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.

Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support, as all parties do, tackling the important issues that the bill before us seeks to tackle. We also know that there has been an explosion of sexual exploitation of individuals online without their consent and an explosion of child pornography. What we have to do is find those measures that would be effective in bringing an end to these heinous practices.

Like the member for Peace River—Westlock, I would like to support and salute the survivors who have told their tales, at much personal sacrifice and much personal anguish, publicly acknowledging what has happened to them and the impact it has had on their lives. We would not be making progress on these issues without that work by those survivors, so I think we all want to salute them for their bravery in taking up this problem.

However, the challenge with these issues is to find what will actually work to end sexual exploitation. We know that a lack of resources for enforcement is almost always at least equally important to any gaps in legislation. What we need to see is dedicated funding to specific and skilled police units to tackle these questions because it can become highly complex and highly convoluted in trying to bring these cases to prosecution, and we know that is one of the problems with the existing legislation. It is difficult to prosecute for these offences under the Criminal Code as it now stands.

We look forward, as New Democrats, to hearing from expert witnesses in committee on what measures will actually be the most effective in bringing an end to these practices, and whether and how the measures proposed in Bill C-270 would contribute to bringing an end to online sexual exploitation. The bill, in some senses, is very simple. It would require checking ID and keeping records of consent. Some would argue that the existing law already implicitly requires that, so is this a step that would make it easier to prosecute? I do not know the answer to that, but I am looking forward to hearing expert testimony on it.

While this legislation is not specific to women, it is important to acknowledge the disproportionate representation of women as victims of both child pornography and of sexual exploitation online without consent. However, I would also note that we have had a recent rash of cases of sexploitation or sextortion of young men who thought they had been speaking to other partners their own age online. They later find out that they were being threatened with the images they had shared being posted online and being asked for money or sexual favours to avoid that. Yes, it is primarily women, but we have seen this other phenomenon occurring where men pose as young women to get young boys to share those images.

Obviously, we need more education for young people on the dangers of sharing intimate images, although I am under no illusion that we can change the way young people relate to each other online and through their phones. Education would be important, but some measures to deal with these things when they happen are also important.

If we look at the Criminal Code, paragraph 162.1(1) already makes it illegal to distribute an intimate image without consent. Of course, child pornography, under a succeeding subsection, is also already illegal. This was first brought forward and added to the Criminal Code 11 years ago. I was a member of Parliament at that time, and the member for Peace River—Westlock joined us shortly after. It came in an omnibus bill brought forward by the Conservatives. In that bill, there were a number of things, to be honest, that New Democrats objected to, but when the bill, which was Bill C-13 at the time, was brought forward, our spokesperson Françoise Boivin offered to the government to split the bill, take out the section on online exploitation without consent and pass it through all stages in a single day. The Conservatives refused, at that point, to do that, and it took another year and a half to get that passed into law.

New Democrats have been supportive in taking these actions and have recognized its urgency for more than a decade. We are on board with getting the bill before us to committee and making sure that we find what is most effective in tackling these problems.

What are the problems? I see that there are principally two.

One, as I have mentioned before, is the difficulty of prosecution and the difficulty of making those who profit from this pay a price. All the prosecutors I have talked to have said that it is difficult to make these cases. It is difficult to investigate, and it is difficult to get convictions. Are there things we can do that would help make prosecution easier, and are the things suggested in the bill going to do that? I look forward to finding that out in committee.

The second problem is the problem of takedown, and we all know that once the images are uploaded, they are there forever. They are hard to get rid of. As members of the government's side have pointed out, there are measures in government Bill C-63 that would help with warrants of seizure, forfeiture, restitution and peace bonds in trying to get more effective action to take down the images once they have been posted. I am not an optimist about the ability to do that, but we seem to lack the tools we need now to make a stab at taking the images off-line. It is also important to remember that whatever we do here has to make our law more effective at getting those who are profiting from the images. That is really what the bill is aimed at, and I salute the member for Peace River—Westlock for that singular focus because I think that is really key.

We also have to be aware of unintended consequences. When subsection 162.1(1) became law, in court we ran into a problem fairly early on of minors who share private images between each other, because technically, under the law as it is written, that is illegal; it is child pornography, and it certainly was not the intention to capture 15-year-olds who share intimate images with each other.

Whenever we make these kinds of changes, we have to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. Whether we like the practices that young people engage in online or not is not the question. We just have to make sure we do not capture innocent people when we are trying to capture those who profit from exploitation. The second part, in terms of unintended consequences, is I think we have to keep in mind there are those who are engaged in lawful forms of sex work online, and we have to make sure they are not captured under the broad strokes of the bill.

Again, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony about what will work to tackle these problems. We know the images are already illegal, but we know we lack effective tools in the legal system both to prosecute and to get the images taken down. New Democrats are broadly supportive of the principles in the bill. We are looking forward to the expert testimony I am certain we will hear at committee about what will actually work in tackling the problem. I look forward to the early passage of the bill through to committee.

[Carol Todd]

I'm really glad you mentioned that because I was just thinking about it.

Back in 2014-15, the Conservatives brought up Bill C-13. You can google it. It was about protecting Canadians online. They called it a cyber-bullying bill, but to me it's not about cyber-bullying. It's about online victimization because it is about sharing sexual images of someone without consent. It takes away the child pornography part because the age of the person in the image can be all the way to adulthood. It's in the Criminal Code. You can get a jail sentence of up to five years. It's been more than five years since that bill was passed in 2015, and I believe it needs to be revisited. It's on my to-do list with the MP in my community.

Because it's labelled a cyber-bullying bill, I believe you have to really define what cyber-bullying is and define what online victimization is. Sharing intimate images is exploitation. Cyber-bullying is hateful speech, which is under harassment.

Maybe we need to look at criminal harassment because so many people who are saying they're being cyber-bullied are really being harassed, which is criminally chargeable. However, you can't get a police officer to investigate unless that harassment has a death threat on it. We need to really define it, look at what it really means and make it more punishable.

We need to do something. I think the government should look at that.

[Carol Todd]

Thank you for the question.

Twelve years ago, back in 2009, when Amanda's victimization started by her online predator, we weren't very much aware of what was happening on the Internet, as parents, educators or law enforcement. We have learned so much in the last 12 years. I have to say that maybe because of what happened to Amanda, how high-profile her death was, and with the YouTube video that she posted, we keep learning and asking questions. It's those questions that will bring the results.

This isn't the first standing committee I've sat on. I've sat on a few for Bill C-13, which was for cyber-bullying crimes, keeping Canadians more protected online, and one on gender-based violence, one on cyber violence, and now this one, on mental health. I'm going to focus more on the online abuses that affect our young people.

I know the focus is women and young girls, but this is about Canadians as a whole. Exploitation is happening to young girls, women, young men and boys, unfortunately, causing death by suicide across our nation and globally. As an educator, my role in my school district is to coordinate online safety education for my teachers, my students and the parents in our community. I think we need to look at preventative measures, the things we can do to prevent the possible mental health traumas that can occur because of online abusive behaviours. We have to look at what those are and what those can be. We have to teach our children how to be safer online. As with anything else, our kids are just rolling their eyes at us. Subsequently, we can't give up on talking to our students and our children. We have to focus on the adults in our country to get them better informed and better aware of cyber violence and online victimization, what happens on the Internet, and what our children are seeing.

We also have to make sure that our law enforcement services are educated. I feel that, initially, back in 2009 to 2011.... Because I sat at Amanda's trial for nine weeks, I was determined, as her mom, to be there to listen to what the jury was listening to. One of the gaps that I found was in some of the preventative things that law enforcement could provide in terms of taking a crime seriously—making sure that it's investigated and that there is no victim shaming, not making my daughter feel that she was responsible, and not making her parents feel like they were at fault. There's a huge piece in that education and training part that needs to go into our police services and RCMP services in order to better handle the reports and case files that come in.

There also needs to be government funding for resources that is unilateral in our country, so school districts and provinces aren't made to try to find the pieces. If there was a set curriculum somewhere that our teachers could pick up easily—because our educators have our children six hours a day for 285 schooldays in a school year—they could be the frontline teachers of our kids to make sure they understand and know what to look for and what they're seeing. Also, we have to educate the teachers so they're comfortable in being able to talk about it in their class. I've known many educators—

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law and am a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society.

My areas of speciality include digital policy, intellectual property and privacy. I served for many years on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's external advisory board. I have been privileged to appear many times before committees on privacy issues, including on PIPEDA, Bill S-4, Bill C-13, the Privacy Act and this committee's review of social and media privacy. I'm also chair of Waterfront Toronto's digital strategy advisory panel, which is actively engaged in the smart city process in Toronto involving Sidewalk Labs. As always, I appear in a personal capacity as an independent academic representing only my own views.

This committee's study on government services and privacy provides an exceptional opportunity to tackle many of the challenges surrounding government services, privacy and technology today. Indeed, I believe what makes this issue so compelling is that it represents a confluence of public sector privacy law, private sector privacy law, data governance and emerging technologies. The Sidewalk Labs issue is a case in point. While it's not about federal government services—it's obviously a municipal project—the debates are fundamentally about the role of the private sector in the delivery of government services, the collection of public data and the oversight or engagement of governments at all levels. For example, the applicable law of that project remains still somewhat uncertain. Is it PIPEDA? Is it the provincial privacy law? Is it both? How do we grapple with some of these new challenges when even determining the applicable law is not a straightforward issue?

My core message today is that looking at government services and privacy requires more than just a narrow examination of what the federal government is doing to deliver the services, assessing the privacy implications and then identifying what rules or regulations could be amended or introduced to better facilitate services that both meet the needs of Canadians and provide them with the privacy and security safeguards they rightly expect.

I believe the government services really of tomorrow will engage a far more complex ecosystem that involves not just the conventional questions of the suitability of the Privacy Act in the digital age. Rather, given the overlap between public and private, between federal, provincial and municipal, and between domestic and foreign, we need a more holistic assessment that recognizes that service delivery in the digital age necessarily implicates more than just one law. These services will involve questions about sharing information across government or governments, the location of data storage, transfer of information across borders, and the use of information by governments and the private sector for data analytics, artificial intelligence and other uses.

In other words, we're talking about the Privacy Act, PIPEDA, trade agreements that feature data localization and data transfer rules, the GDPR, international treaties such as the forthcoming work at the WTO on e-commerce, community data trusts, open government policies, Crown copyright, private sector standards and emerging technologies. It's a complex, challenging and exciting space.

I would be happy to touch on many of those issues during questions, but in the interest of time I will do a slightly deeper dive into the Privacy Act. As this committee knows, that is the foundational statute for government collection and use of personal information. Multiple studies and successive federal privacy commissioners have tried to sound the alarm on the legislation that is viewed as outdated and inadequate. Canadians understandably expect that the privacy rules that govern the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information by the federal government will meet the highest standards. For decades we have failed to meet that standard. As pressure mounts for new uses of data collected by the federal government, the necessity of a “fit for purpose” law increases.

I would like to point to three issues in particular with the federal rules governing privacy and their implications. First is the reporting power. The failure to engage in meaningful Privacy Act reform may be attributable in part to the lack of public awareness of the law and its importance. Privacy commissioners played an important role in educating the public about PIPEDA and broader privacy concerns. The Privacy Act desperately needs a similar mandate for public education and research.

Moreover, the notion of limiting reporting to an annual report reflects really a bygone era. In our current 24-hour social media-driven news cycle, restrictions on the ability to disseminate information—real information, particularly that which touches on the privacy of millions of Canadians—can't be permitted to remain outside the public eye until an annual report can be tabled. Where the commissioner deems it in the public interest, the office must surely have the power to disclose in a timely manner.

Second is limiting collection. The committee has heard repeatedly that the Privacy Act falls woefully short in meeting the standards of a modern privacy act. Indeed, at a time when government is expected to be the model, it instead requires less of itself than it does of the private sector.

A key reform, in my view, is the limiting collection principle, a hallmark of private sector privacy law. The government should similarly be subject to collecting only that information that is strictly necessary for its programs and activities. This is particularly relevant with respect to emerging technologies and artificial intelligence.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, which I know is coming in later this week, recently reported on the use of data analytics and AI in delivering certain programs. The report cited several examples, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's temporary resident visa predictive analytics pilot project, which uses predictive analytics and automated decision-making as part of the visa approval process; the CBSA's use of advanced analytics in its national targeting program with passenger data involving air travellers arriving in Canada; and the Canada Revenue Agency's increasing use of analytics to sort, categorize and match taxpayer information against perceived indicators of risks of fraud.

These technologies obviously offer great potential, but they also may encourage greater collection, sharing and linkage of data. That requires robust privacy impact assessments and considerations of the privacy cost benefits.

Finally, we have data breaches and transparency. Breach disclosure legislation, as I'm sure you know, has become commonplace in the private sector privacy world and it has long been clear that similar disclosure requirements are needed within the Privacy Act. Despite its importance, it took more than a decade in Canada to pass and implement data breach disclosure rules for the private sector, and as long as that took, we're still waiting for the equivalent at the federal government level.

Again, as this committee knows, data indicate that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been affected by breaches of their private information. The rate of reporting of those breaches remains low. If the public is to trust the safety and security of their personal information, there is a clear need for mandated breach disclosure rules within government.

Closely related to the issue of data breaches are broader rules and policies around transparency. In a sense, the policy objective is to foster public confidence in the collection, use and disclosure of their information by adopting transparent open approaches with respect to policy safeguards and identifying instances where we fall short.

Where there has been a recent emphasis on private sector transparency reporting, large Internet companies, such as Google and Twitter, have released transparency reports. They've been joined by some of Canada's leading communications companies such as Rogers and Telus. Remarkably, though, there are still some holdouts. For example, Bell, the largest player of all, still does not release a transparency report in 2019.

Those reports, though, still represent just one side of the story. Public awareness of the world of requests and disclosures would be even better informed if governments would also release transparency reports. These need not implicate active investigations, but there's little reason that government not be subject to the same kind of expectations on transparency as the private sector.

Ultimately, we need rules that foster public confidence in government services by ensuring there are adequate safeguards and transparency and reporting mechanisms to give the public the information it needs about the status of their data and appropriate levels of access so the benefits of government services can be maximized.

None of that is new. What may be new is that this needs to happen in an environment of changing technologies, global information flows and an increasingly blurry line between public and private in service delivery.

I look forward to your questions.

[Laura Tribe, Executive Director, OpenMedia]

Good morning. My name is Laura Tribe, and I am the executive director of OpenMedia, a community-based organization committed to keeping the Internet open, affordable, and surveillance-free.

I'm here today with Tim McSorley of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, who were unfortunately not invited by the committee to testify in these proceedings, but whose contributions OpenMedia believes to be critical for an informed discussion of Bill C-59.

OpenMedia's work on privacy and digital security dates back to Bills C-13 and C-30, but has focused more recently on the serious security violations introduced by the previous government's Bill C-51. The OpenMedia community's lengthy efforts on these issues include producing “Canada's Privacy Plan”, a positive vision for the future of privacy in Canada that was crowdsourced from over 125,000 contributors; over 300,000 people speaking up against Bill C-51; two national days of action against Bill C-51, organized in partnership with organizations across the country; over 15,000 citizen comments submitted to the government's national security consultation; and over 6,000 submissions to this committee's written consultation on Bill C-59.

Public Safety Canada's report summarizing the national security consultation results showed that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of increased protections for personal privacy. More than four in five responses indicated that their expectation of privacy in the digital world is the same as or higher than in the physical world.

As a result, when Bill C-59 was introduced, we were relieved; it was a sign that change was coming. However, the more we analyzed the bill, the more our worries returned. The changes are less substantive than we had hoped, and invasive new powers were even introduced.

Bill C-59 fails to adequately address the information disclosure provisions and terrorist speech offences brought in by Bill C-51, but also brings in new data collection, cybersecurity, and information-sharing powers that further threaten our privacy and security.

Today this committee has a chance to make this right. Over 6,000 Canadians submitted their concerns about Bill C-59 via OpenMedia's written submission to this consultation. Since then, in the past two weeks, we've had almost 10,000 more Canadians sign a new petition concerning the expanded cyber-operations powers proposed in the CSE act included within Bill C-59. It's addressed to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and reads:

“As a concerned Canadian, I am urging you to address the dangerous new powers being proposed for CSE in Bill C-59. Throughout the process of reforming Bill C-51, Canadians have been very clear on the need to scale back the drastic and invasive national security measures in the bill.

“Public Safety Canada's own 'What We Learned' report, which formed the basis of Bill C-59, confirmed that a majority of stakeholders and experts called for existing measures to be scaled back or repealed completely, and that most participants in the consultations 'opted to err on the side of protecting individual rights and freedoms rather than granting additional powers to national security agencies and law enforcement...'.

“The new active and defensive cyber-operations powers proposed in Bill C-59 for CSE are directly opposed to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. We asked for privacy, but instead we got an out-of-control spy agency with even more extreme powers than before.

“Security and privacy experts throughout Canada have expressed in great detail the issues with the proposed bill and the changes that need to be made to protect the privacy and security of Canadians. Experts have warned of the consequences of granting powers like these, powers that will be all the more dangerous given the lack of adequate oversight included in the bill.

“I would like to point you to the 'Analysis of the Communications Security Establishment Act and Related Provisions in Bill C-59' report, produced by the Citizen Lab and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, CIPPIC. The recommendations laid out in this report should be adopted by the SECU committee.

“In a world and time where digital technologies are being used by so many to threaten our digital safety, we need our government to be helping make the world better, not actively undermining our security.”

As of this morning, our petition has been signed by 9,633 Canadians. On behalf of these signatories, plus the over 300,000 against Conservative Bill C-51, and the other concerned civil society groups who have been unable to join these proceedings themselves, we respectfully ask that you make things right. We are asking you, our elected representatives, to stand up for our privacy and continue the work of repealing Bill C-51. Digital security is critical to Canada's infrastructure, economy, and future. Please do not compromise this in the name of fear or following other countries' bad practices to lead us in a race to the bottom. We need to be stronger than that.

Thank you.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-22.

The Chair has received a letter from the government House leader arguing that Motion No. 6 could not have been presented in committee, as the changes it proposes arose out of a decision of the Supreme Court rendered very shortly before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security began clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. A similar argument was made in relation to part (b) of Motion No. 3. The court decision in question was rendered on Friday, November 25, 2016, and clause-by-clause consideration began on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. The government House leader contended in her letter that there was not sufficient time to analyze the consequences of the decision and prepare amendments accordingly. For that reason, she has asked that they be selected at report stage.

The hon. member for Victoria has also sent a letter to the Chair arguing that these amendments should not be selected, as he believes they should have been presented in committee. He also argues that there are cases in the past where the Chair has refused to select motions presented by the government.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented or were defeated in committee.

However, there have been exceptions. On September 22, 2014, the Speaker was faced with a similar case in relation to a motion at the report 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. The hon. member for Charlottetown submitted a motion arising out of a court decision rendered after clause-by-clause and, in that case, the motion was selected.

The circumstances in the present case, although not identical, are sufficiently analogous to satisfy the Chair that the motions in question should be selected for consideration at report stage.

The Chair has examined the remaining motions submitted and is satisfied they meet the criteria spelled out in Standing Order 76.1(5). Motion No. 1 could not have been presented in committee, as it requires a royal recommendation. Part (a) of Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4 further amend changes made by the committee. Motion No. 5 restores a clause deleted by the committee. Motions Nos. 2 and 7 propose to delete clauses. These motions will all be selected.

Motions numbered 1 to 7 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 7 to the House.

[David Fraser]

Absolutely, and it just requires judicial authorization. That's what it takes. Before the Spencer decision, there was a patchwork system. A number of Internet service providers decided that if the police said it was an investigation into a child exploitation offence, then the Internet service provider would hand over the customer information when provided with the IP address by the police. Every Internet service provider in Canada followed that except for two, both of which are based in Atlantic Canada.

Investigations were able to proceed here because we have been able, for the last 10 years or longer, to go to a Justice of the Peace and obtain a production order that requires the Internet service provider to hand over that information. That process was actually made easier under Bill C-13. That bill is best known for dealing with the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, but it also lowered the threshold for a number of production orders that allow a Justice of the Peace to provide that information.

I find it surprising that I hear from law enforcement that it's now more difficult.... Well, it is more difficult, because you used to just ask and get it, but it was in only a very small subset of cases that they were able to get it. They're saying it takes longer to get it from the Internet service provider, when in fact a production order includes a timeline that's a court order. Before it was just voluntary, and they were hopping to it.

They can get access to this information, and if there is a problem with the amount of time or paperwork or whatever that is required for them to get it, the solution is to have more Justices of the Peace and to create a streamlined process or to fine-tune or tweak what's in Bill C-13, rather than throwing the charter out the window.

They say they're only looking for basic subscriber information, a customer name and address, but as the Supreme Court of Canada decision said, they're looking to connect that name and address with an activity that's unlawful, such as trading child pornography, cyberbullying, or something like that.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

The bill is designed to support and facilitate the inclusion of transgender and other gender diverse people in Canadian society. Diversity and inclusion are values that are important to us as Canadians, yet we have heard repeatedly from trans and gender diverse Canadians that they still do not feel safe or fully included in Canadian society. Social science research also shows that many transgender and other gender diverse Canadians are not yet able to fully participate in our society. They face negative stereotypes, harassment, discrimination, and sometimes violence.

We know that discrimination and violence have significant impacts on social participation and an individual's sense of safety in the public sphere. Research conducted by the Trans Pulse survey found that approximately two-thirds of trans people in Ontario had avoided public spaces or situations because they feared being harassed or being perceived or outed as trans. The survey also indicated that the majority of trans Ontarians had avoided public washrooms because of these fears. Trans Ontarians also avoided travelling abroad, going to the gym, shopping at the mall, and eating out in restaurants, all commonplace everyday activities and pleasures that many of us are able to enjoy comfortably. However, for many trans people, these activities can be fearful because of their previous experiences of harassment and discrimination.

The research also shows that transgender or other gender diverse people face significant obstacles in obtaining employment. This is not due to a lack of qualifications. The Trans Pulse survey results I mentioned earlier showed that 44% have a post-secondary degree, but trans people are significantly underemployed, with many having been fired or turned down for a job because they are trans. Others felt that they had to turn down a job that they were offered because of a lack of a trans-positive or safe work environment.

It is clear that too many transgender and gender diverse people are being deprived of the opportunity to contribute to and flourish in our society. This is important not just for trans people but for us all. When a person loses an opportunity to work or is too fearful to go out shopping or eat in a restaurant, we all lose a potential contribution to the workplace, to the economy, and to our collective social life. Discrimination is a matter of concern to us all. It both undermines the freedom of those individuals to make the life they are able and wish to have, and it deprives us all of their participation in our society.

The bill would be just the beginning but is an important beginning. It is another step toward greater acceptance and inclusion. By adding the grounds of gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in sections 2 and 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we would protect the freedom to live openly.

The amendments proposed by the bill would make it clear that discrimination in employment against trans people is unacceptable and a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. An employer cannot refuse to hire or promote a qualified individual simply because that person is trans or gender diverse. These amendments will make it clear that federally regulated employers and service providers will need to provide accommodation for transgender and other gender diverse individuals when required and treat them in a manner that corresponds with their lived gender. Explicit recognition will also serve to promote understanding and awareness about trans people and their rights.

I now want to address one of the amendments that the bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code, which is to expand the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code to protect those who are targeted because of their gender identity or gender expression. To put this proposal in context, it is useful to give some of the history of these offences.

There are three crimes of hate propaganda. They were created in 1970. These are now found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code. These offences are advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group, inciting hatred against an identifiable group in a public place that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and willfully promoting hatred, other than in private conversation, against an identifiable group.

As we can see, a key element for all of these offences is the term “identifiable group”. When the hate propaganda offences were first created and for many years afterward, the definition of identifiable group was very limited in scope. It was defined in the Criminal Code to mean a section of the public that was identifiable on the basis of race, colour, religion, and ethnic origin.

In 2001, the then member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas introduced in the House Bill C-415, later reinstated as Bill C-250, and entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)”. This bill proposed to add sexual orientation to the definition of identifiable group in the Criminal Code. The member quoted in support of his bill a statement made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990 case of R. v. Keegstra, which upheld the constitutionality of the hate propaganda offence of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. The Supreme Court said:

The harms caused by [hate propaganda] run directly counter to the values central to a free and democratic society, and in restricting the promotion of hatred Parliament is therefore seeking to bolster the notion of mutual respect necessary in a nation which venerates the equality of all persons.

In 2004, Bill C-250 became law. As a result, the definition of identifiable group was expanded to include sexual orientation as an identifiable group for the crimes of hate propaganda.

I will now fast-track to 2014, when Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, received royal assent. One section of that bill amended the definition of identifiable group for the hate propaganda offences by adding more groups to that definition, specifically the criteria of national origin, sex, age, and mental or physical disability. As we have seen, the definition of identifiable group has been expanded considerably since 1970. This expansion reflects a commitment to equality and the desire of Canadians to protect more and more vulnerable groups in our society from the serious harms to human dignity that flow from the type of vicious hate speech prohibited by these Criminal Code provisions.

Bill C-16 proposes to add two new terms to the definition of identifiable group: gender identity and gender expression. Such an expansion is eminently justifiable on two grounds.

First, this expansion would extend to those in our society who are identifiable on the basis of gender identity and gender expression the same protections already afforded to other groups in Canadian society, such as those identifiable on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation. This would help to promote equality before the law and throughout Canadian society for trans people.

Second, this expansion would explicitly recognize that those who are identifiable on the basis of their gender identity and gender expression are in need of protection by the criminal law. For example, the Trans Pulse survey I mentioned earlier indicates that trans people are the targets of specifically directed violence; 20% had been physically or sexually assaulted for being trans, and another 34% had been verbally threatened or harassed but not assaulted.

Here in Canada, we criminalize hate propaganda, in part because it undermines the dignity and respect of the targeted group. It undermines their sense of belonging and inclusion in society. Adding gender identity and gender expression to the list would send a clear message that hate propaganda against trans and other gender diverse individuals is not acceptable.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

Kendra, I really value the point that you brought up with regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act. You said that it was repealed in 2013 and that it could be advantageous to bring that back.

Now, one thing that was also done in 2013 was the introduction of an anti-cyber-bullying law that came into effect in 2015. That was Bill C-13. It was overturned by the courts because it was said to violate the privacy of Canadians.

If we were to look at bringing back something like the Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013, or we were to look at pursuing anti-cyber-bullying legislation, how do we balance the privacy of individuals, the freedom of speech that individuals have under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the protection of victims? How do we go about balancing that as legislators?

[David Fraser]

I'm not sure I have a solution. I have the advantage of getting to stand on the sidelines and point out problems. To the extent that I can contribute to solutions, I'm happy to. The problem is always going to be a threshold one, and I think the problem needs to be addressed by the people who are publishing it, rather than intermediaries who are pointing out that it exists. The analogue is, you wouldn't hold a librarian liable for telling you that down in the basement in the dusty stacks is a newspaper from 20 years ago that has this article. You need to be consistent. It's not the technology that necessitates making the rules. Technology might make new problems surface, but our democratic framework that includes freedom of expression needs to be superimposed over all those decisions.

I think this Parliament did a fantastic thing with Bill C-13. The first part of it related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. I've seen first-hand the huge amount of harm that sort of activity causes my clients. I think that is a very helpful addition, and that can be put in the continuum of the right to be forgotten. The Ontario courts have made it possible, just under the common law, for an individual to get a remedy in damages for that horribly harmful behaviour, and that can lead to an injunction to get it taken down.

One can easily say at the extreme end of the continuum that, when you're dealing with horrible revenge porn, whatever you want to call it, it's absolutely deplorable. There's no doubt that laws can work on that, but things like those teddy bears having bedbugs are part of living in a modern world.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

I would largely echo David's comments.

I can recall appearing before a couple of House and Senate committees on Bill C-13, the lawful access bill, and much of the discussion for many of the witnesses was to try to emphasize the import of metadata. It's refreshing to have the issue raised right off the top and to have a recognition of the privacy import of that information.

I think the privacy community and the technical community, both of which have come forward on these issues, have consistently tried to argue that what we need is to take metadata far more seriously as a privacy issue. That has been largely missing. Frankly, we were met with largely dismissive responses and the law enforcement perspective that this is little more than dust and the sense that, somehow, lower thresholds were appropriate.

Yet when you take a look at what that metadata can ultimately reveal, as authorities in the United States have sometimes said.... I think Stewart Baker, the former general counsel of the NSA, has said, “We kill people based on metadata”.

The value of that information and the potential import of that information is huge, so I don't think it's a question of where it appears. I think it's actually essential that we address it as equivalent to some of the most sensitive privacy information that we potentially have both in our Privacy Act and in other legislative instruments where that same data is touched on.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law.

My areas of specialty are digital policy, intellectual property, and privacy. I served for many years on the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's external advisory board, and I have been privileged to appear before many committees on privacy issues, including things such as PIPEDA, Bill S-4, Bill C-13, the Privacy Act, and this committee's earlier review a number of years ago on social media and privacy.

I appear today though, as always, in a personal capacity representing only my own views. As you know, there is a sense of déjà vu when it comes to Privacy Act reviews. We have had many studies and successive federal privacy commissioners who have tried to sound the alarm on legislation that is viewed, as you just heard, as outdated and inadequate. I think that Canadians rightly expect that the privacy rules that govern the collection, use, and disclosure of information by and within the federal government will meet the highest standards, and for decades we have failed to meet that standard.

I would like to quickly touch on some Privacy Act concerns, but with your indulgence I'll talk a bit about some of the other broader privacy law environment issues in Canada that I think are really directly related to the Privacy Act.

First though, on the Privacy Act—and this is going to sound familiar as I have flagged some of the same issues that David did—I think the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has provided this committee with many very good recommendations, and I endorse the submission. As you know, most of those recommendations are not new. Successive commissioners have asked for largely the same changes, and successive governments of all parties have failed to act.

I want to highlight four issues in particular with respect to the current law, and as I say, David has flagged some of them already. The first is education and the ability to respond. The failure to engage in meaningful Privacy Act reform may be attributable, at least in part, to the lack of public awareness of the law and its importance. I think the Privacy Commissioner plays an important role in educating the public, and has done so on PIPEDA and broader privacy issues. The Privacy Act really needs a similar mandate for public education and research. Moreover—and you just heard this—the notion of limited reporting through an annual report, I think, reflects a bygone era. In our current 24-hour, social-media-driven news cycle, restrictions on the ability to disseminate information, particularly information that can touch on the privacy of millions of Canadians, can't be permitted to remain outside of the public eye and left for annual reports when they are tabled. Where the commissioner deems doing so to be in the public interest, the office must surely have the power to disclose in a timely manner.

I also think we need to think about strengthening protections. As you've heard, the Privacy Act falls woefully short of meeting the standards of a modern privacy act. Indeed, at a time when government is expected to be a model, it instead requires far less of itself than it does of the private sector. A key reform, in my view, is the principle of limiting collection, a hallmark of private sector privacy law. The government should similarly be subject to collecting only that information that is strictly necessary for its programs and activities.

I'd also flag, as David did, breach disclosure, which has been commonplace in the private sector privacy world, and it has long been clear that similar disclosure requirements are needed within the Privacy Act. The Treasury Board guidelines are a start, but legal rules, in my view, are essential. In fact, the need for reform is even stronger given the absence of clear security standards within the act. Provisions that establish such standards and mandate disclosure in the event of a breach are crucial to establishing an appropriate level of accountability and ensuring that Canadians can guard against potential identity theft and other harms.

The final issue is privacy impact assessments. As you all know, privacy touches us in many ways, and it similarly is implicated in many pieces of legislation. I recall that during the last session of Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner regularly appeared before committees to provide a privacy perspective on many different pieces of legislation. This approach of coming in after the legislation has been drafted at the committee, I think, runs the risk of rendering privacy as little more than just an afterthought. It's more appropriate to conduct a privacy impact assessment before legislation is tabled, or, at a minimum, at least before it's implemented.

Those are some of the issues on the Privacy Act side, but as I said, I wanted to talk about three bigger picture issues that I think are some of the moving parts in the federal privacy world.

The first has to do with Bill C-51's information-sharing provisions. I realize the government is currently consulting on national security policy, and there's, as you know, a particular emphasis on Bill C-51. From my perspective, one of the biggest problems was the information-sharing provisions. The privacy-related concerns stem from an act within the act in Bill C-51's Security of Canada Information Sharing Act. As you may know, the sharing of information went far beyond information related to terrorist activity.

It permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have little to do with terrorism. The previous government tried to justify the provisions on the grounds that Canadians would support sharing of information for national security purposes, but the law now allows sharing for reasons that I think would surprise and disturb many Canadians, given how broadly those provisions can be interpreted.

Further, the scope of sharing is very broad, covering 17 government institutions, many of which are only tangentially related, if at all, to national security. The background paper on the national security consultation raises the issue, but in my view appears to largely defend the status quo, raising only the possibility, it seems to me, of tinkering with some clarifying language. If we don't address the information-sharing issue, I fear that many of the potential Privacy Act improvements will be undermined. I think this requires a wholesale re-examination of information sharing within government and the safeguards that are there to prevent misuse.

Second, I want to talk about transparency and reporting from a slightly different perspective. As many of you may know, in recent years, there have been stunning revelations about requests and disclosure of personal information of millions of Canadians, millions of requests, the majority of which are without court oversight or warrant, which I think points to a real weakness within Canada's privacy laws. Most Canadians have no awareness of these disclosures and have been shocked to learn how frequently they are used.

Recent emphasis has been on private sector transparency reporting. Large Internet companies such as Google and Twitter have released transparency reports, and they have been joined by some of Canada's leading communications companies such as Rogers and Telus. There are still some holdouts, notably Bell, but we have a better picture of requests and disclosures than we did before. However, these reports represent just one side of the picture. Public awareness of requests and disclosures would be far more informed if government also released transparency reports. These need not implicate active investigations, but there is little reason for government to not be subject to the same expectations on transparency as we expect of the private sector. Indeed, the Liberal Party focused on transparency in its election platform. Improvements to access to information are absolutely critical, but transparency is about more than just opening the doors to requests for information. Proactive disclosure of requests for Canadians' information should be part of the same equation.

Third and finally, I want to talk briefly about government-mandated interception capabilities and decryption. The public safety consultation that I referenced, which was launched earlier this month, has been largely characterized as a C-51 consultation, but it's much more. The return of lawful access issues threatens to scrap the 2014 lawful access compromise, and I think raises some really serious privacy concerns.

