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.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has partly answered her own question; she just said there have been 13 speakers. I indicated at the time that we wanted, not only time in the House, which is of course important, but time to get the bill to committee.

That is the reality. In order for bills to progress, and the member has been here for some time, they have to go to committee. That is where we get in-depth study, witnesses, and we have an opportunity to delve into the detail, as opposed to the toing and froing, and often the partisan digression, that occurs in debate.

Members had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-13. I am sure we are all very much looking forward to expert witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Their knowledge with respect to the bill will also provide a broader perspective for a more informed debate.

We have an opportunity to move this bill forward and send it to committee for study.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not get the response from the Minister of Justice about this very undemocratic way of bringing in a 58th time allocation motion.

I find this all the more outrageous because on March 6 or thereabouts, if I am not mistaken, I asked the minister a specific question when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My question was about Bill C-13 because we were hearing all kinds of rumours from the Conservative benches about how the official opposition was preventing the government from putting Bill C-13 on the agenda. Only 17 people were given the chance to debate the bill over a period of just three days. I asked him if he supported giving all members of the House, no matter their party, ample time for debate so that we could study it responsibly, according to our principles. The minister replied:

We want to give not only the House [so he was including the House] but this committee in particular ample opportunity to hear from witnesses and to give it proper examination.

I would like the minister to explain the contradiction between what he told us on March 6 and what is happening now. We were supposed to continue the debate today, but here they are with their time allocation motion.

Bill C-13--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for the opposition for her very kind comments about the abilities on this side of the House with regard to procedure. Of course, I am only as good as the team that I have.

However, I will say that one thing I have tried to outline and to make clear over some period of time is that the use of time allocation is very distinct from the use of closure. We have chosen an approach in this government to use time allocation as a scheduling device to set an amount of time that we believe is appropriate for debate on any particular issue, which, as the hon. member in her own comments confirmed, in some cases results in even more time being allocated than is necessary for debate.

One of the benefits, though, is that the time does not have to be used. If all speakers complete their discussion of the subject, the debate can collapse and we can move on to other matters. So, really, no time is to be lost from that approach. It is a very positive thing, one that allows certainty for the benefit of all members about how much debate we will have, when votes will happen, and when decisions will be made. That is the most important thing for us in our work up here: making decisions and getting the job done.

As for this morning, I know that the NDP keeps seeing conspiracies and ghosts behind curtains, particularly the House leader for the NDP, who has that concern.

I think everyone knows that the only time one can move these time allocation motions—and we do not need to have a great command of the Standing Orders to know this—is at the start of government orders, at the start of the day. So I really had no choice.

However, the committee had considerable flexibility, which it did exercise. There was no conspiracy. There was no obstruction.

I hope that the opposition House leader will take the benefit of the two weeks to calm down, hopefully look around, see that there are no people waiting behind every curtain and every tree, out to get him, and that some of the conspiracies he imagines are simply not there. It will lower his blood pressure. It will make his life much more comfortable, in total.

I know that the opposition whip will share that advice from me, with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-20, Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act.

Then, we will return to our constituencies, where we will have a chance to reconnect with our real bosses.

When we return on Monday, March 24, the House will have the seventh and final allotted day. At the end of that day, we will consider the supplementary estimates, as well as interim supply, so that these bills will be able to pass through the other place before the end of our fiscal year.

The government's legislative agenda for the balance of that week will focus on protecting Canadians. Tuesday, March 25 will see us start the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, a bill that will implement world-class safety standards in the offshore and nuclear sectors. That evening we will finish the debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the foreign affairs committee respecting the situation of Jewish refugees.

On Wednesday, March 26, we will consider Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at report stage and third reading. This bill will complement legislation already passed by the provincial legislatures in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, given the shared jurisdiction that exists in the offshore sector.

On Thursday, March 27, we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Through this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and online exploitation.

Finally, on Friday, March 28, I hope that we will be able to start the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, also known as Vanessa's law.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement today that Canadians need to feel that the justice system is working for them and need to feel safe in their communities. You've also referenced several justice initiatives, including the cyberbullying bill, Bill C-13, and the tougher penalities for child predators act, BillC-26.

Can you tell us a little bit more about those particular measures and how you feel they will help to build confidence in the Canadian justice system?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm pleased to appear before you once again, colleagues. I'm joined by Donald Piragoff, senior assistant deputy minister; deputy minister Bill Pentney; as well as Luc Robitaille, here to answer your questions on supplementary estimates (C). I know, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, that this is of interest to you.

I'm tasked as Attorney General, Minister of Justice, with helping to ensure that our justice system can continue to meet the needs of Canadians so that it can remain relevant, fair, and accessible, and so that Canadians can have confidence and trust in the system that serves them.

