explained how this would remedy a gap in the criminal law.

The minister also noted that Bill C-13 reflects recommendations made in June 2013 in a federal-provincial-territorial report on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which recommended both the creation of a new offence and updates to the existing offences and investigative tools. The report was unanimously supported by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety.

The committee also heard from a number of victims of cyberbullying and parents of deceased victims of cyberbullying, many of whom have become advocates for change to better address cyberbullying. Many of these witnesses expressed support for the proposals in Bill C-13. Mr. Glen Canning, the father of Rehtaeh Parsons, expressed concern about the challenge faced by police in trying to respond to modern crimes using antiquated tools. He also believes that had Bill C-13 been law at the time of his daughter's harassment, it would have made a positive difference.

The Committee also heard from police, including the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the CACP, and the chief of the Vancouver Police Department, Jim Chu.

The CACP represents over 90% of the Canadian police community, including federal, first nations, provincial, regional and municipal agencies.

Chief Chu clearly stated that the CACP fully supports Bill C-13. He offered the committee compelling testimony on the challenges of crime in the online environment and on its growth in areas of traditional crime, such as harassment, fraud, and kidnapping, as well as in relation to new crimes more closely linked to technological advances. He also explained to the committee the challenges police face because of the international nature of cyberactivity.

Chief Chu articulated how technology can facilitate traditional bullying and make it more persuasive and painful. He also expressed concern about the lack of a safe haven and the difficulty of erasing anything from the online environment once it has been distributed. He said rapid intervention is needed before things get worse for victims, who may suffer consequences of this behaviour for the rest of their lives. He explained to the committee that the modernized tools in Bill C-13 are essential for this response.

Chief Chu explained that the bill does not create authority for police to obtain information without judicial warrant and that the police support Bill C-13's proposed judicial oversight as a good way to balance investigative needs and privacy protection. He also noted, however, that these tools need to allow police to respond quickly, which is essential in the online environment.

He also responded to the inaccurate portrayals of Bill C-13, in some instances, as creating authority for police to wiretap without authority. Bill C-13 does not provide police with this power, and they will continue to require prior authorization by the courts to intercept any private communications. Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this.

The committee also heard from Greg Gilhooly, a lawyer who was a victim of an Internet predator when he was in his youth.

Mr. Gilhooly expressed his strong support for the proposals in Bill C-13 and provided the committee with personal insight into the urgency and importance of acting precipitously to enhance the law in this area because, as he put it, “there are monsters among us,” and police need tools to enable them to act and protect Canadians.

The committee also heard from Mr. David Butt, legal counsel for the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance and a front-line criminal lawyer who commended the government for striking the right balance between investigative needs and privacy protections with the proposals in Bill C-13.

I would like to share with members this quote from his testimony to the committee:

...let's have vibrant police powers to investigate digitally, coupled with significant judicial oversight to control those police powers independently. That's the sweet spot that I say this bill hits. That's my measure of success in a bill: does it enable the police to act effectively, but does it also give another branch of government, the judiciary, the appropriate tools to oversee? If you've got both of those, you've got the right mix, and I say you've got the right mix here.

While other witnesses expressed similar views to the committee, I found this a particularly eloquent statement of what Bill C-13 accomplishes.

I would like to continue by citing the support for Bill C-13 expressed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. Lianna McDonald, the executive director of this organization, appeared before the committee and explained that her organization is a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children.

Ms. McDonald explained at the committee that her goal in appearing was to provide both insight and support for Bill C-13. After over 30 years of working for child protection, she considered the bill to be something that would address the challenges her organization is very familiar with as first-hand witnesses to what she described as the collision between sexual exploitation, technology, and bullying. She explained to the committee that Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children, has received more than 100,000 reports of sexual abuse and exploitation of children, which has resulted in more than 500 arrests and in removing numerous children from abusive environments.

Ms. McDonald expressed concern that technology has become a powerful weapon and tool in the hands of those who wish to hide their criminal behaviour behind a cloak of anonymity, making it easier to engage in reprehensible harassment behaviour. She urged the committee not to fail in understanding the role of technology in the commission of offences and to be conscious of the importance of modernizing the law. She also expressed concern that the privacy rights of victims have been neglected in the focus on privacy issue discussions, and she indicated that Bill C-13 would be fully supported by her organization. Ms. McDonald also expressed support for having the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of images apply to victims of all ages, as the impact of this behaviour is significant regardless of age.

I hope that I have succeeded in conveying the reality of the broader witness testimony, which is that while there were some dissenting voices, many informed and engaged witnesses considered the proposals in Bill C-13 as necessary and advisable. Unfortunately, media coverage focused primarily on those who expressed criticisms of the bill. Some of those criticisms demonstrated a lack of understanding of the proposals.

Another aspect of the proposals that has not reached much attention but that may be of interest to note, given the prevalence of online crime, is the amendments to the Competition Act proposed in Bill C-13.

We know that there are complex forms of white collar crime, and sometimes there are businesses that push the envelope too far and break the law.

The Competition Act is a federal law governing most business conduct in Canada. The Competition Bureau, headed by the Commissioner of Competition, is an independent law enforcement agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of the act. The Competition Act includes both criminal and civil provisions aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices and other harmful conduct in the marketplace. It is designed to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers prosper in a competitive, innovative marketplace. In particular, the Competition Act sets out certain criminal offences, including, among other things, price fixing, bid rigging, deceptive telemarketing, pyramid selling, and false or misleading representations that are knowingly made recklessly. It also includes civil provisions that deal with false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices, mergers, abuse of dominance, agreements between competitors, price maintenance, exclusive dealing, tied selling, and market restriction.

Bill C-13 would amend certain definitions found within the Competition Act to ensure that they are clear and technology neutral and that they align with those in the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, and Canada's anti-spam legislation. This bill would also incorporate in the Competition Act, by reference, the new powers in the Criminal Code regarding preservation demands, preservation orders, and production orders for historical transmission data so that they could be used in investigations of all conduct under the Competition Act, both criminal and civil. As is the case throughout the bill, preservation and production orders sought by the bureau would be subject to judicial oversight.

In closing, I strongly support Bill C-13, and I encourage all members to vote in support of this important piece of legislation and to send it for further consideration to that other place.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice's speech. I am concerned about two of his comments.

He said that the bill is enhancing “privacy protection”. He also said, “Nothing in Bill C-13 changes this”.

I am very surprised because there is a specific clause in the bill that would grant legal immunity to any Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when asked by any government agency.

What the government is doing is quite separate from the judicial oversight system and the process for obtaining warrants. I am very curious to know how the member can think that does not violate privacy protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill contains an immunity clause pertaining to the submission of documents. As I mentioned in my speech, one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was Mr. Gilhooly. He is a corporate lawyer who used to work for Global. Mr. Gilhooly was a victim of Graham James, I believe, and he had the courage to come testify.

In his testimony, he said, as a corporate lawyer, that the immunity would allay any doubt corporate lawyers might have about what is already enshrined in law. There is already immunity. Immunity was granted on a statutory basis, which confirms the state of law, before this was done. Nothing has changed.