For instance, the consultation implies that “lack of consistent and reliable technical intercept capability on domestic telecommunication networks” represents a risk to law enforcement investigations. Yet left unsaid is that the prior proposed solutions in the form of government-mandated interception capabilities for telecommunications companies were rejected due to the enormous cost, inconsistent implementation, and likely ineffectiveness of standards that would exempt many smaller providers. Creating government-mandated interception capabilities for all providers represents an enormous privacy risk that I think runs roughshod over both PIPEDA and the Privacy Act.

Further, the consultation places another controversial policy issue on the table, noting that encryption technologies are “vital to cybersecurity, e-commerce, data and intellectual property protection, and the commercial interests of the communications industry”, but lamenting that some of those same technologies can be used by criminals and terrorists.

Given its widespread use and commercial importance, few countries have imposed decryption requirements. This year's controversy involving access to data on an Apple iPhone that was owned by the San Bernardino, California, shooter revived debate over access to encrypted communications. The consultation asks Canadians to comment on circumstances under which law enforcement should be permitted to compel decryption. A move toward compelling decryption, in my view, would place more than just our privacy at risk. It would also place our innovation strategy and personal security in the balance.

In conclusion, fixing the Privacy Act is long overdue. There is little mystery about what needs to be done. Indeed, there have been numerous studies and a steady stream of privacy commissioners who have identified the problems and called for reform. What has been missing is not a lack of information, but rather, with all respect, a lack of political will to hold government to the same standard that it holds others.

I look forward to your questions.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

You probably don't have time to answer, Mrs. Parsons, but you mentioned bill C-13 earlier and the disconnection with law enforcement. Could you expand a bit on?

[Leah Parsons, Representative, Rehtaeh Parsons Society, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak here today on a topic that is very near and dear to my heart. My name is Leah Parsons. I am the mother of Rehtaeh Parsons. Rehtaeh died by suicide 17 months after her sexual assault. Rehtaeh was assaulted by four males in November 2011. A photo was taken and shared without her permission or knowledge. The photo was widely distributed in her school and community. She struggled emotionally to regain her sense of being. However, every time she attempted a fresh start, she was faced with the reality that the image continued to be shared as she moved from school to school.

This crime was reported to the police within a week yet the image was never contained or removed. Rehtaeh was just 15 years old at the time of this trauma. At this young age Rehtaeh was just developing the very core of who she would become. She left grade nine just a few months prior as a straight-A student with big hopes and dreams for her future.

Once she became a target of cruelty and ridicule, her mental health started to deteriorate, and it happened very fast. Soon my bright, confident girl was struggling with thoughts of suicide. Panic, anger, and sadness were emotions she cycled through on a regular basis. She just didn't have enough time and life experience to see that it was possible to navigate through this dark period. She became terrified of her own thoughts.

During the 17 months of struggle, Rehtaeh was forced to endure harassment both online and in person from her peer group. She knew what happened to her was not her fault, but society continually told her otherwise. The agencies put in place to protect did not seem capable and/or willing to help us navigate these turbulent waters. We were left desperately seeking and searching for answers and direction. Since Rehtaeh left us on April 7, 2013, at the young age of 17, I have been an advocate in the areas of cyber-abuse, sexualized violence, youth mental health, and suicide prevention and awareness. Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh shone a light on the dangers of social media with profound impact. It was very clear that society had to do something. Their deaths also created important conversations at our dinner tables across Canada and around the world.

Many changes have occurred since, but we still have a long way to go to protect females in our society. We talk more about the impact of cyber-violence now that we are aware, but we must continue to move along to empower and educate. I reflected long and hard when I was invited to here to speak about the issues of cyber-violence. What kept coming back to me were the many voices of mothers and young women who reach out to me for help and advice, sharing their stories of abuse, and desperately wanting change to make their lives and the lives of all females safe. They feel vulnerable and alone, and I know that feeling. Women are not taken seriously and are often dismissed when we voice our concerns.

Blaming women for crimes committed against them is not new behaviour. Women have been systemically marginalized for centuries. However, the ways in which women are targeted in this day and age unfold differently because of social media. On a regular basis, women share their concerns with me about the sharing of intimate images without permission and being a target of online cruelty and sexualized violence.

While some police and school officials take these offenses seriously, many do not seem to know what to do. Sometimes they even add comments that blame the victim. Time and time again I have been told that officials are advising women to stay off the Internet to avoid being harassed. In the case of photos shared online, some officials are suggesting that the female should just stop sharing intimate images. This advice is not the answer and only adds to the victim-blaming mentality.

There also seems to be a disconnect in knowledge within police agencies across the country regarding the new Bill C-13 within the Criminal Code of Canada, which prohibits the sharing of intimate images without consent.

Agencies have to make it a priority to know the law and enforce it. Once that image is online, getting the image removed continues to be problematic for many females. There does not seem to be a uniform procedure to remove online images, and it appears to take a very long time to get an image taken down.

As far as females being harassed online is concerned, there are no laws in place to protect them. Nova Scotia's Cyber-safety Act, put in place in 2013 after Rehtaeh died, was the first of its kind in Canada and was enacted to protect people from cyber-violence. However, this law was struck down for being too broad. Nova Scotia justice minister Diana Whalen will be introducing new legislation in the spring of 2017. This is a step in the right direction.

Enacting new laws and responding in a fast, efficient manner are just some of the ways we combat cyber-violence, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are underlying deep-rooted ideologies that will take a very long time to undo. Women are still objectified, and the message from multiple sources that we are being bombarded with on a daily basis is that you are not enough, meaning you're not pretty enough, thin enough, sexy enough, smart enough, etc.

When females internalize this message, some suffer immensely from poor self-image, which can often manifest in females being cruel to other females. This can be seen in some adolescent girls who are competitive, cruel, and hurtful to their female peers. That was certainly evident in the horrible messages I read that were sent to my daughter.

My background is in psychology, and from this perspective it is easy to recognize that what we do not like in ourselves, we cannot embrace in others. Therefore, empowering young girls to love who they are is of utmost importance. Peer acceptance is very important, and when young girls are at the receiving end of cyber-violence, their mental health suffers. We have to redefine what it means to be female.

That being said, we certainly cannot leave out the male population in these conversations. It always amazes when, after I've given presentations in schools, young males approach me to ask more questions about consent. They are confused, because no one has had a conversation with them about what sexual consent entails Some young males truly believe that when a girl says no to sexual advances, it's time to apply more pressure.

A similar behaviour is now common online in the pressuring of females to send intimate images. We attempt to teach our girls what they need to do to be safe but not how to value who they are. We are certainly missing the mark when it comes to males.

If males continue to view females as objects, how can they value them as human beings? Rehtaeh lost her value as a human being the day she was labelled a slut.

I know that if Rehtaeh had been seen as a person that night back in 2011 and not as an object to be conquered, and if her peers had rallied around her to show their support instead of blaming her, I would not be here speaking to you today.

I know that we can make a difference in the lives of all human beings, and we must act now. We are losing way too many young lives to suicide due to violence in all forms.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you.

[Jane Bailey]

Thank you very much for inviting me to be here.

My remarks are going to focus on cyberviolence against girls and young women, although, as will become obvious as I proceed, in the seamlessly integrated online/offline world that is inhabited by young people today, distinctions between cyberspace and real space are virtually meaningless. As we know, the consequence of so-called online behaviour can be very real.

My remarks are grounded in the work that I've been doing for 15 years on the intersections of law, technology, and equality, and in particular the eGirls Project, which I co-led with Valerie Steeves until 2014, and the work of the eQuality Project, which I currently co-lead with Dr. Steeves, and for which we're proud to have MediaSmarts as a partner organization.

I'm also a member of the national steering committee of the National Association of Women and the Law.

The eGirls Project itself focused on girls' and women's experiences with online social media. In it, we interviewed girls aged 15 to 17 and 18 to 22 to ask them how their perceptions of their online lives lined up with policy-makers' solutions for online issues for children and to find out what they would want policy-makers to know about what life was like for a girl online.

Of course, technologically facilitated harassment and violence surfaced in those conversations, but so too did their concerns around mediatized stereotyping; privacy; the intense scrutiny girls find themselves under online; and corporate policies, practices, and structures that compromise their capacity to participate as equals online and off. It's this latter issue that's led us to the eQuality Project.

The eQuality Project is focused on the way that online behavioural targeting actually shapes the online environment that young people inhabit and the degree to which it sets young people up for conflict and harassment, particularly youth from diverse and intersecting equality-seeking communities. One of our current initiatives is to review and assess the efficacy of criminal law responses by looking at Canadian case law on technologically facilitated violence against women and girls.

I had originally intended to talk about three things, but I'm only going to talk about two. The first is a pet peeve of mine: why the term “cyberbullying” has to be treated with caution. The second is what needs to be done based on lessons learned from the eGirls Project participants.

The term “cyberbullying” has to be treated with caution because its generic nature just too easily whitewashes issues of discrimination and violence, which require tailored responses beyond punishing individual children or even teaching them how to properly use technology.

Research shows that young people who are perceived as different, whether because of ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or perceived disability or disability, are at greater risk of being bullied and cyberbullied. Similarly, as we've heard, girls and young women are more likely to be targeted by technologically facilitated sexual violence. In a sexist society, one form of that, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, leaves women and girls open to humiliation, embarrassment, and reputational ruin for expressing their sexuality, for exposing their bodies, or even for others' decisions to expose their bodies, which is perhaps the most troubling of all, despite superficially conflicting messages that tell girls and women that social success depends upon emulating a stereotypical, heteronormative version of “sexy”. I put “sexy” in quotes. I call that flip-top sexuality. I don't think it has anything to do with sex whatsoever.

To the extent that cyberbullying, then, as a term, suggests somehow random targeting or random effects, I think the term has to be approached with caution, in particular when we're talking about women and girls. Otherwise we're going to miss root causes, such as misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and racism, that actually demand redress. We can't fix the problem by treating the symptoms.

The second point I want to talk about is what needs to be done. What did we learn from the eGirls' eQuality project participants?

First, consult directly with diverse groups of girls and young women and recognize the expertise of community organizations working against violence against women and in support of survivors. We cannot assume that adults' perceptions of the problems of girls and young women mesh with their own perceptions and experiences.

For example, Canadian federal public policy dialogue around children and technology has placed significant emphasis on the risk of unknown sexual predators online. The eGirls project participants indicated some concern about unknown sexual predators online, especially with respect to their younger siblings and relations; however, they demonstrated far more concern about the impact of the widespread availability and scrutiny of data relating to them and the ways in which the online environment exposed them to what they perceived as the risk of reputational ruin at the age of 12. Girls and young women may be equally at risk—if not more—of technologically facilitated violence by those they know than by strangers. For anyone working in the violence-against-women community, we've known this for a long time about sexual violence in general.

Second, recognize technologically facilitated violence against women and girls as an equality-based human rights issue and proactively address root causes rather than focusing solely on criminal law responses.

I'm a lawyer. I'm the first person to say that individual perpetrators should be held responsible for their actions, and I part company with any suggestion that an individual's unilateral decision to display his girlfriend's naked picture on a pornography site is an expression of sexuality that we ought to be giving much merit to or concern for, or that a charge in that case is necessarily wrong in those kinds of circumstances. Individual perpetrators do have to be held responsible for their actions, particularly where they're taken unilaterally.

Meaningfully addressing the disproportionate targeting of girls and young women for sexualized cyberviolence, though, requires nothing short of social transformation. That's what it's about. As a friend of mine said, “Yes, you're talking about ending the patriarchy, so good luck.” That's okay. That's what we're talking about: ending the patriarchy.

We have to address misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other intersecting oppressions that have been used as tools to keep women down, to silence them, and to keep them out of the public sphere. In the online context, they are preventing girls and young women from participating as equals. Some eGirls project participants felt it would be particularly important to address discrimination and prejudice through educational measures to combat these forms of oppression, as well as to address heterosexist stereotyping that privileges thin, white representations of femininity and sexuality that were a prominent part of the advertising they were targeted with in online social spaces.

Third, focus on the role that corporations play in structuring online interactions to compel data disclosure and make privacy protection difficult, instead of focusing on telling girls and young women what not to do. Too often, policy approaches focus on reactive responses that result in blaming those attacked for having disclosed too much and that subject girls and young women who have been targeted to further monitoring and surveillance by parents and other adults. The eGirls project participants felt that policy-makers should give girls in particular a break. That's a quote. “Give girls a break,” they said, and pay more attention to corporate practices and policies that compromise their ability to negotiate privacy in networked spaces.

Fourth, provide more support for girls and young women who have been targeted by technologically facilitated violence. The eGirls project participants felt there was too little focus on providing support and encouragement for targets of online abuse. Policy-makers need to make sure that community organizations working to combat violence against women and girls and to support survivors and schools dealing with these issues have adequate funding to meaningfully address these needs.

Fifthand last is again another pet peeve of mine: do not make unnecessary expansion of police power the price of addressing technologically facilitated violence against women and girls.

One of our project participants lamented that protections from online predation for girls and women were too often associated with unnecessary expansion of police surveillance powers. Once again we saw with the passage of Bill C-13 that the censure of non-consensual distribution of intimate images came at the cost of expanded police powers that were in absolutely no way limited to addressing violence against women and girls.

In conclusion, it's time for adults to take responsibility for economic and social policy decisions that have resulted in the seamlessly integrated online/offline world our children now inhabit.

I'm happy to summarize that in the answer period, if I can.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I have two quick questions.

The first one you mentioned. You touched upon metadata in your answer regarding Bill C-13, and as far as I know, metadata is not defined in any way, shape, or form in our legislation. I was wondering if your office had any recommendations pertaining to metadata, and if it should be defined and where it should be so defined. Do you have any take on this?

My second question is regarding a recommendation that your office made back in 2008 that recommended to provide greater discretion to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to report publicly on the privacy management practices of government institutions. That's a recommendation that was made in 2008 and I was wondering if this still stands and if your ability to report publicly on privacy issues is in any way hindered at this moment and what could be done.

[Daniel Therrien]

Bill C-51, whose short title is the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, had a number of parts. The first part pertained to the sharing of information between federal institutions, including personal information held by federal institutions. Such information can now be shared between government departments and 17 agencies that have specific responsibilities for suppressing or detecting terrorism. What Bill C-51 does is allow all federal departments to disclose personal information to these 17 agencies if it is relevant to detecting or suppressing terrorism.

We had concerns about the lack of comprehensive oversight mechanisms and the evidence threshold for sharing information, among other things.

I understand that the government plans to introduce a bill or conduct a study to review Bill C-51. We think that is an excellent idea.

The purpose of Bill C-44 was to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, explicit authority to operate outside Canada. Before this bill was introduced, CSIS exercised its powers in Canada. Bill C-44 enabled CSIS to extend its activities outside the country. CSIS and the government were of the opinion that this was already provided for implicitly. Bill C-44 authorized it explicitly. The bill more explicitly authorizes information sharing between CSIS and similar agencies in other countries.

The concern we raised had to do with the risk of human rights violations, depending on the countries to which this information would be disclosed. We recommended that steps be taken to control this information sharing in order to avoid torture, for example, in the worst-case scenario.

Bill C-13 had to do with online crime in general, but amended the other law that my office administers, the Competition Act, to allow private companies to give information to police in investigations where electronic documents or personal information could be relevant. That applies in the case of online crime, but also more generally.

We had some concerns about that as well. We felt that the scope of the bill was too broad and that some provisions might not comply with a recent Supreme Court decision in Spencer, which provides for protection of some metadata when people use the Internet to share personal information.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you.

I have a second question.

Regarding the disclosure of personal information, you said in your 2014-15 report that Bills C-13, C-51, and C-44, if I'm not mistaken, which now have the force of law, had a serious impact on the disclosure of personal information without people's consent.

Can you elaborate on Bill C-51? We have heard a great deal about information sharing between institutions. I am less familiar with Bills C-13 and C-44. I'd like you to talk a bit more about these three bills and the changes they made when it comes to disclosure.

Digital Privacy Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really put his finger on the problem, which is rather widespread and applies to other bills besides the one before us today.

For instance, following public pressure, the government unfortunately had to withdraw Bill C-30 from the order paper. However, there was also Bill C-51 and Bill C-13 on cybercrime. Now we are talking about Bill S-4, which completely destroys Canada's privacy protection regime. It waters down the criteria for obtaining warrants and, in some cases, even allows authorities to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant.

I wonder whether the member could tell us just how troubled he is that this government says here in the House and elsewhere that it wants to protect Canadians, and yet it introduces a number of bills, like Bill C-51, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4, that put Canadians' privacy at risk.

Motion in Amendment

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

Liberals will not be supporting the bill. I want to be clear that we do not seek to invalidate incorporation by reference in regulations, a technique that has been long in use and that is useful on a case-by-case basis. However, the government cannot be trusted to act responsibly with these expanded powers. We have seen time and time again the government's abuse of oversight mechanisms. I think specifically of its use of omnibus legislation and its bad-faith approach to the Department of Justice's constitutional review process, including the use of private members' bills to avoid that process.

A general power to incorporate by reference could embolden the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. For that reason, expanding the government's power to delegate lawmaking to foreign or private entities will not serve the public interest.

Liberals will not expand the Conservatives' power to privatize and export the power to make Canadian law.

There is also a chance that this bill could prioritize the English version of Canadian laws by allowing changes to be made to the English text without updating the French version.

To be clear, we agree that regulating by reference will undoubtedly continue to expand. Globalization, standardization, and technical and scientific progress make the tool necessary. However, a regulation-making authority should have prior authorization from Parliament in its enabling statute to use incorporation by open reference.

Bill S-2 is a highly technical bill. Before elaborating on why Liberals will not be supporting it, let us go over the contents of the bill. Bill S-2 would amend the Statutory Instruments Act to provide an express general power to incorporate by reference in regulations. To incorporate by reference is to give a secondary document legal force by referencing it in regulations, such as a set of technical standards developed by the Standards Council of Canada.

Incorporation by reference has long been in use, and it is already expressly authorized in more than 60 federal acts. However, its legal status outside of these acts is uncertain. Bill S-2 aims to clarify that incorporation by reference is a valid technique of general application. Bill S-2 would also provide that any secondary documents referenced must be accessible and that liability or administrative sanctions could not apply if a document was not accessible. In addition, Bill S-2 would retroactively validate any incorporation by reference that was made before its coming into force.

In effect, incorporation by reference sub-delegates the details of regulation to a designated entity, which may be private or foreign. It creates efficiencies in the context of globalization, standardization, and rapid technical and scientific developments. It is important to appreciate that regulations incorporated by reference may not exceed the regulatory powers granted by statute. In addition, regulations made by reference remain subject to review and possible revocation by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

There are two varieties of incorporation by reference. They are incorporation by closed or static reference and incorporation by open or dynamic or ambulatory reference. Incorporation by closed reference cites a secondary document as it existed on a particular date. Incorporation by open reference automatically allows regulations to change as secondary documents are amended. This latter technique delegates the details of regulation to whomever has the ongoing power to amend the secondary document. Bill S-2 would expressly allow both open and closed incorporation by reference.

Why are these changes a bad thing? Bill S-2 would reduce the oversight of federal regulations by allowing the sub-delegation of the regulatory power that is already delegated by Parliament to the Governor in Council and other persons. The current government cannot be trusted to use this power responsibly. Time and again, we have seen its willingness to abuse oversight mechanisms, restrict democratic debate, and violate Canadians' constitutional rights.

For example, the government's use of omnibus legislation has degraded the committee review process and hidden important legal changes from public scrutiny. Most recently, I can think of the unconstitutional amendments to the Supreme Court Act being hidden in a budget implementation bill. Yes, changes to the Supreme Court Act were in a budget bill. When those changes failed, we all remember how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice wrongfully criticized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for trying to save them some embarrassment.

With omnibus legislation, I also think of Bill C-13 and the way the government linked urgent and necessary cyberbullying legislation with immunity for telecommunications companies for warrantless disclosure. Again, the Supreme Court came to the rescue with the Spencer decision, which allowed us to support that cynically packaged piece of legislation.

In opposing Bill S-2's reduction of regulatory oversight, we also think of the government's disregard for the Department of Justice's constitutional review procedure. As the House is aware, Department of Justice lawyer Edgar Schmidt revealed to Canadians that the government proceeds with legislation even if it has a 5% chance or less of being charter compliant. It is the government's own faint hope clause, so to speak.

Is this a government that needs less oversight or more oversight? The revelation of the government's outright contempt for the charter was not surprising, given how often legislation and executive actions have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Let us review some of the greatest hits.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada prevented the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who was health minister at the time, from closing a safe injection site, which would have caused an increase in the number of fatal overdoses and the spread of communicable diseases.

Last year the Federal Court prevented the government from making cuts to health care services for refugees. Also last year, right here in Ottawa, Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Justice found that the decision to impose a $900 victim surcharge on a 26-year-old impoverished Inuit offender who was an addict amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Some British Columbia courts and the Ontario Court of Appeal have also struck down the mandatory minimum sentences brought in by the government. This is all in addition to the negative responses to referrals related to the unilateral Senate reform and the appointment of federal judges to represent Quebec on the Supreme Court.

We have also seen the Conservative government's willingness to veil government legislation as private members' bills to avoid constitutional review. There are numerous examples of tough-on-crime, presumably government-driven legislation that masqueraded as private member's bills. All of these bills contained significant changes to the Criminal Code, and regardless of their merits, they should have passed through the Department of Justice's charter compliance review process.

This is not a government that Canadians can trust to protect and promote their rights and interests. This is a government tainted by scandals of public betrayal, from election fraud with robocalls to tampering with the Duffy audit, to a $90,000 payment to Duffy from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to the Prime Minister defaming the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Canadians should not trust the current Conservative government.

As I have said, the danger with Bill S-2 is that the government would be emboldened to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, and any oversight would be retrospective rather than forward looking. That is why we will not support the expansion of the current government's power to delegate law-making powers to foreign and private entities.

In addition, Bill S-2 would put the average person at a disadvantage, since there is no guarantee that documents incorporated by reference would be meaningfully accessible. In particular, an incorporated document would not have to be registered in the Canada Gazette and might even be protected by copyright. It would also be increasingly difficult for people to know whether the version of the incorporated document they have is up to date, and in some cases, they would have to pay for access to copyright-protected documents. The bill would weaken the right of those governed by the law to know the contents of the law. We will not support the Conservative government's privatization of Canadian law.

We heard at committee that it may be possible for international bodies to amend Canadian law without our having a representative at the table. We heard that Canadian laws would not be centrally available to the public and that Canadians would sometimes have to pay to access Canadian law. Moreover, if Bill S-2 passed, the government would be generally empowered to decide which foreign and private entities could make law, and which laws Canadians should pay to see.

Time and again, the government has not been forthright with Parliament and the public, and so our position is that a regulation-making authority should have prior authorization from Parliament in its enabling statute to use incorporation by open reference. For that reason, we will not support the bill.

Digital Privacy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming for his speech on Bill S-4.

I worked on Bill C-51, which thousands of Canadians opposed. They were worried that the bill would invade their privacy and violate their rights and freedoms. In the answer he just gave, my colleague said that this bill was not necessarily perfect but that we need to take action. I have a question for him.

Bill S-4, and also Bill C-13, would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for a proper oversight mechanism. This is reminiscent of the extremely distressing Bill C-51, which we studied not too long ago.

Why is the government working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant by creating bigger holes with Bill C-13 and Bill S-4?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to express support for Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, which was first introduced in April of last year. The digital privacy act would make important changes to Canada's private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, to better protect the privacy of Canadians.

I would like to spend my time highlighting the measures in Bill S-4 that are designed to better safeguard the privacy of minors and protect vulnerable members of our society. In our modern digital economy, it is absolutely critical that we make sure our children have safe and secure access to online resources.

Being digitally literate is no longer merely nice to have; it is now a necessary prerequisite for young Canadians, whether to be successful in school or to find their first job. In fact, a recent survey revealed that in 2013, 99% of Canadian students were able to access the Internet outside of school.

While there are many benefits to being digitally connected, going online can also expose our children to risks. As we have unfortunately seen, young people can become targets of online intimidation and abuse. Our government has acted to protect our children from cyberbullying and other similar threats through Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. This bill, which came into force on March 9, 2015, ensures that all Canadians can freely access the Internet without fear of victimization.

Bill C-13 protects children and adolescents from online predators and exploitation. Provisions of the bill permit and empower the courts to penalize those who harass, intimidate, exploit, or threaten others online or through telecommunication devices. In other words, Bill C-13 serves to counter cyberbullying in Canada.

The Government of Canada takes cyberbullying very seriously and supports a no-tolerance framework. In January 2014, our government launched the anti-cyberbullying national awareness campaign called Stop Hating Online, which raises awareness of the impact of cyberbullying and how this behaviour amounts to criminal activity.

We have also taken further steps to protect children from online predators. Our government has invested $14.2 million a year through the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. In addition to Bill C-13, our government has implemented other concrete measures to keep young Canadians safe online and in their communities. Such measures include increasing the maximum penalties for luring a child online, strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders, and strengthening the sex offender registry, to name only a few. All of these initiatives align with our government's commitment to stand up and protect Canadians.

Bill C-13 was introduced to provide a safe and secure environment for Canadians online, and the digital privacy act seeks to accomplish this as well. In this rapidly growing digital world, we must be aware that going online can expose vulnerable Canadians to privacy risks. For example, minors can be subject to aggressive marketing tactics or can have their personal data collected and shared without them truly understanding what is being done and the potential long-term privacy consequences.

To address this concern, the digital privacy act includes an amendment to clarify requirements for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. Specifically, the bill clarifies that when a company is seeking permission to collect, use, or disclose personal information from a group of individuals, such as children, it must take the necessary steps to ensure that, as a group, these individuals are able to understand what would happen to their personal information. In practice, this means that the organization's request for information must be presented in a clear and concise manner and must be appropriate for and easily understood by the target audience. This includes making sure the wording and language used in the request are age-appropriate.

Let me take a minute to give an example explaining to the members of the House how this would work. Let us say that an online service designed for children wishes to gather information about who visits their site. In order to seek consent, the company would be required to design and present its request to collect, use, and disclose information using language that a child could reasonably be expected to understand. If a child could not be expected to understand what the website seeks to do with their information, the child's consent would not be valid. As a result, consent from a parent would need to be sought.

The Privacy Commissioner expressed his strong support for this amendment when appearing before the standing committee. This is what the Privacy Commissioner said:

I think with the clarification that Bill S-4 provides, it is a useful clarification of what consent is, and it has the potential of improving the situation for the issue of consent sought from children....

There are additional amendments in Bill S-4 that are also designed to better protect the interests of other vulnerable individuals. I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members two particular amendments that would allow information to be more easily shared in emergency situations.

The first of these amendments would allow organizations to share personal information in order to contact a family member of an injured, ill, or deceased individual. The importance of this amendment was well summarized by the representative of the Canadian Pharmacists Association in her appearance before the standing committee when she said:

Pharmacists, as well as any health care provider, may find themselves in the difficult situation of having to deal with patients who may be severely ill, unconscious, or incapacitated for any number of reasons. In such circumstances it may be imperative for the pharmacist or other health professional to immediately contact family members or next of kin to inform them of the patient's condition, or to seek valuable information on the patients' medical history. But seeking permission or consent to contact those individuals in advance may simply not be reasonable nor in some cases possible. This clause would provide pharmacists and other health care providers with the comfort and knowledge that in the case of a severe health emergency they will not be in contravention of PIPEDA for acting in the best interests of their patients by contacting next of kin or authorized representatives.

The second of these amendments would allow information to be shared in situations such as accidents or disasters, in order to assist in the identification of injured, ill, or deceased individuals. For example, this would allow dentists to provide an individual's dental records to authorities in order to identify victims of a natural disaster.

These two amendments are clearly in the public's interest and are long overdue.

The government is committed to protecting the privacy of Canadians. The digital privacy act would take necessary actions to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, including children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech.

He said he is extremely concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. However, his party voted in favour of Bill C-13, which represents a major threat to protecting Canadians' personal information. He himself voted in favour of Bill C-51, which truly poses serious risks to personal information protection, since it allows our personal information to be shared among a number of government agencies without any parliamentary or judicial oversight. It is very disconcerting.

I am confused. Does the hon. member want to protect personal information or is it not as important as all that?

National Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the motion before the House today, put forward by the member for Churchill. It deals with the very important issue of ending violence against women and girls. Our government takes the issue of violence against women and girls very seriously, and we have taken a multi-faceted approach to addressing it. Allow me to take a few moments to discuss some of the actions that we have taken.

We have made communities safer for all Canadians by enacting over 30 measures into law since 2006. For example, amendments to the Criminal Code made under the Safe Streets and Communities Act that came into force in 2012 promote safety and security. They also assist in holding criminals fully accountable for their actions through increased penalties for violent crimes, including child sexual offences, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences and house arrest for serious and violent crimes.

Another example is Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which came into force in March. It provides for a new Criminal Code offence, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which prohibits the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images without the consent of the person depicted.

We have supported the needs of victims with Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, which received royal assent on April 23. This bill provides rights for victims of crime, many of which will benefit women who have experienced violence. For example, the bill gives victims the right to have their security and privacy considered, the right to be protected from intimidation and retaliation, the right to request the protection of their identity if they are a complainant or witness in a criminal justice proceeding, and the right to request testimonial aids.

Another recent example is Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. This bill would address forms of family violence that are predominately perpetrated against women and girls. It contains proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, creating a new form of inadmissibility to Canada for those practising polygamy. It includes proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act to codify the requirement for free and enlightened consent to marriage and to introduce a new national absolute minimum age for marriage of 16. The bill would also introduce proposed new offences in the Criminal Code related to forced or underage marriages. It would extend the offence of removing a child from Canada to include removal for the purpose of a forced or underage marriage abroad, introduce a new forced or underage marriage peace bond to prevent these marriages from taking place, and limit the application of the defence of provocation so that it would not be available in honour killings and some spousal homicides.

These examples highlight the leadership role of our government in responding to violence against women and girls by establishing a strong legislative framework to protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. These legislative actions are a critical element of the multi-faceted approach that we have put in place to reduce and prevent violence against women and girls.

I would now like to describe some of the actions that we have taken beyond legislation. The Government of Canada has allocated more than $140 million since 2006 to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system through initiatives delivered by Justice Canada. Last September, we launched the latest phase of the stop hating online campaign to combat cyberbullying. This is a national awareness campaign to protect our children and youth from cyberbullying. On February 20, the Government of Canada announced a 10-year $100-million investment to prevent, detect and combat family violence and child abuse as part of our government's commitment to stand up for victims.

On April 1, the Government of Canada began the implementation of its action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. We also continued collaborating with aboriginal leaders, aboriginal communities and other levels of government to get the most out of our respective action plans.

Our government also believes in giving communities the tools to help end violence against women and girls. That is why we have increased funding to Status of Women Canada, including the women's program, to record levels. In fact, we have invested over $162 million in more than 780 projects through Status of Women Canada since 2007. This includes over $71 million in projects to specifically address violence against women and girls. These efforts include a number of different calls for proposals for projects in rural and remote communities and in post-secondary campus communities.

Another call for proposals is helping communities respond to cyber and sexual violence. More than $6 million has been invested in these projects through Status of Women Canada so far.

My view is that we must continue taking actions like the ones I have described today, and therefore I will not be supporting this motion. However, we must continue working together because we know that no single individual, organization or government working alone can address the problem of gender-based violence.

We have made this issue such an important priority because we know that helping women and girls live violence-free lives is the right thing to do. However, we also know something else. We know that enabling women and girls to live free of violence removes a barrier to achieving their full potential for themselves, their families and their communities. Doing that will move us closer to equality in our country, which is something we all wish to see.

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

It certainly appears that the national debate that was sparked by the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act has become well discussed across Canada. You hear teachers, parents, and students talking about it. I hear a lot of discussion about it with online groups on radio and television. I know you mentioned that the government has done some advertising on this. It's very important that all young people know about the dangers that are out there online, and how to protect themselves. That sounds like it's going very well, and I commend you for that.

I also want to ask you about the Victims Bill of Rights. You mentioned that as well in your opening remarks, and that has recently received royal assent. That is quite revolutionary legislation, as you know, and I know that you put a lot of effort into bringing that bill forward and having it passed in Parliament.

I wonder if you could tell us a bit about the Victims Bill of Rights, and in particular how the victims fund at the Department of Justice correlates with the bill of rights in enhancing services to victims.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today and sharing your comments with us.

You mentioned in your opening comments, Minister, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, formerly known as Bill C-13. You mentioned that it's come into force, which is good news. I understand that you have been visiting some schools across Canada and talking to young Canadians about the dangers of cyberbullying and other forms of online predatory actions. In particular, I note that you will be coming to my city, Mississauga, later this month, visiting a school and speaking to students about this very important issue.

I wonder, Minister, if you could explain both the importance of the passage of Bill C-13 and discuss some of the experiences you have had with students in some of your meetings across Canada.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be before you to discuss, as noted by the chair, the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

This is my 56th appearance before a standing committee as a government minister. Joining me today are the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general, William Pentney; the associate deputy minister, Pierre Legault; and senior assistant deputy minister of policy, Donald Piragoff; all of whom have extensive experience before committees as well and certainly within this department.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I'm responsible for ensuring that our justice system remains fair, relevant, and accessible to Canadians. It also involves, of course, overseeing a significant budget, with an eye to fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The Government of Canada introduced measures in connection with several criminal justice priorities. Our objective is to to make our streets and communities safer, and ensure that our justice system continues to bolster the safety of Canadians through our criminal justice laws, policies and programs.

Among them, Mr. Chair, we are pleased to announce that the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act has come into force. This law takes effect very soon and deals specifically with law enforcement online. This is a bill with which you and members of this committee are very familiar. I thank you for your work in this regard.

We've seen increased activity with regard to the subject of cyberbullying, which has had a devastating impact on many young people in Canada, affecting their reputations, their self-esteem, and their mental health. Also, it has directly contributed to the unfortunate decision that a number of young people have taken to end their own lives, young people like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and countless others, which is why the government acted to protect young people from malicious online behaviour, such as posting intimate images on the Internet, and the insidious and relentless harassment that often follows.

This is coupled with outreach efforts that are ongoing, and with education and the involvement of many people and organizations—such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg—which have directly contributed to the assistance of young people who are feeling cornered, hopeless, and in some cases desperate. Things such as GetHelpNow.ca and Cybertip.ca are areas in which young people are able to access information about how to remove offending material.

The Government of Canada also understands that Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, and we are committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who may pose a high risk to public safety. It's an obligation and a responsibility that we take very seriously.