Our government has been moving forward on a number of priorities related to criminal justice so Canadians can continue to be proud of their justice system.

Chair, Canadians need to feel that their system is working for them. They need to feel safe in their communities, where they live, and if they are victimized, they need to feel confident that the justice system will in fact treat them with compassion, dignity, and respect.

As you know, we plan to introduce Canada's first federal victims bill of rights in the House of Commons very soon. This bill of rights reflects extensive consultations embarked on this summer, visiting every province and territory, where I met with victims of crime, advocacy organizations, provincial and territorial officials, other organizations including criminal justice associations, and stakeholders from across the country. I can say that those first-hand, front-line conversations gave me a much better understanding of how we build on our existing criminal law and federal programs. This bill will entrench the rights of victims of crime at the federal level.

One of the highlights, I must say, since becoming Minister of Justice was the opportunity to visit several child youth advocacy centres. I encourage members, if the opportunity arises, to do the same. I'm very heartened to witness the compassionate, caring work done in support of young victims and their families as they navigate an often complex and intimidating system.

I'm always heartened to witness the success that we are experiencing at these centres, creating multidisciplinary teams that effectively address the needs of their clients and help them find their way through very difficult events, lessening the trauma that they've experienced.

Chair, other issues that we've been tackling include cyberbullying, and as we have unfortunately seen in the cases of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, and others across the country, cyberbullying can have tragic consequences. We need a range of education, awareness, and prevention activities to combat cyberbullying, including a more robust criminal justice response. With the comprehensive legislation our government has introduced, we intend to provide one.

The legislation, Bill C-13, proposes to make it a criminal offence to distribute intimate images without the consent of the person depicted, targeting a serious form of cyberbullying that is not captured currently in the Criminal Code.

The Department of Justice is also partnering in the government's recently launched awareness campaign on cyberbullying, which includes television ads that encourage parents and teens to seek out facts and information that involve this issue so they can learn how to use the Internet more safely.

Mr. Chair, our government has always been committed to ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system. We reiterated this commitment in the throne speech.

Our government has also reinstated legislation in the House of Commons to help ensure that the protection of Canadians is at the forefront of decisions about mentally disordered accused persons who have been found to be not criminally responsible and who pose a heightened risk to public safety. This legislation, Bill C-14, currently before the Senate, will ensure that the safety of the public should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process, as contemplated in recent jurisprudence.

Our government also wants to ensure that our children are better protected against sexual exploitation, and we have just introduced legislation that will ensure that child sex offenders receive tougher sentences.

Mr. Chair, our government has always been committed to ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system, and we reiterate that commitment within the Speech from the Throne. Other initiatives we continue to work on include legislation to protect service animals, on impaired driving, and on a response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Bedford.

The items that the Department of Justice has submitted to be tabled under supplementary estimates (C) will further our work towards protecting Canadians and ensuring safer streets and communities.

Chair, you will note that net increase of $3.76 million for the Department of Justice can be explained as follows.

One major area of expenditure is with respect to grants and contributions to enhance the victims fund to expand the reach of the federal victim strategy, especially for child advocacy centres, as previously mentioned, and time-limited operational funding for non-governmental organizations that serve victims.

There was also an increase of $3.78 million to deliver initiatives under the “Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2013-2018”. This road map is led by the Department of Heritage and was announced in budget 2013.

These initiatives reflect the efforts being made by the Department of Justice to establish an increasingly relevant and accessible justice system that meets the needs of Canadians by guaranteeing them improved access to justice in both official languages.

Chair, the majority of these funds, $3.6 million—and I will conclude here—are for grants and contributions to allow the department to continue the training component of the access to justice in both official languages fund.

The supplementary estimates (C) indicate a reduction of approximately $1.42 million as funds being available within the department's authorities, which represents a transfer of funds to Shared Services Canada as part of an initiative to modernize and streamline information technology systems.

To conclude, I thank you and the committee members for the invitation and for the important work you do, and I look forward to your questions.

[Renée Soublière]

That issue came up when we were consulting the provinces prior to Bill C-13. We decided that to extend at that point was not a good idea basically because provinces were telling us that they still had problems ensuring a full implementation of the current language regime, so they didn't want us to extend at that point in time. The plan was to help the provinces and help the different stakeholders, for example, with the funds that Maître Francoeur has talked about, the support fund.

Cyberbullying

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the ministers of justice and public safety launched our government's anti-cyberbullying public awareness campaign: Stop Hating Online. The campaign raises awareness of the impact of cyberbullying and makes sure youth know that this behaviour often amounts to criminal activity. Our government took concrete action by introducing the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which would create a new criminal offence to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This bill would give police the tools they need to do their job.