Mr. Gilhooly said that the immunity set out in the bill would remove any doubts corporate lawyers might have so that they could immediately hand the information over to police. That would allow the police to preserve the evidence. In such situations, the evidence disappears very quickly. Once it has disappeared, an investigation is impossible and it also becomes impossible to protect the victims, who are mostly young children.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of cyberbullying and the phenomenal amount of exploitation that has taken place on the Internet and through technology has been a significant issue over the last number of years, an issue colleagues of mine within the Liberal Party have brought forth in the form of other pieces of legislation, private member's bills in particular. It is an issue Canadians are concerned about no matter what region of the country we look at.

Given the level of interest and the amount of potential legislative changes opposition parties have brought forward, such as my colleague from Vancouver who represents the Liberal Party, why does the member believe that the government has not really responded? Given the high level of interest in this issue, a keen sense of co-operation among all political parties to do more on the issue, why does he feel that the government has not acted on private members' initiatives that would have gone a long way in addressing some of the concerns he talked about in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the justice committee struck a very good balance in considering the concerns of the opposition parties. There were 10 meetings. Every single witness requested to appear did appear, and we believe the bill that has come forth has struck a good balance between the privacy rights of those who commit the offences and the protection of those most vulnerable people whom they attack, the children of Canada.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question because, as a young mother, I feel more and more concerned about cyberbullying and all that it entails, particularly when I think about my daughter's future. I am very concerned when I see what can happen to children all across Canada.

What worries me even more about Bill C-13 is that we were unable to reach an agreement with the Conservative government to divide the bill. The official opposition completely agrees with a large portion of the bill. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservative government is acting in such bad faith when it knows full well that all of the members on this side of the House completely agree with such a large portion of the bill?

The government could split the bill in two and very quickly pass the portion we all agree on so that it could become law as quickly as possible. We could then discuss the part that we still have issues with and come up with amendments or another way to move forward with that part of the bill.

Why is the Conservative government acting in such bad faith and why is it refusing to split Bill C-13 into two separate bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder what would have been the point of splitting a bill when all of the witnesses invited by the parties appeared and there were 10 meetings. I am not convinced that the outcome would have been any different.

We believe that this bill truly strikes a balance. It protects the privacy of the victims and the accused, as well as the young and the vulnerable. That is the purpose of this bill, and we believe we have achieved it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we put forward makes a lot of sense, because even the Minister of Justice agreed to one of our amendments, but the government refused it. Basically, the member is telling us that all of the witnesses appeared, but he is not telling us that all of them were in favour of this.

Mr. David Fraser said:

Even though the definition excludes content, just the transmission data tells you a lot more about really what's going on.

I would suggest this can be fixed by either raising the standard from reasonable grounds to suspect to reasonable grounds to believe with respect to this data, or re-crafting the definition of transmission data....

He added a little bit more, but the whole idea here is that although the government allows witnesses to appear, it does not listen to what the witnesses are saying. Again, we see a government that continues to victimize the victims and makes it legal to do illegal things.

Can the minister indicate whether or not the government is absolutely sure that this will not constitute a constitutional debate?

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

Mr. Speaker, each and every law, before it is adopted, goes through very rigid scrutiny as to its constitutionality. This is a procedure that we have followed. We believe that it has struck the right balance.

Certainly, there are witnesses who were not in favour of the bill, as there were many who were in favour of it. However, the key issue is that in intercepting information to protect the most vulnerable, the children, there is always a level of judicial oversight. The courts are the protectors of the charter. The courts intervene in each instance to make sure that the privacy rights of the accused are protected, as are the rights of those who are being victimized.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, which I found very enlightening, especially with respect to the Conservatives' usual tactic: pretending to be the victims of the mean old media that focus heavily on their bill's shortcomings.

The parliamentary secretary's affirmation that every single government bill goes through rigid scrutiny before making its way to the House of Commons is not reassuring at all. Both the parliamentary secretary and I know very well that, over the past nine years, several of the bills that the Conservative government pushed through have had parts struck down by court rulings, even by the Supreme Court.

In Spencer, for example, the Supreme Court prohibited Internet service providers from disclosing their clients' names and contact information to law enforcement officials who simply ask for it.

Is the parliamentary secretary not worried about yet another fiasco resulting from his obstinacy?

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

Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, the Supreme Court has ruled on constitutionality in a number of cases. That is the beauty of our democracy. Bills are passed and analyzed, and then the brightest legal minds of the Supreme Court get us back on the right track when we stray.

Investigations will always be subject to judicial review. The court determines the value of a request to protect victims.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that we are once again being forced to debate a very important bill under a time allocation motion. I have lost track somewhat, but I think this is the 80th time allocation motion. It has happened so many times under this government that there have been many complex, important bills that we have not had a chance to debate.

On top of that, the government decided to hold the third reading debate on this extremely important bill on a Friday, when everyone knows that most members are not present in the House on Fridays. I think that is appalling.

I would also like to talk about the vote at second reading. There was a vote at report stage and another one on this part of the bill, and it was revised in committee. That said, I must denounce the fact that the Liberal Party voted in favour of the bill, even though it had criticized the bill repeatedly. It boggles my mind. I am not normally a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I was there when this bill was being studied.

When they were asking the parliamentary secretary questions, some members said that the bill's first aim was to address bullying. On that issue, at least, we agree 100% with the Conservatives. All members on all sides of the House agree that cyberbullying must be stopped, for it is a very serious issue.

New technology has completely changed the problem of bullying. In the past, once you were home, nasty people at school could no longer bother you, since you were in a safe place. These days, new technology and social networks allow bullies to follow us everywhere.

If someone does not like what you wore to school, it will be shared on Facebook or in an email. Disturbing images can also follow us. Unfortunately, that is what happened in a couple of highly publicized cases, such as the Amanda Todd case. No matter what she did, that image followed her. I agree completely that this must be stopped.

That is why we asked that the bill be split. That way, we could pass the essential elements and make positive changes to combat cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of images. It is too bad that the government did not have the good sense to get this part passed quickly. We agreed to do so. This part of the bill could have been at the other place by now. Unfortunately, the government did not want to go ahead.

It is a real shame because cyberbullying is a very important issue to me. I would like to use my 20 minutes to talk about only the parts of the bill that have to do with cyberbullying. Unfortunately, I cannot because we also have to talk about the problematic parts of this bill that could have very serious consequences for Canadians' privacy.

Victims of cyberbullying deserve better. The families of cyberbullying victims came to committee to share their stories. They were very courageous. Nonetheless, there are thousands of other cases that are not in the media, unfortunately or fortunately, I am not sure which. These victims deserve a debate on this issue alone. Unfortunately, we must debate both because this government is incapable of co-operating.

Some of my constituents are working very hard to combat cyberbullying. Someone even developed a website to create a safer social network where people cannot be anonymous. It is very interesting.

I want to point out all the daily efforts these people are making. Some are forming groups to combat cyberbullying. These are truly exceptional Canadians, and I want to thank them.

We have to talk about the other aspects because, unfortunately, very few pages and clauses of this bill really have anything to do with cyberbullying. The vast majority are on changes to the Criminal Code. Some parts of the bill are just fine, but others will seriously jeopardize Canadians' privacy.

The government keeps talking about the judicial oversight system for obtaining warrants to get personal information. Indeed, some parts of the bill call for a warrant. I will talk about the problems with warrants later.