Obviously, the evolving threat of terrorism is one those most troubling threats. In response to this risk, we introduced a bill earlier this year, which again is a bill you're familiar with, Bill C-51, to strengthen our existing anti-terrorism laws to ensure that they continue to respond appropriately to all forms of terrorism.

As you know, the bill is currently before the Senate. Among other things, such as enabling police to be more proactive in identifying radicalization and acting accordingly, this bill will fill a current gap in the Criminal Code by creating a new Criminal Code offence criminalizing the advocacy and promotion of terrorism, including those that would encourage attacks on Canadians.

Protecting victims of crime is another area in which we have been very active, as has this committee. We are moving to provide a more effective voice in our justice system as a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

Mr. Chair, to that end, we introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. It received royal assent last month. This legislation enables the rights of victims of crime at a federal level and establishes statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and in some cases restitution. It also ensures that there is a complaint process to deal with breaches of those rights.

Again, I could mention others that this committee has been seized with, including Quanto's law, tougher penalties for child predators, and several other bills, for which I again express my appreciation for the diligence of this committee.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $673.9 million in the year 2015-16, which is a net spending increase of $43.3 million from the 2014-15 main estimates. The net increase in spending illustrates the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining, as mentioned, the integrity and the importance of our justice system in terms of accessibility to it through programs and personnel.

Mr. Chair, one especially important area of increased spending, totalling $1.9 million, represents the funding in support of non-legislative measures to address prostitution. In 2014, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into force. This uniquely Canadian model was informed by the results of government consultations, public consultations, on the subject of prostitution in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford.

That consultation received more than 31,000 responses from Canadians, in addition to the in-person round tables. This was the largest consultation, I note, ever undertaken by the Department of Justice to date, and it recognized in the legislation the significant harms associated with prostitution. In a combination of Department of Justice money and Public Safety money, $20 million is being made available through a fund over five years for programs aimed specifically at helping those who sell sexual services to exit prostitution.

Mr. Chair, this is a compassionate and common-sense program that we are delivering, and we believe it will make a positive difference. The funding will provide services such as trauma therapy, addiction recovery, employment training, and financial literacy. It could also be used to support transitional housing, emergency safe houses, child care, and drop-in centres. I can tell you that there has been tremendous uptake on this program funding. In addition, there will be funding made available to help law enforcement agencies connect with those who want to leave prostitution and help them find emergency or long-term services, such as those I just mentioned.

The new resources demonstrate the government's commitment to meaningfully support those exploited through prostitution. We are ensuring that the laws address as well the serious harms associated with prostitution and deliver the protection that vulnerable Canadians and communities have come to expect and deserve from this government.

Mr. Chair, in February of 2015, the government announced that it had extended its support for the aboriginal justice strategy to include an additional $11.1 million for fiscal year 2016-17. The aboriginal justice strategy supports community-based justice programs across the country that have delivered results in reducing crime and victimization in aboriginal communities. There are approximately 275 aboriginal justice programs. There is outreach to over 800 aboriginal communities now, touching every province and territory, both on and off reserve, and in rural, urban, and northern communities.

Lowering recidivism and reducing the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in our justice system is at the root. The programs are cost-effective and produce short- and long-term savings for Canadians by freeing up police, court, and correctional resources to address more serious crime. This is in addition to other programs such as the $25 million that is directly focused on the subject of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

Although there was an effort with respect to the main estimates—an increase of $43.3 million—there have also been decisions taken around the providing of legal services as part of our commitment to better and more effectively manage resources. Within the department, there was a review of the legal services provided to all government departments. As you know, we do a great deal of work on behalf of other departments and other agencies in government. As a result, we've identified immediate measures to reduce legal services demand and costs. There is another wave that is aimed specifically at simplifying and increasing access to legal services. It will be implemented within the coming fiscal year.

Over the next year, the department will also continue to work to meet the needs of the Government of Canada's policy objectives. They include enhancing legislation to hold offenders accountable; supporting initiatives to address such issues as security and terrorism, as I referenced earlier; working with other departments to address crime prevention; rehabilitation, treatment, and enforcement activities that relate to illicit drugs; and continuing our aboriginal justice issues. I would also add to that list the work that's done with young offenders. In particular, there are various branches of this youth justice initiative that deal with guns and gangs.

These initiatives will help the Department of Justice continue to build a system that improves access and meets the diverse needs of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is determined to protect the integrity of our justice system. We have reaffirmed that commitment through the level of funding allocated to the Justice portfolio.

The items presented by the Department of Justice for inclusion in the 2015-2016 main estimates will help to guarantee that we continue to have a fair society that respects our legislation and has an accessible, effective and equitable justice system.

Finally, the funding that the justice portfolio has received delivers results. I'm proud to say that, aided by very able officials, we'll continue to see that these funds are spent wisely while ensuring that Canadians have the fair, relevant, and accessible justice system that they expect.

I want to again thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for your diligence and determination in examining in many cases very complex bills and for the contribution you are making in that regard.

I look forward to taking your questions over this period. Similarly, I know that officials here, along with representatives from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service, and other officials will be attending, I believe, at the next meeting, on May 13, to answer any questions in those particular areas.

Thank you, Chair.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

No problem, Mr. Chair.

These amendments deal with the lines that greatly expand the regime of warrantless disclosure to law enforcement and government agencies. Canadian telecommunications providers that collect massive amounts of data about their subscribers are asked to disclose basic subscriber information to Canadian law enforcement agents every 27 seconds. In 2011 alone, that added up to over a million disclosures.

Warrantless disclosure, in proposed subsection 10.2(3) and Bill C-13, plus the information-sharing provisions in Bill C-51, create an extremely worrisome system of surveillance, opening the door for a more Big Brother sort of government.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

When we come to this place, we all come with certain reasons behind what we want to accomplish. One, of course, is to improve the lives of Canadians. Another is sometimes to fix things that we believe are terribly wrong with our systems. For me, this legislation fits in the latter category of fixing something that we believe is terribly wrong.

Many people have been fortunate, in their careers and their lives, and they have never been touched by this particular issue. They have been spared the heartbreaking view of what happens to these young children when they are violated. In my career, I spent many years working in a rural emergency department. When I rise both to speak to this bill and to vote, it will be with the victims that I will be making that vote. I will give just a few small examples before I actually talk about the technical aspects of this bill.

I remember very clearly the 14-month-old who came in with incredibly bruised genitalia and a fractured femur. I remember three little girls. I remember the day their dad died in an accident. Two years later their mother remarried someone who then began to abuse those little girls. I remember a rape kit we had to pull out of the cupboards for a 12-year-old, barely pubescent young girl who had gone out and had a few drinks for the first time in her life. She had overdone it, and had then been brutally raped.

I remember a nurse who worked the night shift. One day she went home and her daughter revealed that the step-dad had been climbing into the beds at night, and the absolute trauma and the guilt that this nurse experienced as she dealt with the fact that she had married someone who was abusing her most precious possessions.

These are just some examples of what I experienced in my career. However, I was only representing a small area of this country, a small area of the province in terms of providing services. We have to recognize that these things are being repeated across the country many times over. Some are being reported; some are not.

I have witnessed young girls going into the criminal system to share their testimony and not meeting that burden of guilt that was required, and seeing the person who had violated them go free.

I hope this is a personal issue that everyone can stand up and support.

I need to talk about the specifics of this bill. It set out to recognize the devastating impacts such crimes have on the lives of the victims. It ensures that justice is not only done for each victim, but also for each crime by requiring sexual offenders to serve sentences that are proportional to the degree of harm inflicted on each victim.

What is it going to do? It is going to increase penalties for sexual offences committed against children. This includes increasing existing maximum and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain offences, as well as ending sentence discounts for child pornography offences where there are multiple child victims. Bill C-26 also increases the penalties for breach of a number of supervision orders. These amendments are necessary to protect the community from offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending, and this despite having been given the privilege of being conditionally released in the community.

Such amendments are not only integral to the protection of our communities, but necessary to incapacitate repeat sex child offenders who choose recidivism over rehabilitation, and continue unlawful conduct over peaceful reintegration into the community.

Again, there is not one of us who as members of Parliament have not had concerned citizens phoning our offices when there is a repeat child offender released into their communities. In many cases I have seen them go on to repeat their crimes. We are all absolutely horrified that the system that we had in place did not actually address those issues.

These proposed amendments would ensure consistency in punishment for breaches of prohibition orders imposed on child sexual offenders, section 161, breaches of probation orders, section 733.1, and breaches of peace bonds, section 811, imposed on individuals feared to be at risk of committing a sexual offence against a child.

In all these cases, offenders would be liable to a maximum of four years imprisonment on indictment and 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

The bill would provide the same penalty for a breach of the new prohibition order, section 162.2, created by Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, which can be imposed for the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-13 came into force on March 10, 2015.

Furthermore, Bill C-26 would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing for an offender to commit an offence while on parole, statutory release, or an unescorted temporary absence or while being subject to a conditional sentence order.

The proposed amendments would also ensure that the relevant evidence was available in prosecuting child predators in the case of child pornography.

As a general rule, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if the person wants to. The exceptions to this rule permit spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and the offence of violence against young persons, but it is important to note that it does not include child pornography offences.

In the case of child pornography, evidence of the accused's spouse is often required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography or a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bill C-26 proposes to amend the Canada Evidence Act to add child pornography to the list of exceptions and to therefore make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution.

Bill C-26's proposed reforms also seek to build on existing measures to better protect children in Canada and abroad against sexual abuse by convicted child sex offenders. The bill proposes to establish a new, publicly accessible national database of high-risk offenders convicted of child sexual offences.

Currently, all provinces and territories have the power to advise the public about the release of high-risk offenders. These notifications are made at the discretion of the police, and they contain characteristics about the offender and the nature of the offences committed.

However, such notifications are limited to the jurisdiction and province where they are made. The bill seeks to expand access to all of those local notifications on a national scale. We do not have any boundaries in terms of where people go in Canada. The establishment of such a database would be a great example of a coordinated effort to protect the community against convicted high-risk sex offenders, because it would consolidate existing notifications in one publicly accessible spot.

As I mentioned earlier, a complete and comprehensive response to child sexual exploitation also requires a coordinated effort that encompasses programs, services, and partnerships among key stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and territorial governments, law enforcement agencies, and civil society. In this respect, since 2010, the government has allocated $10.25 million for new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime.

We obviously have existing criminal prohibitions against child sexual abuse. However, the fact that it has been growing in the last few years at an extraordinary rate, as indicated earlier by my hon. colleague opposite, and the fact that children account for 55% of all victims of police-reported sexual offences, even though they account for only 20% of the Canadian population, is a stark reminder that more must be done.

We must stop such heinous crimes. As such, I urge all members of the House to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-26.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin my speech in the House on Bill C-26 by pointing out the latest attempt by the member for Langley to demonize the official opposition and the second opposition party.

Any time we examine a justice bill, whether it is Bill C-26 or any other justice bill, I look carefully at what the bill says. This bill is An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I also receive a letter from the Minister of Justice explaining a little about the context of his bill—something I do not always appreciate, but often I do.

In the case of Bill C-26, the main objective is to deter criminals and denounce sexual offences against children. The next step is to examine the bill and see whether that is what the bill actually does.

When I hear the Conservatives say over and over again that we care more about offenders and criminals than we do about victims, I find that rather biased and I take offence to such comments, which add absolutely nothing to the debate.

Obviously we are talking about criminals when we are studying a bill like this. They are the main focus of the bill. Talking about them does not mean that we like them, or support them, or that we are behind them saying, “good job, do it again”, like a bunch of cheerleaders. Not at all.

However, if the government tells me that it is denouncing sexual offences against children in order to deter criminals, then I will look at the bill to see whether that is indeed what the government is doing.

It is rather sad that closure was invoked at second reading stage of such an extremely important and complex file, because we can see from the title of the bill alone that it affects a number of statutes at the same time. It introduces a specific database for offenders who are at risk of reoffending and committing more serious offences than the ones described in the current database.

As I was saying to the Minister of Finance, who was well informed but was perhaps not the person who worked directly on this file, the House has passed many laws regarding sexual offences against children.

In fact, we have to question why, by the Minister of Justice's own admission, there has been a 6% increase in offences in the past two years alone. That still bothers me somewhat because if one of the main objectives of the law is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to report sexual offences against children, there may well be some flaws. I do not want members to tell me that this did not exist before. Minimum sentences did exist.

Bill C-26 does not include any new minimum sentence or any new maximum sentence. All that happened was that the length of the sentences was increased. Both minimum and maximum sentences were increased. Perhaps these types of sentences did not work. In short, we could have done the analysis, but first there was closure in the House, then we went to committee.

I must confess that I was a bit wary in the beginning. We were under the impression that the members sitting on the government benches wanted to work very quickly and take shortcuts. Nevertheless, I admit that we were finally able to call the witnesses that we wanted to hear.

I am not quite so positive when it comes to the amendments. Only the government's amendments were accepted, which is always the case. I think that is unfortunate because one of our amendments was based on the very solid evidence given by a criminology expert.

She told us that the information the government wants to put in the new registry—or high risk sex offender database—that it wants to create and that is mentioned in clause 29 of Bill C-26 might be used to identify some victims. This government claims to be on the victims' side and tells us that we are the mean ones who always side with the criminals.

I presented a very simple amendment but the government decided it was too complicated and unnecessary because the notion was implied. When I studied law at the University of Ottawa I was taught that if it is clear, you spell it out. You write it and that is that. Leaving things open to interpretation is another story. All we were asking was that, “under no circumstances must the information referred to in subsection (1) be used to identify the victims”. The amendment was rejected.

This government likes to introduce all kinds of bills. Sometimes it seems as though it is lacking a plan or a person to make sure that the different bills do not contradict each other or that a bill, like Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, which amended a lot of other laws, is not affected in any way by Bill C-26. Sometimes I wonder whether the government is losing control and losing its way.

We presented a perfectly reasonable amendment, requesting that the minister of justice be required to prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5(f) and (g), which have to do with the type of offence. This information could have been interesting to look at with respect to each of these individuals. The amendment stipulated that the minister of justice would have to table the report to each house of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the report has been prepared.

Once again, this seems to me like a reasonable amendment. The Conservatives will probably give me the same answer. The answer that was given by the Department of Justice and the Conservatives is that it is a public registry—as if I did not know that. The word itself says it all. Since it is a public registry, it is up to me to find the information I need. Every year, I will have to go and check the registry to find the information. If the government was interested in promoting these things and ensuring that its bills work well, this is the type of work that would normally be done. They want to complicate our lives. That is fine. That is good. We will put that in our pipe and smoke it.

However, that being said, it would have been much simpler to do this the way we are proposing. It could also have been useful for the government, since it could have found some missing information right in this report. The government may well say that the 6% increase could be due to the fact that the minimum sentences were not yet harsh enough. On this side of the House, we think that the increase is more likely related to the fact that the government does not spend much and, even worse, it is making cuts to programs that are working really well and that have been successful. That is also what experts told us in committee.

As I said before on the radio and here in the House at second reading, it is all well and good to have a registry. We already have one. The person responsible for the registry at the RCMP came and told us in committee that the RCMP is already doing this. When a dangerous person moves into a community, the RCMP informs the people living there. The RCMP does not need the government to keep the public safe. The government created this registry saying that it would formalize what the RCMP is already doing.

I will digress for a moment. When we had the minister's press conference after the Prime Minister's presentation, everyone who talked about Bill C-26 made it sound as though it was the ultimate goal and that it would solve all of the world's problems. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP answered one of my questions and said that it would affect perhaps a dozen cases a year.

That brings us back to reality. The National Sex Offender Registry already exists for such offenders. The additional “high risk” aspect pertains to about a dozen people. One thing is clear, and I am surprised that the Conservative government has not paid more attention to it. In fact, instead of talking in glowing terms about this type of measure, it should instead be worried about the fact that these high risk offenders are in our communities. That worries me a lot. I sometimes feel that this government works a lot harder on paper, with words, because that goes hand in hand with its rhetoric that makes it appear to be tough and to be doing something. However, in reality, when we look at the resources available to the RCMP and police forces to conduct investigations, that is not the case. I shudder when I hear police services say that some types of crime will have to be ignored because combatting terrorism is now the priority. Perhaps the minister was right to specify the criteria for a sentence. Yes, there is rehabilitation, deterrence and all that, but one of the government's main purposes is to protect its citizens. Putting more eggs in one basket than in another is not necessarily good management.

There is nothing real there. As for minimum sentences—that is what the member opposite was talking about—I am of the same mind as a former Supreme Court justice who appeared before us and said, in the context of another justice-related file, that all minimum sentences are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is simply not a tool that should be overused. First of all, and this is very important, even the witnesses who appeared in committee, whether they were victims or people who work with organizations that support victims, told us that minimum sentences were not the issue. If, for the kind of offence and the seriousness of the crime committed, we were to impose the minimum sentences that the Conservatives proposed in Bill C-26, there is a problem somewhere. However, there could be a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of stereotype we have of that kind of offence. Therein lies the problem. We heard it directly from legal experts. To say that we are against minimum sentences for this kind of offence does not mean we are defending criminals.

The fact is that, ultimately, the minimum sentence may not even be imposed by the court, because the court, as a general rule, will give more than that, and that is what we want. Look at the bill dealing with child kidnapping—it was clear from the case law that was brought before the committee that the average sentence exceeded the minimum sentence that the Conservatives wanted to impose.

Basically, this is mostly just smoke and mirrors; however, in some cases, it can lead to some strange outcomes. This is why there are constitutional challenges. With a constitutional challenge, all you need is one case that is flawed, that does not fit the minimum sentence formula, for the provision to be struck down; it will then be sent back here for us to do over again. That is one of the problems.

Obviously, the NDP supported Bill C-26 at second reading. We took our work seriously and sought the extra information we needed, even though the bill is far from perfect and is not necessarily the type of bill we would introduce. I think our analysis would be more thorough. Indeed, offenders need to be punished, but we must also ensure that the people who leave prison are not a danger to the public. Earlier, the Liberal member mentioned the circles of change program. In committee we learned that the program had a 70% to 80% success rate. Who would scoff at that? None other than the Conservative government, because it does not want to talk about that type of thing.

The government just wants to talk about things that create the impression that it is dealing with criminals. Of course, we are all against criminals.

When I return to my riding at the end of the day and talk to the people of Gatineau, because I like to connect with my community, I tell them I am proud of the work we did that week. In this case, we passed a victims bill of rights and we worked on a bill to deal with sexual predators. I would just like to add, for once in my life, that I am sure that this will be useful.

In any case, I can tell them I tried very hard in committee to have the government listen to reason, not to defend criminals, but to ensure that the bill will withstand the constitutional challenges that will test it in the coming years, that it is consistent with other bills, and that it achieves its objectives.

The government claims to be helping victims with the victims bill of rights, but they need real rights, as I said in my speech. The right to lodge a complaint cannot be hypothetical. The government brings in minimum penalties but it is cutting resources for police officers—the ones who catch criminals and bring them to justice. The justice system is crying for help, and we are in need of judges and crown prosecutors. How does this make any sense?

I weep for victims because they will never get the services they need. That will not change, even in one, two or three years. What is even sadder is that they will have been promised the world. It is even more disappointing when they are told that something will be fixed.

As for the registry, people from the RCMP have told us that they already have a hard time keeping criminal cases and criminal records up to date. The member for Langley presented a petition earlier regarding impaired driving. I agree that we still have a long way to go. When we hear in the papers that someone was convicted for the sixth time, we have to wonder how that can be possible. However, these situations happen because nothing is written in the records of these repeat offenders, even though everyone knows that they have been to court six times and that this is not their first conviction.

Civil and criminal justice need to be consistent. There needs to be some follow-up. The bill gives the governor in council the power to make regulations by establishing the criteria for determining whether a person who is found guilty of a sexual offence against a child poses a high risk of committing a crime of a sexual nature; and, in subclause (b), by prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by this act. This means that this legislation retains some harmful legal grey areas.

This is moving too fast even for the people at the Department of Justice. I asked them what impact Bill S-2 would have. People like me who follow justice issues know that this was the bill concerning statutory instruments and how to enact regulations. We all know that a law is one thing, but that three-quarters of the obligations are set out in the regulations.

When the government tells us that the Governor in Council, namely cabinet, will be establishing the criteria, that tells us who is going to be making the decisions and that we will not know exactly when and how those decisions will be made. I asked them whether Bill S-2 would apply since we are talking about delegation and regulation by reference. That means that we would not even have a separate list of criteria. The answer that I got from the expert at the Department of Justice was that he did not know and that he would check.

That means that the government is not making connections between its various bills. I got an answer today, just a few hours before I rose in the House for the debate, and I was told that, yes, Bill S-2 would apply.

There are ramifications, and I get the impression that we will be forced to revisit many of these bills. However, as it now stands, Bill C-26 is unfortunately a lot of talk, just like the Canadian victims bill of rights. As one of the victims, Mr. Gilhooly, so aptly stated, even if the bill were passed as it stands, it would not change what he experienced in any way.

Once again, the government is misleading victims by giving them the impression that it is tough on crime and imposing law and order, but in the end, the law will not be enforced.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. This important and timely legislation, as many of our colleagues have said, fills important gaps in Canadian law relating to threats to our national security. This bill is comprehensive and would address, among other things, improved information sharing so that national security and law enforcement agencies can more effectively share information relating to threats, and improved security for air transportation. It would also strengthen the tools available to our intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would help prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist threats and activities. There are two important prevention measures in the bill that I would like to speak to today, namely, the terrorist propaganda seizure and take-down powers. Prevention can come in various forms, and this legislation has a number of measures that would support this pillar, including improved information sharing.

As we all know, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. As we have seen in Copenhagen, Brussels, Sydney, Paris, and even right here at home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa, jihadi terrorists are attempting to destroy the values that make Canada the best country in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Clearly, Canada is not immune to homegrown terrorist threats. Therefore, the legislation before us today also includes, in support of the terrorism prevention pillar, measures to address the radicalization of these homegrown threats.

Bill C-51 proposes two provisions that would address the proliferation and availability of terrorist propaganda that can contribute to the radicalization of our youth and turn them toward terrorism. These new powers would complement the proposed indictable offence of promoting and advocating the commission of terrorism offences in general.

Specifically, the proposal is to create two warrants that would allow for the seizure of terrorist propaganda. “Terrorist propaganda” would be defined to mean any writing, sign, visible representation, or audio recording that advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general—other than the proposed new offence of advocating terrorism offences, which I just mentioned—or counsels the commission of a terrorism offence. The effect of this change would be to authorize courts to order the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist propaganda material, whether in a tangible form, such as a poster, or in electronic form, such as a website.

Currently there exists a shocking gap. The Criminal Code does not presently authorize the confiscation of terrorist propaganda produced for sale or distribution in Canada, or that is stored on or made available by a Canadian server. The first new warrant would be similar to the provision in the Criminal Code governing the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda in a hard-copy format, such as in books or magazines.

Terrorist use of websites and social media to recruit and radicalize youth to violence is a growing concern. Currently, police can only ask that a website host voluntarily remove the material, which would usually only occur after a conviction. However, when the person who posted the material cannot be found because they are abroad or have posted it anonymously, the removal of such offensive material is very difficult, and it may be available to the public for some time thereafter.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, proposes to authorize a court to order the removal of terrorist propaganda from Canadian Internet services, even when the person who posted it cannot be found. This proposed power is similar to ones that already exist for other materials that Parliament has deemed harmful, such as hate propaganda, child pornography, voyeuristic material, and most recently with the passage of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, intimate images.

Some of these provisions have been in the Criminal Code since 2002 and help facilitate the removal of such harmful content from Canadian Internet services, which in turn limits Canadian exposure to such harmful content.

Courts must have the power to order the removal of such terrorist propaganda when posted online. That is exactly what this new take-down provision is designed to accomplish. Under this new provision, judges may order both the person who posted the terrorist propaganda and the Internet service provider to remove the material that is terrorist propaganda. It is focused only on the removal of the material that is available to the public, so that even in the absence of a prosecution, police will still be able to remove this material from Canadian servers.

As I mentioned earlier, these types of warrants are not new to the Criminal Code. They are also not new to the international community. For example, the United Kingdom has had similar powers in place since 2006, and Australia provides for the takedown of restricted online material, such as terrorist propaganda, through its Broadcasting Services Act.

As an additional complementary amendment to these new tools, Bill C-51 also proposes changing the customs tariff to include the new concept of terrorist propaganda. This change would ensure that Canada Border Services Agency officers would be authorized to inspect and seize terrorist propaganda material.

These new tools are not only complementary to the proposed new offence of advocating and promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, but they are also consistent with Parliament's past approach relating to content that we have deemed harmful to Canadian society.

As I have said, these tools are designed to help address the radicalization of Canadian youth toward violence by assisting in the removal of terrorist propaganda material. I would like to quote Avi Benlolo, the president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, who says:

It is especially significant that this new legislation will enable the removal of websites promoting jihad and related materials on the internet. Jewish communities are a favourite target of jihadis, and the provisions of this bill will do a great deal to help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians as we continue to fight this threat to western democracies.

I hope that all members of the House heed these words and support these proposals in Bill C-51 as a positive step toward making Canada and the world a safer place.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act.

There were a lot of consultations, including in my own riding of Edmonton Centre. As we all know, the bill does propose significant changes to Canadian criminal law.

It is thanks to some great work of the tireless staff in the Department of Justice, people like Pam Arnott, working closely with the Minister of Justice, who have brought the bill to the House. Most important, the bill would create the Canadian victims bill of rights to enshrine enforceable rights of victims of crime in federal law for the first time.

These rights fall into four main areas.

The right to information would give victims the right to general information about the criminal justice system, available victim services and programs, as well as specific information about the progress of the case, including information related to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The right to protection would give victims the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, have reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation and retaliation, and to request their identity to be protected from public disclosure.

The right to participation would give victims the right to convey their views about decisions to be made by criminal justice professionals and have them considered at various stages in the criminal justice process, and to present a victim impact statement.

The right to restitution would give victims the right to have the court consider making a restitution order for all offences for which there are easy to calculate financial losses.

In addition, the bill would amend other legislation, such as the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide greater specificity to those rights.

Bill C-32 is the most recent example of our government's commitment to improving the experiences of victims of crime. Because of the transformative nature of these reforms and the significant impact they will have on the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system, the Canadian victims bill of rights is a milestone in the quest for justice for victims of crime.

This government has long been aware of the need to do more for victims of crime. Indeed, it has been one of our top priorities. Since 2006, we have designated more than $140 million to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We have seen the results of this investment in concrete terms, such as through the creation of more than 20 child advocacy centres across Canada that help children and their families navigate the justice system.

We have also undertaken a robust legislative agenda that has included many reforms benefiting victims of crime. These have included Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which reformed the victims surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code; Bill C-14, Not criminally Responsible Reform Act, which addressed the needs of victims accused persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder; and, most recent, Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, to address cyberbullying.

While we are proud of everything we have done for victims of crime, the victims bill of rights is truly a significant achievement. Ensuring the rights of victims at the federal level recognizes the difficulty that victims can experience as they participate in the criminal justice and corrections systems. It would provide concrete means to ensure that the needs of victims would be respected.

The rights enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights and the amendments to the other acts that are included in Bill C-32 would apply to all victims of crime.

However, some of the proposed provisions would have special significance for vulnerable victims, such as victims of sexual offences, and that is where I would like to focus my attention today.

Bill C-32 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code scheme that governs the production of third party records. To be clear, this scheme applies to documents of all kinds for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and which are being sought as evidence in criminal trials involving sexual offences. The proposed amendments are consistent with the rights of victims to privacy and security, which would be enshrined in the Canadian victims bill of rights.

Four amendments are proposed to the third party records regime.

First, the amendments would ensure that all historical sexual offences would be included within the procedures governing the release of third party records by replacing the current list of historical sexual offences with a general description to ensure that all victims of sexual offences would be protected by this scheme.

Second, the period of time for which an accused must serve their application for the production of third party records would be doubled from 7 to 14 days.

Third, the court would be required to inform the complainant or witness of their right to be represented by independent legal counsel during the in camera process.

Finally, a court would be required to consider the right to personal security of a complainant or witness when determining whether to produce a record for inspection by the court or whether to produce the record to the accused. This would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in this area.

Bill C-32 also includes a number of amendments that specifically address the needs of victims of sexual offences when they testify as witnesses in criminal proceedings. The benefits of testimonial aids, such as support persons, use of a screen that spares the witness from seeing the accused, or testimony outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television, are well documented.

Bill C-32 would make testimonial aids more readily available for adult vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, by providing the courts with greater discretion to determine whether to order their use. Currently such testimonial aids may be ordered for adults when a court determines that they are necessary for the witness to provide a full and candid account. Amendments proposed in Bill C-32 would allow a court to make such orders for adult witnesses, including victims of sexual offences, when they believe it would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account. The language is important here.

Additionally, a court would be required to consider the security and protection of the witness, and society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and witness protection in the criminal justice system, when deciding whether to order a testimonial aid.

The Criminal Code provision governing the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of a witness when the accused is self-represented would also be amended to benefit victims of sexual offences. The amendment would presumptively prohibit a self-represented accused from personally cross-examining a victim of sexual assault, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires it. This presumptive approach is currently the case with victims of sexual harassment, and recognizes that victims of certain crimes are more vulnerable while they participate in the criminal justice process.

A victim's right to privacy and protection under the Canadian victims bill of rights would also be supported by amendments to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code, which governs publication bans for adults. Currently a judge may order a publication ban for an adult victim or witness, if the order is deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. Bill C-32 would allow a court to order a publication ban for adult victims and witnesses when it is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Once again, the language is important.

When determining whether to order a publication ban, the court will consider factors, including whether the witness can suffer harm, rather than significant harm, as is currently required, if their identity were disclosed. These amendments would be particularly beneficial to victims of sexual offences, who are often more vulnerable due to the nature of the offence.

This bill has been thoroughly examined by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The standing committee held nine days of meetings and heard evidence on many critical aspects of the bill. It has also been the subject of comprehensive debate in the House of Commons. In fact, this bill has enjoyed the support of all parties, at all critical stages of parliamentary consideration. There has never been any question in anyone's mind on both sides of the House about the need to recognize victims of crime and the positive and long-reaching impacts that this bill will have on their experiences in the criminal justice system.

The time has come for this House to conclude our study and debate of this bill. I hope that all parties will work with us as we ensure that this landmark piece of legislation is passed as swiftly as possible. For too long, victims have voiced the concern that their perspectives have not been heard. This government has made a commitment to improve this situation, and has in fact made significant progress in improving rights and services to victims through many legislative and program initiatives.

Victims have waited a long time for this bill. Let us not make them wait any longer.

[Daniel Therrien]

I reiterate what I answered to Madam Nash, namely, yes, C-13 and S-4 on the issue of warrantless access to information create challenges and issues.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Regina v. Spencer is extremely useful and sets good parameters. I think it would be useful to go a step further and to further clarify lawful authority with a combination of the decision of the Supreme Court in Spencer plus a clarification of the circumstances where government can collect without warrant when there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. I think that would be a reasonable regime.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

The combination of C-13 and S-4, the impact of both of those pieces of legislation will be fairly significant, from what I understand.

Do you have any additional concerns over what you have mentioned specific to S-4 once those two are combined?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

S-213, An Act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day—Chapter 30.

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—Chapter 31.

C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 32.

S-1001, An Act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Consumer Protection.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the optimistically titled drug-free prisons act.

Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole boards to cancel day parole or full parole if an offender failed a drug test or refused to provide a urine sample and if the board then considered that the criteria for granting parole were no longer met. As the law currently establishes, urine samples may be demanded on reasonable grounds as part of a random selection or as a prescribed requirement of a particular program, such as a substance abuse treatment program.

Bill C-12 would also clarify that conditions of parole or other forms of release may include conditions relating to an offender's use of drugs or alcohol. The imposition of such conditions would explicitly include cases where drug or alcohol use had been a factor in the offender's criminal behaviour.

The Liberals will be recommending that this bill go to committee for further study. However, I would like to reiterate the criticisms that my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, levelled at this bill over a year ago.

First, we would all like to see drug-free prisons, yet Bill C-12 takes an exclusively punitive approach to substance abuse in Canada's correctional facilities. Does anyone think this will be effective?

In his 2011-12 annual report, Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, made the following observation:

A “zerotolerance” stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving as an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world. Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and victimization.

Mr. Sapers' report specifically stated:

—that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures -- prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction.

In 2012, the Conservative government re-appointed Mr. Sapers, giving him his third consecutive term. Accordingly, one might be tempted to think that the government would take the advice of its chosen adviser. After all, Mr. Sapers' recommendations were the product of careful and politically impartial analysis. Efficacy was the sole motivator.

Why does the Conservative government not listen to the highly qualified individuals who have been hired to give good advice and who are motivated solely by the desire to give good advice?

When Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien suggested splitting Bill C-13 into two bills, the government ignored him. When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court tried to warn the government about its legal problem with appointments from the federal court, the government ignored her. We all remember that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice even went so far as to slander the Chief Justice for trying to save them from themselves. This is a worrying trend, although I do not expect the government to take my advice, either.

In this instance, ignoring the Correctional Investigator is stunning, or as my Newfoundland colleagues may say, “stunned”. Howard Sapers was vice-chairperson for the Prairie Region with the Parole Board of Canada, director of the Crime Prevention Investment Fund at the National Crime Prevention Centre and executive director of the John Howard Society of Alberta. He served two terms as an elected member of the Alberta legislative assembly, including as leader of the official opposition. He is also an adjunct professor School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, and he has served as president of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. That is whose advice the government is ignoring.

Instead of taking that advice, the government is opting for a purely punitive strategy. Yes, the government's only solution to drug use in prisons is to keep more people in prisons for longer periods of time. As Kyle Kirkup wrote in the The Globe and Mail, the government's thinking on criminal justice is summed up by the slogan “Got a complex social issue? There’s a prison for that”.

I suppose this should come as no surprise. Bill C-12 is business as usual for the Conservatives. It is strong on rhetoric and weak on policy.

The government consistently prioritizes optics over substance, Orwellian sound bites over logic and it does Canadians a great disservice. We see it with mandatory minimums. We see it with the failure to use evidence to formulate public policy. In its eagerness to appear tough on crime, the government goes soft on thinking.

Last year, Mr. Sapers shared some deeply troubling statistics with Canadians. His report indicated that Canada's prison population is now at its highest level ever, even though the crime rate has been decreasing over the past two decades.