We have also launched a Stop Hating Online website as a comprehensive resource for parents and youth, with the information and tools they need to prevent and stop cyberbullying.

I am pleased that our government is taking strong steps to help protect our children and youth from cyberbullying. They deserve it.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising today to speak to Bill C-15. I would like to first indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury.

I would like to begin my speech in the chamber today by first congratulating the member for Western Arctic, who has done an immense amount of work on this file and represents his constituents very well. I would like to mention, most notably, his private member's bill in the House that he presented to increase the borrowing power of the Northwest Territories. He has worked tirelessly in the House to represent his constituents and ensure that the Northwest Territories develop in ways that are sustainable and to increase the ability of his constituents to participate in their own democracy.

Bill C-15 is an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other acts and certain orders and regulations. The short title of this bill is the “devolution implementation bill”. The length of the title of the bill is an indicator of the length of the bill itself, a 240 page omnibus bill. Preparing for this speech, I went through many cups of coffee. As I will mention later, it is customary for the government to present omnibus bills in the House.

I would also like to congratulate Robert McLeod, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, for his work on this file as well.

Before delving into the content of this bill, I would like to briefly talk about the process and the form of it. As I mentioned, this is a 240 page omnibus bill. The Conservative government in this case has lumped issues that are less contentious in the bill, issues that the opposition parties could actually get on board with, such as devolution, with issues that are a bit more contentious, including the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects in part 4 of the bill.

Unfortunately, rather than separating these parts of the bill in order to get the support of opposition parties, the government put them into the same bill. This has occurred in other bills and it is the common practice of the Conservative government, which has not behaved in a very democratic way in Parliament. We saw this occur in the case of Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill protecting Canadians from the online crime act, which was introduced by the justice minister last week.

The bill would stipulate up to five years in prison for individuals who published intimate images of people without their express permission and would also give police greater ability to investigate cyberbullying. This is something the opposition parties could get on board with, especially as we have seen these tragic cases of teenagers being cyberbullied across the country, with tragic results.

However, Bill C-13 includes measures that are completely unrelated to cyberbullying. It includes measures on terrorism, organized crime and hate propaganda. It gives police greater leeway to access online communications and contains provisions for jail sentences of up to two years for poaching cable and satellite TV transmissions. It is hard to see how these measures directly relate to the issue of cyberbullying. It is another cynical move by the Conservatives to try to push through their agenda in these bills that the opposition, unfortunately, cannot agree with wholeheartedly.

I will now discuss the content of Bill C-15. As we know, this bill has four parts. Part 1 would enact the Northwest Territories Act, implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resource Devolution Agreement and amend and repeal other acts and certain orders and regulations. Essentially, the Northwest Territories Act is the territories' foundational act. Part 1 would transfer powers to regulate oil and gas pipelines from the federal government to the territorial government as long as these remained onshore.

Part 2 would amend the Territorial Lands Act, part 3 would amend the Northwest Territories Waters Act and part 4 would amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As we have heard from my colleagues on the NDP side, this is the part that is the most contentious, perhaps, and this is the section that replaces regional management boards with a single 11-member board.

Those listening at home and those in my home province of Quebec might be interested to know that the Northwest Territories actually has responsibilities similar to provinces. In the late 1980s, health services, administration of justice and the management of forestry were devolved to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories government also has responsibility over education, social services, highways and airport administration, which are roles that would normally be considered to be under provincial jurisdiction.

This process has been ongoing throughout the history of the Northwest Territories, beginning with the Carruthers Commission in 1966, which actually moved the capital of the Northwest Territories to Yellowknife and brought a number of bureaucrats to Yellowknife. There is a history that leads up to the nineties, in which there were many constitutional development caucuses in the north, so this is a debate that has been going on for decades.

The NDP is in favour of devolution. This is actually the part of the bill we would support. As I explained, the people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like power for decades. I would support the Northwest Territories in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. This is because we believe that the Northwest Territories knows best how its resources ought to be used, and ultimate authority should rest with the Northwest Territories. I commend the Premier, Bob McLeod, for his work.

However, there are many contentious issues with Bill C-15, so we would expect the government side to listen to our suggestions in committee and to amend the bill in order to take into account the expectations of northerners and to address some of the concerns that were raised around the Conservatives' move to lump in changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The role of committee is crucial to the bill, and the Conservatives should benefit from committee and bring in experts and stakeholders and actually amend the bill so that it has wide consensus from those whom it concerns.