However, what the government did not say in its speech and what it seems to have completely forgotten about is that a parallel system is being created, and that it completely bypasses all the mechanisms for obtaining warrants. That was part of the government's own bill. We are completely setting aside judicial oversight, which is the basis for our legal systems. We are creating a parallel system where someone can pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and make an urgent request, and the service provider will send the information. The Liberals created this loophole in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Conservative government is taking advantage of it.

We know that there have been abuses. The acting information and privacy commissioner announced that in one year, government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests for information from Internet providers. That is huge. I have trouble believing that there are 1.2 million terrorists, for example, or 1.2 million criminals running around in the streets and that we need to obtain information about them.

Furthermore, it was the Internet service providers that informed us about the 1.2 million requests, not the government, which has shown an appalling lack of transparency. It does not want to give us that information.

Also, there was no explanation as to why these requests were made. There is no oversight system for these types of requests that could guarantee to Canadians that they were made in extraordinary cases. I believe that Canadians are prepared to accept extraordinary cases. There are urgent situations where we cannot turn to the regular processes and where we must obtain a warrant after the fact. However, in light of the 1.2 million requests, I find it hard to believe that Canadians would not think that there had been abuses and that there is a flaw somewhere.

I actually asked the government a question on the order paper about how many times it requested this kind of information from Internet service providers. That was just for one year, 2012-13. The Canada Border Services Agency said that it had made over 13,000 requests in one year. I asked the agency what kinds of cases or situations would result in such requests being made. Only two of the 13,000 requests were made for national security reasons. Can we honestly say that these are exceptional cases or national security cases? I think not. The question was asked, but the answer did not cut it.

I asked the government another question because it was not going to share that information. I asked how many times government agencies had made such requests for 2001, which is when the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, was passed. Here is something very disturbing: they did not have the data. We were told that there was no system to keep track of those kinds of requests and that the information could not be provided.

[An hon. member]

For crying out loud.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

For crying out loud. The member behind me said that because it is true. For crying out loud. They would have us believe that they can use this back door to ask Internet service providers for personal information, such as a person's IP address, but that they cannot track this stuff.

The government is saying that it cannot go back to determine, for example, how many requests were made and how many of those cases had to do with cyberbullying, child exploitation, national security or anti-terrorism. It claims that it does not have that data. How are we supposed to make sure that this is not being abused? Exploiting loopholes has become the norm, and that poses tremendous problems.

This bill grants legal immunity to Internet service providers that choose to share their clients' personal information when requested to do so by any government agency or on their own initiative. However, most of the time, it is government agencies that make a request.

A parallel system ensured that an Internet service provider that shared data it had no right sharing could be sued if it abused the process. That is the one and only aspect that gave people any sense of security.

In certain cases, Internet service providers refused to respond to a request because they did not want to take the risk of being sued. Bill C-13 takes away this one thing that made Internet service providers think twice. That is a major problem.

When the Conservative and Liberal members—since they voted together—say they want to ensure that there is balance and a warrant system, that is false, for they seem to be forgetting that they gave Internet service providers legal immunity in this bill.

Furthermore, the IP address reveals a great deal of information about users, including their conversations and where they go. Contrary to what the Conservatives like to say, it is not the same information that can be found in the phone book.

I talked a lot about the shortcomings created by PIPEDA. Rather than correcting the situation, the provisions in Bill C-13 make matters worse. In addition to providing legal immunity, Bill C-13 also reduces the threshold for intercepting communications—that is, the content of an email or text message—to reasonable suspicion.

There already was a threshold for obtaining a warrant, which was good. We should respect existing thresholds for being able to access personal information or communications. However, that threshold has been reduced to “reasonable suspicion”, which opens the door to abuse.

I would like to point out another very specific aspect of this bill. If government agencies can ask Internet service providers to hand over personal information, public servants will have access to that information with a simple phone call. Here is how “public officer” is defined in Bill C-13:

“Public officer” means a public officer who is appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament.

I can think of many positions that would be included in this definition, including mayors. There are good mayors and bad mayors. Can they all be trusted? Are there any provisions to prevent abuse? No. This just opens the door wider.

When this bill was examined in committee, the NDP proposed 37 amendments, which were all rejected. We heard from a number of witnesses, and contrary to what the parliamentary secretary just said, the witnesses did not all agree.

Here is what Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother, had to say:

I do not want my privacy invaded. I do not want young people's privacy compromised. I do not want personal information being exploited without a protection order that would support individuals. I do not want any Canadian hurt in my daughter's name. I want her legacy to continue to promote hope, celebrate our differences, and give strength to other young people everywhere.

I think she would have been pleased to see us split this bill. She does not want anyone's privacy to be invaded, or the threshold for obtaining communications to be lowered, or for government agencies to be given access to personal information without a warrant. That is what she wants for her daughter's legacy. It is really quite clear.

There is another aspect that the committee was unable to assess because it happened after review in committee and that is the Supreme Court ruling in Spencer. It is an extremely important ruling that brought certainty to something that may have been rather vague before. In Spencer, the Supreme Court ruled that no one could have access to clients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and IP addresses without a warrant. Nonetheless, in Bill C-13 we just included statutory immunity for Internet service providers who share information without a warrant.

There is some serious and legitimate uncertainty as to whether these parts of the bill are constitutional and whether they will be blocked.

That being said, why could we not have sat down together and sorted this out? We know that the Conservative government seems to be short on respect for the Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings, as we saw during the process for appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that every bill, every law it wants to enforce respects the Canadian Constitution. It is the government's fundamental duty. When the Conservatives say that there was a review, that legal experts assessed the bill to ensure it was consistent with the Constitution, that is great, but the Spencer ruling was handed down after the bill was drafted.

I am puzzled by something else. As we know, the government is refusing to respond to this decision. It claims that everything is in order and that the bill is constitutional even though many experts doubt that it will pass the test of the Constitution in light of the Spencer ruling. What is interesting is that we expected the government to respond, but it was actually the Internet service providers that did so. Now Rogers and TELUS will no longer respond to requests for information about their clients made by government agencies. Why is the government not taking its responsibilities seriously by declining to make these requests? That would be the responsible thing for the government to do. Instead, it is the other side doing this. That really bothers me.

I agree completely that we must amend the law. It must keep pace with new technologies and the new problems that society faces. Many new things are happening, and we have to keep up to date. However, we cannot and should not put the protection of people ahead of the protection of privacy. We can find a balance. No matter what the Conservative MPs would like to think, this is not a balanced bill. Furthermore, there is a high probability that it is unconstitutional. It is therefore very problematic.

The government says that it is opening the door, that it is all right in certain situations. Yes, there are exceptional cases. However, I am afraid that the government is violating privacy and that once it opens the door, it will open it wider. Where will that take our society?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and acknowledge her contribution to this debate.

Why did the government not split the bill in two as the NDP asked in committee? That would have made it easier to meet the growing needs regarding cyberbullying and the protection of personal information. Those are two very different things. As my colleague said earlier, this bill will allow for the invasion of privacy and we do not know how far it will go. The bill does not set any limits in that regard.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We asked for the bill to be divided. The provisions pertaining to cyberbullying, namely the specific clauses that deal with the distribution of images without consent, could already be law and could already be protecting children.