About three out of four offenders in federal penitentiaries are considered to have addictions, and a very high percentage of those addicts also have mental health issues. Given the context, this new bill's punitive approach is clearly unjustified.

Further, close to a quarter of all inmates are aboriginal, although aboriginal people make up only 4% of Canada's population. In the past decade, the number of aboriginal women in prison has increased by 112%. Aboriginal inmates are also subject to use-of-force interventions and incur a disproportionate number of institutional disciplinary measures. In addition, aboriginal inmates are typically released later in their sentences—80% by statutory release—and are less likely to be granted day parole or full parole.

Still, here we have a bill that does nothing to address the historical injustice and resultant social problems that aboriginal people are grappling with today. Instead, this bill would effectively lock up aboriginal inmates struggling with addictions for longer periods of time.

The issues plaguing aboriginal communities are reported in the newspaper, and we know those are available in this chamber. Therefore, ask, when is the government going to address the problems facing aboriginal communities?

I am disappointed by the government's approach, but I am not surprised. Just a couple of weeks ago we saw what the government did with Bill C-583, the bill from the member for Yukon, that would have made fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, a mitigating factor in sentencing. Of course, FASD disproportionately affects aboriginal and northern communities. Bill C-583 was a bill that both the Liberals and the New Democrats were ready to support, yet the member for Yukon agreed to turn the bill into a study, killing his own proposal. One could reasonably infer that the government pressured the member to do this rather than risk being seen—Heaven forbid—as soft on persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. However, I digress.

Speaking of this bill, we need to consider what the correctional investigator said in his 2013-14 report. Specifically, he was critical of the government's continued refusal to develop a comprehensive program. I emphasize the word “comprehensive”. To respond to continued drug use in penitentiaries, he said:

Interdiction and suppression in the absence of a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention and harm reduction measures will not eliminate the demand (or supply) of contraband drugs or alcohol.

Mr. Sapers also criticized how the government had undermined a key correctional services program on addiction, specifically, its 10% funding cut to the prison methadone program. Mr. Sapers said:

I question the appropriateness of reducing investment in a program that delivers sound public policy benefits from both a health and public safety standpoint.

I could not say it better, and I would strongly urge the government to heed the advice of its chosen advisers by developing a more comprehensive strategy than what this punitive bill represents.

Again, Mr. Sapers set out what that strategy would look like. It would involve an integrated link between interdiction and prevention, treatment and harm reduction. It would involve a comprehensive public reporting mechanism and would involve a well defined evaluation, review and performance plan to ensure efficacy.

Finally, when the bill goes to committee, I would especially urge the government to take seriously any constructive proposals for amendments that emerge. We currently have a punitive bill that would not solve the drug problem in Canada's prisons and that would exacerbate aboriginal incarceration rates. Frankly, we need to do better, and we can do better.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm concerned that this bill will allow government and/or bureaucrats to do something indirectly that they can't do directly. I'll tell you why I'm concerned about that. We've had before this committee Bill C-13, the cyberbullying bill. The cyberbullying bill proposed to codify an immunity for telecoms that lawfully cooperated with police. This came about after a failed attempt to try to get warrantless access. So when it looked like the government wasn't going to be able to get warrantless access, they gave an immunity to the telecoms and then through another statute broadened the group of people to whom that would apply. So instead of going directly at it they found another way.

Here's where I'm coming from. If the government or bureaucrats want to see a change that they may not be able to get through a more rigorous route like the joint scrutiny of regulations committee, like the normal legislative process, they can find a way to have a body that has available to it open incorporation by reference and to put it through that way. Do you understand my concern?

[Daniel Therrien]

Ultimately my concern with respect to Bill C-13 is that although the Supreme Court decision in Spencer clarified many things, it could not and did not clarify every issue raised by this bill. My concern is that the Canadian population will be in the dark as to the level of protection of the information that they put on the Internet.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

So you're uniquely placed to understand security issues with regard to sharing information. I find it particularly ridiculous and unacceptable that you couldn't appear in front of the a committee discussing these very issues. You are, sir, the expert in this country on these issues and yet we did not allow you to appear in front of committee.

Now I'm going to tie this, because my Conservative colleagues are no doubt getting hot under the collar, to the budget. The reality is that if certain pieces of legislation are fundamentally unconstitutional that creates an incredible burden on your office. Was this part of your worries with regard to Bill C-34 and Bill C-13?

[Daniel Therrien]

First on the question of security and privacy, I'll just say that ultimately I think it's possible to have both, and that position informs quite a few comments that I have made, whether it's about Bill C-13 or Bill C-44. I think security is obviously very important, and legislators should act to protect the public, but it is possible to have both security and privacy and not one at the cost of the other.

As to the question of my overall resources, if I understand correctly, and whether there are enough resources to do the job, with all the tasks, obviously there are important work pressures that we're facing. My starting point on the question of whether we have sufficient resources is, of course, that I will try very much to achieve our mandate within the budgets allocated to Parliament because, of course, these moneys come from taxpayers and I want very much to be able to achieve our goals within these budgets.

That being said, there are important work pressures, and I'll just name a few. First of all, the number of complaints that are made under the Privacy Act and PIPEDA is growing continually. The government has an ambitious policy agenda, which means that we're called upon to comment on legislation, but also we're called upon to make comments to departments on the proposed procedures and policies. The rapid evolution of technologies in the private sector also, of course, creates privacy risks that we have to react to. As I've indicated to your colleague, it's important to ensure that individuals are able to exercise control over their information, which implies that we have an important public education role that is part of our role. So these are the work pressures.

At this point, I would say that I'm still assessing, frankly, whether we have enough to achieve all of these objectives, but I will try as much as possible to do that. In part, what is at play, given the work pressures, is that we have to be constantly looking for new and efficient methods to do our work. This is something that the OPC has done over the years, and we're still very much in that mode. For instance, investigations, which constitute roughly 50% of our work, are the subject of more efficient processes, for instance, that use early resolution as opposed to a full-fledged investigation into complaints. We're trying to have more efficient methods, and this is working. Productivity is up, there are more files being closed in the office than ever before, but unfortunately, the growth in complaints exceeds the growth in our productivity. That's an issue we have to tackle.

In particular, the number of complaints made under the Privacy Act is growing. Our response times to these complaints is also growing because of the phenomenon I was describing: the growth in complaints exceeds the growth in productivity. In early 2015, we will launch an audit into the activities of that branch to see whether it could be possible to be even more efficient than we are currently.

Essentially, there are important work pressures. My objective is to work within the budget that was given to me. At this point I'm not asking for additional moneys. If I come to a different view, I will let you know.

[Daniel Therrien]

We have recommended essentially four types of amendments to Bill C-13.

One issue is related to the question of thresholds that I mentioned earlier. The bill currently proposes that access to information under production orders would be on the basis of reasonable suspicion. We recommend that it be on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe. I think that if it stays at the level of reasonable suspicion, this threshold is vulnerable to charter challenge.

The second issue is the immunity clause I also referred to earlier. Here I recommend that the law be clarified so that only in circumstances provided for in Spencer would the state have access to information.

A third type of amendment has to do with the range of public officers who would be authorized to act under Bill C-13. We propose that the range be narrowed significantly.

Fourth, to enhance transparency, we recommend that the use of these powers be the subject of reporting.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

Also, congratulations, Commissioner, on your appointment.

I want to follow my line of questioning, in line with where Ms. Borg was going.

First on Bill C-13, you have previously indicated that you were uncomfortable with many parts of the legislation and felt that it should perhaps be split into two bills. Despite those reservations, the legislation has now moved on to the Senate. What amendments would you make to make the bill more acceptable? You also mentioned in your earlier comments that you thought certain aspects might be unconstitutional. What aspects of the bill do you feel are potentially unconstitutional?

[Daniel Therrien]

If the standard of proof I spoke about—that is, if the reasonable grounds to suspect remain—that would certainly lead to constitutional challenges. There would also be a certain ambiguity or uncertainty for awhile, until the courts make a ruling in that respect. I think that the courts will deem this standard unconstitutional. So there will be some ambiguity or uncertainty during that period.

The other issue that Bill C-13 raises is the immunity clause. Under that clause, telecommunications companies, and others, that voluntarily provide information upon request by the government would be protected by the immunity clause when they provide information that should be protected pursuant to Spencer.

Will the communicated information be shared because it represents a reasonable invasion of privacy? There is some ambiguity there and, until the courts have ruled on these two issues in particular, Canadians will be pretty much in the dark for a certain period of time.

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

I would like to come back to Bill C-13 and Bill S-4.

If these two bills remain unchanged, are you afraid they will raise legal issues? Will it have any impact on your office? Will it make your work difficult?

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

Great. Thank you very much.

Many bills address privacy, including Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Bill C-44 does not deal directly with privacy, but it expands the mandate of CSIS.

Are you concerned about the lack of parliamentary or civilian oversight related to expanding CSIS' mandate?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Therrien, I would like to thank you for your testimony. I would also like to welcome all my new committee colleagues, since this is the first time we are meeting.

In your speech, you said that there are a number of challenges when it comes to privacy. The digital world is constantly changing. The Supreme Court ruling in Spencer is a prime example. You have already underlined that adjustments should be made to the Canadian legislation, particularly with respect to Bill C-13 and Bill S-4.

Could you please provide more detail about your perspective on this matter and tell us what you think the government should do to reduce the ambiguities that followed from the Supreme Court ruling?

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, this government will not apologize for wanting to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: children. We kept our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from bullying, including cyberbullying, by introducing legislation to combat online crime.

Bill C-13 did not create new police powers to access telecommunications data without a judicial warrant. Judicial oversight prevails and we are protecting our children.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-26.

Each day, in Canada, children are the victims of sexual abuse. It causes unimaginable devastation to their lives and it causes lifelong emotional turmoil that profoundly affects victims well into adulthood.

Our government pledged to protect Canadians and keep them safe, especially the most vulnerable among us: our children. This legislation is one way we are fulfilling that promise.

The proposed new measures would help better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography. Furthermore, they would help ensure that offenders receive sentences that better reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

Over the summer and fall of last year, the Minister of Justice met with Canadians across the country. In those meetings, there was one central theme: victims wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and sentences that truly reflect the crime committed. Today, this legislation illustrates that we listened and that we are delivering for Canadians.

For example, we are seeking an end to sentence discounts for multiple child sexual offences. Sexual predators would receive sentences that take into account each young life that they have devastated.

The legislation would also ensure that those sentenced at the same time for child pornography and for contact child sexual offences, especially those who have victimized more than one child, would serve their sentences consecutively—in other words, one after another.

In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction. These sentences are based on what is referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one after another for multiple convictions when the offences are unrelated, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions.

The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentencing predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it offers little guidance to courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct a court to consider ordering, where applicable, that the sentences it imposes be served consecutive to a sentence of imprisonment that the offender is subject to at the time of sentencing. Where the court sentences the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events be served consecutively.

Bill C-26 would also increase minimum and maximum penalties for certain child sexual offences, and there would be increases in the maximum penalties for violations of supervision orders. Canadians want those who violate the conditions of their probation orders, prohibition orders, and peace bonds held to account.

Moreover, these measures would ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could also be required to testify in court.

Under the Canada Evidence Act and under common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, the spouse of a person accused of most offences cannot testify for the prosecution, even if they want to, as they are not competent, and they cannot be forced to testify against their spouse, as they are not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules, permitting spousal testimony for most child sexual offences and for offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences.

The amendments proposed through this bill would also add child pornography, section 163.1, to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, subsection 4(2), making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These changes are necessary and have been long in coming. Statistics tell us so, but more so the stories of victims. A report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed that in 2012 more than 3,900 sexual offences against children were reported to police in Canada. That is an increase of 3% from 2011.

As a society, we must do what it takes to protect our children and help them heal. Today, we are standing up for the vulnerable and showing them that their voices are being heard in our justice system. This legislation is in keeping with our commitments in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to punish those who break the law, to match penalties to the severity of the crimes, and to ensure that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It follows up on our previous actions, through legislation such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, to better protect our children.

Our government also recognizes that bullying and cyberbullying are serious concerns for many Canadian families and communities, and we are committed to doing everything we can to protect our children. That is why, last year, we acted to protect children and other vulnerable Canadians from this degrading behaviour by introducing Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Our government has also provided funding to create and enhance child advocacy centres across the country to help young victims and witnesses cope with the trauma they have experienced and to better navigate the often-complicated criminal justice system.

Despite our differences in this chamber, I believe we can all agree that nothing is more reprehensible than harming a child. Our government is deeply committed to strengthening the justice system to ensure that sexual offenders who prey on children are punished to the fullest extent of the law. Bill C-26 would send a signal that we as a society do not accept this kind of behaviour in our communities, and it would allow the justice system to better respond to the needs of child victims and their families.

In reviewing speeches from my hon. colleagues across the way, I understand that they have some concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. That said, they have agreed that this bill should go to the committee for further study, and I could not agree more. I hope that the opposition will work with us in giving this bill a thorough examination. I believe, at the end of the day, we can mend our differences for the sake of our children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act. However, I must say that although I fully support this bill, I do so with sadness, because like every member of this House, I wish it were not necessary, but unfortunately it is.

We discussed earlier the statistics from Juristat, which describe the problem. Over 3,900 sexual violations against children were reported to police in 2012, which was an increase of 3% from 2011, and the same increase was seen from 2010 to 2011. There were approximately 33,000 sex offenders on the National Sex Offender Registry, of which approximately 22,000 had a conviction for a child sex offence as of October 2013.

This is very unfortunate. It is the one type of crime in Canada that continues to increase year by year.

I was told by Karyn Kennedy, the executive director of the Boost child advocacy centre in Toronto, an agency that is doing fantastic work to assist child and youth victims of sexual offences, that they cannot keep up with the demand. They opened a centre a year ago expecting to have about 1,400 cases in that year, and they had almost double that number during that period.

It is an endemic problem. It may be fuelled in part by the availability of the Internet and the ease of luring and abusing children over the Internet. Unfortunately, it is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated against the most vulnerable people in our society, and we must all take action to do whatever we can to reduce and eliminate it.

This bill reflects the ongoing efforts of the government to protect our children from sexual exploitation. My remarks today will focus on the bill's proposals to ensure that the sentences imposed for child sexual offences adequately reflect the appropriate level of denunciation and deterrence.

We know that children are far more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than are adults. It is worrisome to see that the trend is increasing. One of the factors contributing to this trend in recent years has been the Internet, which has expanded the reach of sexual predators to the globe with a click of a button.

The justice committee heard considerable evidence of the use of the Internet to lure, exploit, and sexually bully children during its study of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. The proposed reforms to our Criminal Code and our new investigative powers in that bill are necessary to protect children, as are the provisions in the bill before us.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection is an impressive organization that has, since 2004, received support from the federal government as part of the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. It delivers programs to increase the personal safety of children and reduce their risk of sexual exploitation. These programs include education and prevention, research, and the coordination of national efforts on child protection with the private sector, government, and law enforcement.

It also operates cybertip.ca, Canada's national 24/7 tip line for reporting online child sexual exploitation. As noted on its website, between September 2002 and June 2010, cybertip.ca received 39,783 reports of online child sexual exploitation, 90% of which were for child pornography offences. These numbers paint a horrifying picture that clearly demonstrates that we must do more to stop child sexual exploitation, including by online predators. The proposed amendments contained in this bill would assist in achieving this objective by ensuring that sentences handed down would properly denounce and deter all forms of child sexual exploitation.

Bill C-26 proposes to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for nine existing child sexual offences as well as increase the maximum penalties for 16 existing child sexual offences. For example, the maximum penalty for section 171.1 of the Criminal Code, making sexually explicit material available to a child for the purpose of facilitating the sexual abuse of the child, would increase from two years of imprisonment on indictment to 14 years of imprisonment, with a corresponding increase in the mandatory minimum penalty from 90 days to six months imprisonment.

The offences of making child pornography, subsection 163.1(2), and distributing child pornography, subsection 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code would be converted from hybrid offences to indictable offences, and the maximum penalties would increase from 10 to 14 years.

As well, the maximum penalties on indictment for luring a child on the Internet, section 172.1 of the code, and for an agreement or arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child through the use of telecommunications, section 172.2 of the code, will increase from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. These are serious crimes, and this bill will ensure that they receive serious penalties.

This bill goes further to ensure that the objective of these amendments, to impose penalties that properly reflect the seriousness of the offence, is not defeated through sentence discounts for offenders sentenced at the same time for multiple child sexual offences.

Courts have, over time, developed rules to assist sentencing judges in the determination of whether sentences should be served concurrently, at the same time, or consecutively, that is, served one after the other. The general rule is that offences committed as part of the same transaction or same event should be served concurrently. For instance, an offender who sexually abuses a child and also makes a permanent record of that abuse by making child pornography should in theory be ordered to serve two sentences concurrently. Where an offender is sentenced at the same time for offences that are not committed as part of the same transaction, those sentences are normally served consecutively.

However, sometimes it happens that an offender is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences committed against different children, that is, committed as separate events. There have been a number of notorious serial child sex offenders whose crimes have come to light in much later years and were then tried together. Those offenders sometimes get a sentence discount through sentences that are imposed concurrent to each other rather than consecutively. Such an approach, in my view, sends a message, in the case of multiple victims, that not every victim counts. That is unfortunate.

Increasingly, however, sentencing courts are recognizing that consecutive sentences are warranted in certain cases of child sexual exploitation. These situations include, for example, where the offender has sexually abused a child, made child pornographic recordings of that abuse, and then disseminated those images worldwide via the Internet.

Imposing consecutive sentences in these circumstances, as some courts have already done, recognizes the reality that once such images are distributed, they will forever be available on the Internet and that the child depicted in those images will be revictimized every time the images are viewed.

For these reasons, Bill C-26 proposes to codify this growing practice by requiring courts that are sentencing an offender at the same time for child pornography and child sexual abuse to impose consecutive sentences for these offences.

The bill would also require a sentencing court to consider imposing consecutive sentences on an offender who is sentenced at the same time for sexual offences against multiple child victims; that is, the sentence imposed for child sexual offences committed against one child would be served consecutive, meaning one after the other, to the sentence imposed for sexual offences committed against another child.

Those are all important and welcome steps to ensure that all child sexual offenders are held fully accountable for their crimes. This bill will treat each victim equally and with dignity. This bill will end volume discounts for serial child sexual offenders.

This bill will also look beyond the sentence and seek to enhance community safety where the offender is released into the community under a prohibition order, under section 161; a probation order, under section 731; or a peace bond, under 810.1 of the Criminal Code.

A sentencing court must consider imposing a prohibition order on an offender convicted of a child sexual assault offence. Probation orders, under section 731, can be imposed on offenders who are sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment. Peace bonds can be imposed where there is a reasonable fear that the person will commit a child sexual offence, which is under section 810.1 of the Criminal Code.

Many experts tell us that most, if not all, child sexual offenders can never be rehabilitated, that once they have this problem, this issue, this proclivity, there is really nothing that can be done to ensure that they do not have that proclivity in the future. There are people, unfortunately, in our society who must always be under some kind of probation order or watch and must be listed on an offender registry so that Canadians can keep their children safe.

All of these orders can impose conditions restricting the offender's contact with children and use of the Internet or other digital networks with a view to preventing the offender from committing a child sexual offence.

The Criminal Code currently provides for a maximum penalty on indictment of two years' imprisonment for breaches of the supervision orders. Given that they are crucial in protecting our children from sexual offenders, including from recidivists, the bill proposes to increase the penalty for a breach of these orders to a maximum term of imprisonment on indictment of four years.

The bill also proposes to impose consistent penalties for breaches of these orders when prosecuted summarily. There have been many cases, unfortunately, of child sexual offenders who, on release and on some form of probation, then committed a second, third, or fourth subsequent offence, and that is problem we are trying to address with these provisions in Bill C-26.

Currently, breaches of peace bonds and prohibition orders are both punished on summary conviction by a maximum fine of $5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both. Yet breaches of probation orders are punishable on summary conviction by a maximum fine of $2,000 or 18 months' imprisonment, or both.

To ensure the harmonization of the penalties for breaches of these supervision orders, the bill would provide that the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breaches would be 18 months' imprisonment or $5,000, or both.

The last element I wish to touch upon is the amendment to the proposed Canada Evidence Act. The Canada Evidence Act provides that the spouse of a person accused of most offences can neither testify for the prosecution nor be forced to testify against the spouse. However, there are exceptions to this rule for most child sexual offences, but not, unfortunately, in the case of child pornography offences.

In child pornography cases, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. That is why the amendments proposed in this bill would make the spouse competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution in cases of child pornography.

There are a number of other provisions that I think are very important in the bill that I would like everyone listening to know about. The bill would also establish a publicly accessible database of high-risk child sexual offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. It would assist in ensuring the safety of our communities.

In addition, the bill would provide for legislation to enable information-sharing, on certain registered sex offenders, between officials responsible for the National Sex Offender Registry and those with the Canada Border Services Agency so that foreign nations may be notified when these types of offenders are travelling to other jurisdictions.

Finally, Bill C-26 would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad. We want to protect not only children in Canada but children around the world, and unfortunately, there are those in our society who would leave our borders to find victims around the world. Canada will live up to its international obligation to protect children around the world by ensuring that high-risk child sexual offenders notify the Canada Border Services Agency when they intend to travel abroad.

The heinous nature of sexual crimes committed against children, especially the online sexual exploitation of children, requires all of us in this chamber to support the proposed amendments contained in the bill. I was gratified to hear a few moments ago that my friends in the NDP will be supporting the bill to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study. I look forward to working with them at the justice committee to study the bill and ensure that it addresses the needs of the children we are trying to protect in Canada.

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

Digital Privacy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech with great interest. He seems to be very concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. That is something we should all be concerned about.

However, when it came time to vote, the Liberal Party supported Bill C-13. I am perplexed. They seem to be saying one thing but voting another. Can the member clarify whether the Liberals plan to support Bill S-4? They are saying one thing now, but will they change their minds when it is time to vote?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill S-4 this afternoon.

It is an important piece of legislation, as it at least attempts to deal with an issue that many Canadians are quite concerned about. They see the merit of the government introducing legislation on how Canadians can be protected. However, there is also a great deal of concern about the manner in which the Conservative government, as it has in the past, appears to be attempting to overstep concerns related to privacy and protecting the privacy of Canadians.

We have before us Bill S-4 this afternoon. It attempts to deal with and expand warrantless access to subscribers' data. This is an issue which can no doubt be exceptionally controversial. It is something that needs to have more consultation and work with the different stakeholders so that we do not make mistakes.

As suggested in the bill's title, this bill has come from the Senate. There were concerns upon its departure from the Senate and entry into the House regarding the constitutionality of the legislation. I have found that quite often the government will bring legislation into the House in anticipation that it will ultimately pass, yet a great deal of concern has been expressed regarding the degree to which it would be in compliance with Canada's Constitution, the Charter of Rights, and so forth.

Time and time again, I have heard it suggested, and I have suggested it myself, that the government needs to be more forthright in providing information which clearly shows that the legislation it is bringing forward would pass our laws. More often than not, we do not receive the legal opinions from the department giving clear indication that the legislation being debated is in fact constitutional and will pass the Supreme Court. That is important to note, for the simple reason that when the House of Commons passes legislation and it gets challenged, it costs literally millions of dollars, especially if the government has done it wrong.

The idea of seeing Bill S-4 go to the committee is something we are quite comfortable with. Going through the summary of the bill gives us the sense of the scope we are dealing with. The act would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to do a litany of things. It covers quite a broad area. We have expressed a great deal of concern about some of it to the Liberal Party critic.

The primary concern we have is ensuring that the privacy of Canadians is being respected. Checks need to be put into place to ensure that there is accountability.

Let me give members a couple of very specific examples of what the legislation is proposing. This comes from the summary of the bill itself. It would “permit the disclosure of personal information without the knowledge or consent of an individual for the purposes of...”

Here it lists some very specific things. These are:

(i) identifying an injured, ill or deceased individual and communicating with their next of kin,

(ii) preventing, detecting or suppressing fraud, or

(iii) protecting victims of financial abuse;

As I said, there are a litany of things. One that really caught my eye and that I think is a very strong positive is related to the Privacy Commissioner. The bill says, “modify the information that the Privacy Commissioner may make it public if he or she considers that it is in the public interest to do so”.

We have seen an expansion of the role, if I can put it that way, of the Privacy Commissioner, and giving more authority to him or her. Through the legislation, we are also seeing more penalties being brought in.

This is not only the first but the second piece of legislation over the last number of months dealing with privacy. It was not that long ago that I was speaking to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. It deals with cyberbullying. Canadians have little tolerance for cyberbullying and the types of things that take place.

Bill C-13 focuses a great deal of attention on the distribution of pictures without consent onto the Internet. We had some difficulty with Bill C-13, as we do with Bill S-4, but we ultimately ended up supporting the legislation because we recognized how important it was to stop cyberbullying. There were concerns with that legislation just like there are concerns with this particular piece of legislation.

We would like the government to provide more answers and be a bit more transparent about what it hopes to achieve with this legislation. We call upon the government to do just that in anticipation of the bill going to committee where it will be changed in order to provide some comfort to Canadians with respect to their privacy. Privacy is an issue that the Liberal Party takes seriously. Our party critic has had the opportunity to express many of our concerns with regard to it.

Bill S-4 would allow for warrantless requests of companies. Telecom companies and service providers could be approached in order to access personal information.

Over the last decade we have seen an explosion of technology in the computer and Internet areas. Who would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that we would be where we are today? In many ways we are playing catch-up in terms of trying to bring forward legislation in order to protect Canadians. Canadians have great access to the Internet as a whole. Many things are done through the Internet and unfortunately, at times, people are exploited, so we need bills such as Bill S-4 to deal with that.

Today we are talking about corporations getting personal information about people living in Canada who ultimately go to a particular telecom provider. That means company x could request specific information from a telecom provider about a particular customer who is being serviced by that provider. All of us should be concerned about that. All of us should want to do what we can to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected and that there are checks in place to ensure no abuse is taking place.

What we are talking about are warrantless requests. People would be surprised to know that in 2011, almost 800,000 warrantless requests by telecom companies were documented. People would be amazed to know the amount of information that leaves Canada through the Internet via, for example, the United States and ultimately comes back into Canada. The U.S. national security agency no doubt has access to a lot of Canadians' personal information.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has a responsibility to provide assurances to Canadians that their right to privacy is being protected. This is the greatest concern I have as the bill continues to go forward.

The challenge is to ask the government to provide the necessary amendments that would protect and provide assurances to Canadians that their privacy would in fact be protected. I am very concerned that private corporations, on a whim, could say a copyright has been infringed, or there is a perceived illegal activity and then are able to get personal information on Canadians.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this motion by the government to have Bill S-4 go to committee before second reading, which is a rare event in the House. This is a procedure that was made possible for the first time in 1994 amendments. I believe it stemmed from the 1982 McGrath committee's report that said that committees should more often be used at the early stages of legislation to make sure that things are caught and that a wide variety of perspectives are taken into account in drafting legislation and, frankly, to make the role of MPs more meaningful than is often the case when a bill is studied only after second reading in committee.

As we know, in committee after second reading, and after hearing any amount of testimony from witnesses that could suggest serious problems with a bill, the amendments are often extremely constrained by the rule that they must fit within the principle of the bill. Quite often that means that the principle is understood by the chair or the legal staff advising the chair as simply the principle of a given provision, and therefore, an attempt to work more broadly than the narrow purpose of a given provision is often ruled out of order.

Beyond that, I have found so far in committees, since arriving in the House, that there seems be a reluctance at the moment, on the part of the advisers to chairs, to understand that bills can often have multiple purposes and not just a single purpose. Therefore, in the end, after second reading, committee work often really is an exercise in frustration, because a lot could be done to perfect a bill that is technically ruled out of order due to the fact that we have to work within the principle of the bill as voted at second reading.

It is great that this bill is going to committee before second reading. It will hopefully allow, in the spirit of what this procedure is all about, a full, frank hearing, from all kinds of witnesses, about the problems I hope the government understands are in this bill. I hope this is also the reason the minister has decided to send it to committee before second reading. There can be true dialogue and engagement among MPs, obviously with the government watching what is going on and giving its input through government MPs, so that this bill is taken apart and rewritten in the way this procedure would allow.

I myself stood in the House to move unanimous consent to have Bill C-23, what New Democrats called the unfair elections act and the government called the fair elections act, referred to committee before second reading, exactly for the reasons I have just given. There were so many obvious problems in the bill. Not sticking to the principle in the bill and working collegially across party lines would have benefited the study of that bill. In retrospect, New Democrats realize how true that was. Although we got serious amendments passed, with pressure from backbench members of the government suggesting changes that helped us in our efforts, that bill would be much better if it had gone to committee before second reading.

There is another procedure that, in the spirit of openness, I am hoping the minister might consider. To date, it has not been the practice of the government to table opinions about the constitutionality or charter compliance of a bill. Given the real concerns that exist with respect to warrantless access to information that is contained in this bill as kind of a compendium bill to Bill C-13, I would ask the minister to please consider, for once, having the Department of Justice table a written opinion on the constitutionality of this. Why does it think that the Spencer judgment coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply or, if it applies, that the bill is written in a way that justifies it under the charter?

So often in committee there is minimal to no good testimony from the civil service side on why, supposedly, the Minister of Justice has certified that a bill is in compliance with the charter. We know that the standard for the minister doing that is a very minimalist standard.

I will read from the Senate testimony on Bill S-4 from Michael Geist, of the University of Ottawa, to tell the House why having that additional procedure as part of the referral to committee before second reading would be useful. He says:

Unpack the legalese and you find that organizations will be permitted to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law. This applies both [to] past breaches or violations as well as potential future violations. Moreover, the disclosure occurs in secret without the knowledge of the affected person (who therefore cannot challenge the disclosure since they are not aware it is happening).

That is an extremely good summary of a core problem with the bill in terms of the fears it raises that it has gone too far. It would purportedly create an updated regime to protect privacy and in the process would potentially ram through new problems with respect to Canadians' privacy.

I would like to now, in my last couple of minutes, go over a few points that I hope come up in committee.

I wish to thank a constituent, Mr. John Wunderlich, an expert in privacy law, who worked with me on the weekend to better understand the bill. These are points that I hope do have discussed.

In paragraph 4(1)(b) of the act, the definition of who this would apply to would move from just employees to employees and applicants for employment. In that context, this leaves hanging the question of how much or how little this would apply to companies whose business is to conduct background checks. The committee should solicit feedback on this. In my view, the background check function in the employment sector is done far too often and too deeply and already constitutes a systemic privacy invasion in the employment sector. Therefore, this extension needs to be looked at.

The next thing is the definition of valid consent. While it is welcome, because it brings clarity, the committee should note whether the current systems asserting consent on the web actually provide meaningful information to web surfers about just how many entities will be given access to either some or all of their personal information. Right now, there is a real risk that so-called valid consent, as outlined in the bill, would actually piggyback on the systematic sharing of information that people have no idea is being shared. The act could become a smokescreen behind which individual profiles were built and shared across businesses.

I have already spoken about the potential for the warrantless invasion of privacy because of the fact that organizations could seek information from others when they are simply investigating breaches of agreement or fraud. We should keep in mind that when they are investigating fraud, it is not just in the criminal context. All of this involves civil questions as well. An example is fraudulent misrepresentation.

The “real risk of significant harm” test for companies in particular to decide whether they are going to inform the commissioner and at another stage inform persons of breaches of privacy is a problematic standard in the sense that it is actually very general, and it is probably too low. There should be a presumption for disclosure to the commissioner, and it should be left up to the commissioner to either determine, or assist the company in determining, whether this is significant enough to let the persons whose information was released know that it happened. At the moment, it is an entirely discretionary system, based on a very vague standard, which may mean that data will be breached without people actually knowing it and being able to take the measures necessary to protect themselves.

Those are only three of the more specific concerns that need to be looked at. There is a lot in the bill.

I have a final comment, and it may be a rather strange one. I am looking at my colleague across the way. The privacy legislation from Alberta should be looked at very closely as a reference point for whether the government has gotten certain things wrong. That province has gotten things right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for my colleague.

The government's bill is called the Digital Privacy Act. However, we now know that the Conservative government does not have the best record in the world when it comes to protecting privacy. It lost track of a significant amount of Canadians' personal information. It passed Bill C-13, which gives statutory immunity to Internet service providers who decide to voluntarily hand over personal information. There is no shortage of examples: government agencies made at least 1.2 million requests to Internet service providers in just one year.

Does the hon. member not have any misgivings about this? Will the government really make good changes during the review of this bill in committee?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. As members know, today's debate turns not precisely on Bill S-4 but on a motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

The concerns that I will raise with respect to the bill itself, which go as far as to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, would likely be fatal to the bill at second reading, but we need not concern ourselves with that today. We need not arrive at a conclusion about how fatal these flaws are or how injurious they are to the bill.

The motion before us today would allow us to visit the scope and principle of the bill at committee and make, as required, amendments to those very principles and scope of the bill.

Today, I would argue that this motion warrants support, so that we have the flexibility to properly study, examine and propose amendments to the bill at committee before the principle and scope are set.

Let me set out a few reasons why this is particularly important in these circumstances and relating to this particular legislation.

First, let me address the issue of public opinion that sets the context in which this bill and more broadly the issue of privacy concerns exist.

According to a survey of Canadians on issues related to privacy protection conducted last year, 70% of Canadians feel less protected than they did 10 years ago; only 13% of Canadians believe that companies take their privacy seriously; 97% of Canadians say they would like organizations to let them know when breaches of personal information actually occur; 80% of Canadians say they would like the stiffest possible penalties to protect their personal information; and 91% of Canadian respondents were very or extremely concerned about the protection of privacy.

The current government cannot absolve itself from contributing to this level of public concern about privacy issues. It is not just a matter of legislative lethargy; that is, it is not just about the fact that we are well past the five year mark for the conduct of a mandatory review of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, an act that is by now well behind international standards and has failed to keep up with technological advancements in this digital age.

Part of the issue here is that the current government has itself repeatedly demonstrated insufficient care for the personal privacy of Canadians through its own conduct. I would point to the fact that in one year alone, under the current Prime Minister's watch, government agencies secretly made more than 1.2 million requests to telecommunications companies for personal information, without warrant or proper oversight.

It is a government with a seemingly insatiable appetite and perhaps an addiction to Canadians' personal information. It is a government that needs to be constrained by effective legislation that protects the privacy and personal information of Canadians. It is a government that has no credibility on this subject matter.