At this point we are concerned with the government's previous inability to make amendments to bills in committee. Notably there is the case of the Conservatives actually rejecting an amendment from the opposition side. That was an amendment concerning a grammatical mistake that was found in a bill, but they categorically objected to this amendment simply because it came from the opposition. Following that, the Conservatives had to bring forward the amendment again to change the small grammatical error in the bill.

We would actually expect the government members to listen to opposition members and to testimony, instead of governing with their ears and eyes closed to those who would propose constructive changes to the legislation.

Part 4 of the bill, the creation of a pan-territorial regulator for industrial projects, we find contentious. On this point I would like to refer to the speech in this House of my colleague from the Western Arctic, in which he raised important concerns with this part of the bill: “There has been no consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories included in that provision”. We do see that the Conservative government is trying to ram through its agenda without actually giving an adequate say to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I will finish by citing the importance of taking into account the specific realities of the Northwest Territories in considering the bill, namely the presence of many aboriginal peoples in the north. Also, as my colleagues have raised, one of the main problems concerning land and water use certainty is the lack of progress in aboriginal land claim settlements.

We would raise that as a point, one which we could possibly discuss at committee. I would like to support the bill in principle. I would like to support the idea of devolution and giving the Northwest Territories more power, although I have serious concerns with the content of the bill and would suggest that the government accept our amendments during committee stage.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with regard to restrictions on offenders.

On the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Malpeque, I am pleased to say that in the House, perfection is never the enemy of the good.

This bill has received the unanimous support of all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough review and for reporting back so quickly to the House.

Before I get into the amendments adopted by the committee, I would like to congratulate the member for Langley, British Columbia. I note his important work in promoting the interests of victims, of which this bill is a direct result. I would also note how the member for Langley worked with all parties to gain support for this bill and was open to a number of suggestions to improve the bill, all of which, I believe, makes this bill worthy of the unanimous support of the House.

The government indicated its support for the objectives of this bill, given its consistency with the government's commitment to the rights of victims of crime. In previous Parliaments, this government has taken bold and decisive action in this area, including the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which, among other things, established a new and higher mandatory minimum sentence for sexual offences against children, eliminated conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes, and eliminated record suspensions, formerly known as pardons, for serious offences.

As indicated in the Speech from the Throne on October 16, 2013, this government has committed to introduce and support new legislation that follows through on our belief that victims come before criminals. The Minister of Justice has already fulfilled one important government commitment to crack down on cyberbullying with the introduction of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, on November 20, 2013.

Bill C-489 is completely consistent with the government's commitment to strengthen the rights of victims at every stage of the criminal justice process. This bill would require judges to either impose or fully consider specific conditions prohibiting contact between offenders and their victims, witnesses, or other individuals to protect them against contact from offenders.

The bill proposes to amend provisions of the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would allow courts and the Parole Board of Canada to impose conditions on offenders released into the community. These include prohibitions for child sexual offenders orders, probation orders, conditional sentences, peace bonds for child sexual offences, and federal penitentiary conditional release orders.

It is estimated that about 110,000 offenders each year would be subject to this new requirement proposed by Bill C-489. The source for this figure is the 2012 Juristat, Statistics Canada, and the Parole Board of Canada's annual report on conditional releases.

Turning to the report of the justice committee, I note that a number of amendments to the bill were adopted by the committee. I would like to briefly summarize these amendments.

The bill proposes to amend section 161 of the Criminal Code. This is a prohibition order that currently requires a judge sentencing a child sexual offender to consider imposing specific prohibitions on the offender that come into effect once the offender is released into the community. These can include prohibitions to stay away from specific places where children might be present and/or not to work or volunteer with children.

The bill proposes to also require the court to consider prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of any dwelling house in which the victim can reasonably be expected to be present without a parent or guardian. In considering this proposal, the justice committee expressed concern that it was too rigid, as the court would only have two choices: either impose a two-kilometre restriction or impose no restrictions at all.

While a two-kilometre restriction might well be appropriate in many cases, the committee expressed concern that in many instances it might be too big or possibly not even a big enough distance to achieve the objectives of preventing contact between the victim and the offender. As a result, the committee adopted a motion to require judges to consider conditions of two kilometres or any other distance. I believe this change in the bill makes sense and I will fully support it.

The justice committee also adopted a motion to require the court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting an offender from being in a private vehicle with a child. In adopting this change, the committee recognized that the recent Safe Streets and Communities Act had already enacted a new condition against any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 16.

Bill C-489 would also require a court to impose mandatory non-contact conditions for all prohibition and conditional sentences under the Criminal Cod”, although there is some discretion retained by the court not to impose such a condition if it finds there are “exceptional circumstances”. In addition, the condition can be waived by the victim if they consent to the contact. The provision would also require a court to provide its reasons in writing if it does find that “exceptional circumstances” exist.