The government decided to run television ads to announce the fight against cyberbullying when a law to that effect has not yet been passed. Things could be different if we could work together properly. I have already mentioned this, but I find it very disappointing that I had to spend about 15 of the 20 minutes of my speech talking about privacy. I really would have liked to speak on behalf of the victims of cyberbullying in my riding and across Canada and let them know that we are going to take action and work together. Unfortunately, the government put these two parts of the bill together and the debate is about both of them.

What is more, as a result of the Spencer ruling, some provisions of the bill will likely be deemed unconstitutional, which will block the entire bill. If we could have had a bill that included only the provisions about cyberbullying, this would not have been a problem, and we could have considered whether some of the provisions were constitutionally legitimate.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing our opposition to the bill. As someone who also deals with issues surrounding cyber-misogyny in particular and the attack on women of all ages online, which is especially vitriolic, could she speak to the way in which the bill would do nothing to deal with that kind of cyberbullying?

The government's agenda, when it comes to women and discrimination against them, is left wanting. The Conservatives use examples of cyber-misogyny and tragic examples to drive this egregious agenda. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, some women are particularly vulnerable targets for misogynist comments on the Internet. The case of Amanda Todd is a good example. A sexual image of her was distributed because sometimes, people unfortunately see women as sexual objects.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a motion that we work on prevention. I think that prevention is very important, but it is nowhere to be found in this bill. If we work together, we can get to the root of the issue and figure out why cyberbullying happens and why people distribute sexual images without consent. We need to get to the root of the problem.

We can impose sanctions on people all we want, but if there is no means of preventing this crime, we cannot attack the problem on all fronts. Prevention is important, especially in the case of women who are the victims of these types of attacks. To combat this problem, we need to get to the root of this problem.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know and as all members on both sides of this House know, cyberbullying causes a lot of pain for the young women—and also young men—who fall victim to this crime. In most cases, the victims are young people who are still in high school and who do not have much power in society.

I would like to clarify something with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. If I am not mistaken, the member thinks that the government is mismanaging this issue by associating cyberbullying with intrusive provisions regarding Internet spying. From what I understand, she demonstrated that these two topics should be separated. Could she explain why?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is something we have said over and over. We should be able to split this bill in two. Cyberbullying victims deserve a debate on these problems. They deserve that we tackle the issue of cyberbullying and debate provisions that would help fix these problems. I repeat that we also need to address prevention. Unfortunately, these two issues are being dealt with at the same time.

I would like to talk about what Carol Todd said during her testimony in committee. She said that she did not want people's privacy to be invaded in her daughter's name. That is fundamental.

Why could we not adopt only the parts of the bill on cyberbullying and the sharing of non-consensual images, and then examine the other parts later, especially in light of the Spencer decision, which changes everything?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one concern I have expressed in the past is that the amount of exploitation that takes place on the Internet is exceptionally high, and has been for a number of years. Cyberbullying takes place every day and the need for legislation has existed for a number of years. The opposition, whether the Liberals or the New Democrats, has brought forward legislation to try to deal with some of these problems. In recognition of just how badly we need some legislation, the Liberals will support this.

Would the member comment on the lost opportunities in not passing more progressive legislation earlier? Certain aspects of this legislation received overwhelming support from all political parties and had the government acted on those portions, cyberbullying and exploitation over the Internet could have been dealt with a few years ago. Would she not agree?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his excellent work and for introducing a bill with provisions that were very similar to those in the first few pages of the bill we are debating today.

We could have acted very quickly. We could have passed the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which would have allowed us to examine the issue of cyberbullying and find ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, despite claiming that they are committed to combatting cyberbullying. That is extremely disconcerting.

In response to my Liberal colleague's question, I am extremely disappointed to hear that they are supporting this bill and that they are supporting this government's desire to violate the privacy of Canadians.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, much like at second reading, I am pleased but also troubled to speak to 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.

I am pleased that Parliament and the government are moving forward with measures to combat cyberbullying. It is, as many others have said, a scourge on our society and is especially troublesome, creating stress, strain and in some cases a loss of self-worth, among our youth.

As my colleagues, the critic for justice and the critic for rights and freedoms, have stated, we support very strongly that aspect of the bill. Support measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying is an area where the Criminal Code needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and these times. Bill C-13 would do a reasonable job in bringing the Criminal Code up to date.

I will speak a little further on other measures we believe, beyond the Criminal Code, that must happen to really deal effectively with cyberbullying. The Criminal Code can only be one aspect. We need to take many more measures in prevention and awareness, et cetera, beyond the Criminal Code.

However, at the beginning I said I am pleased, but I am also troubled. I am troubled because tagged onto the bill were measures of the old Bill C-30 on lawful access that so many Canadians spoke out against. Efforts were made to split the bill at committee and yet, despite the urging of the new Privacy Commissioner and many other witnesses, including Carol Todd, the bill was not split.

I will complete my remarks after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque will have seventeen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Malpeque had seventeen and a half minutes remaining in the time for his remarks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I have about seventeen minutes left. I expect I will not use that, just to warn the next speaker who may be on the list, as I have spoken to this bill before.

Before question period, I was outlining that I was pleased but also troubled to speak to Bill C-13. I outlined that the Liberal Party is very supportive of the cyberbullying aspects of the bill, but troubled over the parts that are measures in the old Bill C-30 on lawful access, which so many Canadians spoke out against.

Efforts were made, and I am disappointed that the government did not accept those efforts by both opposition parties, to split the bill. It was not only the opposition members who wanted to split the bill; it was the new Privacy Commissioner and many others, including Carol Todd, who knows very well about the difficult and troubling aspect of cyberbullying.

The bill was not split. However, regardless, we do feel within the Liberal Party that cyberbullying is such a scourge on society that we are going to have to put not only a little water in our wine, but a fair bit, in fact, because we are very seriously troubled over aspects of the bill. This tends to be what the current government does. The Conservatives will put a couple of good points in the bill and add a whole lot of other material that should not be in that particular bill.

The Liberals believe that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public safety, particularly when it comes to warrants that may be intrusive and overboard. We do not support the measures that were in Bill C-30, which the government had to withdraw because of Canadians' outrage. The problem is that some of those points are back in this bill. Some of this bill duplicates the rejected Bill C-30, such as word-for-word reproductions of the changes to subsection 487(c.1) of the Criminal Code; and all but one-word changes to subsection 492.1 and section 492 regarding warrants.

We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce “lawful access”, which the Conservatives promised was dead.

Though the title is the “protecting Canadians from online crime act”, nobody would be protected under this act. In typical government fashion, this is all about punishment rather than prevention. Complex problems like cyberbullying require more than blunt additions to the Criminal Code. This omnibus bill touches everything from terrorism to telemarketing, and cable stealing to hate speech. It is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process in the way it was handled.

If it had been split, what could have been a bill on cyberbullying, which probably would have had the unanimous support of the House, is no longer possible. What is seen from us is reluctant support because we have to, regardless of the consequences, deal with the cyberbullying side. That is certainly why I am troubled.

I want to turn to a couple of quotes that outline the extent of the problem in terms of the way that the government has dealt with this bill.