This is evident in the legislation that the Conservatives have defeated in this House. In 2012, our NDP digital issues critic, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, put forward Bill C-475, a bill to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would have applied similar online data protection standards that exist in Quebec's personal information protection act. For example, Bill C-475 would have given the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada the power to issue orders following an investigation. The Conservatives defeated that bill at second reading. They also defeated our NDP opposition day motion on May 5 last year. That motion simply called on the government to close loopholes in existing legislation that currently allowed the sharing of personal information without warrant.

The current government's disregard for private and personal information is also evident by the legislation that it has brought forward.

Bill C-13, the government's cyberbullying law, includes lawful access provisions that would expand warrantless disclosure of information to law enforcement by giving immunity from any liability for companies that hold the information of Canadians to disclose it without a warrant. This makes it more likely that companies would hand over information without a warrant as there are no risks that they would face criminal or civil penalties for such conduct.

There is a thread here that runs through the government's own efforts to access the personal and private information of Canadians through to their conduct and voting record in this place. It goes against the interests and concerns of Canadians and denies the wishes of Canadians for greater protection of their personal and private information.

In other words, the issue before us goes to the principles underlying this bill. They need to be examined and amended at committee. For example, while Bill S-4 would make it mandatory to declare the loss or breach of personal information for the organizations in the private sector and penalize organizations that do not fulfill this obligation, the proposed criteria for mandatory disclosure remains subjective. It would allow the organizations themselves to assess whether “it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual”.

More and most problematically still, Bill S-4 would add exceptions under which personal information may be collected, used or disclosed without an individual's consent. The bill would make it easier for organizations to share personal information with each other without the consent of individuals if the organizations are engaged in a process leading to a “prospective” business transaction. In other words, under certain circumstances, the bill allows personal information of one organization's clients to be shared with another organization without the consent or knowledge of those individuals.

Here we run into some significant problems with this bill. The amendments proposed contradict the very foundation of the act they seek to amend and serve to defeat what the Supreme Court called in R. v. Spencer the act's “general prohibition on the disclosure of personal information without consent”. As the Supreme Court said in that recent decision, “PIPEDA is a statute whose purpose is to increase the protection of personal information”.

The Supreme Court, in R. v. Spencer, got to the heart of the issue here, understanding what the government has failed to understand about the issue of informational privacy in the digital age. It is worth quoting at length here. It stated:

Informational privacy is often equated with secrecy or confidentiality, and also includes the related but wider notion of control over, access to and use of information. However, particularly important in the context of Internet usage is the understanding of privacy as anonymity. The identity of a person linked to their use of the Internet must be recognized as giving rise to a privacy interest beyond that inherent in the person’s name, address and telephone number found in the subscriber information. Subscriber information, by tending to link particular kinds of information to identifiable individuals may implicate privacy interests relating to an individual’s identity as the source, possessor or user of that information. Some degree of anonymity is a feature of much Internet activity and depending on the totality of the circumstances, anonymity may be the foundation of a privacy interest that engages constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

So, from subscriber information, the Supreme Court has connected that information through to search and seizure.

We have at least before us a major concern with the principles of this act, but seemingly too a bill that is simply unconstitutional. Leaving aside for the moment this latter issue, let me suggest by way of conclusion that if there is something in Bill S-4 that is salvageable, it can only be so if this bill moves to committee before this House sets in concrete the principles and scope of this bill, and limits the kinds of amendments that can arise out of committee post second reading.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 give access to personal information without a warrant or any oversight mechanism.

Why does the government want to allow snooping without a warrant by creating these deficiencies with no oversight to prevent abuses in the system?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, as we were with Bill C-13, but hopefully we will do a thorough examination of it at committee. We will not support the legislation if we do not see some changes and some clarifications when it comes out of committee. I am much more hopeful. We have been able to do some good non-partisan work at the industry committee and I look forward to continuing to have that opportunity.

We must keep in mind that this is about protecting Canadians' privacy rights, especially given the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that the Senate chose to ignore. I suspect that will be front and centre and it will be our job as opposition to continue to remind the government at committee that there is a Supreme Court ruling on Canadians' privacy rights and it should be reflected in the final recommendations that come back to the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as is the case with much of the legislation that the government puts forward, it puts two or three good things in that we want to see happen, especially issues such as cyberbullying and so on, the issues that Canadians truly care a lot about, but it also throws in a bunch of other things that we equally have concerns about. It comes down to weighing the pros and cons of which parts are the better parts to deal with.

Cyberbullying is an important issue right now. It is in the headlines. It is important that we do everything we can to protect our young people from cyberbullying. Not passing Bill C-13 meant it would have taken another year or maybe two, by that time another election, and other young people would have continued to be exposed to some of those issues. We had to close our eyes, say a prayer, say half a loaf is better than none and that we would be able to protect some children from this. Taking one step forward is exactly what we had to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for her speech.

I am pleased that she raised some of her concerns about Bill S-4, in particular the negative impact it may have on the privacy of Canadians. All of the concerns that she mentioned were also raised by the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-13. However, in the end, the Liberals supported the government bill designed to spy on Canadians.

I would like to know if we can expect the same thing from the Liberals this time as well?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be on my feet, adding a few comments on my concerns with Bill S-4.

I have to begin by saying that I am disappointed that the bill had to come from the Senate, rather than being introduced in the House as part of the ongoing committee work that we would have been doing. The government chose to have it introduced in the Senate and brought in through the back way.

On this side of the House, we will support sending the bill to committee. We have some very serious concerns when we combine the impact of Bills C-13 and S-4, but in order to ensure that we are being open and fair on this issue, that we understand it thoroughly, and that it does keep Canadians' interests in mind, we will support it going to committee. Hopefully, at that point, we will have sufficient time to get answers to the various questions of concern.

We are back discussing the Conservatives' type of approach, which is that one is either with them or against them. If we vote against the bill, it means that we are not interested in privacy rights, and if we vote for the bill, there is another side.

It is another one of those bills that continue to be very divisive in the House at a time when these are the kinds of privacy issues that we should be trying to work out together. I do hope that when we get to the industry committee, we have a good group there so that we can do some serious work in a non-partisan way. Maybe we can strengthen the bill in the end, by listening to some of the experts who have sincere concerns about it.

I do not mean to start out on a negative, but the truth is simple. We all need to be part of the debate today.

The way that the government looks at personal information, protection and privacy has already been subject to a Supreme Court ruling, and we have to give consideration to that. It is one thing to play partisan politics in the House and think that we are playing to the political base, but it is important that we listen to the rulings of the Supreme Court on privacy issues.

There are clearly those who have tried to make it sound like anyone who does not support the government is supportive of criminals. We have heard that before. However, the discussion is not as simple as that. The government's record on information protection has been embarrassingly negligent, so forgive me if I am not convinced that the recent scheme is worth passing without intense scrutiny.

We should all remember the matter of that lost hard drive, which held the social insurance numbers, medical records, birthdates, education levels, occupations and disability payment information of about 5,000 Canadians. That was lost. Perhaps the government wishes to plead incompetence on that side, or maybe it was an accident. We always like to be fair, so maybe it was an accident. Either way, the way that the government manages information needs extra study, which is why I am speaking on this today.

We are now looking at Bill S-4, but one cannot look at Bill S-4 without considering the implications of its companion legislation. Bill C-13, which is also before the House this week, would make it a crime to transmit pictures without consent, and it would remove barriers to getting unwanted pictures removed from the Internet. The stated intent of the bill is positive, but I have serious concerns with the provisions that would grant immunity to telecom companies that provide subscriber information to the police without even so much as a warrant.

I raise the issue, given that last April, Canada's interim privacy commissioner revealed that nine telecommunications companies received an average of 1.2 million requests from federal enforcement bodies for private customer information every year. That amounts to nearly 3,300 requests each and every day.

Those are shocking numbers, and it could be argued that the bill has, in effect, already been rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Last June, in an unrelated case, the court declared that law enforcement requires a warrant to get even basic subscriber data. Bill S-4 would allow private companies to share telecom subscriber data between themselves, something that would seem to contravene the Supreme Court's ruling.

How could that possibly be? Did the Senate miss this detail or did it fail to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling? The truth is that the Senate passed Bill S-4 just days after the Supreme Court ruling, without even studying the implications. I guess the government is less concerned with that than pushing ahead with both Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. It is a lack of respect for the Supreme Court as well as Parliament.

Put simply, the legislation represents a paradigm shift in the way we deal with the release of private information. Traditionally, privacy laws outline the rules and procedures needed to protect information and personal data, but in this case, the legislation sets out circumstances under which that material can be released. Clearly, the implications of this change have not been fully considered and should be explored by the committee prior to passing final judgment on the pros and cons of the measures contained within Bill S-4.

My party and I will be voting to send it to committee for what we would hope is a thorough examination. Liberals want to ensure that law enforcement officials have access to the information they require to keep us safe, but a blank cheque approach is inappropriate. A blank cheque approach has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and promises limited success in advancing societal protections when considered holistically. Why not take the time to do this right?

In a world where crimes involving data theft, identity fraud and online stalking are on the rise, protecting data is crucial. Data is not simply information. It is a commodity, it is power, and it is the doorway into the private lives of so many people. Liberals are deeply concerned that the government's commitment to safeguarding the personal information and privacy of Canadians is less than absolute. I am not suggesting the government is malicious. I do not believe that, but I fear it just does not understand the implications of Bill S-4.

Notwithstanding certain faulty or short-sighted legislative measures introduced by the government in the past, Canada is facing a genuine paradigm shift with respect to privacy protection, but privacy protection cannot be taken lightly. Whether protecting personal information from unscrupulous business interests, Internet stalkers and identity thieves, or rogue states bent on economic espionage, information security is crucial.

With these concerns in mind and as a leap of faith and confidence that our committee will have a chance to thoroughly examine this, I will be voting in favour of sending the bill to committee for further study. However, in return, I am also asking the minister to allow the committee to do its work honestly and freely without the involvement of the leadership so that the committee is allowed to really examine it thoroughly to ensure that if this goes forward, it goes forward with what I would hope would be unanimous support in the House on something as important as Canada's privacy rights. I believe that is quite doable, because at the end of the day we have the same objectives, to ensure Canadian privacy laws are strong and that Canadians are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather peculiar question coming from someone who supported Bill C-13 at third reading. Together, these two bills strengthen the parallel system for accessing personal information. Of course, there is the traditional system under which a warrant is needed to obtain personal information about someone. However, as a result of flaws in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there is also a parallel system under which a government agency can simply pick up the phone, call an Internet service provider and ask for information about that company's clients. That is something that the government does not seem to want to correct. In fact, the government wants to do the opposite. It wants to increase its ability to do this sort of thing by giving itself legal immunity under Bill C-13 and by now allowing organizations to share Canadians' personal information among themselves without consent and without a warrant.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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, 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-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 cyber activity.

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.

[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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with today’s NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, aimed at combating cyberbullying at third reading.

When we come back from our constituency week, on Monday, October 20, we will consider a motion to refer Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act, to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology prior to second reading. If we have extra time available that day, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Tuesday, October 21, shall be the fifth allotted day. The Liberals will offer the day’s topic of discussion.

Starting on Wednesday, October 22, the House will consider Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at second reading. This bill would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simple firearms policies. I would note that this legislation has already been endorsed by a number of key groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, la Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, among others.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to wish you and all members a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope that all will share that with their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think as everyone in the House knows, it was the intention of the government to have a debate and a vote on this matter today. However, it is apparent right now that that will not happen. As a result, I would like to provide the following brief statement about the business of the House for the balance of the week.

The fourth allotted day, which was originally set for tomorrow, will now be on Thursday, October 9. Wednesday will see us debate Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at second reading. Friday will be the last day of third reading of Bill C-13, protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on the government's resolution on taking appropriate action against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

Conservative and Liberal Parties of Canada

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seeing what the Conservatives are doing to the environment, the economy, employment insurance, justice and foreign policy only reinforces our belief that we need to replace this tired old government in 2015 and change course.

However, we cannot just switch lanes, we need to make a U-turn. When we take a closer look at the issues championed by the Conservatives, it is clear that there is no real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: for the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for the 30-day mission in Iraq, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for invading Canadians' privacy with Bill C-13, the Conservatives got Liberal support; and for destroying the belugas' breeding grounds at Cacouna, the Conservatives got Liberal support.

If the Liberals believe that hope and hard work mean giving the Conservatives a blank cheque and making off-colour jokes about a potential war, they are sadly mistaken.

The NDP will continue to demand accountability. We will provide a real alternative in 2015, and we will put an end to the status quo.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer who will be celebrating 30 years of legal practice in November, I would venture that we cannot say that it is completely unconstitutional or completely constitutional.

The minister says that he is convinced that this will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. I got a minor amendment passed. I do not really boast about it because I find that ridiculous. Once again, the Conservatives do not want to be clear and transparent.

We asked the minister to report on prostitution and human trafficking two years after the passage of the bill. They amended my amendment to increase the time period to five years. With Bill C-13, they increased it to seven years. We all know that this will be before the courts well before that.

I would like to reiterate that this is a health and safety issue. We must not put the lives of people who work in a very dangerous environment at risk. This is very serious.

Report Stage

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-13.

I will put my speech aside, because I want to respond to the accusations just made by the member opposite. I am actually the chair of the justice committee, and as chair, part of my responsibility is to make sure that everyone gets a fair opportunity to be heard. I think members of the committee work very well together, to be perfectly honest.

The way it has worked and will continue to work at committee is that each party is able to submit the names of witnesses they would like to hear from. Based on the numbers we get, we ask members to prioritize who they would like to hear from, because time may run out.

If I recall correctly, there was no set time for this particular bill. If the committee did not hear from certain segments, it was because those witnesses were not recommended or brought forward. The committee did not call those witnesses not because the government was trying to do something inappropriate but because the witnesses were not asked for. The government cannot be blamed for not calling witnesses who were not asked for.

Conservatives had an opportunity to ask for witnesses. New Democrats asked for witnesses and the Liberals asked for witnesses. I take some offence that the member said this was not done appropriately. It was absolutely done appropriately. It was done in this committee in dealing with Bill C-13 and is done for all other legislation that comes to the committee.

I think the committee is operating well, and everyone has an opportunity to have their say. If parties, including my own, want to hear from witnesses, they can put them on the list. There will be a discussion as to how many meetings there will be on it, and then we will hear from those witnesses. That is how it has worked and will continue to work as long as I am in the chair. We will see if that continues.

I also want to respond to the issue of splitting this omnibus bill. I have the bill in front of me. It is in French and English, as all bills are. It is 53 pages long, plus 12 pages of explanatory notes. It is not a very big bill. If members can read it in both languages, that is great, but let us assume that most read in one language or the other. That would make it about 25 or 26 pages long. It did not need to be split, in my view. I think there is lots of opportunity to talk about all the issues. It is not a very difficult bill to grasp. I think someone could read it in a few hours.

There are a number of issues in the bill, but the process at committee did not limit members to talking about just certain parts of the bill. Members could have brought forward witnesses and we could have had a discussion, which we did, on all parts of that bill. I have to take some offence on the issue of what happened.

As we know, as the minister and the previous speaker on this side have pointed out, the bill would do a number of things, but in general, it would create a new offence for the distribution of non-consensual pictures on the Internet.

I did not know how big a problem it was, to be perfectly honest. I had not really experienced it in my office or had anyone come to see me. I took the opportunity to ask my daughters, who just graduated and are in university now. They were able to illustrate to me a number of actual cases, in their own high school, of young women who had had photos taken of them that were then posted on different people's sites as revenge or cyberbullying. This was a surprise to me.

That does not make the news. What makes the news is when it goes too far and the bullying is so egregious that someone, unfortunately, takes his or her life. Then it makes big news. This is a problem that is happening every day in every community across this country, so we needed to act.

There was mention of the previous legislation that was brought forward in Bill C-30, and appropriately so. The government recognized that there were some issues that needed to be dealt with, so we brought it back, took it off the table, and redid the bill.

We made changes based on the public and the response in this House in terms of the changes that needed to be made. I believe that those were made. Do we get credit as a government for making those changes? No, and the previous speaker criticized us, saying that we did not do it right in the first place.

I am sure that opposition members believe that they are perfect, and maybe even some of us think we are perfect on this side, but let us be honest. We had a bill in front of us, we recognized that there were some issues, we took it back, and we made changes and improvements. We addressed those problems and brought something back that we could all pass.

I am not sure what the NDP are doing. I heard from the last speaker that the Liberals are supporting the bill going forward, and I appreciate that.

I do not think as a government that we should be criticized for hearing the concerns and then making changes. I will agree that there were a number of amendments put forward, 30-some amendments, and one, on a review period, did pass, which I personally supported. I do not vote on the committee as the chair, but I do support that.

As we all know, it takes some time for legislation, especially with the Criminal Code, to get through the system, get in place, and get tested in practice. I think it will take some time before this piece of legislation is tested, and that length of time for the review is appropriate.

The other issue we heard a lot about was that the bill would give the police a lot more power than they already have. I think the issue on Bill C-30 was that it looked like the police could do things without a warrant. Well, this bill would clearly resolve that issue, in my view.

Bill C-13 clearly indicates that for preservation orders and for the police to be able to do their jobs in terms of attacking the problem of cyberbullying in particular cases, they need judicial support to move forward.

I think it is important to give the police those tools. In this electronic environment of the Internet, things move so fast, on or off, we need to be able to do that.

We experience that around here all the time. If a member of Parliament makes a mistake or does something on the Internet, and somebody catches it, a few hours later, if not less, it is gone. We have all experienced that in this House with members of Parliament doing things on electronic systems.

When it is a criminal activity, we need to have the police able to go after it quickly. We need to give them those tools to make that happen. I am very supportive of the opportunity for the police to be able to do their work.

We have been asked as a government to do something about the cyberbullying problem. This is not an easy area to legislate. We cannot legislate cyberbullying to stop. It is not that easy. I appreciate that we have looked at opportunities and issues in terms of addressing cyberbullying through our legal system, which is what this bill would do.

Bill C-13 would give the police better tools to track and trace telecommunications. It would streamline the process of obtaining multiple warrants so that the police could execute their jobs.

The witnesses we saw whose families were affected by cyberbullying were fully supportive of what we were doing. I want every member of this House to think about that. If it was their son or daughter whose photo was online and who was being bullied, would they want the police to be able to act to resolve the issue and have a penalty for cyberbullying? I believe the answer is yes, and it is yes for the vast majority of Canadians. That is why we need to support Bill C-13.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Sometimes it feels as though the debate on Bill C-13 is a dialogue of the deaf. There are two things going on at the same time here. There is the section that deals with cyberbullying and the illegal distribution of images. Then, there is the much more complex section that takes up about 40 of the bill's 52 pages. Some witnesses in committee expressed some serious concerns about this part. The Supreme Court also examined the issue in R. v. Spencer.

The NDP submitted 36 amendments in committee, but they were all rejected. I mentioned a dialogue of the deaf, since we all tried to split the bill so that we could make sure everything was done right. The parliamentary secretary asked what other witnesses the committee could have heard from. We could have heard from experts to explain how the Spencer ruling affects the bill. That did not happen, since the ruling came after the study was done.

Could my colleague speak to that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The title is cited as “protecting Canadians from online crime act”, and I have to say at the beginning that I am constantly bothered by the way the government names its bills.

The naming of the bill goes to the heart of the way the government operates in titling its various legislation. There is a lot of spin and a certain amount of deception, because this bill would not actually protect Canadians from online crime in any discernible way. It would provide investigative tools to police and new offences, but all this assumed conduct would be in progress or would have already occurred; it would not be prevented by this legislation.

It has to be said, in fairness to the government, there is some preventive aspect in the fear of the penalties among people who would do these kinds of things. However, as is so often the case with the Conservatives, the title is exaggerated and, I would say, deceptive. Members have heard me say a number of times in this House that we have now had eight years of deception from the current government.

The principal incentive behind this legislation has been the growing problem of cyberbullying, which has led to some tragic consequences. There is no question cyberbullying is a scourge on our society and that cyberbullying is a particular strain on our young people. We could go through all kinds of cases of that, and other speakers have. The Liberals are supportive in principle of legislative measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying. This is an area where the Criminal Code urgently needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies.

We believe, however, that legislative measures alone, while helpful, are insufficient to combat cyberbullying, and we urge the government to commit to a broader, more holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying that also includes public awareness resources for parents, kids, and the general public.

The Liberals introduced cyberbullying legislation in the last session that would have modified some Criminal Code offences to cover modern technology, as is done in Bill C-13. The Conservative members and the New Democrats voted against that legislative measure in the last session.

The Liberals, while in government, also introduced legislation that would have addressed new technologies back in 2005. The current government is only now figuring out that police need these tools to keep up with technologies that are increasingly a part of today's crime.

We believe that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public safety, particularly when it comes to warrants that may be intrusive and overly broad. We do not support the measures that were in Bill C-30, the previous bill, which even the Conservatives had to withdraw because of Canadian outrage. Sadly, some of this bill duplicates the rejected Bill C-30, such as word-for-word reproductions of the change to subsection 487.3(1) of the Criminal Code and, except for one word, the changes to sections 492.1 and 492.2 regarding warrants.

We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce “lawful access”, which the Conservatives promised was dead. Why the current government continues to tag on measures that push the envelope, so to speak, on privacy issues makes no sense to me. The immediate issue is important and cannot be lost, so we feel we have to support it, but why do the Conservatives play politics with everything, using cyberbullying to get what they wanted in the old Bill C-30?

My colleague, the member for Charlottetown, raised a question in the House in which he asked the minister to split the bill, but that was refused. That would have made a lot of sense, in that both aspects of the bill could have been studied in their own right and the cyberbullying aspect of the bill could have been dealt with very rapidly.

This omnibus bill touches upon everything from terrorism to telemarketing to cable stealing to hate speech, and in some parts is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process.

In particular, the bill resurrects elements of the old Bill C-30, Vic Toews' famous “either stand with us or with the child pornographers” bill when he was the previous justice minister. Many in this House will remember that.

The past justice minister, now the Minister of National Defence, promised Canadians on February 11, 2013, while killing Bill C-30:

We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30, including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capability within their systems.

He went on to say:

We've listened to the concerns of Canadians who have been very clear on this and responding to that.

I heard what the previous speaker said, and he dealt with this issue somewhat. However, there is a real question in this legislation as to whether the minister's words hold true or not. Again, it goes to the heart of why the bill was not split so that both aspects could be dealt with appropriately.

We must ensure that adequate protections are included in the bill to protect the civil liberties and privacy interests of ordinary Canadians. We are very concerned that with this omnibus bill, under the guise of cyberbullying prevention, the government is slipping things through the back door.

Ultimately, while we agree the Criminal Code must be updated to keep pace with technology, the hodgepodge bundling of bills is highly problematic. Some of it, such as the changes to the hate speech provisions and the introduction of the cable stealing offence, has been presented without any explanation of why the modifications are being made and without making any rational connection to cyberbullying.

We agree with the need to address cyberbullying and support the creation of a new offence for the unwanted distribution of intimate images. We also agree that some of the Criminal Code sections being modified are woefully out of date and must be amended to better reflect modern technology.

We strongly disagree, however, with the use of omnibus legislation that precludes nuanced discussion and debate on disparate issues. Moreover, we strongly disagree with the reintroduction of the universally panned legislation on lawful access from the old Bill C-30.

In short, we believe the provisions of the bill would unnecessarily infringe the civil liberties and privacy interests of Canadians. While we support this legislation, we want to place on the record that, as has happened in the past with the government's so-called crime agenda, the courts could ultimately find that many of the provisions of Bill C-13 would be illegal.

It would have served the government and Canadians well had the government accepted some of the concerns that were raised, allowed some amendments at committee, and, most notably, accepted the demand by my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, to split the bill, with the cyberbullying elements contained in a stand-alone bill rather than in what we are now debating.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have some leading precedence to this. The bill needs to be through by December 22. If it is not, then certain things will happen.

However, from a perspective of Bill C-13, the bill recognizes the importance of modernizing the Criminal Code and police techniques. Police forces cannot work in the century behind us right now. They need to get into the 21st century. The bill would do that.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier we debated a time allocation motion on this bill. The Conservatives told us that this was urgent and we needed to vote right away. However, if this was so urgent, why did they not support Bill C-540, introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour? Indeed, much of that bill is repeated in Bill C-13.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, now that it has been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Without the provisions contained in Bill C-13, there would be no tool in the Criminal Code to enable the preservation of computer data and ensure important evidence would not deleted prematurely. In addition, without these provisions, there would be no tool designed for the production of specific types of data such as transmission data. Nor would there be a tool to assist in tracking a communication by using one order that could be served on multiple providers when it was revealed that the person under investigation was hopping from one hiding place to the next, from one server provider to the next, simply to cover his or her tracks. Bill C-13 would bring the kind of balance Canadians expect from a 21st century system of justice.

I want to address some basic principles so everyone understands what is at stake.

The new preservation tools are crucial. With regard to the storage of data, Canada's telecommunications industry is, in many ways, unregulated. We do not have laws for mandatory data retention, contrary to what exists in the European Union, and many Canadians believe we should not have such laws. Bill C-13 does not change that.

There are a number of providers with a variety of business practices. This is not a criticism of those practices. There are many reasons why data should be deleted. Some of those reasons have to do with privacy, but not all of them. Sometimes it is cheaper. Sometimes it is just the way technology is designed. However, sometimes these circumstances are consciously exploited by criminals trying to hide their trail and get away with their crimes.

The creation of the preservation tools reflects the diversity of legitimate business practices and acknowledges the fact that the industry is not required to retain data. However, we must understand the consequences of our choices. This also means that vital data could be deleted before production orders could be obtained from a judge enabling that data to be disclosed.

Preservation demands and preservation orders act as the first step in a lawful investigation. These tools ensure the data at least exists long enough for a judge to assess the evidence brought before him or her and determine if it should be disclosed to the police so it could assist in an investigation and eventually be brought forward in open court.

Let us consider the next step: the production of evidence. The new production orders provide the necessary set of investigational powers that enable a judge to grant specific types of data as specified in the order, which could be obtained by the police. This is another aspect that has not been understood in the media or by some witnesses who appeared before the committee. The new tools are not about disclosing data in general. It may be easy to grasp that these provisions would give law enforcement the specific tools it needs in the modern world of computers and complex telecommunications. However, there is another side to it.

The provisions in Bill C-13 ensure that a judge is aware of precisely what type of data is being sought by the police in relation to a specific investigation. This is quite unique. Most countries around the world do not provide their judges with this ability to carefully consider the circumstances and to uphold the rights and freedoms of the people and their jurisdiction by granting the authorities access to only one sort of data and not another. If the police do not need access to every kind of data, why should that be permissible?

These new tools make clear that police forces can obtain what is needed, but not more. If they can convince the judge that they need access to a particular type of data in order to assist in the investigation, then the judge can empower them to obtain that data from a service provider, but only that type of data, not every type of data that the service provider might have. This type of precision, this new approach, increases accountability, transparency and privacy protection. It is a new model for our new high tech reality. It is the right balance of freedom and protection for Canadians.

These are not simple issues and they do not deserve to be dismissed by misguided motions to delete vital provisions from Bill C-13. We must begin to understand that in a complex telecommunications network, where the Internet enables mobile phones, laptops and tablets to send data through the air in the blink of an eye, there are different types of data going through the network, data which can have diverse characteristics. We need different tools for those different types of data. The warrant for a tracking device and the warrant for a transmission data recorder are examples of those kinds of tools. They are crucial tools to combatting cyberbullying and online crime in general.

The current dial number recorder provisions in the Criminal Code were put in place when most Canadians did not have a cellphone and were not surfing the web. This is not the kind of technology that police face today when conducting criminal investigations.

The new transmission data recorder provisions can be used for collecting data from both telephones and the Internet. We all know that in today's world, a cellphone can be used to place a call, surf the web, or send a text message or a digital photograph. The transmission data recorder reflects this reality. It is not restricted to one type of data from one type of device. Again, a much more cautious approach has been taken than headlines would have one believe.

We must look carefully at the details. The new provision is important because it establishes appropriate safeguards. The transmission data recorder may be a mouthful to say and it may be difficult to understand some of the technological wording, but basically it is about the data that devices send to each other to connect into the network.

There are many different bits of data that could fall under the definition of transmission data, making a long, complicated list looking daunting. However, there are three things to remember.

First, police officers have to get approval from a judge. They must present evidence to a judge in order to use a transmission data recorder.

Second, the transmission data recorder is basically about mapping networks. It is about identifying devices and messages. It is not focused on identifying an individual person. That means it is not centred on the sort of attribution that was the focus of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Spencer in June 2014.

Third, and this is absolutely important, the police cannot use this provision to intercept what people say or text to each other or the digital photos that they send. The provision is crystal clear about this. It specifically states that it cannot be used to collect content. That means the transmission data recorder cannot be used to intercept voice. It cannot be used to collect text messages. It cannot be used to read the content of emails. It cannot even be used to read the subject line of an email. It cannot be used to collect a digital photo. To do that sort of thing would be to conduct an interception. To conduct an interception, the police would need a full-blown wiretap authorization, and that is the way it should be.

The police need the right tools, but Canadians need their privacy protected. Bill C-13 would strike the balance.

The warrants for the tracking device and the transmission data recorder not only improve police capabilities, but also strengthen the privacy protections for Canadians generally by ensuring that judicial standards are respected for different types of data.

Let us use another example to make that clear. The amended tracking order provisions distinguish between tracking things and tracking people. Now the existing provisions in the Criminal Code do not make the distinction. Therefore, if the police were tracking a package, like a drug shipment, that is one thing. However, if the police are trying to track a person, using a device usually carried or worn by the person, the new provision demands that the police meet a higher threshold of proof. The police must bring more compelling evidence before a judge, before that judge would permit a tracking warrant to be used to follow a person's movements. That is the way it should be.

The new provisions enhance privacy protections above the old provisions in the Criminal Code. The old tool is not good enough in today's society. The new provisions strike the balance between law enforcement needs and privacy protections.

I call upon all members to give their full support to Bill C-13 to ensure its swift passage.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no I do not. I do not think it will come as a surprise to the member or anyone in the House that I do not agree with that assessment. In fact, I can assure him that those same justice lawyers who helped craft the bill, who researched extensively the policing powers and the privacy balance that has to be sought and achieved, their advice remains consistent and the same. That is that Bill C-13, as currently drafted, does not in fact create new police powers. It does not enable them to go around existing requirements under the law to respect privacy.

I am little surprised and somewhat flummoxed by the position of the Liberal Party because it was its members who brought forward similar provisions in the past, through private member's bills, and spoke very favourably for the same supportive updating of the Criminal Code. In fact, the member for Beauséjour who was here a moment ago said the old tools, the old laws and regulations in common law around search warrants, lawful access, et cetera, have not kept up with the technology that organized crime is using. A former justice minister from the Liberal Party, Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, said the police want to be able to apprehend or disrupt gang activity and they are at a disadvantage because of the state of the law in this area.

I do not know how the member from the Liberal Party squares those comments with his reluctance to support the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice for his speech at report stage.

The committee did not have a chance to examine the Spencer decision and see how it relates to and affects Bill C-13, even though I asked the committee to do so, since we finished the clause-by-clause study on June 12 and the Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 13.

A number of experts have said that the decision tears Bill C-13 apart. The minister seems to be saying that that is not the case. Does he not believe that the burden of proof has been diminished? Besides the fact that it is used in other sections of the Criminal Code, how is privacy still being protected when the burden of proof required for the police to obtain private information on Canadian citizens is being diminished?

In other words, the expression “reasonable and probable grounds to believe” has been replaced by “reasonable grounds to suspect”, which seriously undermines the previous standard.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again to take part in this debate on this important legislation. As members opposite would know, the legislation is intended very much to protect people, young people in particular, our most vulnerable; to protect seniors from online criminality and fraud that could defraud them of their life savings; to protect individuals from the security breaches and attacks that we know are happening regularly online.

The bill is about modernizing sections of the Criminal Code, respecting precedent, including recent Supreme Court decisions, and respecting the Constitution. However, it is about modernizing in a way that takes Criminal Code sections from the age of the rotary dial phone into the 21st century, the Internet age. We have more information available at our fingertips now and youth are more able to access information than at any other time in world history. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would want to bring legislation forward that would similarly modernize the Criminal Code and the rules that govern online criminal activity.

The bill is about amending the Criminal Code in a way that would create a new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It would also update a number of offences and the investigative tools that allow police to use modern technology to police the Internet, so to speak, by amending other statutes such as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Bill C-13 would also allow Canada to co-operate with like-minded countries in the investigation of cybercrime. I know my friend from Lévis—Bellechasse, the Minister of Public Safety, fully appreciates, from his daily interactions with police and investigators, that they need this capacity to protect people from online criminality. The portions of the bill that we are bringing forward are consistent, related, and support the common objective to give the police the ability to prevent online criminal acts.

Bill C-13 would also achieve these goals in a balanced way, something that was recognized by many of the witnesses who have already given testimony and appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where the bill was thoroughly examined.

Following this review at the committee and to reflect concerns about the difficulty of forecasting the impact that these important changes to the law and the amendments that were adopted by the committee, this was done as part of the parliamentary process and in recognition of the contributions of members and witnesses. It was done in a way that proposes changes to Bill C-13.

An important change was that after seven years of coming into force, there will be a thorough review. This is not an uncommon provision, but when breaking new ground, as the bill would do, it provides sufficient time to lapse before we assess the implementation and the impacts of the reforms.

I mentioned that the thorough review of the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights took place. This review involved 10 committee meetings, hours of examination, with appearances by over 40 witnesses. Many of the witnesses came to urge the committee to pass the legislation, to move forward and address the serious problems particularly around cyberbullying. We heard from people like Glen Canning, who tragically lost his daughter to a very pernicious and persistent act of cyberbullying. Therefore, there is urgency in bringing this legislative movement forward.

Those most passionate that we heard at the committee were victims, those who had felt the sting of the loss resulting from ongoing harassment and humiliation online. In several of the cases, the people who had lost loved ones because of this modern plague of cybercrime urged the government and committee members to move post-haste in getting these provisions to the Criminal Code in place.

The insidiousness of some of this behaviour is troubling in the extreme and what happens in the virtual world can have deadly consequences in the real world. While some witnesses expressed concern about the proposals, most witnesses saw the wisdom of the bill. They congratulated the government on taking action to address cybercrime, which, I am quick to add goes far beyond just the legislative initiatives.