The justice committee also adopted a small number of amendments to these proposals. First, the bill was amended to change the requirement that the judge give written reasons to require the judge to provide reasons in the record.

The committee felt this change was important, as the requirement to provide reasons in writing would have a potentially significant impact on court resources. The new formulation of requiring reasons to be stated in the record would still achieve the desired results of the original clause.

Second, the committee amended these proposals in cases where the identified victim consents to the contact by the offender to require that the victim's consent be in writing or in some other form specified by the court. This would ensure certainty in subsequent proceedings regarding whether or not there was in fact consent. Again, I believe these amendments make sense, and I support them as well.

Bill C-489 proposes to include similar non-contact conditions for section 810.1, peace bonds that are imposed on suspected child sexual offenders. This provision in the Criminal Code allows a recognizance with conditions to be imposed on any individual by a court if there is a reasonable fear that the defendant will commit a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

To maintain consistency and to avoid any confusion in the courts, Bill C-489 has been amended to remove the reference to “exceptional circumstances” in this provision, given the fact that the judge has full discretion to impose any of the listed conditions under section 810.1.

The bill has also been amended to remove the requirement of the court to provide written reasons for the peace bond condition, given that all peace bonds are already required to be provided in writing and filed with the court.

As introduced, the bill also proposed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that the releasing authority has the ability to impose non-contact conditions on offenders as well as geographic restrictions.

While the Corrections and Conditional Release Act currently authorizes conditions to be imposed upon an offender when granted conditional release, there is no specific obligation to consider the input of victims in determining appropriate conditions.

The committee adopted an amendment to require the releasing authority, either the Parole Board of Canada or the head of the institution, to impose reasonable and necessary conditions on offenders, including non-communication or geographic restrictions if a victim or other person has provided a statement regarding the harm done to them, the continuing impact of the offence, or their safety.

Finally, the committee amended the bill to come into force three months after receiving royal assent to provide adequate opportunity for courts and correctional institutions to prepare for these reforms.

I fully support the efforts of the sponsor of the bill to enhance the level of protection afforded to victims when offenders are released into the community.

Bill C-489, as amended by the justice committee, goes a long way to address concerns that all too often offenders are able to come into close proximity to their victims. I agree that Bill C-489 will help to ensure that victims, their families, witnesses, and other individuals will feel safe in their homes and in their communities when offenders are released.

I hope all hon. members will join me in passing the bill.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by applauding my many colleagues who have worked tirelessly to address cyberbullying. The hon. members for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour both feel strongly about that issue and have shown admirable dedication. The member for Gatineau also spoke on this issue on Wednesday. In her eloquent, nuanced and compassionate speech, she explained that politicians have a duty to take action on this issue.

I would like to touch on two topics today. First of all, this cyberbullying bill does talk about cyberbullying, as one would expect. However, it also touches on a wide variety of issues that have nothing, or very little, to do with cyberbullying. As these issues are covered in the bill, they must be discussed, although we would have preferred to stay focused on the most pressing issue.

The most pressing issue, of course, is cyberbullying. The traditional bullying that used to happen face to face in schoolyards has now become an after-school, underhanded and often anonymous activity. By its very nature, this type of bullying can occur at any time rather than only during the school day. There is no refuge; victims know that the violence will keep on going even if they try to ignore or escape from it.

Everybody can be a victim and it can happen anywhere. We know, however, that the victims are most often our children. With the current technology, it is all too easy to conduct heinous and malevolent attacks, a behaviour that likely reflects a more generalized malaise, as well as a lack of goals and optimism in our society. This new and violent phenomenon has a long-term impact on the lives of thousands of young people, as well as other individuals and families.

As is the case for any phenomenon that affects the health, safety and well-being of Canadians, elected officials must recognize the problem and take action. It is no longer a question of this being a good initiative, it is a question of our responsibility as elected officials. It is our duty to work together to identify the most effective legislative response as quickly as possible to help those who are persecuted and are suffering even today. It is our duty to not create distractions that could delay the implementation of measures, or even worse, undermine this objective.

Therefore, I wish to salute the people in this chamber who have tackled this issue, recognized the importance of this problem and listened to parents and those working in the schools. I am referring to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in particular, who channelled his long-standing passion for this issue into Motion No. 385 to create a national bullying prevention strategy. Unfortunately, in spite of my colleague's motion, we still do not have a strategy. I continue to hope that the government will move forward on this issue.

My colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, made a point of meeting with the families and stakeholders following the death of a young girl whose name we are unfortunately all familiar with. This is a human tragedy that has been given a great deal of media coverage in recent months. We must also recognize the good intentions of our colleague from Vancouver Centre, who has also worked on this issue. We should also note this government's good intentions, because it is consulting the provinces and territories in order to find solutions. Everyone here agrees that we have a responsibility towards those who are victims of cyberbullying.

Bill C-540 illustrated the urgent need for action and, to that end, sought a consensus among parliamentarians devoid of any partisanship. The Conservatives told us that we had to be patient because there was work to be done, with the provinces and territories in particular, before such a bill could be passed. In the case of such crucial issues, it is good to hear about co-operation rather than confrontation.

In the end, the government introduced a bill very similar to the one brought forward by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Bill C-13 would make it an offence under the Criminal Code to publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent. The bill also allows courts to make an order to seize and electronically destroy the images and mentions the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images.

It becomes apparent that these clauses, in large part taken from Bill C-540, actually make up a small portion of Bill C-13. They account for roughly six or seven of the bill's 47 clauses. According to this Tuesday's Le Devoir, only three of the bill's 65 pages actually deal with cyberbullying.

I get the urge to end my speech right there, to sit back down and to rise again on a completely different subject, so that I can address the 40 or so other clauses in the bill that deal with completely different issues.

It is not a single bill we have before us, but two, three or even four bills.

It is as if, in response to the SARS crisis of 2003, the government had insisted on abolishing VIA Rail before moving to establish the Public Health Agency of Canada. It makes no sense. It is like holding an urgent public issue hostage.

The second part of Bill C-13 amends not only the Criminal Code, but also the Competition Act and the Terrorist Financing Act. It deals with banks' financial data, the theft of telecommunication services and telemarketing.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right: bullying and cyberbullying are about more than just Criminal Code provisions. They are a social issue that needs to be addressed by schools, by non-governmental organizations and by community groups. In fact, he is probably aware that the government has supported for over two years several programs developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection on just the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. The government has provided over $10 million for these programs. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection operates two websites: cybertip.ca and needhelpnow.ca. They provide counselling and preventative information to young people about the threat of social and consequences of social media.

The member mentioned the sad case of Jamie Hubley. Has he heard these words from his father, Allan Hubley, about Bill C-13? On November 20, he said:

When we were younger, you always knew who your bully was, you could do something about it. Now, up until the time this legislation gets enacted, they can hide behind that. Not only does it start to take the mask off of them, through this legislation there is serious consequences for their actions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the terrific member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. It is a great honour to share my time with him.

We have been talking a lot about the bill. At the end of my comments, I will talk about some of the concerns I have about how this bill has been put together by the government and the concerns that we have heard from my colleagues about other aspects of the bill that have been included.

What I would like to talk about is what most of us have shared in the House: our concerns about cyberbullying and the influence of the Internet as a tool used by those who want to frighten, abuse and intimidate people.

Three names come to mind in recent past. We have lost the lives of some very vulnerable young people. Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and, in Ottawa and indirectly related to the issue we are talking about, Jamie Hubley. These are names that brought this issue to the forefront and I want to mention their names because it was really quite something when we lost these young people. There was an outpouring of sentiment, but it also caused legislators like us to reflect on what we could do. That is very profound, because, as we know, that does not always happen. It was a moment where we saw members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures try to look at how we could deal with this issue.

I would like to take it and relate it to what my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona was talking about. Let us take another look at this, beyond the scope of this law, and talk about the issue a bit more. We need to look at the fact that it is not just the Internet.

Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. On many occasions, I had to deal with young people who were very isolated. They were people who came to me because they were feeling vulnerable. There were a number of cases where I had students who were contemplating suicide. Because they had no one else to turn to, as a teacher, I ended up being the person who they dealt with.

It always took me by surprise how few resources there were for young people to turn and get help. That is something we can work on with the provincial governments, providing people with assistance. It is not just about the Internet. It is about the fact that people are isolated. When I was teaching, there was certainly a concern about how the Internet was being used. Now we have social networking, which is part of the issue we are talking about now. It is interesting. There is a paradox. This young generation is the most connected generation in the history of the world. My sons can Skype with someone on the other side of the world and connect with people. The paradox is that we have the most connected generation, but we also see some of the most isolated young people ever.

As we have heard many times, the technology is such that people can go inward if they are in a cycle of depression, if they feel isolated, or if people are intimidating or bullying them. They can just go into the virtual world. Mr. Speaker, you are a parent. You know that the virtual world is fraught with all sorts of danger and concerns. We need to address that. As others have said, and we agree with them, the bill is about making some changes in the Criminal Code, but it does not solve the problem. We have to look at prevention as well.