There was an editorial in The Globe and Mail, on November 22, entitled “Not Without a Warrant”, from which I will quote:

Under current law, a wiretapping authorization will only be issued by a judge if police can show a “reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been or will be committed.” But under Bill C-13, wireless wiretaps can be authorized on the looser standards of “reasonable ground to suspect.”

The editorial goes on:

Why not make police applications for a wireless wiretap clear the same, high legal hurdle as a traditional wiretap? And why is the government burying all of this inside an unrelated piece of legislation covering the highly emotional topic of cyberbullying? Parliament should be debating and voting on each measure separately, on its merits. Once again, the Conservative government is engaging in unnecessary legislative acrobatics. Time to cease and desist.

I will read one more. This is an editorial, also on November 22, from the Ottawa Citizen, entitled “More than 'cyberbullying'”. I will just read a piece of it:

If the government wants to make cable theft a criminal offence, or increase police powers to track online communication, it is perfectly within its rights to propose those things. There is no reason to bundle it in with a bill that has an entirely different purpose. The announcement about the bill calls it “legislation to crack down on cyberbullying.” This suggests the Conservatives never learned the main lesson from the Toews' debacle, and are still trying to bundle and brand their legislation instead of simply defending it on its merits.

We are certainly not the only ones who are troubled about how the government approaches these bills, rams stuff through committee, and fails to give proper legitimate debate to each item on its own merits, so that at the end of the day this place can be proud, on all sides, of what we have passed.

However, as I said, the cyberbullying issue is of such an urgency that we cannot deep-six, if I could put it that way, that aspect of the bill that we do not like. We are forced to vote on a bill that we are troubled over, and, reluctantly, we will.

However, we will put a red flag on all areas infringing upon privacy that we are concerned about, and hopefully in a future Parliament we will see democracy break out in this place, where committees can do their job, as the founders of this country envisioned it would be done.

Let me close by saying that on the cyberbullying aspect, the Criminal Code is not the only instrument that needs to be embellished, if I could put it that way, in order to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. We believe that these legislative measures alone are insufficient to combat cyberbullying, and we urge the government to commit to a broader, more holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying.

It would also include public awareness resources for parents and kids. In other words, there has to be an education campaign, a publicity campaign, whether it is police forces, or community leaders, or whatever, who go into our school system to talk about the problem of cyberbullying and how this new technological world that we live in can haunt us, and, in fact, is used to haunt certain individuals in society.

In order to save time, I will close my remarks. I appreciate having had the opportunity to speak at third reading of this bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a broader and more holistic approach to dealing with online crime and cyberbullying, and I would not disagree.

However, the member speaks as though that is not occurring. Our government has made significant investments at the community and local level as well as at the provincial and territorial level in support of victims of crime.

I would remind the member that every time we do that, in all the budgets we have put forward that bring important programs through that holistic and broad approach he is talking about, the Liberal members vote against those measures.

Is the member able to look at this bill as though it is not in a vacuum but is one more measure in a broad suite of things that our government is doing to protect victims of crime, to stop online bullying, to stop bullying generally, to stop assaults, and to stop victimization?

Will the member commit that when our government brings the monetary measures forward, the legislative measures forward, and the policy measures forward, he will finally support those measures?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I get such a kick out of backbench members in the governing party. They are always on their feet saying “Well, my golly, you voted against that and you voted against this.” What foolishness.

In what happens at committee and in this place, there are always certain aspects that members may or may not like. Just because a member votes against a particular piece of legislation does not mean they dislike the whole of it.

The strategy of the government is such that their members and others can get up and say, “Oh, my goodness; you voted against that”, trying to use it politically.

Political business takes place during election times. Between elections, we should be doing good debate in here and respecting each other, instead of getting that kind of malarkey from the government side all the time.

Let me get to the member's point.

There are measures that the government has undertaken in terms of other aspects of dealing with cyberbullying beyond the Criminal Code, but a lot more needs to be done. That is what I am expressing in terms of this bill.

I would say to the member in conclusion that if the government had split the bill, as we asked it to do, then I think there would have been great support in this place on the cyberbullying side. The government could have then said that all parties supported what it was doing.

However, the strategy of the government is that it really does not want the opposition parties to support it. It likes to use the excuse that they voted the other way.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for his speech, but his reluctant support of this bill, which is riddled with highly questionable—or even dangerous—provisions, required such an intellectual contortion that I must admit that I am a bit worried about his back and other parts of his body.

For example, the bill opens the door to arbitrary, extrajudicial decisions that would put personal information into all kinds of hands.

How can the member justify this reluctant support, in light of these excessive provisions?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to justify. We cannot wait around. If the legislation had been split, it would have been easy, but the reality out there is that people are falling prey to cyberbullying every day. The risk is there.

The member is right that there are some terrible aspects to this bill, and hopefully a future Parliament can deal with them, but cyberbullying, in and of itself, is an urgent concern. Therefore, we feel obligated to support that particular part of the bill, knowing full well that we really do not support other aspects of it. However, we need to deal with that serious issue in Canadian society.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a good speech. I know he made it low key.

With his experience, I want to give him a chance to explain. Since the current government has been in place, has he seen other examples of bills, whether we call them omnibus, Trojan horses, or any of the other words we have used, that have been totally unacceptable and have only succeeded in dividing the House instead of trying to work for Canadians?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member is suggesting that a low key for me is unusual. I do not know.

In any event, no, this is not the only bill. In fact, most of the government's bills are that way. The budget bill was a particular example. In it there were endless pieces of legislation that had no relation to the budget.

I expect we are going to see that the next budget has copyright in it. The real strategy of the government is to find a TV clip of someone to use as an attack ad. That is why it is going to be in the next budget bill. It is not going to be debated in its own right; it is likely going to be thrown into the budget bill.

The government is always up to those kinds of tricks. This is a government that believes in creating division and in wedge politics, and that is kind of sad to see in this country, because it is importing the kind of debate that we see south of the border, which is really divisive and often unproductive.

I know it would take a lot, but I would encourage the government to come to its senses and put legislation forward on the specifics of what the bill is supposed to deal with.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that we have the Liberal opposition saying that it is reluctant to support the bill. If Liberals are reluctant, then they should know that they should not be supporting this bill.

The member knows full well that there was a court decision on language similar to what is in this bill. The court decision was made in light of the Spencer case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, the day after the adoption of the bill by the Conservatives at committee, that Canadians have a right to be anonymous on the Internet and that police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities. This bill would actually prevent that from occurring.

The Liberals attempted to do something similar when they were in power. They tried to pass a bill that would have amended the Criminal Code to allow police services to carry out lawful access on their networks.

My question to my colleague is this: why are Liberals supporting a bill that they say they are reluctantly supporting? Do they actually firmly believe that it is proper for people's privacy to be infringed on, as this law would do, knowing full well that the government continues to put bills forward that are very controversial in nature?

The government knows that people are supportive of addressing and fixing the cyberbullying situation, but in the meantime it keeps putting in a poison pill by throwing the whole kitchen sink into the bill. The government knows Canadians will not be in favour of these other measures, but by making the opposition look like they are against a situation such as cyberbullying, which is not the truth, it can gain points.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the simple answer to that question is that Liberals are hopeful that within a year's time we will be able to get rid of the people who are putting those poison pills in the bottle. In that way, there will not be poison pills in the future, and there will be a government in this place that would be able to correct some of the concerns that I know the member has, as we do.