We have put in place programs and assistance to help with getting information into schools and spreading the word, particularly to young people, about how they can get help and how they can help remove some of these offensive images that cause them such stress and anxiety. That type of information is very important, as well as the improvement and modernization of the investigative tools, which require judicial oversight and the authorization of a judge before that type of information is sought.

This is a comprehensive and balanced bill. It is about protecting the public through this new offence that is designed to address the aspects of cyberbullying. In particular, it is about modernizing existing offences and the investigative tool kit. It is very much there to give the police the ability to do in a virtual world what they do in the real world, and to seek out those who are causing this type of harm through the Internet.

The offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images prohibits the sharing of intimate photos or photos containing nudity without the consent of the individual shown in the photos.

It is important to respond in this manner to cyberbullying, which involves activities that can cruelly humiliate and shame its targets. It can cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to the victim. There are far too many of these cases that we could enumerate here. Suffice it to say, the pain being felt and experienced by the families is unquantifiable. The anonymity of what happens online sometimes emboldens people and empowers some to act in a cruel and wicked fashion.

Bill C-13 would respond directly to recommendations that were made in a June 2013 federal, provincial and territorial report. Therefore, there is broad support and consensus among our provincial and territorial partners to move in this fashion. The report was unanimously supported by my predecessor, the Minister of Public Safety, as well as all of those provincial attorneys general and public safety ministers.

I also alluded to the committee, which heard from a number of victims of cyberbullying and sadly the parents of some deceased victims, many of whom have now become advocates for change to better address the scourge of cyberbullying. Most of these witnesses expressed strong and unconditional support for the proposals found in Bill C-13.

In particular, and his name has been mentioned previously, Mr. Glen Canning expressed serious concern to the committee about the challenge faced by police in responding to modern crime using outdated tools. He also expressed his belief that had Bill C-13 been law, it could have had a positive impact and might have saved his daughter, Rehtaeh Parsons.

These are compelling arguments to be made for passing the bill. Further delays would leave more people vulnerable, simply put, and online crime to go unchecked. The alarmist rhetoric and some of the partisan banter here is not going to change that. Moving the bill forward will in fact fill the gap.

I hope the House understands just how important the proposed legislation is. Our police need these modern tools for modern times. Criminals are certainly using the Internet to great effect, and it is time to fight back. Bill C-13 would give the police the means to investigate and hold offenders accountable online, just as in the real world. It would provide the police with increased, judicially authorized, 21st century police tools and techniques.

I urge all members to support the bill. It is a balanced, necessary approach to putting in place offences and investigative tools that would provide the means to respond to criminal law challenges in this century and those that arise from cyberbullying.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course, independent watchdogs, offices, ombudsmen, people like the Privacy Commissioner and the privacy office have indeed voiced their opinions, as have many others, as have experts.

Here is a stunning revelation for everyone. Sometimes experts disagree. Sometimes lawyers even disagree, or parliamentarians.

We believe, fundamentally, the legislation not only respects the Spencer decision, it answers the questions that have been asked with respect to judicial oversight and it answers with respect to the constitutionality of the bill itself. It is an attempt to modernize the tools that are in the hands of the police to allow them, with that judicial oversight, to investigate very sophisticated criminal activity online.

I remind my friend that the Spencer decision does not require amendments to Bill C-13. In fact, this decision addresses very plainly the ability for the police to obtain private information with a valid warrant.

Nothing in Bill C-13 is intended to create any new powers to obtain information without a warrant, as has been suggested by some members of the NDP. Simply put, the bill puts forward privacy safeguards, which are built into the legislation and built into the investigative powers of the bill. It is tailored to meet those expectations around privacy, but at the same time allow the police to do this critically important work of protecting the public from online criminality.

Quite frankly, we know this online criminality is prolific, growing and in some cases is causing young people, because of intimidation and harassment, to take their own lives. That is what is at stake.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is because I rely, not on the advice of the member opposite, but on the advice of departmental officials, lawyers and those who argue the case, those who are involved intimately in tracking the Spencer decision and drafting this legislation. This is not some sort of a fly-by-night written on the back of an envelope piece of legislation. This has been in the works for some time. It has been studied extensively. We have heard from numerous experts and we have heard from the people most affected, the victims. They have told us of the urgency.

The member said, just a moment ago, that they are not trying to hold up the bill. There have been some 20 speakers from the NDP on the bill. We have ample time to look at the bill in further detail, not this type of banter back and forth in the House of Commons but in committee.

Therefore, when it comes to the constitutionality of Bill C-13, we believe strongly that this not only passes constitutional muster, but it does what it is intended to do. That is to allow police, with judicial oversight, to do proper investigations that protect the public at large.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we are talking about the urgency of adopting provisions on cyberbullying. The NDP has always said that we need to adopt this part very quickly. Nonetheless, we want to properly assess the parts that may cause serious problems when it comes to protecting Canadians' privacy.

What is more, the Minister of Justice responded to my colleague from Gatineau by saying:

“It is not our duty to slow things down here”.

I am sorry, but it is our responsibility. As parliamentarians, we must be sure to uphold the Canadian Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

Can the Minister of Justice tell me why he does not even want to sit down and address the Supreme Court ruling to see whether the provisions of Bill C-13 are indeed constitutional?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the very crux of the issue, striking that balance between protection of online activity while at the same time giving police modern powers with judicial oversight. There were certainly criticisms and legitimate concerns raised in the past and with respect to the bill about unlawful access online to information. The bill requires judicial oversight. The bill does not create new powers for police that go beyond the Criminal Code. It does not allow for any new online investigation without judicial oversight.

It is important that people understand that if the police want to use the powers contained in Bill C-13, they by necessity have to get a warrant from a judge, so the judicial oversight provisions are here. They are alive and present in the bill. They are also respectful and responding to recommendations that came from a very intense consultation with provinces and territories, not to mention what we heard at committee and not to mention what we have heard from experts such as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime who said:

This legislation, if passed, will help to provide tools necessary to assist in reducing cyberbullying and in providing victims with much-needed supports.

It will empower the police to protect people online.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I am right there, Mr. Speaker, but considering the time we are having on Bill C-13, could you give me a tiny leeway?

Mr. Spratt goes on to say:

In short, the government is doing its best to obscure the fact that our highest court has articulated the constitutional limits of invasive police investigative techniques...

If the minister cannot change reality, is rushing it and blurring it the next best thing?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, shame on the government and on the Minister of Justice, who seems to forget he is also the Attorney General of Canada, for the 78th motion for time allocation.

It is absolutely incredible.

Bill C-13, which is before us right now, is not just any bill. The same thing happened with the prostitution bill last week. We had roughly half a day of debate on Bill C-36. Third reading of that bill is planned for Friday. The same thing will happen with Bill C-13, but that comes as no surprise.

My request to split the bill was rejected. My request at committee to wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rendered a day after we finished the clause-by-clause, to suspend so we could read it was denied. We have time allocation at second reading, time allocation at report stage and at third reading.

Manon Cornellier wrote an extraordinary piece on this a year ago, saying that time allocation was becoming the norm in the House of Commons: “There was a time when limiting debate was the exception and invariably caused outrage [including that of the Conservatives]”.

Last week, Michael Spratt, of iPolitics, wrote:

The Conservatives proposed a controversial law that would expand the state’s Internet surveillance powers.The bill was attacked by experts...as unconstitutional....The Conservatives have the gall to claim that the decision confirms what they’d been saying all along — that the new law is justified. Black is white, love is hate, peace is war—

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

moved:

That in relation 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13--Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading 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 those stages.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on the question of missing and murdered aboriginal women, I was pleased that last night the House of Commons had an opportunity to vote to concur with the excellent work in the report done by the committee of parliamentarians that examined that issue, one of well over two dozen such studies that have been undertaken on the subject. They have been helpful in forming the government's action plan that is taking place to help address this problem and help to improve the conditions of aboriginal women on reserve and elsewhere.

In terms of the government's agenda, this afternoon we will continue the second reading of Bill C-41, the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. This important bill would implement our landmark free trade agreement with South Korea, Canada's first in the Asia-Pacific region, I might add. It would provide expanded access for Canada's businesses and workers to a growing G20 economy, Asia's fourth largest.

Free trade with South Korea is projected to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by boosting Canada's economy by almost $2 billion annually and increasing our exports to South Korea by almost one-third.

That debate will continue next week, on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will see the conclusion of the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The House will recall that we are working to implement this legislation before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford takes effect before Christmas.

Monday shall be the third allotted day, with the New Democrats choosing the topic of discussion.

I am designating Monday as the day appointed pursuant to Standing Order 66.2 for the conclusion of the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

On Wednesday, the House will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime legislation.

Thursday morning should see the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. Then we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-40, the important bill to establish the Rouge national urban park. After question period we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-5, which would also, in a similar vein, create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Friday will be set aside for third reading of Bill C-36.

Privacy

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, I asked the government why the Conservatives had such little respect for Canadians' right to privacy, a fundamental right, an immutable respect and non-negotiable right. According to documents we have obtained, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency committed roughly 3,000 privacy breaches and data breaches against Canadians in less than a year. That means there were more breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency this year than in all the departments combined since 2006, or when the Conservatives came to power. That is not trivial.

The changes the Conservatives are proposing would allow employees of the Canada Revenue Agency to hand over taxpayers' private information to the police without authorization from any sort of warrant. It is as though the Conservatives want to reward the Canada Revenue Agency for its mismanagement of private information, as we saw in recent scandals. Data breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency, the systematic collection of private information at airports and the passage of legislation facilitating access to private information without a warrant reinforce the perception that the government does not respect the right to privacy and that it is also opening the door to abuse with ill-conceived legislative reform.

The government introduced a series of bills that, according to experts, could have serious repercussions on Canadians' privacy. Indeed, Bill C-13, Bill S-4 and Bill C-31 enshrine a number of controversial practices in law.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has been sounding the alarm since last May. After revealing that the federal government is collecting vast amounts of personal information from telecommunications companies, the Privacy Commissioner's office then revealed that the federal government is also collecting personal information about Canadians from social networks.

Bill C-13 on cybercrime and Bill S-4 on the protection of digital information would allow telecommunications companies to provide personal information to other companies or law enforcement officials without a warrant. That is a very significant and serious issue.

I would like to quote a professor and intelligence expert from Laval University, Stéphane Leman-Langlois, who believes that Canadians should be very concerned. He said:

We can all agree that there is not very much privacy on the Internet, but still, there are some very weak protections in place. However, rather than strengthening privacy, which of course would be the best thing to do, the government is bombarding us with bills that will reduce those protections...

That is what is happening on the Conservatives' watch. They are reducing these protections and eroding respect for Canadians' privacy. As I said on a number of occasions, this truly is an intrusion into people's lives. That is very worrisome. We spoke about it last May, and I would like to talk about it again this month, now that Parliament is back in session, because it is really important.

The government did away with Statistics Canada's long-form census because it was too intrusive, but it has no problem allowing private companies to impinge on the privacy of millions of Canadians. That is completely hypocritical.

To shed some light on the consequences of these privacy bills, the NDP is asking for the creation of an independent panel of experts to examine how the government is using and storing Canadians' communications data.

Obviously, I am asking my colleague opposite to respond to this proposal. Does he intend to follow the NDP's recommendation and set up an independent panel of experts so that Canadians can be reassured with regard to their right to privacy, an immutable and fundamental right that all Canadians hold dear?

Justice

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to voice my opposition to the Conservatives' Bill C-36, the so-called “protection of communities and exploited persons act”. Bill C-36 would do nothing to improve the working conditions for those involved in the sex trade.

Under Bill C-36, a prostitute who communicates to sell sexual services could be thrown in jail for up to six months. This is the same criminalization of sex workers under a new name.

When sex workers and their clients are scared of prosecution, they will take steps to avoid police detection. This will lead to even more unsafe and riskier working conditions.

Bill C-36 flies in the face of all the concerns raised by our Supreme Court last December.

The Conservatives have tried to sell this bad bill by claiming that targeting the buyers of sex will decrease the demand for prostitution. This is ridiculous. The demand will always exist and has existed for the world's oldest profession.

A report from Norway, where prostitution laws were similar to those proposed by this government, concluded that sex workers there were still experiencing high levels of violence and discrimination against women had actually increased.

Bill C-36 is part of a pattern of the Conservatives' blatant disregard for the rights of Canadians. The unanimous ruling by our highest court was clear: the old laws were unconstitutional. They infringed on the charter right to security, which all Canadians are entitled to, including sex workers.

The Conservatives have totally ignored the Bedford ruling. The bill discriminates against sex workers. It openly defies the Supreme Court and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the Conservative government has disregarded the Supreme Court. Its Bill C-2 banned safe injection sites, which the court unanimously ruled were necessary to reduce health risks in 2011. The Conservatives have ignored the court's affirmation of Canadians' privacy rights and introduced Bill C-13, which would legalize Internet snooping.

This is shameful. The Conservatives' disdain for the constitutional rights of Canadians is reprehensible and dangerous.

The Conservatives had an opportunity to introduce evidence-based policy. They could have taken a hint from New Zealand, where prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed.

Research there shows that sex workers are safer and are empowered to refuse dangerous clients. Sex workers in New Zealand are more likely to use condoms and HIV rates there are lower there than in other countries. Employment conditions for sex workers in New Zealand have improved drastically and violence against sex workers there has declined significantly.

The facts speak for themselves. While the Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions about sexual matters, they are not entitled to their own facts.

The government should know that poverty is the major driver for many women in the sex trade. If the Conservatives really want to help sex workers, perhaps they would implement a guaranteed livable income so all Canadians could prosper in a safe career of their own choosing.

Our response should have followed the successful New Zealand model, a safe and regulated work environment. A practical and progressive government would, and will soon in about a year from now, face reality and make prostitution legal, regulated, taxed, safer for everyone and get organized crime out of the sex business.

Motions in Amendment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Halifax I was with some friends, a group of women, some feminists. We were getting together to talk about different issues. I said that I was speaking to a bill tomorrow and asked if any of them had any feedback or perspectives they thought were missing in this debate. Everyone knew instantly what bill I was talking about.

Rehtaeh Parsons' story has touched us all in Nova Scotia. It has left an indelible mark on all of us as Nova Scotians to know that this woman died by suicide as a result of images about her spread over the Internet. It has also ignited a really good and healthy debate in Nova Scotia. Everyone has taken part in this conversation, and we are trying to find solutions. The province put together a cyberbullying task force to think about what steps the province can take to prevent this tragedy from happening again. The debate has been lively, solemn, and very real. People have taken this burden seriously and have said that this is something we need to figure out as a community.

I was at this gathering of friends last night, and I told them I had to speak to this bill. One of the women I was with said, “The problem you will have tomorrow with this speech is that the Conservatives are not actually interested in issues. They are just interested in advancing their own agenda, and if they happen to find a situation or a case that helps them advance that agenda, they will use that opportunity to their advantage”. I really believe that this is what is happening here.

There are many reasons why I care about this issue. I care because Rehtaeh Parsons was a member of my community, because she was raped, because she was humiliated, and because she felt that the only option for her, the only way to end that humiliation, was suicide.

I care about this bill as a woman and as a public figure who understands the hurtful and humiliating power of the Internet. I care about this bill as a feminist. I care about this bill as a legislator, because Rehtaeh Parsons is not the only victim. I want to ensure that we have legislation in place to prevent cyberbullying. I want to send a message to Canadians that the distribution of private images without consent will not be tolerated. There are a lot of reasons to care about this bill.

I know that I speak for all of my NDP colleagues when I say that we must better protect people of all ages from the distribution of private images without consent. That is without any controversy. We were all proud to support our colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when he tabled his bill. He worked to present a balanced and sensible proposal to deal with this issue. He proposed Bill C-540, a bill that would make it an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of individuals without their consent. We stand in solidarity with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Rehtaeh Parsons' parents are his constituents. He made a commitment to them to figure out how we could change the law to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.

However, as my friend said last night, the Conservatives do not have an interest in this issue. They have an interest in advancing an agenda, because Bill C-13, the bill we have before us, goes well beyond what we need to do to change legislation to prevent cyberbullying. The scope of this bill is much larger than my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour's proposal.

Members will remember when the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, stood up in this House and said that we were with them or with the child pornographers. That was in February 2012. It was a pivotal moment for me in my experience as a member of Parliament, because the response from the community was swift and strong. Canadians said, “Not on our watch does a member get away with saying stuff like that”.

That was February 2012. It was when government introduced its hyperbolically named “protecting children from Internet predators act”. It was a bill that everyone rejected. We in the NDP rejected it, privacy advocates rejected it, and the public rejected it. The government was shamed into pulling this bill, never to be heard from again or so we thought.

Here we are and it is two years later, and finally the Conservatives have figured out a way. They have found their vehicle to get those changes brought in. This is their vehicle. This is their opportunity. They are taking two very tragic events, the deaths of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, and are using those events to advance their own agenda because, lo and behold, two years later we find the long-forgotten aspects of the Toews bill here in Bill C-13. Only this time it is under the auspices of cyberbullying.

What does targeting banks' financial data have to do with cyberbullying? What does making changes to the Terrorist Financing Act have to do with young people and the spread of images online without consent? If they are trying to prevent cyberbullying, why in the world do they need to change rules around telemarketing and the theft of communications services? It is a gross misuse of our privilege, the privilege we have as parliamentarians. It is dishonest and it is an abuse of the trust Canadians put in us when they cast their ballots.

If we were honest about our commitment to preventing cyberbullying, we would pass my NDP colleague's motion. If we were honest about our commitment to preventing bullying, we would have passed the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, to develop a national anti-bullying strategy. If we were honest about our commitment to preventing cyberbullying, we would have split this bill a long time ago.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau, who has worked incredibly hard on the bill, giving us advice as members of Parliament, doing the legal analysis, going to committee. She has tried at every turn to split the bill, because we agree with parts of it but not the rest.

It would be an incredible victory if we could say that this piece of legislation passed with unanimous consent, that there we were as parliamentarians, united in working to prevent cyberbullying. Instead, we have everything and the kitchen sink thrown into one bill, so of course the New Democrats have to say no. Of course we have to vote against it and that is going to be used for political partisan purposes. Thank goodness we cannot send ten percenters into other people's ridings anymore, because I know I would have one sent into my riding saying, “Do you realize that the member for Halifax voted against protecting your children?”

It is for partisan purposes. We should be splitting the bill. We have tried to split the bill. We also have tried to bring forward amendments. These are not crazy, complicated ideas for fixing the bill. They are simple and elegant. Some of these changes are not deal breakers; it is just changing a word. An example is raising the standard from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”. It is one simple word. We know what the solution is. Change that word from “suspect” to “believe” because there is a world of difference between those two concepts. I am suspicious all the time. Do I actually believe that things are happening? Probably not. It is a big legal difference. It is an elegant and simple solution. We proposed it after hearing from witnesses at committee, yet the proposition was voted down.

When my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, introduced his bill in June 2013, this was, as I said, a commitment to his constituents, Glen Canning and Leah Parsons. The member did an interview with Tobi Cohen, a journalist here on Parliament Hill, on July 22, 2013. He said at that time that he does not care who gets credit as long as it gets done, and he hoped the government would introduce a piece of legislation, because as we know, the process of passing government legislation is much more swift. The member said, “I hope that they don’t try to wrap too many things into one piece of legislation”.

Maybe we should not be so cynical as to try and predict that this kind of thing is going to happen, but it is the modus operandi here these days. Perhaps I can address some of my other points when I answer questions.

I find this whole bill to be disappointing. I really wish we could have worked together on this.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise in the House today, especially after hearing those of my colleagues who are legal experts debate Bill C-13. I would like to contribute based on my own personal experience.

I was a teacher for many years. I was lucky enough to teach many classes and work with many students. As an educator, I realize that in this modern world, education and information play a very important role. These days, young people need to adapt to a society that is quickly evolving. From my teaching days, I remember how students sometimes spoke to one another, how boys and girls talked. Sometimes it was troubling, because I found that the language they used often mimicked what they heard in the media, on TV and perhaps all around them, even on the street. It always troubled me to hear such language spoken between boys and girls. I taught for many years and then I did something else. However, that memory stayed with me.

In our society, social media and the Internet play a very important role in our lives and in the lives of young people. Unlike me, my nieces and nephews have never known a world without the Internet. Protecting privacy was very important in the past. My nieces and nephews were raised in a world in which the Internet plays a very important role. They were born with the Internet, much like I was born with television. We sometimes forget that when we are in our offices or in our rooms in front of a computer, as soon as we connect to the Internet, we are no longer in the privacy of our own space. We are in a public place. We are on display for everyone to see.

That is why my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord proposed a bullying prevention strategy, as a means of increasing awareness about bullying, including cyberbullying.

We need to keep in mind that the Internet is an absolutely terrific tool for sharing information, but it can be used maliciously. On the one hand, it can be an extraordinary information tool, but on the other hand, it can be a very powerful tool for bullying. As such, it must be used very carefully. To me, education and prevention are very important. We have to know how to use a tool as powerful as the Internet, how to protect ourselves against cyberbullying, what means we can use to do so, and what resources are available if we fall victim to cyberbullying.

By providing information to young girls, young boys, women, the marginalized, and even those who are being bullied, by providing them with the tools to protect themselves and a safe place where they can be protected from these attacks, we are giving them the power to combat bullying and violence. Of course, often awareness, information and education are not enough. However, it is very important that we start with this approach as much as possible.

It is not easy to talk about bullying because it affects not only us as humans and our emotions, but also memories and things that have happened to us. I have to admit that it is not always easy to talk about it.

I am also the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We recently studied the issue of eating disorders. As part of this study, we spoke about the impact of social media and the Internet. The way in which body image is projected—especially for women—is very interesting, as is the way that the Internet and social media put an incredible amount of pressure on girls and women, when it comes to that body image. There is work to be done when it comes to the media, social media and the Internet. At the end of the day, what can we do to bring this body image more in line with reality?

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, the current title of the bill is unfortunately misleading. The bill is called the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. As it has done with many of its bills, the government has included a number of elements in this bill that go far beyond the issue of cybercrime. I want to stress that we are now not only talking about peace officers, but also public officers, which the bill describes as someone “who is appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law”.

I find these excesses troubling. Once again, I want to congratulate our new justice critic and all the members of the official opposition on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They presented perfectly reasonable amendments to address the excesses in Bill C-13. For example, the amendments dealt with changing the wording of “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”; establishing that the term “peace officer” applies to police officers; and removing the worrisome term of “public officer”, which is poorly defined and could, once again, lead to spillover. They also proposed including a clause to require that the minister report to the House to indicate how many request and orders were submitted, and to include a certain clause.

I want to once again express my support for my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca regarding the importance of including a clause on gender equality, in order to protect transgendered people from cyberbullying.

A great many troubling things have been added to this bill, and they have no business being there. That is why the official opposition cannot support this bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his speech. He highlighted the hypocrisy demonstrated by this government when it comes to defending the rights of the transgendered community. I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on this issue and talk to us a little more about what is missing from Bill C-13.

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

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee heard from a number of family members of victims of cyberbullying, including Allan Hubley, the father of Jamie Hubley. I do not know if the member had an opportunity to review the testimony before the justice committee, but I will quote Mr. Allan Hubley. He stated, “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.” Mr. Hubley continued, “Not only does it start to take the mask off of them, but through this legislation there are serious consequences for their actions.”

Bill C-13 introduces a number of measures to take the mask off the perpetrator, such as production orders that allow for the disclosure of certain information. I wonder if the member opposite could explain why he is opposed to judicially authorized measures that will help unmask those that exploit others online, such as Jamie Hubley.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-13, and I think that is unfortunate.

Like many MPs, I had high hopes when the issue of cyberbullying first came before the House. I had high hopes that we would recognize the urgency with which we needed to respond to cyberbullying and the risk of suicides, especially when we were faced with the unfortunate examples of Rehtaeh Parsons in Nova Scotia and Amanda Todd in B.C. taking their own lives.

In fact, we did respond relatively quickly. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a private member's bill in June 2013. It was a simple bill that did not include a lot of extraneous material. It was a simple bill that would have made it an offence to produce or distribute intimate images of an individual without that person's consent.

Unfortunately, despite attempts to get unanimous consent to move the bill forward, the government said that it had to do a lot more study and think a lot more about what it wanted to present in a government bill. When that bill finally got before us in November 2013, nearly a year ago, as usual with the Conservative government we found a far broader bill than was necessary. It is a bill that includes many issues that have little or nothing to do with cyberbullying, including restrictions on telemarketing, theft of telecommunication services, provisions on terrorist financing, and bank financial disclosures.

What we have before us now is a bill with a much broader scope and one that includes bringing back many aspects of the Conservatives' previous Bill C-30, which was widely rejected by public opinion and especially by privacy advocates.

As someone who worked closely with the criminal justice system for more than two decades before coming here, I have some very serious concerns about the government's attempt to expand access to personal information, both with and without a warrant, that remains in Bill C-13

I am very concerned about the new and low bar for grounds for getting a warrant to get personal information. I see no justification for lowering the grounds for a warrant from “reasonable grounds to believe”, to this new category of reasonable suspicion. For that reason, of course, we proposed an amendment to delete this clause entirely from the bill.

In fact, I believe, despite the speeches we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, that the Spencer case this summer brings into question the constitutionality of many provisions of Bill C-13. This was an important ruling banning Internet service providers from disclosing names, addresses, and phone numbers of customers voluntarily to the authorities.

The bill would also create a worrying new category of those entitled to our personal information. It has expanded from the well-defined, in law, concept of peace officers, and we know who they are, to this unclear new concept of “public officers”. Does this mean tax officials? Who does this mean are public officers?

In committee we proposed 37 different amendments to try to narrow the scope of the bill. As my colleague for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour so eloquently put it a few moments ago, we were trying to make sure that this bill did not spend the rest of its life being challenged in court. Unfortunately, we did not see any of those amendments adopted, and I do not think we will see our amendments adopted at report stage.

I want to return to one surprising inclusion in Bill C-13 that I was happy to see there. For whatever reason, the government decided to reopen the hate crime section of the Criminal Code in clause 12 of Bill C-13. There is some connection there with cyberbullying and cyberbullying's relation to an escalation into hate crimes.

I think perhaps there was a justification, but I was very surprised to see that when the government listed the new identifiable groups to receive protection, it added national origin, sex, age, and mental or physical disability. Yet what was left out was gender identity.

The House of Commons had already agreed, in a vote on my private member's bill, Bill C-279, on March 20, 2013, by a margin of 149 to 137, with support from all parties, to include protection on the basis of gender identity. Therefore, there was a deliberate omission from this list of new protected grounds of something that we had already decided in the full House.

This is why earlier today I proposed an amendment to clause 12, which I had already placed in the justice committee. I was optimistic that we would be allowed to debate this bill again. I proposed this amendment in committee to try to correct what I felt was an error in the drafting of Bill C-13. It should have included gender identity, precisely for the reason I cited: we had already voted on this provision here in the full House of Commons.

I was very optimistic in committee. After all, two of the five government members in the justice committee had voted for my private member's bill. Therefore, I expected when I proposed the amendment it would pass in committee by a vote of 6 to 3 in favour, because that is how those members had previously voted on the very same provision in Bill C-279. However, at the last minute, one Conservative changed his vote and one member was substituted out of committee. Hence, my amendment was defeated 5 to 4.

This is why I placed my amendment on the order paper again and asked the Speaker to take the unusual step of allowing it to be put before the full House again. The Speaker ruled that my amendment did not meet the test set out in our rules, which would have allowed it to come before the House today as part of this debate.

The problem, of course, is not the Speaker's ruling. It is instead that the government, which always posed as neutral on the provisions of my private member's bill, has found a way of using a government bill to undo the decision that had already been taken in the House on Bill C-279 to provide protection against hate crimes to transgender Canadians. This shows a fundamental disrespect for the will of the majority as already expressed in the House. Therefore, when it comes to respecting the rights of transgender Canadians, it turns out the government is not as neutral as it was pretending to be. This perhaps explains what has happened to the same provision we could have been talking about today, over in the Senate in Bill C-279.

The second problem we have in achieving protection against hate crimes for transgender Canadians is, of course, the Senate. The bill has been before the Senate two different times. The first time was in the spring of 2011. It was approved by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate, which failed to act at all before the election was called. Therefore, that provision died before the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-279 passed the House of Commons on March 20, 2013, a year and a half ago. It has been in the Senate for a year and a half. I know they only meet three days a week, but there are still plenty of sitting days for them to deal with this. In fact, in 2013, it did pass second reading. In other words, it received approval in principle. Now we have the House of Commons saying that what we were supposed to be dealing with in the bill to be true and the Senate, in principle, agreeing. It was sent to the human rights committee, which held hearings and approved Bill C-279 without amendment and returned it to the full floor of the Senate, where a third reading and final vote was not called. The House prorogued and that bill started over.

Here again is where the supposed neutrality of the government on protecting transgender Canadians against hate crimes comes into question. The bill could have been expedited through the Senate, as it had already been through all the stages there. Even simpler, the bill could have been sent back to the human rights committee, and since it had already held hearings and dealt with the bill, it could have been returned quickly to the floor of the Senate. Instead, the government leadership in the Senate sent the bill to a different committee, the legal and constitutional affairs committee. This is an interesting choice. This not only meant that the committee would have to hold new hearings, but it is the busiest committee in the Senate, with the government's crime agenda. It means this committee will have to deal with bills like the one we have before us today, Bill C-13; Bill C-36, dealing with sex work; and Bill C-2, dealing with safe injection sites. It will have to deal with all of those before it ever gets to a private member's bill.

Again, the fig leaf of neutrality claimed by the government is looking a little withered, since decisions on where the bill is going and its timing are made by the government leadership in the Senate. It is beginning to look a lot like the government intends to let Bill C-279 die in the Senate once again.

The final obstacle to achieving protection for transgender Canadians against hate crimes, and I think the real reason gender identity was omitted from the new groups protected in the hate crimes section 12 of Bill C-13, is the failure to recognize not just the fundamental justice of providing equal rights to transgender Canadians, but the failure to recognize both the urgency and the inevitability of doing so.

Transgender Canadians remain the group most discriminated against in Canada. They remain the group most likely to be subject to hate crimes and most disturbingly, they remain the group most likely to be subject to violence when it comes to hate crimes. All transgender Canadians are looking for is the recognition of the same rights that other Canadians already enjoy. We are missing a chance here in Bill C-13 to provide equal protection against hate crimes to transgender Canadians.

There was a time when other Canadians did not enjoy the equality they do today. There were provisions in our law that seem incredible now. There was a time when Asian Canadians could not vote or practise the professions. There was a time when I, as a gay man, could have been jailed for my sexual orientation, fired from my job, or evicted from my housing. Now, fortunately, that time has passed.

I am disappointed, then, that we are missing a chance today to move forward to the time when we look back and cannot imagine that transgendered Canadians did not enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Canadians. I know that day will come, and I will continue to work to make sure it is sooner rather than later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his work on the issue of cyberbullying. I know he cares about it quite deeply. I also thank him for the bill he brought before the House.

He will know, because he has studied this issue quite extensively, about the recommendation of the cybercrime working group, which is a group of experts in the law that report to the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice. It recommended that in order to address cyberbullying, we needed to provide police authorities with some additional powers for investigation. They include data preservation demands and orders, new production orders to trace specified communications, like we had in the Amanda Todd case, and new warrants and production orders for transmission data. I would like to assure him that nothing in Bill C-13 allows for new warrantless release of information.

Could he tell us if he disagrees with the recommendations that are contained in Bill C-13? Perhaps he could tell us why he thought his bill would work without them.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to some extent to participate in the debate at this particular time, at the report stage.

I want to start by commending my colleagues, our justice critic and other members of the justice and human rights committee, who have worked so hard on Bill C-13 and introduced 37 amendments at the committee stage to try to take away some of the more onerous portions of this particular bill so that it would not, for example, spend the rest of its life in court being challenged constitutionally. It has taken a fair bit of effort and energy, I know, and patience on their part to do what they have done. I want them to know how much I appreciate it.

I want to, also, remind members that back on October 17, 11 months ago almost, I rose on a point of order to say that I was concerned about the issue that had been raised in my private member's bill, Bill C-540, making it a criminal offence to distribute non-consensual intimate images. While I had heard from the government in the throne speech and from utterances of the then minister of justice that he supported this in principle, I was concerned that the issue would get bundled up in a major piece of legislation, a controversial piece of legislation, and that it may get delayed or lost.

I sought unanimous consent at that particular time to consider Bill C-540 deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I did so because everyone in the House, of all parties, to a person, said that they supported the idea of holding people to account, changing the Criminal Code to ensure that the non-consensual distribution of intimate images was a crime and that people were going to be held accountable. I then moved a motion to say, let us move this to committee right now. This is a serious situation. It's affecting families. It is affecting lives across the country. Let us deal with it now. There is a will here. Let us find the way.

Unfortunately, that was turned down by the government.

It is interesting. The government then brought in Bill C-13, the initial portions of which dealt with the same issue that my private member's bill did, a little more thoroughly, of course, but it dealt with it. However, then the government did exactly what I and many of us were afraid of. It tacked on a great deal of what was in the former bill, Bill C-30, which it had to yank off the table two years ago because it was so soundly repudiated by privacy experts and others from across the country. The government attached it to the back of the cyberbullying bill.

When it introduced the bill, it did so in the company of the parents of people who had committed suicide, who had taken their lives as a result of cyberbullying, and it said, “We're here to deal with this”. It did not talk about the other parts of it.

Of course, there was great hope in those families and by advocates across the country that the government was going to move forward on this. Lo and behold, as is too often the case with the Conservatives, we got involved in a very controversial debate. We began to learn more about what was really in the bill, and advocates and privacy experts from across the country began to raise concerns.

Even one of the parents, who stood with the minister when the bill was introduced, said at committee that even though she wanted the Criminal Code to be changed to make the non-consensual distribution of intimate images a crime and that there should be consequences, she could not abide what else was in the bill, the outrageous and invasive parts of the bills that would allow for information on the Internet to be more accessible to authorities.

As was talked about in the recent Spencer case, the Supreme Court said it was about barring Internet service providers from disclosing names and addresses. It said that Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the Internet.

Here we have a bill that has been cloaked as an attempt to deal with the heartbreak and anguish experienced by families across the country as a result of their loved ones being bullied mercilessly through the Internet. It is a bill that has been identified as being meant to deal with that, yet in fact it is much more.

I had the opportunity to talk today with another parent. I explained to that parent what had happened, how things have progressed, the concerns that we have with the bill. I explained that the NDP would not be supporting this legislation.