When I was teaching, I worked with the Media Awareness Network. It is a fantastic not-for-profit group that deals with media literacy. I was able to avail myself of its resources when I was in the classroom. What we did was talk with young people about the messages they were getting in the media, now on the Internet and social networking sites, with which they were bombarded.

They are being bombarded with messages about how they should behave, what they should do and what they should buy. For young women, in particular, it is about how they should look. They are being pushed to consume things or buy things to somehow become a better person, when we know that the essence of someone's personality is about the values they carry and the influences they have to make them better people, not how they look, what they buy or what they consume.

I look at the curriculum in our schools, the resources for young people and it is not enough. We can do our jobs as parents, but let us be frank about this. When kids reach adolescence, they actually turn away from their parents and are more influenced by their peers. In this virtual world that has been created through the Internet and technology, with Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, there are obvious temptations for people to reach out to others to essentially give them confidence in who they are. This is where we saw the problems for the people I mentioned, like Amanda Todd.

Just recently, we heard from Amanda Todd's mother, who was speaking about media awareness, I believe it was last week in Winnipeg. What she was saying to parents, educators and everyone was that we needed to connect with each other to help our young people. Yes, we need to ensure we know what our young people are accessing on the Internet, on Facebook, et cetera, but we also need to have that human dimension. That is where we need to see our schools and our communities reaching out to people to bring them in and for those who are feeling vulnerable, to offer opportunities for them to share with us what their anxieties are.

I have talked to numerous educators. My wife is a teacher as well. What we have noticed lately is that there is much more anxiety among young people now than there ever was. Again, it is connected to how people are connected. They are feeling bombarded by Facebook, with Twitter and texting, where people who want to lash out or isolate someone can do it without really facing someone. That is the whole problem here. It is the anonymity.

Therefore, there are a lot of anxious young people. We see this in the skyrocketing number of them who are being identified with anxiety disorder. This is, frankly, what we should be looking at because once people are feeling anxious and they turn to social media to find friends and community in a virtual world, we then see where they can really descend into chaos. We see luring happening there. We see people who try to pretend to be friends draw people in and then abuse them.

If we are going to understand the issue that we are talking about today, we need to go beyond just changes to the Criminal Code, which of course we support.

Let us see the federal government work with our partners at the provincial level to come up with really smart media awareness programs that are well resourced, and I mentioned the Media Awareness Network is a terrific resource, if we are to help young people be aware and be literate when it comes to what they are confronted with on line.

This is not about the government doing it for them. Let me be clear about that. This is about the government resourcing groups that are already working on these issues. It means that we all take this issue with a lot more depth than just saying we will change the Criminal Code and that will somehow fix it. It means we have to look to those who are victimized.

I will just underline a couple of groups that are obviously important here. I think of trans-youth and gay and lesbian youth. I think of those who are different because of the way they look, or the fact that they may be introverted. We need to reach out to them.

I wish Bill C-13 was just about that. I wish the government had not brought in these other measures, which we have some concerns with about privacy that have been noted.

What I want to finish off with is, let this not be the end of this issue. Let us look at how we can better reach out to young people. Finally, a smart suggestion would be to reach out and listen to young people, because they will have as many ideas as we have on how to help young people who are so isolated.

My final recommendation would be for the government to work with the provinces to actually create spaces to hear from young people, for them to make recommendations on how to combat cyberbullying, as we call it, but deep isolation. Therefore, at the end of the day, we can say that we have been able to help prevent these horrific, tragic deaths we have seen, in the names of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and Jamie Hubley.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some very interesting points in her speech.

I want to ask whether she is aware that there is a significant difference between Bill C-13 and the previous Bill C-30. For instance, all production orders, all search warrants, for retention of any of this information that would be important for the police and prosecutors in order to properly prosecute a case for cyberbullying, is subject to prior judicial oversight. I wonder if she could tell us whether she knows that or if she has a comment on that.

Also, I wonder if she could take a look at recommendation four of the Cybercrime Working Group report, which she referred to in her speech, and tell us which of those investigative powers she thinks is valid. The Cybercrime Working Group report said that all of those investigative powers were needed in order to support an offence of cyberbullying.

Could she take a look at those to see if she is prepared to accept them as part of the cyberbullying bill, or does she still want those separated into two different bills?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-13.

The first part of the bill is very clearly a critical issue that we have been dealing with in Canada. I would hope that every member in this House would support expedited action, across the board, to prevent cyberbullying and the inappropriate, illegal, non-consensual distribution of sexual information, in particular related to children.

I welcome the fact, as do my colleagues, that the government is finally coming forward with a more reasonable bill, and that we do not have the slinging of insults. We appreciate the respect being given to this matter and the more respectful bill, and perhaps it is because the bill is now being tabled by the Minister of Justice. We hope we will have a better balancing of rights to privacy and the rights of children, and other people who are harmed by inappropriate acts through the Internet.