The fact of the matter is that those who are impacted by cyberbullying right now cannot wait a year. It is a difficult call, but it is a judgment call that we in the Liberal Party believe has to be made. We tried and fought hard to split the bill so that we could vote against those aspects, but we see the need for the cyberbullying part. It is a judgment call, and it is all about taking the right kind of leadership position.

I can assure everyone that the Liberal Party is up for providing leadership to Canada and Canadians, and we are going to vote in support of the cyberbullying side.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

It is great to follow on the heels of the member for Malpeque. We certainly appreciate his reluctant support, far more than we appreciate their responsible neutrality on other issues in this place.

It is a great opportunity to stand and be part of a government that understands the needs and challenges of Canadians. That government gives us lowly backbenchers an opportunity to speak in the House, which I know the member for Malpeque also has a tremendous amount of disdain for.

I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which proposes key amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in order to bring them up to date with 21st century technologies.

The bill is both timely and vitally important. We so frequently remark that the world is getting smaller and smaller by the day that it is just a cliché. The barriers that distance used to create between people are becoming less and less relevant as technology advances.

The advent of the Internet, e-mail, web addresses, and all this technology has meant that we can stay connected from almost anywhere in the world. These technologies have obviously brought about incredible opportunities for Canadians. It is increasingly possible for Canadians to conduct business easily and efficiently on a global scale. We can keep in touch with our loved ones while pursuing opportunities in distant lands. We can learn about the world we live in by using the vast resources available on the Internet today.

It is not an understatement to say that these new technologies have changed the way we live. Unfortunately, some of them have also changed the way crimes are being committed and the kinds of evidence that are left behind. These technologies have made it possible to commit crimes that transcend geographical borders. Existing methods of investigating just will not work in this environment, and no country can conduct these kinds of cross-border investigations without co-operation from other countries.

That is why Bill C-13 is so important. It would provide police with the tools they need to investigate not only crimes committed here in Canada but also transnational crimes. Crucially, Bill C-13 would allow Canada to ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime.

This convention is the only international treaty that is specifically designed to provide a standard set of legal tools to help in the investigation and prosecution of computer and Internet-based crime as well as more general crimes involving electronic devices. It would also assist parties to the convention by providing them with a mechanism for international co-operation. Canadian police will be able to access the Criminal Code's new investigative tools in appropriate cases and coordinate with other countries for transnational investigations.

I would like to focus my remarks on the convention.

The convention facilitates national and transnational investigations by requiring three principal things. It will require a minimum standard of offences, it will require a minimum standard of investigative tools, and it will require a point of contact in each country that is available 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

The convention requires signatory states to adopt a minimum set of standard offences for computer-related crimes. For instance, the convention requires that countries criminalize certain illegal uses of computers, such as hacking. It also requires that all participating countries criminalize illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and, of course, child pornography. These measures will help to reduce the overall incidence of computer crime by deterring the use of the states parties to the convention as safe havens for criminal purposes.

It is important to note that Canada already has a great set of offences to combat cybercrime. However, Bill C-13 is designed to fill the gaps that remain, and I can assure members that those are very few.

Ensuring that all state parties have laws that are similar would allow for better co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of crimes that have connections to multiple jurisdictions. To this end, the Convention on Cybercrime would assist to ensure that convention partners would have compatible cybercrime-related offences.

However, the convention does not just deal with crimes themselves. The convention also deals with the investigation of crime. Computer crimes that transcend national boundaries often leave behind digital evidence in multiple locations. The nature of investigations is changing, both in technique and in scope. The convention would ensure that participating countries would have the tools they need to combat cybercrime at home, and equally important, that they would be able to assist each other in the investigation and prosecution of crime at a multi-jurisdictional level.

For instance, participating nations would be required to adopt tools that would facilitate the tracing of communications and would be able to order the production of data related to the routing of telecommunications.

The bill contains amendments that would provide for such things, including preservation orders and demands. These powers would require the computer data that would be vital to an investigation to be preserved from destruction so police would have the time to obtain the warrants or orders to obtain that data.

Importantly, the convention requires participating nations to have readily identifiable contacts to increase communication and co-operation on investigations. Specifically, it requires that each country designate a point of contact that would be available 24/7 to give immediate assistance to those kinds of investigations.

Knowing who to call in another country can make all the difference to an investigation involving electronic evidence where time is literally of the essence. For example, in the time it may take to identify the responsible foreign authority, information important to an investigation could be lost forever.

Becoming a real party to the convention on cybercrime is all about that. It is about ensuring that Canadian investigators have all the tools they need at their disposal to conduct efficient and effective investigations, both in Canada and in the context of investigations that reach beyond our borders. It is about ensuring that we are not in the fight against cybercrime alone. It is about taking responsibility for our role as a nation in transnational crime, supporting transnational investigation and benefiting from the assistance of our international partners in return.

I hope all members will support this bill so Canada can join its partners in making the world a safer place.

Finally, it should be noted that Canada is the only G7 country that has not has not yet ratified the Convention on Cybercrime. Further, all countries, including Canada, publicly endorsed the convention for its substantive and procedural framework. It is a model for international co-operation. All of Canada's main partners recognize the convention as a foundation on which international co-operation can be facilitated. Canada's ratification of the convention would extend the reach of Canadian law enforcement across the globe and enhance our ability to better protect Canadians.

We need to do our part and encourage other countries to join us in rising to these important challenges. Ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime is a necessary step in that direction, and Bill C-13 would enable that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has been a long time coming. I just do not understand why the Conservative government was so slow in moving it forward. We proposed amendments during the process, but they were rejected. That could have moved the bill forward much more quickly.

In the past as well, our member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour presented Bill C-540. A number of the elements that are in the beginning of Bill C-13 were in fact in his private member's bill, but the government side rejected it.

Why did the member vote against Bill C-540?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the speed at which this bill could have progressed through the House and the parliamentary process. While I indicated in my speech that we were the only country left to sign the convention, we encourage other nations to step up and do their part.

It is also important that we ensure we get this legislation right, not only within the context of the convention but also within the context of a Canadian need, within the context of our realities and our own challenges, with the advent of cybercrime, with the evolution of technology and with the increasing complexity and complete and increasing sophistication that both the perpetrators of these crimes possess and demonstrate and the tools that our law enforcement community needs.

It was clearly important for our government to ensure we got this legislation right and that we were able to involve our stakeholders and our law enforcement partners in this decision. It was important to ensure that the tools we provided them in this legislation were the ones that would be effective and would work.

I certainly hope the member opposite and his party will join us in moving this legislation forward now at the right pace, with the right tools and the right support services that will help end this problem.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a huge and impactful issue for young people in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. As a former school principal, I have seen first hand the damage that cyberbullying can do, and continues to do, to our young people. Unfortunately, in my riding we have had over four young people commit suicide, in part or in full due to cyberbullying because they were being tortured online, sometimes by adults, sometimes by peers within their own school community.