He knew this anyway, because of work we had done in the past, the support I have provided, and the things we were doing together with other people to build awareness and to try to deal with this scourge of teen suicide. He understands my commitment. He, too, is shaken by the infringement on privacy provisions that are part of this bill. I am not going to tell the House that he gave me a pass, but he understands my concerns. He appreciates that I have tried to work, and will continue to work, with him and others to deal with this problem.

The point is that we are here. It has been a year and a half since I introduced the private member's bill, and it is another year and a half into this serious problem. We have still not dealt with it.

I get discouraged sometimes in this House when it seems that we cannot get from one point to the other without creating all kinds of controversy and hard feelings, bitterness and division.

Right now, as we speak, there are people in communities who are helping to build awareness of why cyberbullying is wrong. They are coming up with strategies to identify when teenagers and others are beginning to experience feelings of depression and suicide.

One of the parents I spoke to said that the most gratifying thing that happens as he goes across the country talking to junior and high school students is when the 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds come up to him. They are saying there is a problem and that this is what they are doing about it. The students are telling him what they are doing because they recognize it.

This is what is happening in communities across the country. People are recognizing that they have to step up and do something, because unfortunately governments are not up to the task.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the Spencer decision of the Supreme Court in his speech. Perhaps he did not have an opportunity to hear the speech I made earlier, but I will just quickly restate my position, which is that the provision in Bill C-13 that he refers to says that where a person is not prohibited by law from sharing information with police authorities, they will not incur any civil or criminal liability.

The Spencer decision of the Supreme Court said that in specific circumstances where telecom companies, which is one small part of information that might be provided to law enforcement authorities in cases like this, do that voluntarily, going forward, that will not be permissible by law. Therefore, this provision of Bill C-13 simply upholds the decision of the Supreme Court in Spencer. In other words, it has clarified the law, and the provision specifically says it is things that are not prohibited by law from being disclosed. What was previously disclosed voluntarily in that specific situation can no longer be voluntarily disclosed without prior judicial authorization.

However, there are other things that can be. It is a general rule of law that people have a right to co-operate with the police, and we wish them to do so in order to keep our citizens safe.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13, which has already been debated for three hours today and has just come back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

A lot of hard work has been done on this bill. I am thinking, in particular, of the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. I am happy to hear that good work was done in committee.

However, the results of that work are perhaps not quite what we on this side of the House expected. Unfortunately, the amendments that were made to this bill were not sufficient for us to be able to support it at report stage.

I must first say that this bill may be a rather sensitive subject for some people. It may hit close to home and be a sensitive subject for some people because it involves bullying and there is often mention of the unfortunate incidents that were reported in the media. It is vital that we remember the importance of the work we are doing as parliamentarians to try to address this issue, which sometimes has tragic consequences. Bullying is a problem in our society that has evolved over the past few decades. Obviously, the Internet is one of the elements that has changed the problem of bullying. It is becoming easier to bully someone online today because we can easily access the Internet with our cell phones and computers.

This problem has evolved and has become quite a significant issue for our youth and also for adults. As parliamentarians, we must discuss this problem and try to solve it, even though there is no magic solution. We have to consider the underlying causes. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île often talks about the underlying causes. Furthermore, we must not believe that the solution to the problem is to create a Criminal Code offence and that all of a sudden there will be no more bullying. It is never that simple. It is therefore important to discuss this problem and other ways of dealing with it.

We were also somewhat disappointed with the process that led to the drafting of this bill. Members will remember that Bill C-30 was also introduced in the first session of the 41st Parliament and that there was significant opposition to that bill from civil society and the different political parties. It is unfortunate that Bill C-13 contains some of what was widely rejected in Bill C-30. I am talking about the provisions concerning the electronic surveillance of Canadians.

My impression is that the government is taking Bill C-13 and the issue of bullying—which is a very important and sensitive issue—and integrating certain parts of Bill C-30, which was very controversial, as I said. It was abandoned by the Conservatives after the uproar that followed its introduction. It is sad that they are using this tactic and are trying to do indirectly what they said they would not do. It was abandoned. It is disappointing to see that it is now being included in Bill C-13.

This issue could have been settled quickly, or at least more quickly. I do not think that we are going to solve the problem of bullying overnight. However, we could have at least moved in the right direction.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a worthwhile bill. Unfortunately, it did not receive the Conservatives' support. However, one part of his bill did find its way into the Conservatives' current bill. I find that somewhat curious.

If I understand correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice seems to have an explanation. He says that it is all well and good to add an offence to the Criminal Code, but it is also important to grant investigative powers to the police.

I do not remember when exactly during the process of studying the bill this happened—it may have been the day after it was introduced—but the Spencer decision provided some clarification. Unfortunately, the bill did not change, even in light of the decision, which defined the limits that can be placed on electronic surveillance and the amount of personal information Internet service providers can share about Canadians.

I believe that the government should have complied with the Spencer decision, but that is not the case, unfortunately. That is the main reason we are opposing this bill.

I would like to clarify the court's decision in Spencer, which had to do with providers sharing information. The decision clearly established that Canadians had the right to online anonymity and that the police had to get a warrant to find out Internet users' identity.

However, Bill C-13 creates a new policy that allows access to personal information with or without a warrant. This opens the door to obtaining personal information without a warrant even though the Spencer decision said the opposite. It said that a warrant was absolutely necessary to get personal information about a Canadian citizen on the Internet.

Internet service providers have access to that information. They can find that information and share it with law enforcement to investigate bullying cases, for example. The Spencer decision set boundaries for getting information by requiring a warrant. However, Bill C-13 opens the door to getting personal information without a warrant.

All of this is unfolding in an era when people have growing concerns about electronic surveillance because the government is monitoring our actions more and more. Not long ago, groups met peacefully to talk about issues or met in the streets to demonstrate. We know that the government, which has thousands of employees who monitor Canadians, would watch what such groups were doing during those completely peaceful meetings and demonstrations that could not have given anyone any reason to believe there was a threat to Canada's security.

This is unfolding in an era when people feel that the government is collecting more and more information about Canadians. We also have to set clearer boundaries about how this information is obtained and about Canadians' right to privacy.

I would be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time to speak to Bill C-13, which addresses cyberbullying.

When the government announced Bill C-13 to combat cyberbullying, everyone thought it was a good idea. Perhaps the government had finally come up with a good idea. Everyone here knows that cyberbullying is taking a heavy toll on our youth. The people who work on the front lines—psychoeducators who work in high schools, street outreach workers and everyone else who works with youth—know how bullying can destroy lives, individuals and families. Some cases have made headlines, including the case of young Rehtaeh Parsons. Unfortunately, we know just how far cyberbullying can go. It can lead to suicide. No one in the House would say that we can remain indifferent about an issue as important as cyberbullying.

In the first speech I gave on Bill C-13, I emphasized the need to take action on the ground. I could even draw a parallel with the speech I just gave this morning on Bill C-36. The Conservatives often think they can use justice to solve all the problems inherent in a given situation. In the case of prostitution, for instance, inherent problems include poverty, exclusion and mental illness. The same is true when it comes to bullying. Some of the factors involved in bullying cannot be addressed through criminalization.

The provisions of Bill C-13, which makes it an offence to distribute intimate images, are a good start. In fact, the bill fits in with the bill introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which aims to prevent the kinds of situations that unfortunately led to the suicides of several young Canadians over the past few years.

Upon closer examination of the bill, one can see that it refers to various subjects ranging from cyberbullying to terrorism, banking information, telemarketing and theft of a telecommunication service.

Most of the provisions have very little if anything to do with cyberbullying. This bill is similar to the Conservatives' previous Bill C-30, which allowed access to Canadians' personal information.

The parliamentary secretary said that it was debated extensively and thoroughly examined in committee. That is all wonderful, except that all the experts agree that the study should have been even more thorough when it comes to the provisions regarding access to information. That is why we asked that the bill be split. Unfortunately, because we ran out of time, the provisions on cyberbullying were not examined much, if at all. We focused on the access to information provisions.

This issue is very important for our young people, and I find it extremely unfortunate that the debate is centred around access to information. That has nothing to do with our young students or the young girl who is being bullied by her classmates or receiving hateful messages on Facebook.

Access to information will have no impact on this girl, or perhaps it will, unfortunately, if the government wants access to her private information, which would be too bad. This is not going to help young people who need their government to work for them and do something about this.

A number of experts said that Bill C-13, together with Bill S-4, might have extremely significant repercussions on access to our private information, including access without a warrant.

I also asked a number of questions about an oversight mechanism. I would like to point out that the Conservatives refused to adopt such a mechanism. My colleague from Gatineau proposed an amendment requiring the department to report to Parliament on the use of this type of power. I would like to note that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, not because the mechanism allowed information obtained without a warrant to be shared, but because application of that section did not include any oversight mechanism or notification mechanism. According to the Supreme Court, the rights of people being wiretapped were intrinsically violated because they did not know they were being tapped. At the end of the day, without an oversight mechanism, we are giving the police and the government power without accountability. We can agree that we are giving nearly absolute power to the minister and police officers to access Canadians' information.

The Supreme Court was clear. I have not even touched on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spencer, which reiterates that telecommunications companies do not have the right to turn Canadians' private information over without a warrant. It is a violation and it is unconstitutional because there is no oversight mechanism.

I made a comparison with section 188, which was not struck down by the Supreme Court. That section allows for warrantless wiretaps, but it includes an oversight mechanism. The department is therefore obliged to report to Parliament on warrantless wiretapping.

According to the Supreme Court, this is clearly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to adopt our amendments on creating such a reporting mechanism, which is too bad. We can already see that part of the bill will likely be challenged in court or even deemed unconstitutional.

Who will be the main victims of that challenge? My colleague from Gatineau told us several times. The main victims of the Conservatives' incompetence at drafting bills and studying issues thoroughly are the victims of bullying. The main victims will not be parliamentarians, lawyers or judges. No, the main victims will be victims of bullying, who unfortunately will have to wait for a legal challenge—which could take years and could go all the way to the Supreme Court—before justice is served.

I would like to underline the fact that when the Minister of Justice held his press conference, he said that Bill C-13 only legislated on a specific issue, namely cyberbullying. I know of several articles that quoted him as saying that this was not an omnibus bill and that its only purpose was to legislate on cyberbullying.

However, this bill contains a clause that gives not only peace officers, but also public officers access to these powers. Several experts wondered who would have access to these powers. Who would have access to Canadians' information? Would it be only the police, and only in specific situations, or would it be public officers from Revenue Canada in other situations?

This bill is so badly written that, unfortunately, the main victims who will be denied justice will be victims of bullying. Is that really what the Conservative government wants?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, a hard-working member, whom I know is stellar in his service to his constituents. He does amazing work here in the House as well.

This bill is all about politics. It is about playing politics. We have parts of a bill that the current government said would never come forward again, and elements of that bill in Bill C-13 right now that are from Bill C-30. This bill, or kernels of it, originated with the NDP, as I said, by my hard-working colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.If this bill were separated, we could have passed it months ago. That concerns me. However, once again, the Conservatives would rather bury things that get into invasion of privacy.

Even the mother, in one of our most tragic deaths, says that this bill goes too far.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was clear to me that when the member called for the separation of Bill C-13 into two parts, one of which is the criminal sanction against the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, that she had not read the report of the CCSO, Cybercrime Working Group, dated June 2013, called “Cyberbullying and Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images”.

These are experts from every province and territory of Canada. They are the expert legal advisors who advise the provincial and territorial ministers of justice. The member has probably heard, if she has been here for the duration of this debate today, what the experts recommended in recommendation number 4. However, nobody is addressing what investigative powers that are recommended by the experts the government should enact in the Criminal Code.

Which of these provisions does the member disagree with? She is saying to separate it and to pass the non-consensual distribution of images part, which would not give the police any power to investigate anything. It would not stop anything from happening, the next Amanda Todd or Rehtaeh Parsons or Jamie Hubley, and the list of victims goes on.

In order to enable the police to help people, they need things such as the data preservation demands and orders. Does the member agree or disagree with that? They need new warrants and production orders for the transmission of data. Does she agree or disagree with that, yes or no?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and speak on a motion that I believe to be critical, so it saddens me that I will have to speak against it. It is 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.

Let me give a bit of perspective. In that regard, I want to congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who introduced Bill C-540 in 2013, following the tragic death of Amanda Todd and other victims of cyberbullying, including Rehtaeh Parsons. These deaths moved the nation. I would say that the feelings across the country were palpable. It did not matter whether one lived on the west coast, on the Prairies, or on the east coast; families right across Canada lived the pain that those families went through.

The bill put forward by my colleague was a fairly reasonable one. As members know, at that time the Conservatives introduced legislation as well, Bill C-30. Bill C-30 was from the minister of the day, who is no longer in the House. There was a huge, almost unprecedented reaction to that bill, especially through social media. Just to remind us all, Bill C-30 was called the “protecting children from Internet predators act”. That bill was rejected not only by the NDP, based on what was included in it, but also by privacy advocates and the public. That reaction forced the Conservative Party to back away from it.

I can remember some of the rhetoric from that time when it backed away from that legislation, which was ill thought out and an absolute invasion of privacy. At that time, I can remember hearing commitment from the government side that any attempts to modernize the Criminal Code would not contain the measures contained in Bill C-30. Now here we are on Bill C-13.

There are parts of this legislation that the official opposition heartily and happily supports. On more than one occasion we have suggested to the government that if it is serious about taking action on cyberbullying, it should separate the bill. We offered to expedite it through the House. It would have been law already.

However, once again I find the party sitting across from this side playing games with a very sensitive issue, producing a bill that has some good parts to it that we want to support but then throwing in parts that it knows will make it difficult for us to support the bill.

The NDP is never scared of hard work, whether it comes to standing up to speak on issues in the House and taking up allocated time spots, and normally filling in even for the government side because it does not take up all its speaking slots, or when it comes to committee work. In order to make this bill palatable and make it go through the House, the opposition put forward 37 amendments. They were all reasonable amendments that would have added some balance to the bill.

What is shocking is that the government did the same as it has done on bill after bill. It was its way or no way. It rejected every single one of those amendments.

The Canadian Bar Association came to present as well. I am not talking about a radical group here. I am talking about lawyers. The Canadian Bar Association expressed the same concerns as the NDP and other witnesses. It put forward 19 possible amendments to the bill, but not one of those amendments was taken into consideration.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to bury things in a bill so they can get their agenda through, but at the same time they are trying to bury some legislation that is absolutely needed.

I have been a teacher all of my life. I am also a mother and a grandmother. The world has changed for our children. They are spending more time on the Internet or attached to their cell phones, although many of us are guilty of that too. They are socializing differently as well.

We have to look at modernizing the way we see bullying. It is no longer just about bullying in the playground, where a child is bullied physically or verbally, face-to-face. Cyberbullying allows for a certain amount of anonymity. We have seen the tragic results of that kind of bullying. We have seen its impact on young people.

It is upsetting for me today to speak against a bill that contains a component that I support. I would urge my colleagues across the way to take a second and consider that we could have the cyberbullying component in the bill turned into legislation quickly. We need to get off the ideological idea that we cannot have a simple bill that deals with one issue. We have to get off the ideological idea that other stuff has to be thrown in to get the ideological agenda done. It also gives those members an opportunity to stand up later and say that the NDP voted against this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not make that case very clearly at the time the justice committee was choosing witnesses to appear before the committee. However, I will point out that as a result of the Spencer decision, telecom providers have changed their practices, as is appropriate. They are applying the law, which is what the provisions of Bill C-13 do: they say that it is when “not prohibited by law”. If the Supreme Court has decided it is prohibited by law to release the information, then that would now be the law.

The telecom providers will have an opportunity to speak to that matter at the Senate hearings, I assume in a very few weeks. There is no way that the government can operate by waiting for the many cases that may be percolating through the court system on any given issue before moving forward. What the courts do is clarify, and that is what they have done in this case. In our view, they have not changed the application of Bill C-13 at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions by my colleague from the justice committee. She will know that the Spencer decision had been mooted in the lower courts and that everyone was quite well aware of those arguments. I think everyone on the Justice committee at the time that this bill was studied was aware of the arguments that were put before the Supreme Court.

The opposition seems to have a position that the government should wait for the courts to make decisions in cases. There are dozens of cases before the courts of this land at any given time, but what our government needs to do and intends to do is rebalance our justice legislation between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims in order to restore people's faith in the justice system. We think Bill C-13 does that with respect to cyberbullying. We are implementing the recommendations of the cybercrime working group, and the member will know that those provisions are very necessary in order to allow the legal authorities to investigate such crimes and prevent these crimes from happening again in the future.

We need to move quickly. The member has called for a split of the bill. She will know that virtually every expert who was called by the opposition appeared before the committee, that these issues were significantly debated, and they will be debated again when the Senate debates the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I recognize a lot of things other members of the Conservative benches have already said on this topic.

I am particularly interested in a few issues, which I touched upon earlier with previous speakers. The article was rather interesting. I sometimes meet people who fight their whole lives to get their message across.

I would like to share another quote from the article entitled, “Why anti-‘revenge porn’ pioneer doesn’t like Canada’s cyberbullying law”, written by Anna Mehler Paperny and published today on Global News.

Mary Anne Franks is one of those people who travels all over the world defending the rights of people who are attacked after their images are shared on the Internet.

Here is what she said:

But Franks’ more serious objections have to do with the bill’s contents: “It seems like a way to get Canadians to accept a greater intrusion on the part of government and police into their personal lives and using revenge porn as a pretext for doing that, which is incredibly upsetting. … We don’t want to use a legitimate recognition of harmful behaviour as a pretext for violating people’s civil rights.”

I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice thinks about Ms. Franks' rather harsh criticism of the Conservatives' legislation. Did they receive any legal opinions regarding the Spencer decision that the opposition and official opposition benches would have an interest in seeing? It would be interesting to see what kind of information they have that we do not, aside from comments that this decision tears Bill C-13 apart.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in today's very important debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Bill C-13 would provide a strong criminal justice response to the problem of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying, much like bullying in general, is a very complex social phenomenon that requires the attention of all segments of society. Most bullying behaviour is not a criminal behaviour and should be dealt with outside of the criminal justice system. However, we know that the reach of the Internet, the speed at which information can be shared, and the ability to act anonymously have made cyberbullying a serious concern.

This problem cannot be fixed simply by enacting a new law that would adequately cover all instances of this behaviour, but that does not mean that the criminal law cannot be strengthened in this area. This is why Bill C-13 provides a targeted response within the government's broader commitment to address the issue of bullying and cyberbullying.

If passed into the law, the proposed Criminal Code amendments would create a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images with accompanying complementary amendments. The second main purpose of Bill C-13 is to provide the police with tools to give them the ability to address all crimes committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence.

Let me state the obvious here. All of the elements of Bill C-13 logically go together. Police will be able to more effectively and efficiently investigate the proposed new offence and other crimes committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence with the proposed legally authorized tools.

Absent the new production and preservation orders proposed in Bill C-13, there would be no tool in the Criminal Code to enable the preservation and ensure that important evidence is not deleted. There would be no tool designed for production of specific subsets of tracking data and transmission data, nor would there be a tool to assist in tracing a communication by using one order with multiple providers. Without these tools, law enforcement's ability to protect Canadians from online crime and cyberbullying would be seriously hampered.

I would like to focus my remarks today on a specific provision included in Bill C-13, proposed subsection 487.0195(2) of the Criminal Code, which would provide immunity from civil and criminal liability to persons who voluntarily assist police. In a nutshell, proposed subsection 487.0195(2) would amend existing subsection 487.014(2) of the Criminal Code, which was enacted in 2004 with the creation of production orders in the Criminal Code. Subsection 487.014(2) was designed to clarify that the new production orders were not intended to preclude ongoing voluntary assistance where such assistance was not precluded by law and to reconfirm existing legal principles that such assistance would not create any liability, either civil or criminal.

When new authorities such as production orders are created in law, the result can be that common law authorities are displaced. This was not the intent when production orders were introduced into the Criminal Code in 2004, nor is it the intent with respect to the updates to production orders and the new preservation authorities proposed in Bill C-13.

The ability of the public to voluntarily assist police is essential to effective policing and a core component of ensuring public safety. Police may request information on a voluntary basis in many situations, including general policing duties that may not relate directly to investigating a crime, such as requesting information so they can contact family members when there is an accident.

However, I want to be clear. Bill C-13 would not create a new authority for voluntary assistance. It would simply clarify that any existing authority for voluntary assistance continues to be in place where not prohibited by law. It would also not create a new protection from civil or criminal liability but reconfirms the existing protection. This provision simply reconfirms existing legal principles that if an entity is legally permitted to turn over data to the police, then that entity will not be subject to civil or criminal liability for doing so. If an entity is prohibited by law from disclosing information, for example, by legislation or by contract, then immunity will not be available.

The minor revisions to existing subsection 487.014(2) that are proposed in Bill C-13 are primarily to make the provision more transparent and understandable by specifying that the protections from civil and criminal liability that are currently provided in section 25 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the protection of persons acting under authority, apply not only in the context of the current production orders but also in the context of the new production orders proposed in Bill C-13. The proposed amendments would also reflect the addition of preservation demands and orders to the Criminal Code.

This existing provision, which did not receive any attention when it was first enacted in 2004, attracted considerable criticism in the media and during committee hearings on Bill C-13. Indeed, this provision was wrongly reported as providing police with warrantless access to personal information and has been inaccurately described as a means of opening the floodgates of data between the private sector and the police.

In addition, some have also called for the deletion of this provision as a result of their interpretation of the June 2014 unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Spencer.

I wish first to confirm what the government has stated all along, a view supported by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Spencer: that proposed subsection 487.0195(2) does not create any new search and seizure powers. Second, the proposed section continues to be required for those who continue to voluntarily assist the police where not prohibited by law. Those words are very specifically spelled out in the proposed legislation.

Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Spencer said in paragraph 73 of the decision that the existing voluntary disclosure and immunity provision is “...a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries”, as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “for greater certainty”. The decision makes it clear that Bill C-13 does not, and never did, create new police powers to access telecommunications data without a judicial warrant.

In R. v. Spencer, the court expanded the privacy protections afforded to information related to an Internet protocol, or IP, address in certain circumstances, thereby taking this information out of the realm of information that can be provided voluntarily. However, the court did not suggest that voluntary disclosures were now impermissible. Rather, it held that voluntary assistance could still be provided in exigent circumstances, or pursuant to a reasonable law, or where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This clearly leaves scope for permissible voluntary assistance and provision of information without judicial pre-authorization.

Since the R. v. Spencer decision still allows for voluntary assistance to police in those circumstances, the clarification and the protection from immunity contained an existing subsection 487.014(2) and proposed subsection 487.0195(2) are still needed.

Bill C-13 was thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee amended the bill to require a parliamentary review of proposed sections 487.011 to 487.02 of the Criminal Code—i.e., the new preservation demands and orders, the updated production order scheme, and the assistance order provision—seven years after these provisions come into force.

I agree with this amendment and said so at the justice committee. Given the highly technical nature of these reforms, I believe that a parliamentary review would be helpful to assess if the reforms have achieved their intended impacts. This amendment may also serve to alleviate some concerns expressed by privacy advocates, as it provides a future opportunity for inquiry into the privacy impacts of the legislation.

In summary. Bill C-13 was strengthened at committee and deserves to be passed into law in the form in which it was reported back to the House. I urge all hon. members to make this possible by ensuring the swift passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the government likes to wrap itself in the testimony of victims, as if there is something inappropriate about telling Canadians about the stories of victims that have led to this specific bill. Then he goes on to extensively quote from the testimony of Ms. Todd, which is terrific. I think people have a right to know what was said in committee.

I wonder if the member heard that Ms. Todd met with the Minister of Justice following her appearance at the justice committee and then did a subsequent CBC Radio interview about two or three days later. I wonder if the member heard that interview and what she said then. Maybe he could quote from that next time he has an opportunity. If he has not had a chance to hear that interview, I would be happy to provide him with a transcript. He would find that after speaking with the Minister of Justice, Ms. Todd understood why many of these investigative powers are necessary in order to prevent the kind of thing that happened to her daughter from happening again.

The member also did not mention what Glen Canning or Allan Hubley said about Bill C-13 or why they think these investigative powers are critical to ensure that what happened to their children does not happen to other children.

I would like the member to tell us if there are any parts of recommendation 4 from the Cybercrime Working Group report of June 2013 that he disagrees with. That group of experts said that those recommendations were necessary in addition to the criminal offence of distributing an intimate image to ensure that these types of crimes can be properly investigated and prevented. Perhaps the member could tell us about that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise at report stage of Bill C-13.

Bill C-13 does three things. It responds to a need to protect victims from the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. That is something on which I think we all agree. However, it is an omnibus bill that also expands police powers.

The third thing it does, in furtherance of the expansion of police powers, is provide immunity to telephone companies and Internet service providers for the non-consensual, secret, warrantless, but lawful, disclosure of subscriber information.

What I will do today is talk about each of those three aspects of the bill and also about the Spencer decision, which has very much changed the landscape, and where we ought to go as a result of the Spencer decision.

The first aspect of the bill is truly non-controversial, and it is somewhat troubling that we are still here talking about it, and that is the parts of the bill that are there to protect the Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todds of the world. It is the part of the bill that is there to criminalize the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The opposition parties have offered to fast-track these provisions by splitting the bill, and it is somewhat troubling that we are here today, ten months after the bill was introduced, and that these measures have not been brought into law. There is a willingness within the House to bring them into law forthwith.

The reason for that is that we have an omnibus bill that has bundled in an expansion of police powers. We have an omnibus bill that has revived the Vic Toews e-snooping provisions, and it is troubling that these provisions have been included and wrapped in the flag of the victims of some terrible crimes.

I would like, for the benefit of the House, to share the testimony of Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, on May 13, to give a sense of how she feels about this omnibus legislation. She testified before our committee:

Bill C-13's cyberbullying provisions are needed for my wish to come true as a mother of a cyberbullying victim. While I applaud the efforts of all of you in crafting the sextortion, revenge porn, and cyberbullying sections of Bill C-13, I am concerned about some of the other unrelated provisions that have been added to the bill in the name of Amanda, Rehtaeh, and all the children lost to cyberbullying attacks.

I don't want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights. I am troubled by some of these provisions condoning the sharing of privacy information of Canadians without proper legal process. We are Canadians with strong civil rights and values. A warrant should be required before any Canadian's personal information is turned over to anyone, including government authorities.

We should be holding our telecommunications companies and Internet providers responsible for mishandling our private and personal information. We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children's privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, sextortion, and revenge pornography.

Later in her testimony she said:

On my own behalf, I have one request. If there is any way we can separate these controversial provisions from the law designed to help other Canadians avoid the pain experienced by Rehtaeh and my Amanda, I would support that process. This would allow the bill to be free of controversy and to permit a thoughtful and careful review of the privacy-related provisions that have received broad opposition.

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.

That is Carol Todd, the mother of Amanda Todd, urging us to do the right thing, expedite the passage of those provisions that deal specifically with cyberbullying and take our time to get it right on the others.

With respect to the online surveillance provisions in the bill, this is the latest installment of a prolonged and concerted campaign by the Conservatives to play big brother.

In 2007, Stockwell Day launched an online consultation process with respect to the mandatory disclosure of customers' names and information. After it was exposed, he promised not to authorize warrantless access. That promise was broken in 2009, when the Conservative government brought in a bill, the first bill that was introduced. It had 13 identifiers that mandated warrantless disclosure of subscriber information. An election derailed that effort. At that time the Minister of Public Safety was the present government House leader.

The Vic Toews' version was then introduced, and it narrowed the identifiers from 13 down to six. We know what happened to the Vic Toews' version after the outburst against the member for Lac-Saint-Louis that one is either with us or with the child pornographers. Due to the outrage around the e-snooping provisions in the Vic Toews' bill, there was a promise by the next justice minister to not reintroduce those provisions. However, 37 of the 47 provisions of the Vic Toews' bill are in this bill.

What the government has done, however, in the bill is that it has kept out the most offensive aspects of the Vic Toews' bill dealing with warrantless disclosure, but it has come at it through the back door. Instead of mandating warrantless disclosure, what it has done is made voluntary disclosure easier by giving immunity to those who co-operate with police. Another bill that is going through the other place takes this one step further. It expands the audience. It expands the circumstances and the parties who may receive this voluntary warrantless disclosure.

The testimony on May 6 before the committee was quite telling. We had an expert in privacy law from Halifax, a fellow by the name of David Fraser, comment on this immunity that is being offered to telephone companies.

He said:

...I would touch very briefly on the issue of service provider immunity that's touched on within this statute. I find this to be gravely problematic. I think it's a very cleverly crafted provision. We're told that this is simply for greater certainty, but it goes beyond that. Everything we know suggests otherwise.

It says that you will not be liable for handing over any data that you're not prohibited by law from handing over, and if you do so you're civilly immune. Now, only the criminal law and other regulations create prohibitions against handing over information, but you can hand over information when you're not legally prohibited and still incur civil liability. Civil liability is there for a reason. I may not be legally prohibited from accidentally driving my car into yours, but if I do that, you're entitled to damages from that. I should be paying for the harm that is caused.

The immunity provisions are very problematic because the government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. This was pronounced upon by the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent Spencer decision. Here is what the government argued to the Supreme Court of Canada:

...does a person enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information? Put another way, should the police have to get judicial authorization to determine the physical address of an internet connection and the subscriber's name before they apply for judicial authorization to search that physical address?

The answer to those questions must be “no”....

That is what the government said. The court rejected that argument. The court found a privacy interest in that information and that the charter had been breached in the circumstances. That changes the landscape. That changes the debate. We need to split the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today to Bill C-13. It is a sad moment because this bill contains all the flaws it had at first reading.

I want to also put on the record that I regret the Speaker's decision. I understand the Speaker's reasoning, but I would have fully supported the request by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for that amendment to be selected. That is an important issue of gender identity and ending discrimination, and I think it is a shame that we missed the opportunity today to have that amendment before the House of Commons.

The point was well made just moments ago by my hon. colleague from Charlottetown that it is a terrible shame that the bill was not divided. There is no doubt that easy passage would have created a bill that genuinely dealt with cyberbullying and did not, once again, resurface efforts at what is called “lawful access” but which is generally known in common parlance as Internet snooping by the state into the private lives of Canadians.

There are many troubling aspects on the Internet snooping or lawful access part of the bill that has bedevilled the part that we all would want to support to genuinely deal with cyberbullying. Therefore, my comments will be in relation to those portions that should have been split out, dealt with separately, and not brought forward as though there is nothing wrong with them. Those are the sections that relate to so-called lawful access.

Those sections that deal with the release of private information and private communications of Canadians under much less stringent circumstances than in the past, contrary to what the Minister of Justice said just moments ago, is very worrying. Had it not been worrying, we would not have seen such strong statements from various of our privacy commissioners, our former federal privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, and the Ontario privacy commissioner, Commissioner Cavoukian.

Many privacy experts have spoken out and said the bill would, as have so many other bills that have been put forward by the Conservative administration, violate our charter rights, certainly violate our privacy rights. The Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Association have spoken out strongly, saying sections of the bill, with modest changes, could be made acceptable. However, those changes were all shot down in committee.

This is a case where, as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands and as leader of the Green Party, I was invited—I suppose that is the right term, “coerced” might be the one that comes to mind more often—by the new process that applies to members in my position, those with fewer than 12 members in the party in the House or independents, with 48 hours notice to come before various different committees. I brought forward a dozen or so amendments on Bill C-13 to the committee on this issue to try to deal with those sections where we would now ask for deletions. We would like to see the bill improved even now at report stage. Unfortunately, all my arguments were shot down and all the amendments were defeated.

In short form, I will cover the basic themes of what we find. Of course, some of themes have been well touched on by the hon. member for Gatineau in her quite strong explanation of what is wrong with the bill.

The provisions that allow for the telecom companies' voluntary disclosure of private information to be held harmless against any subsequent prosecutions are unnecessary. In fact, we now have the Spencer decision, which has been referenced as well this afternoon, that makes it clear that the bill is out of step with the Supreme Court. We do not need to make it easier for telecom companies to voluntarily turn information over without a warrant and without some of the protections that we used to see in other descriptions of when such information could be turned over.

The fact that we can see various levels of public officials asking for such information is worrying, in and of itself. The fact that they can do it voluntarily and be immune from prosecution is a further worry that we will have significantly more invasions of privacy in the guise of doing something about cyberbullying.

The second area of concern is the lack of accountability and oversight. We used to require that the police have reason to suspect. Now it is a watered-down provision.

We need to have more oversight when we are dealing with issues of privacy. In this Internet age, we are more aware than ever that the private information of Canadians, the kinds of things that we used to keep in our homes under lock and key, that a stranger would have to knock down the doors and rifle through our cabinets to get, now through technological breakthroughs and the Internet is easily accessible by the state through the simple process of pressuring a telecom to release the information to us. This is a significant threat to privacy rights in Canada.

Should this bill pass as currently before us? If it does, it would be a significant violation. It would inevitably lead to violations of the privacy rights of Canadians.

The other piece that has been widely criticized in this bill is the scope of public officers who can have access to this information. It has become too broad.

Justin Ling, who has a good sense of humour, had an opinion piece in the National Post on May 4, 2014. I know it was something of a spoof, but it was certainly a telling way to make the point that the list of public officers who would have unprecedented access to the private information of Canadians would extend to the current mayor of Toronto. Now, while he certainly is dealing with a personal tragedy in his life, and we hope nothing but the best for his health and recovery, the point was made that we do not want to have the private information of Canadians so widely accessible to such a broad group of individuals. Of course, it would also include CSEC, the Communications Security Establishment Canada. It would also include CSIS, as well as public officers of all kinds, including mayors.

This is not the kind of oversight, accountability, and control Canadians would come to expect when the apparatus of the state decides to reduce the tests and lower the threshold for having access to the private information of Canadians.

We will certainly have debate on this. In know that the hon. member who is now the Minister of Justice will have defences and will say that it absolutely does not reduce privacy rights. Why then do so many privacy commissioners think it does? If it does not intrude on civil liberties, then why do the major law organizations and legal scholars in this country say that it does?

There are a lot of members of Parliament on the other side of this place who describe themselves, in their own conversations, as libertarians. They distrust the state. They distrust government reaching into their private lives. I ask them this: How have they gotten so far from a distrust of the state to a cult of Big Brother? I am wondering how it happened that we have moved from a nanny state to a Big Brother state. If the government wants this information about Canadians, those of us on this side of the House who want to defend privacy rights, as a former minister, Vic Toews, said in this place, somehow “...stand with us or with the child pornographers”. Are we to continue to hear that when we stand for the privacy rights of Canadians, we do not care enough about ending cyberbullying?