I do wish to bring to the attention of the House that this is not the first time that members of the House have sought action on the issue of cyberbullying and action, particularly where youth have been harmed, and in some cases have committed suicide, because of extensive bullying.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the motion M-385, tabled by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in October 2012. It was debated in this House. The member recommended that there be a broad-based strategy on dealing with cyberbullying.

It is noteworthy that just before I rose to speak a member across the way referenced the report on cyberbullying that was put together by federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety. The very first recommendation is that the working group acknowledged the benefits of a multi-pronged, multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying and called for action in a comprehensive manner.

That is very appreciated. Obviously, the justice ministers and the public safety ministers across this country recognize that we need to have clarification in criminal law. However, we need a lot more than that.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord recommended that. He recommended a broad-based strategy that all members of the House could develop together and, heavens forbid, reach a consensus on the measures we need to move forward on. Very sadly, the Conservative members all voted down that motion.

Also, members on this side brought forward Bill C-540, a private member's bill, from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. In that bill, he recommended the creation of an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of an individual without their consent. That was the response to the tragic suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons in his province.

In addition, another member on this side, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, tabled Bill C-213, which very succinctly addressed the matter of communication for the purposes of child luring.

Very clearly, the members of the official opposition strongly support action by the government to address child luring and to address and punish any cyber crime that would lead to bullying and could cause serious harm or suicide of our children.

Canadian families would clearly be grateful for expedited action, certainly the families of the victims of previous bullying incidents would. Most importantly, we would like to prevent any such incident from ever occurring again. I think all members of the House would concur with that.

What we want to do is to protect our families from harm. I concur. I join with my colleagues in strongly supporting the first provisions of this bill, which deal with and address cyberbullying. I am certain that we did our best to try to suggest to the government that it would be wise to expedite these measures by dividing the bill.

We may need to strengthen the investigative powers but, as I will speak to later on, we need a lot more than stronger criminal law; we need to make sure that our enforcement officers are fully capable of actually taking action on these matters.

However, as I mentioned at the outset, the most important measures we need are ones to prevent these acts from occurring at all, not simply taking enforcement action after the fact.

Why do we have these issues? Why are Canadians, in particular legal experts and privacy experts, raising concerns with the majority of the provisions of this bill? I am informed that 37 of the 47 clauses of the bill do not directly relate to cyberbullying. Therefore, it appears eminently reasonable that we would have further debate on those provisions to expedite the cyber crime provisions.

One of the matters that was of deep concern to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, in particular legal scholars, was the previous provision of a bill that was tabled in the previous Parliament. It would have allowed for intervention into accessing Internet material without a warrant. When objections were raised, the then minister of public safety accused anybody who had raised any concerns or had proposed amendments to the bill of being pro child pornography. That caused the government to ultimately withdraw its bill, and I think appropriately.

We are encouraged that the government has moved forward now with a more reasonable bill. However, legal experts are raising some concerns with the direction the bill is taking on the way it is imposing conditions on warrants. Those are critical matters.

We have long-standing legal precedents on when it is appropriate to allow for the seizing of material and where it might be a violation of a charter right. The prerequisites to obtain a warrant have been long debated in the courts. If we are to move in any way on shifting the burden on having to show cause before obtaining a warrant, it justifiably merits a good discussion in committee over those matters. However, the government has decided that it does not want to divide the bill, so unfortunately all matters will be going to committee.

I previously mentioned the matter of the warrantless disclosure. An equally concerning matter is the possibility for Internet providers to voluntarily disclose information. I would suggest that is a matter that also needs to be looked at closely. People exchange information of a private matter day in and day out. There should be some level of protection when there is an exchange of that information.

As I only have a few minutes left, I would like to speak to a matter that comes from my personal experience. I was involved for many years in the field of environmental enforcement. One of the lessons I learned from that is that the best way to deter a crime is to have a high probability of detection and punishment.

In order to make that happen, most agencies now, when they are developing legislation, are simultaneously taking a look at the capacities of their enforcement agencies to deliver. They ask whether they have enough personnel and whether they are appropriately qualified. This is an area that police and enforcement officers have been identifying for quite some time, that it takes very special skills and training.

I have not seen the government come forward with a parallel skills, training and capabilities strategy. I would encourage it to move expeditiously on that, so that the moment the bill becomes law, the government is immediately capable of enforcing that law.

In closing, the bill is going in the right direction, generally speaking. However, it will be important for particular matters, including the changing of the burden of proof and warrants, to be explored at committee with the appropriate experts.