I had the opportunity to sit with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a couple of summers ago and with the parents of children who had committed suicide due to ongoing persecution online, many times by their peers.

We absolutely have to take hold of this issue. I give credit to the minister for bringing this legislation forward. It is very needed. I am proud of the fact our government has stood in support of our young people across the country.

Would the hon. member inform the House why it is so important that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible so we can step up and protect our children?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, online cyberbullying and cyberbullying generally is prolific right across North America. In fact, reports and statistics are clear that the vast majority of bullying is going on over the Internet and with other forms of electronic tools. Unfortunately, the impact on our youth in our school system is the single greatest effect. It is affecting attendance rates, the health and well-being of our young people, and their self-esteem.

As the parliamentary secretary indicated, in some cases it leads to very sad and tragic consequences. That cannot be overlooked by any member of the House of Commons. The seriousness of this cannot be overlooked by any party. It is one component of this legislation, but I think we would all argue in this place that probably the most important part of it is the cyberbullying component.

I am grateful the parliamentary secretary raised that point. We need to get this through the House to ensure we protect Canadian young people from these types of crimes.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this important debate on a Friday before Thanksgiving. I would also like to wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving and a productive constituency week.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-13, which is the protecting Canadians from online crime act. This bill would give enforcement officials the tools to conduct their investigations in a world that has moved from old fashioned telephone calls and snail mail to a constantly evolving telecommunications environment.

I might date myself a bit, but I remember in the late 1980s, early 1990s, learning about the Internet. If we look at what has happened since then, we had giant computers and now most of us sit here with our smartphones and small iPads. There has been an amazing change in the world, and to be quite frank, our tools have not kept up with these enormous changes.

Although the primary objective of Bill C-13 is to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to keep pace with this new environment, as well as changing the nature of how criminals operate, the government has to be attentive to the privacy intrusive character of investigative techniques. This is what I will focus my remarks on today.

The media, through some commentators, has characterized Bill C-13 as bad for the privacy of Canadians. To be quite frank, that is not accurate. Bill C-13 would enhance the privacy protections for Canadians.

While a police investigative tool, such as a search warrant or production order will naturally impact upon a person's privacy, all the amendments included in Bill C-13 have been very carefully crafted to balance the pressing need to provide police forces with the effective investigative tools they need in the current environment with the constitutional imperative to protect the rights of Canadians to a reasonable expectation of privacy. A good term for that is “privacy with precision”.

The Criminal Code already contains several tools that allow police to obtain evidence of crimes. For example, there are judicial warrant provisions to allow police forces to collect evidence themselves in real time, such as through tracking of a person. There is also judicial production orders, which allow the police to ask a third party to produce certain types of historical data or documents, for example, a record of phone calls.

These current tools were designed and implemented before the advent of much of the technology and social media that we rely on today, making them inefficient in today's world and too privacy invasive in some respects. Therefore, the approach we have taken with Bill C-13 is aimed at ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is adequately protected, while meeting the investigative requirements by providing police appropriate investigative tools that have been judicially authorized for specific investigative needs.

For example, C-13 would create new types of production orders to obtain specific information of a less personal nature, such as the path of a telecommunication, rather than relying on the current general production order, which allows access to all types of information, including those of a more personal nature, such as the content of the data that has been stored on a computer.

Police officers today basically have access to only one means of compelling the production of documents and data in relationship to the electronic evidence, and that is the general production order. Whether they want to attain a library full of information on a suspect or one single piece of information, such as an email address, police officers must use the same judicial protection order. To put it another way, and I think it is more illustrative, we can think of a general production order as a large net that authorizes police to catch everything within reach of that net.

I am going to use a bit of an analogy here, coming from a family that loves to fish. If we think of the police as the fisher, the fisher would use this net to catch everything the net came into contact with, such as mackerel, cod and salmon. It would be appropriate for the fisher to use the net if he or she was authorized to catch all those fish and the fisher wanted to catch all those fish. In the same way, when police want all data and documents a third party has on a suspect, it would be appropriate to use the net, in this case, what we term the general production order.

However, let us say the fisher is only authorized to catch a subsistence quantity of cod, so that he may be able to put food on the table for his family. If he were to use a net, the fisher runs the risk of not only catching the cod but also the mackerel and the salmon, which the fisher neither wants nor is he authorized to catch. For this purpose, the fisher should be using a more precise and more specific tool. A fishing line and a jigger is a good example. With the cod jigger, the fisher can catch his three or four fish and be on his way without fear of over-catching or taking fish that he does not want or need.

In this vein, the new privacy with precision production orders in Bill C-13 provide the police with tailored tools that grant access to specific and limited information. The specific judicial production orders are like the cod jigger, only capable of catching cod, for example.

In the context of production orders, a specific production order would only give police access to a limited range of information that does not have an elevated expectation of privacy, such as historical data related to the tracing of a communication or historical data related to the tracking of a transaction.

The use of these specific tools provides police with the information they want and need to continue an investigation, while at the same ensuring that police are not over-obtaining the personal information of Canadians.

These new tools under the reasonable suspicion standard have been crafted to reflect the leading decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and mirror existing Criminal Code provisions, some of which date back to 1993. I mention this because these proposed new production orders have been criticized for introducing the reasonable suspicion standard to the Criminal Code.

Let me be clear, this standard is not new. It has been employed in Canadian criminal law since 1993. On this point, I am going to go back to my net analogy one more time in relation to judicial scrutiny. One could characterize this as a resource issue for police, because for police the difference between meeting the judicial standard of reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion is the amount of time and proof they need to meet each standard. In this regard, we could say that meeting the standard of reasonable belief is more resource intensive than meeting the standard of reasonable suspicion.

For the fisher, this would be the cost of his equipment or his tools. The fisher must decide whether he will spend $100 on a net or $5 for a line. While the net would give the fisher access to whatever is in the sea, the fisher may really only want a few cod for dinner. The net would be overkill and could catch things the fisher should not be catching. Again, the fisher, for this purpose, should be using the cod jigger.

I apologize for the analogy, but I think if there are Canadians watching, sometimes those analogies do help make a little sense out of what can be some very complicated legal issues.

Conversely, if the fisher is entitled to a commercial catch and authorized to catch a certain tonnage, he would probably prefer to use the net.

For the police, it is more appropriate for them to provide more proof to the courts and to spend more time preparing the application when they need all the data and documents related to a suspect for which there is a high expectation. Conversely, it is also appropriate that they meet a lower level of judicial oversight when the information they want is limited and less privacy invasive.

Before I conclude, I would like to emphasize that nothing in Bill C-13 would permit the police to compel the production of any personal data without a judicially authorized warrant or order. There are absolutely no provisions in the bill that would authorize the warrantless access of private personal data.

In addition to privacy with precision, the bill also includes other privacy enhancements. For example, Bill C-13 proposes to increase the threshold for obtaining a tracking warrant in situations involving the tracking of an individual's movements.

While reasonable suspicion would remain the test for obtaining a warrant to track the movement or location of things, the government strongly believes that tracking an individual's movements is a much more serious infringement on the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence, the legislation proposes to provide a more stringent test, which the police would have to meet before they could obtain a warrant to track an individual.

The Government of Canada is strongly committed to maintaining the rule of law through all of its legislation. It will continue to ensure that such authority will be exercised, bearing in mind the privacy interests and human rights protected in Canadian laws, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Bill C-13, protecting Canadians from online crime act, is a prime example of this commitment. Again, I would like to urge all members in this chamber to support Bill C-13 and to see it put in place.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. I want to talk about her fisher analogy.

She seems to think that this bill will not allow anyone to access personal information without a warrant, but does she realize that there is already a parallel system to allow any government agency to cast a line and a big net to an Internet service provider—which would be the ocean in this case—and to catch all kinds of fish?

That does not seem clear to my colleague. Perhaps the government did not explain all the details of the bill to her. I do not know everything, but I know that this provision is in the bill. I would like to know whether she likes that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I need to reiterate that the investigative powers would be subject to appropriate judicial oversight. None of the lawful access orders such as, for example, production orders, preservation orders, interception orders and search warrants, would permit information to be obtained in the absence of a warrantee or lawful authority.

We have talked about how the world has changed, and I thought the New Democrats had maybe come along a little way toward recognizing these significant changes in terms of what is happening out there. Just yesterday, there was another example of a young woman whose intimate images were distributed without her consent, and there was a devastating impact. Again, I have to encourage the opposition members not only to support the bill but to really recognize the importance of giving the tools and moving forward in terms of making this a reality for Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every year, over 700 million Canadians are subjected to bullying in one form or another. It happens most often on mobile phones.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord introduced an anti-cyberbullying bill and the government voted against it.

If cyberbullying and protecting victims are so important to the government, why did it vote against that bill?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have with Bill C-13 is a comprehensive bill that would get the job done. It is also important to recognize that not only do we have the bill in front of us here, but we have many other measures. We talk about the need for prevention. We talk about the need for education. This is one piece of an important puzzle, but what this piece of legislation would do is be comprehensive in terms of how it would tackle this issue in an effective way.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary. Her presentation was thoughtful and there were interesting elements to consider. I do worry about her analogy of the small fishing boat and the fisherman. I would suggest to her that there is a possibility that there is a fishing trawler behind that, sucking up all the information as it goes along.

One of the witnesses we heard in the committee represented the Canadian Bar Association. That witness certainly thought that the bill went far beyond what is being discussed here, but also made major modifications to general provisions regarding search and seizure. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I did in my comments, and I hope I did it effectively to reassure my hon. colleague, was talk about the different levels of tools, depending on the issue in terms of what the police actually need. Again, there are times when the information that is required is perhaps more precise in nature. The bill would give the tools for that, versus the times when the police need to have the more general production orders.

What we have tried to do is recognize that it is very much a different situation in terms of small, targeted, precise information that continues to support the investigation, versus the more general production order.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Churchill, I will let her know that we have only 10 minutes in the time allocated for government orders today. She can judge her time accordingly, and I will interrupt her at that time and give her the normal indication.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak to this very important bill. I want to thank my colleagues who, both in committee and in the House of Commons, have defended our New Democrat position in opposition to the bill, and have spoken of what we expected from our proposal to ensure that the bill is about putting a stop to cyberbullying, as it says it is.

Unfortunately, what we have, once again, is the Conservative government using language—and in this case, I would also argue, using people who are in vulnerable situations—to put forward a regressive agenda that has everything to do with attacking people's privacy. It leaves tremendous loopholes in terms of powerful actors gaining access to private information, and that would do very little to put a stop to cyberbullying, which is a very serious and sometimes tragic problem in our society.

We have heard from my colleagues as to why we do not support the bill. We put forward, I believe, 37 amendments at committee to improve the bill. We indicated that whether it is the private member's bill put forward by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for an anti-bullying strategy, or the bill put forward by my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, to deal with sexual images and exploitation online, there are ways we can try to put a stop to cyberbullying and to the way in which too many people are exploiting privacy, private images, and taking advantage of people, in many cases young women, online.

What I find most disturbing about the debate and discussion around Bill C-13 is the way in which the tragic stories of young women who took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying are being used by the current government to push its agenda.

I do not know how many more ways we can say that this is wrong, that this is beyond disrespectful. It is disturbing, frankly.

I have had the opportunity to meet with the mother of Amanda Todd, and I have met with other youth, including those involved in Jer's Vision, who have done a great deal to try to fight bullying and cyberbullying in our communities. These are people with ideas. Sometimes these are ideas that come from places of immense pain, of having lost a loved one or having themselves experienced suicidal thoughts to get away from bullying. Despite that, they are proposing ideas. They are finding ways in their communities, and they are calling upon leaders at all levels of government, particularly at the national level, to take steps that would have an impact on ending bullying.

I am particularly encouraged by those who are applying a gender lens to this kind of bullying because we know it has a gender lens. There were the high-profile cases of young people who took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying, and they were women. In many of the cases, unfortunately, particularly in the mainstream media, women's experiences when it comes to the use of bullying was missed. Sexual objectification is very different and can lead to some very devastating situations.

I also want to acknowledge the way in which LGBT youth, lesbian, gay, and trans youth, are often the targets of cyberbullying, which has a gendered lens as well. Yet nowhere in Bill C-13 is there any plan to act on, not just bullying, but the cyber-misogyny that we see running rampant online and in our society.

I would like to turn the attention of the House and of those who are listening to the phenomenal work being done across the country to draw attention to cyber-misogyny and the way in which we can take legal action, but more importantly, employ policies and invest socially in order to put an end to cyber-misogyny.

I want to draw attention to the recent report by West Coast Leaf called “#CyberMisogyny” that is entirely about what all of us at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, in our schools and even in our homes can do to begin putting an end to cyber-misogyny. It is not a quick fix and it certainly is not Bill C-13. What it requires is real leadership and tackling the very serious issues of inequality, violence against women, sexual harassment, and the marginalization of girls and women in our society.

It also means taking bold action when it comes to putting an end to the discrimination of trans people and the particular discrimination that trans women face, and recognizing that we have a role to play. Sadly, all I hear in the House is the way in which the Conservative government is using the stories of young women who experience cyber-misogyny to put forward its own agenda, which has nothing to do with that. The hypocrisy, and frankly, the disregard for these women's memories is, like I said, disturbing.

In taking the next steps, I would encourage the government to not only see the value of dropping this badly thought out bill, which stands to benefit some of the government's agenda with regard to pulling people's private information and having access to people's private lives in a way that it sees as helpful, I guess. However, there are other steps it ought to be taking.

For one, it could support the motion that I put forward, a national action plan to end violence against women. It could work with this side of the House to try to find a way to build a comprehensive anti-bullying strategy, including working with community organizations and young leaders who are on the front lines and understand what it means to be a victim of cyberbullying.

It could also look at specific measures, as I have indicated, including Bill C-540 that was introduced in the House last June, which would make it an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of an individual without his or her consent. The list goes on, and many of my colleagues have been pointing to the actual steps that the government could be taking to put an end to cyberbullying.

I would like to end with a demand that so many people have, that the memories of those young women such as Amanda Todd and others not be used as a front for what is, once more, a piece in the regressive agenda put forward by the federal government. It can do better.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, October 1, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 20, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

I see the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale rising.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Would it be the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #255

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.