It is not too late, still, to split this bill and allow us on the opposition benches to strongly support the measures that will protect the vulnerable from cyberbullying, but please, let us draw the line at letting Big Brother have more access to private information. This bill goes too far, and they know it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly. In any case, I think that my Liberal colleague knows the answer to that. A good lawyer does not ask a question unless he knows the answer.

We are not spending enough time on the issue of violating privacy, which is the bulk of Bill C-13, and too much time on the issue of the distribution of images, which could have changed quickly. Once again, it goes without saying that the bill could be split.

Once again, it is very unfortunate that this is not a possibility. I think it is wrong to play politics at the expense of victims. I always say that there is nothing worse than dragging victims to a press conference to try to give everyone the impression that they are being supported. Then it is truly sad to see their expectations deflate when they are faced with the inadequate reality.

In this context, we know that the government wants to pass Bill C-13 as quickly as possible in order to hold other press conferences. However, this has also opened the eyes of the victims and their parents. Like Amanda Todd's mother, they have realized that this bill may not do exactly what the government claims it will do. We need to further consider and analyze the provisions.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-13 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Mr. Speaker, this morning we debated the bill on prostitution. This afternoon, we turn to the bill on cyberbullying. I am almost tempted to start out the same way. This bill also garnered a lot of attention and caused quite a stir. I received many comments from my constituents in Gatineau about this. These people had the same concerns I did. That told me that I was on the right track when it came to the position that the NDP and I took on this file.

I believe it is important to reiterate that many people take the government at its word and believe that it can have a positive impact on the lives of the young people who have suffered all kinds of bullying, their parents and everyone who has been affected by bullying.

As we all know, Bill C-13 was created in the wake of tragic situations involving certain Canadians. Young people committed suicide. Suicide can happen anywhere, in the armed forces and in the general population. Bullying is not a new concept. It has existed for many a moon. I think that we need to find real solutions to offer help instead of playing politics.

From the outset, our approach was not to hold up Bill C-13, but to allow it to take its course. We wanted to be sure that there was an in-depth study in committee and that various witnesses would be able to share their point of view on the bill.

The bill is known as the protecting Canadians from online crime act. It contains 47 clauses and is 53 pages long, but it does not even touch on cyberbullying or online crime. Rather, Bill C-13 addresses the distribution of images, one very small part of bullying. The rest of the bill addresses issues as varied as immunity for Internet service providers, the concept of peace officers and public officers, telecommunications theft and so on. Bill C-13 covers a lot of ground.

We shared these concerns with the minister, the Attorney General of Canada. We thought it would be wiser to split the bill in two so that we could tackle the image distribution issue head-on since it was not as controversial. As for the touchier violation of privacy issue, there are tools that the minister makes a point of talking about regularly, saying that we cannot do one without doing the other. He would have us believe that there are currently no tools available, but there are. We wanted to make sure that what we were doing on that score was completely reasonable. However, the government turned a deaf ear.

Naturally, witnesses told us exactly the same thing and said they were very concerned. Many aspects of Bill C-13 resemble Bill C-30, even though the government agreed to some changes and realized it could not go any further with that particular vision. It did make some minor concessions. The government tried to address cyberbullying via image distribution and the highly publicized cases of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and others who did the worst thing imaginable. Seeing no way out of the problems they faced, they saw that as the only solution. That really breaks my heart.

Everyone will agree that there is nothing worse than thinking that suicide is the only way to solve a problem or the only way out. As a society, we are failing miserably. In my opinion, claiming that Bill C-13 will save young lives is laying it on rather thick.

I do not want to dwell on the issue, but even Amanda Todd's mother told the committee that she did not want people's privacy to be invaded in order to keep others safe. That was not necessarily the objective. Once again, the government is failing to be transparent. Like Sophia Petrillo-Weinstock in the television show Golden Girls, I am tempted to say, “Picture it”.

Thursday, June 12 was the last day set aside for the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-13. On Friday, June 13, the Supreme Court of Canada was scheduled to render its decision in Spencer v. The Queen. This case dealt with the matter of police access to personal information. Several witnesses who appeared before the committee said that this case would definitely have an impact. At the very least, the government should have exercised caution and waited for the Supreme Court ruling.

Some believe that the committee merely conducted a concept study, but that was not the case. The government was producing legislation. The government bill is 53 pages long and we examined it. Then, the committee heard from witnesses with regard to the various aspects of the bill that they were concerned with. For some, it was the distribution of images. For others, it was the violation of privacy and technology. We heard from a whole slew of witnesses who were concerned about very different aspects of the bill.

The people who were dealing with the part related to the interception of data and the gathering of information without a warrant or court authorization felt it was important to wait for the Spencer ruling. After it was tabled, some experts indicated that the June 13 ruling contradicted certain aspects of the government's bill. That is what we were trying to avoid. We had therefore asked the government to wait.

Time and time again in committee, I asked whether we should not wait until June 13. Should we not read the ruling? Should we not seek advice from staff at the Department of Justice who could explain the ruling to us and tell us whether or not it would have an impact?

In law, if you put five lawyers in a room, they would not all say the same thing. In the House, not everyone is a lawyer. Furthermore, even amongst those of us who are lawyers, not everyone is a specialist in every subject. That is why we study things in greater depth in committee, come back to the House with our recommendations, and then vote with full knowledge of the facts.

At this very moment, regardless of my personal opinion and the fact that several specialists said that the ruling in R. v. Spencer goes against many aspects of the bill, I am quite worried. If there is one area in which I do not want to see any glaring errors, that is justice. Justice must be applied correctly and equally across the board.

All that explains why we changed our position. We supported the bill at second reading, but all of our fears regarding this government bill were confirmed in committee.

It seems that the government is using this bill to try to score political points rather than make any meaningful changes. The evidence is quite clear. The fact is, the government voted against the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, M-385, regarding cyberbullying. Furthermore, it also voted against the bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Bill C-540.

Basically, if you ask me, everything is crystal clear.

There is also Bill C-279, introduced by my hon. colleague who delivered a speech on it this morning.

This all tells me that this bill is more about politics than anything of real substance.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before providing my decision on the selection of report stage motions for 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 would like to address the concerns raised and the supplementary information provided earlier today by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, concerning report stage Motion No. 3, standing in his name on the notice paper.

I would like to thank the honourable member for having raised this matter.

As mentioned by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, he also did write to me to urge that I select his report stage motion on the basis of exceptional significance.

I wish to reassure the hon. member that I have carefully reviewed all the relevant contextual and substantive circumstances surrounding the matter. While each case is different, and occasionally there are exceptional circumstances that merit the selection of certain report stage motions, ultimately I must be guided by the procedural practice relating to the selection of report stage motions.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets the following general principle with respect to the selection of report stage motions. At page 783 it states:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee…the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

More guidance as to the selection of report stage motions can be found in Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). The note accompanying those standing orders states, in part:

A motion previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

As evidenced by his first having written a detailed letter, and now having raised the matter again in the form of a point of order, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca clearly feels that the circumstances surrounding the committee's consideration of his amendment are exceptional, and on that basis, the House as a whole should decide whether Bill C-13 should be amended in the fashion he is proposing. While I understand his argument, I would remind him that the Chair cannot make decisions on selection based on the likely outcome of the vote.

As I stated in the decision on December 12, 2012, page 13224 in the Debates, in relation to a point of order raised by the government House leader:

The Chair is and will continue to be guided by procedural imperatives in all of its decisions, not by somehow substituting the Speaker's prediction of the likely outcome of a vote expressed by the House itself.

His belief that the outcome might be different in the House from what it was in committee, or that a certain foreknowledge exists as to the will of the House on a given question, is not sufficient grounds for the Chair to determine that exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant the selection of this particular amendment.

Furthermore, I would note that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity) at present stands referred to a Senate committee. The Criminal Code has not yet been amended in the manner that Bill C-279 proposes. Presumably, as both Bill C-279 and Bill C-13 advance through the legislative process, Parliament will, in due course, choose which approach it prefers.

With respect to the existing practice relating to report stage, I would remind members that since 2001, report stage has undergone a significant evolution so as not to repeat debate that already occurred in committee. As such, the Speaker is empowered to decline to put report stage motions that would be tantamount to a repetition of the work that was already done in committee.

Were I to select Motion No. 3 on the basis of the arguments put forward by the member, I fear it could lead exactly to a situation that our report stage practice was designed to avoid, namely a repetition of the debate that occurred in committee on this matter. Therefore, I must inform the member that Motion No. 3 will not be selected for consideration at report stage.

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-13.

Motion No. 3, as indicated previously, as well as Motion No. 6 will not be selected as they are identical to amendments defeated in committee.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 to the House.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-13—Protecting Canadians From Online Crime Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to ask you to select the amendment I submitted for debate and vote at report stage on 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 understand that you will be giving a ruling on this after question period today, and I wanted to make sure that I made this submission before then, as this is a motion that was proposed and defeated in committee.

As stated in the note to Standing Order 76(5), the Speaker can select a motion that was defeated in committee to be debated at the report stage, “...if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage”.

I would like to explain why this motion warrants consideration and why it is of such exceptional significance to members that it should be considered again. The motion is to amend clause 12 of Bill C-13 to add “gender identity” to the definition of “identifiable group” in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code concerning hate crimes.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House previously decided on this issue during its consideration of Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity). Clause 3 of Bill C-279 replaces subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and in doing so adds to the definition of “identifiable group” those members of the public distinguished by gender identity.

Clause 12 of Bill C-13 would replace that same subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code and would add to the current definition of “identifiable group”:

...any section of the public distinguished by national...origin, age, sex...or mental or physical disability.

However, clause 12 of Bill C-13 does not use the current definition in the Criminal Code, as amended by the House by Bill C-279, and therefore deletes a provision by omission. If the House adopts Bill C-13, we will not protect transgender Canadians from hate crimes, despite having already affirmed this principle in this same Parliament.

This one amendment to the Criminal Code makes up half the substantive content of Bill C-279, my private member's bill, which passed third reading in this House on March 20, 2013. The members of this House will recall that it was passed by a majority of members in a vote of 149 to 137 with support from all parties. Again, a change to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-279 is a short and specific proposal to offer protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians. In all likelihood, the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 at third reading would also support the motion I proposed in committee had they had the opportunity, since this motion is identical in content to that proposed in Bill C-279.

With Bill C-13, as it will be reported back to the House later today, the government would be, in effect, attempting to override this part of Bill C-279, which was passed by a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

I believe that the note to Standing Order 76(5) was written specifically for situations like this one. This is an exceptional case in which a motion defeated in committee because of five government MPs would most certainly be supported by at least 149 MPs if it were moved in the House, and it would therefore pass. If the vote were held in the House of Commons rather than in committee, the outcome would be completely different. You can therefore be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not of a repetitive, frivolous, or vexatious nature or of a nature that would merely prolong unnecessary proceedings at the report stage. This would not be a repeat of the committee stage, since the outcome of the vote would likely be very different from what it was in committee. Some MPs would certainly oppose the motion, but it seems obvious to me that a majority of MPs would once again vote to provide protection from hate crimes to transgender Canadians.

There are several precedents where the Speaker referred to the note to Standing Order 76(5) to identify a motion as being of exceptional significance to the House as justification for selecting it for debate at the report stage, even though it had been proposed and defeated in committee. Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of those precedents.

One involves Motions Nos. 3 and 4 at the report stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations. On April 3, 2000, the chair occupant said to the House:

Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March 23, 2000 and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions would not be selected for consideration at report stage. I have looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfill the requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

Another example took place on February 18, 2002, at the report stage for Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Speaker Milliken stated as follows:

...there are motions similar to those that were rejected by the committee. Usually, such motions are not selected, because they would generate discussions that have already taken place in committee. However, the note in the Standing Orders allows the Speaker to select these motions if he deems that they are of such importance that they deserve to be examined again at report stage. I believe that these motions respect that criterion and therefore they will be selected for the debate.

Lastly, I would like to refer to the precedent established on June 10, 2005, at the report stage for Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005. Again, Speaker Milliken had originally rejected Motions Nos. 5 and 6 at the bill's report stage. After hearing a point of order raised by the chief opposition whip, he reversed his ruling and selected the motions for debate at the report stage. In response to a question from a government MP who disagreed with him, the Speaker said:

Motion No. 1 to amend clause 9 to put back in words that were deleted in the committee was allowed. I understand they are the same words. I allowed those to be debated because, as I say, the minister made submissions that indicated he thought this was a matter of public importance. I am prepared to make the same arrangement with respect to Motions Nos. 5 and 6 and I have so ruled.

Mr. Speaker, my request is even more significant, if we consider the precedent that would be set if this motion is not selected for debate. The House previously decided on the issue of gender identity when a majority of MPs chose to include provisions in the Criminal Code that would protect transgender Canadians. Without the amendment I have proposed, Bill C-13 would do exactly the opposite. It would reverse a decision reached democratically in the House following several hours of debate and a recorded division.

It is also worth noting that the 149 MPs who supported Bill C-279 included many government MPs. The five Conservative MPs who opposed this amendment to Bill C-13 in committee were not representative of all their colleagues. By allowing the government to rewrite subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code to eliminate the changes made by Bill C-279, we are going against the wishes of the majority of MPs in the House who supported that bill. What this means is that if a majority government does not support a piece of private member's business, which is the case for Bill C-279, it can introduce a government bill reversing the provisions of the private member's bill. All the government has to do is ensure that the members who sit on the committee during the clause-by-clause study of the government bill are among those who opposed the private member's bill in question. I believe this creates a dangerous precedent for private members' business.

This amendment is of significant importance for MPs and for public safety, as demonstrated when Bill C-279 was debated in the Commons and was considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment should be selected for debate at the report stage so that all MPs may decide on this issue. This is not a matter that can be resolved by a mere handful of government MPs on a committee of the House. It deserves to be considered again in the full House of Commons.

Given that this motion is of exceptional significance to the debate at report stage, and in view of the precedents available to the House, I respectfully request that you select it for consideration at the report stage of Bill C-13 and that you allow the members of this House to vote on it separately as a stand-alone motion and one not tied to any of the other votes at report stage proceedings.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome you and everyone back to the House for the autumn sitting. I know it will be a hard-working, orderly, and productive sitting because there is much work that we have to do.

This afternoon, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-3, safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. Tomorrow, we will have the final day of third reading debate on Bill C-8, combating counterfeit products act.

Monday, at noon, we will start the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. In the afternoon, we will start the report stage of Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act.

Tuesday, as I announced at the start of the week, shall be the second allotted day. This will be an opportunity for the leader of the Liberal Party to put forward a proposal for some new initiative. This week we saw the New Democrats do that. As much as their idea was neither bold nor responsible, it was a motion which let us have a debate on the merits of an idea. I hope the hon. member for Papineau will be inspired to set aside his musings of the summer and present to us a concrete proposal for which he will come into this House to explain and defend in debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, I will give priority to the consideration of any new government legislation that may be introduced between now and then.

Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Speaking to the subamendment, I think this was done on Bill C-13, if my memory serves me correctly. It was passed from two years to five, or from five to seven.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't believe the Conservatives would say no to this. This is a prudent measure that has already been used in other bills. Not so long ago, a relevant study was carried out concerning official languages in courts, such as the language used by the accused, and so on. This was a prudent measure. It was applied in Bill C-13 regarding cyberbullying. If the government ordered its members not to try to improve the bill, there should at least be a way to make them accountable. The other elephant in the room—besides the Supreme Court of Canada's Bedford decision, which we don't often hear Conservatives talk about—is provincial involvement.

With the exception of the Government of Manitoba, whose representatives came to testify here, it's certain that, with such a quick process, not all the provinces were necessarily available or prepared to come speak within such a short timeframe on issues as profoundly complex as human trafficking, sexual exploitation and prostitution.

Yet it is clear that, on the ground, it will be up to the provincial authorities to enforce three quarters of, if not all, the provisions that will be passed under Bill C-36.

I do believe strongly that we need to be able to do that review within two years of the adoption. How it's going to be carried out by the provinces, by the territories.... We all know that it is going to be.... What we decide here is always fine and dandy, but what I hear on the ground from crown attorneys, from prosecutors, and from defence attorneys is that they are left with the mess. It's not always easy to apply what comes out of this Parliament.

That being said, I think it would be prudent that we do a review on how all of this went. It will permit the committee in two years' time to maybe contact all the provinces and territories to see how it has been lived in the different courts, how many cases there were, and whether these were more on sex traffic or prostitution, and so on and so forth. I think this is at least the amendment that everybody should support if we are serious about the work we are doing.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Can you explain to me how this bill is going to help your job? I'm not setting you up. I just want to know actually what new part of the advertisement.... Is it the link to Bill C-13, that fact that you'll be able to obtain some mandat de surveiller? What is it? What tool exactly is helping you out, from your understanding of the bill?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much.

I think it's very important because we've seen that over and over again with the government presenting bills that they pretend will help vulnerable people, but actually know are unconstitutional. In effect they've taken vulnerable people hostage, knowing that the law will be contested before the courts so vulnerable people and victims won't have justice. We saw that with Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, where the real victims of cyberbullying will actually not get justice because we already know that this law is going to be contested before the courts.

I think it's an important point that we all share the same vision of wanting victims of sex exploitation and human trafficking to be helped, but even the Minister said it in front of the committee that he thinks his law will be contested. So I think it's an important point to raise, no matter which side we sit on, that victims won't have justice until the government listens to legal opinions or opinions of organizations.

My last question would be for Mr. Cassells. It's actually about the same question I asked Mrs. Redsky, that the French Senate said the resources given to the police to criminalize johns would be more effective if they were given to fight human trafficking and prostitution. What would you say to that?

Privacy

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he said, “I always respect the decision of the Supreme Court” When the government gets a decision that it does not like from the court, the Conservatives ignores it altogether, they make stuff up, or they attack the courts.

The Supreme Court was clear. Collecting personal data without a warrant, something the minister has defended, is in fact unconstitutional. Instead of respecting that decision, he turned around and misled the House and claimed it as a victory. Well, he is wrong.

Will the minister now accept that the only legal way to protect our children and respect legitimate privacy rights is to split Bill C-13?

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

Mr. Speaker, we always do. We always respect the Supreme Court. We always respect the decisions. The reality here is the Supreme Court's decision clearly stated that the Criminal Code provisions dealing with voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. As our government has continually said, those provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. This is nothing new.

We respect the decision. It reinforces the position of the government and we will move forward with Bill C-13.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has resorted to making up facts to justify his badly written, unconstitutional bill on cyberbullying.

The Supreme Court clearly said no to access to personal information without a warrant. The Privacy Commissioner, whom the Conservatives say is an authority on the subject, has stated that this ruling invalidates the principles underlying Bill C-13. The bill must be split to stop cyberbullying and maintain the right to privacy.

Will the minister abide by the Supreme Court's ruling or not?

Criminal Code

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on countless occasions my profound concern about the ongoing effort of Conservative members of Parliament who introduce bills allegedly to combat crime. I have repeatedly made my concerns known that these crime bills are undermining the coherence of the Criminal Code of Canada. Far too often we find backbench MPs introducing private members' bills primarily relating to crime and justice, and more often than not based on input from the Prime Minister's Office.

I am also concerned that these private members' initiatives are not properly vetted to ensure their charter compliance. Unfortunately, that concern applies to government bills in too many cases, which, when introduced, immediately raise serious constitutional issues.

To underscore this concern we need only look at what happened yesterday with the Minister of Justice, who yesterday and again today was telling the House and the media bizarrely that the Supreme Court's ruling last Friday somehow was a victory for his government. More specifically, he was suggesting that there was something in the court ruling that was a victory for Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Never mind that in the reality in which most of us operate, the court ruling undercuts both of those bills.

When it comes to so-called tough on crime legislation, whether from the government or backbench MPs, we on this side are more than a little suspicious of their motives. Moreover, we are concerned whether or not these bills, and there are many, are constitutional.

Again, the overall impact of these bills is to make the Criminal Code incoherent, which is unfortunate. The Criminal Code should not be used as a political fundraising tool, and I submit that the government has used these private members' bills and other government bills for no other reason than to raise money.

Today, however, as I indicated earlier, we may have a rare exception to that rule. We are debating Bill C-590 in the name of the member for Prince Albert. It was certainly encouraging to hear him say that he is open to amendments that would seek to achieve the objective of the bill.

As we know, Bill C-590 would amend the Criminal Code to increase mandatory minimum penalties for impaired driving where the offender has a blood alcohol content more than double the legal limit.

Currently, there are minimums for drivers over the legal limit and for convictions of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. In most provinces, a minimum jail time does not apply for a first offence. As I indicated in my question earlier, there is an exception in Prince Edward Island. That is how the case law has developed. But in most of the country there is no mandatory jail time for a first offender with a blood alcohol level of 0.08.

The hon. member will be pleased to know that today, after careful consideration and consultation with my colleagues, I have recommended to the Liberal caucus that we support Bill C-590.

My major concern is with the use of mandatory minimum jail sentences. The hon. member would know that we opposed in principle the use of mandatory minimums, and we do so because there is no evidence to suggest that they work or are effective in reducing crime. We believe that mandatory minimums should be the exception and not the rule.

We will support sending the bill to committee because we agree with the objective of the bill, and at committee, hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear how best to achieve that objective.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Prince Albert for his effort. I believe he is sincere in that effort. I believe he is in fact seeking to make our roads and highways safer.

We all know that drinking and driving remains a serious issue in Canada. The number of bodily injuries and deaths caused by impaired driving continues to be unacceptably high. By targeting impaired drivers with a blood alcohol over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, the act would create a specific deterrent to the class of drivers who pose the greatest statistical risk.

By dealing severely with the worst consequences of impaired driving, which are bodily injury and death of third parties, the act would also emphasize the rationale behind deterring impaired driving. Limiting judicial discretion is problematic, but this is, indeed, a serious enough issue that it merits further examination.

It should be noted that impaired driving continues to be a particular problem in locations and provinces across the country, including, and especially, in my own province of Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island, the provincial government is doing what it can to address this problem. Just in the last session of the provincial legislature, a law was passed that would mandate a special license plate for chronic offenders of the impaired driving laws. This would allow police, but not the general public, to identify those who fall into this category. This is the type of innovative thinking that is required to combat this problem, not the automatic default to mandatory minimum jail time that we so often see.

Also in our province, as I indicated, the case law has grown such that there are sentencing guidelines for impaired driving offences. Those sentencing guidelines require that every single person in Prince Edward Island who is convicted of a drunk driving offence, whether it is at 0.08, 0.16, or whether it is a first offence, should bring their toothbrush, as we say, because they are going to Sleepy Hollow for the weekend, at a minimum.

Here is some relevant background information. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that impaired drivers with a blood alcohol level at 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood represent close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents. According to Statistics Canada, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

Let me focus a bit on fatalities. It is estimated that in 2010, 2,500 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada estimates that, at a minimum, 1,082 of these fatalities were impairment related. In MADD Canada's opinion, the 1,082 figure is a conservative estimate, due to the under-reporting that results from the inability to conduct alcohol tests on surviving impaired drivers, and from the need to rely on police reports. Moreover, the figure underestimates the percentage of crash deaths that involve drugs, thus the recent sharp increase in driving after drug use was not factored into the 1,082 figure.

Additionally, that 1,082 figure does not include individuals killed in impaired crashes on waterways. It was estimated that there were more 135 boating deaths per year from 2006 to 2008. It appears that more than 50% of those boating deaths involved alcohol and/or drugs. That 1,082 also does not include fatalities arising from aircraft, trains, and industrial vehicles, such as forklifts.

Given the limits on this 1,082 figure, MADD Canada estimates that there are somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 impairment related crash deaths in Canada each year. That amounts to three to four deaths per day.

I would like to turn now to the matter of injuries caused by impaired driving. In 2010, it was estimated that about 300,000 individuals were injured in motor vehicle crashes. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 64,000 of those individuals were injured in impairment related crashes. That is roughly 175 per day. This figure is limited to motor vehicle crashes only.

There is also information available on property damage. In 2010, it was estimated that approximately 1.7 million motor vehicles were involved in property damage-only crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that approximately 211,000 of these vehicles were damaged in impairment related crashes. That works out to 578 per day.

Finally, there is the financial cost. Using a social cost model, impairment related driving deaths, injuries, and property damage-only crashes in Canada can be estimated to have cost $20.6 billion in 2010. This model is recent, it is based on extensive analysis, and it was prepared for the Department of Transport.

This bill would meet a positive policy objective. People who drink should not drive. That may seem like a simple suggestion to us here, but far too often, people do drink and then decide that they are okay to drive. This is never acceptable and, on that point, I believe the House is united.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13, gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address.

This is exactly what we have been saying. This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading.

The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional.

Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “for a greater certainty”. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13.

Here is another interesting quote:

—our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose....

Who said that? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect their privacy, but at the same time allow the police to do their important work.

I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case where the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens.

Regarding Bill C-13, the elements of this bill remain before Parliament. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Spencer is in keeping with the spirit of his cyberbullying bill. Fortunately, making a fool of oneself is not harmful to one's health.

Some provisions of Bill C-13 run completely contrary to this ruling. The bill allows businesses to turn over their clients' personal information without a warrant from a judge.

The minister does not have to sacrifice privacy in order to fight cyberbullying. Why is he doing that?

Justice

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent to wait before moving forward with Bill C-13 and to conduct an analysis to see whether this works or not.

Under the Conservatives, and especially under this Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court appointment process has become a real farce, and I would go even further. The Prime Minister does whatever he wants without any regard for the Constitution or the courts.

The Minister of Justice, who is supposed to be standing up for our justice system and our Constitution, cannot even tell the difference between the Quebec Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

Why is the Minister of Justice trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision on Justice Nadon?

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. We are reviewing that decision, which was made on Friday.

The letter from the Supreme Court confirms what our government has been saying all along, which is that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. It is absolutely essential to review this Supreme Court decision and pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Supreme Court reiterated that police must obtain a warrant from the court to obtain a customer's IP address.

This decision casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.

In light of this ruling by the highest court, will the government finally agree to the NDP's request to divide Bill C-13 in order to combat cyberbullying and prevent the law from being struck down because it infringes on people's privacy?

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

Mr. Speaker, we received the Spencer decision from the Supreme Court a full two business days ago, but let me tell the member this. The Supreme Court's decision actually confirms what the government has said all along, that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant.

The Supreme Court's affirmation, in fact, of Mr. Spencer's conviction on possession of child pornography charges very much reinforces the long-held position of this government that children and Canadians in general must be protected from the scourge of cyberbullying, online criminality, and certainly sexual exploitation.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in.

I always say what an honour it is to rise in this institution, but as I reflect on the government's response to the report on the Conflict of Interest Act, I have to say that I am not proud of what has been taking place in this Parliament.

We have what is being presented to the Canadian people as a Potemkin democracy. It is a false democracy. Democracy does not really happen here any more. It is a sideshow that Canadians are being exposed to on a daily basis in a House that has become a circus, an ugly circus, a vicious circus.

What we see here is an overall attack by the government against the institutions that are supposed to maintain the credibility of the Westminster tradition, a continued unmitigated attack on the various institutions that are supposed to bring accountability to this place. As Canadians watch the daily circus show and the silliness and the way the government has dumbed down important issues into little buttons that it can press at a given moment, what we see is the bigger issue that is being deflected which the Canadian public is not seeing, which is the attack on the credibility of the institutions that would hold some level of accountability.

Let us go through the standards that are supposed to be there to ensure a functioning democracy.

We hear of MPs who go back to their ridings and when people ask about the circus that they watch on TV, they will say, “Oh, yes, but committees are where the good work is done.” When I was elected 10 years ago I used to think that. I used to think that maybe on a given day it may be fairly mediocre in the House, but in committees, by and large we were there to do relatively good work, even if it was sometimes very partisan. Sometimes it was not the brightest. This is a democratic system after all, and it is what is it is, depending on who is elected. However, the notion of the committee had a place. That is not true any more. Committees have become circuses. They have become kangaroo courts. It is all done in camera or it is done to use the notion of majority to undermine even legislative positions that have existed since the Westminster tradition.

In England, in the U.K. Parliament, it is considered a failure of the committee if there is not unanimity, if oe has to bring forward a minority report. Unfortunately, we are having to bring forward minority reports all the time.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the circus of what happened at the ethics committee with the review of the conflict of interest guidelines. We heard from witnesses from across the political spectrum about the need to develop a coherent set of conflict of interest guidelines to hold government and the public office holders to account. What was delivered to the Canadian people in this report was an absolute democratic fraud.

The recommendations that were brought supposedly through the committee were never even raised by a single witness. I will get to the key recommendation, the number one recommendation that the government found in dealing with issues of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest review had raised all manner of issues, such as the need for administrative monetary penalties of a substantive nature, to ensure compliance with basic due diligence so that people were not just doing things for their friends or their pals, that there were clear rules to ensure that insiders did not have access, and that public office holders were acting in the public interest.

The number one recommendation that came out of this committee, and I want to say again it appeared in the report when we were examining it without a single witness having brought it forward, was that the definition of “public office holder” be changed. The government's notion of who will now be under the Conflict of Interest Act are the members who collectively bargain with the Government of Canada. They will now be public office holders.

What is a public office holder? A public office holder, according to the act, is a minister of the crown, a minister of state, or a parliamentary secretary. They will now have the same provisions around their conflict of interest as someone who does the vacuuming in a public office building for the federal government. Someone in Scarborough who works in a call centre for the federal government answering the phones is now going to have the same legal obligations as a minister of the crown.

Members of ministerial staff, all the little boys in short pants who write all those notes so the marionettes in the front row do not look so slow on a given day, and someone working in a secretarial function in an office in Calgary for the federal government will be treated as having to have the same responsibility for reporting their behaviour as the men in the little short pants who work for the Prime Minister's Office. A ministerial appointee under the Governor in Council will be treated the same as someone working at a Service Canada outlet in Moose Jaw, Kenora, or Timmins. That means there would now be between 240,000 and 300,000 people who are under the Conflict of Interest Act, whom the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has to oversee.

The government approved this. Members of the government thought this was a good recommendation. They are laughing at us. They are laughing at the Canadian people. This is an absolute fraud of democracy when they decide that a minister of the crown, who can be bought and sold if there are not clear rules for lobbying and for conflict of interest, would be held to the same code as a person who goes into a government office in Winnipeg in the evenings and sweeps and cleans.

The Conflict of Interest Act was one of the key provisions of the Conservatives' commitment to have themselves elected in 2006. It is notable that the Conservatives made this promise that they were going to clean up the corruption of the Liberals in 2006. Their electoral platform was to give the ethics commissioner the power to fine violators—wrong; to enshrine the conflict of interest code into law—wrong; to allow members of the public, not just politicians, to make complaints to the ethics commissioner, which did not happen; to make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the ethics code. It does not say anything about making 250,000 Canadians apply under the same code, a code that has no provisions for holding these ministers to account.

There is another fascinating recommendation that the government has brought in. If one of its ministers is under investigation, it has to be kept secret. It has to be kept secret to protect their reputation. It is a government that believes in maximum secrecy for its members while insisting on maximum transparency for average Canadians. That is a fundamental failure of accountability.

We had a Conservative member from London the other day who said that if people go to a public demonstration, why should the government not be able to keep tabs on them? The Conservatives believe that being able to spy on Canadians is their right, but if their ministers are under investigation, good luck investigating them because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would be absolutely swamped with the 250,000 civil servants she would have to deal with. We asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner what she thinks of this report and she said she is extremely disappointed. Of course she is, because it is making a mockery of her position.

The conflict of interest office is just one of the attacks the Conservatives have been making. Let us look at a few others.

We saw what they did with Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada and the attack on him personally. The insinuation was that Marc Mayrand in doing his job was doing it for partisan reasons. They wanted to make it illegal in Canada for Elections Canada to be able to tell Canadians about their rights to vote. International observers said that if Canada went down this route, it would fundamentally undermine the basic notion of democratic accountability.

We saw how they attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Kevin Page, one of the most respected civil servants I have met in my career, was regularly ridiculed and undermined and attacked. His job, which was to provide members of Parliament with basic financial data, was interfered with every step of the way. I have to tell people back home that the House of Commons does not oversee the spending that is going on. It is a shell game that happens here. Billions of dollars are spent in all manner of categories, and yet the government makes sure that they keep members in the House of Commons in the dark. It's as though they were raising mushrooms on what they are feeding the House of Commons when it comes to actual information.

The one office to provide basic financial accountability, the Parliamentary Budget Office, was considered a threat and Mr. Page had to go. That is another one of the officers of Parliament that has been undermined.

There was the lastest appointment of the Privacy Commissioner. The Prime Minister ignored the recommendations of all the experts and picked Mr. Therrien, a lifelong civil servant, but one with no expertise in the privacy field. He was appointed over all the qualified people. Mr. Therrien was given a poison chalice with this appointment. As soon as Mr. Therrien was approved, the government attacked his credibility, because even Mr. Therrien, without the necessary expertise, recognized that the government's bills, Bills C-13 and S-4, on warrantless access and snooping on Canadians, were very problematic and probably were not legal.

The Privacy Commissioner was undermined. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was undermined. The Elections Canada office was undermined. Now with this report, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office is being turned basically into a farce. She said that she has no ability to keep track of the 244,000 civil servants across this country when her job is supposed to be keeping an eye on a government that is mired in corruption.

These are respected institutions that provide accountability to Canadians when government does not want to be accountable. There is another key element, and that is the access to information office. The government now routinely tells the access to information officer that it will not comply with requests. It will give delays of 300, 600, 900 and 1,000 days on basic rights to access to information. Canada was a world leader on access to information 15 years ago. Now it is behind tin-pot dictatorships and third world countries in terms of providing information to citizens. The President of the Treasury Board runs around like some two-bit flim-flam artist talking about data sets and open government on his Twitter account. It is a farce. The Conservatives are making sure that the real key information that Canadians need is not being made available to them.

The Department of National Defence, the CRA, the justice department, and Indian affairs routinely stonewall and shut down the attempts of citizens and journalists to find out why decisions are made. If we do not know who was in the room when a decision was made or what source provided the information, we have no idea whether or not we are getting accountable government.

The government undermined the other institutions. We can talk about Rights and Democracy. We can talk about the round table on the environment. We can talk about Census Canada. I do not know what he is the minister of now, but he was the minister of immigration, and he is now running around trying to explain why he blew it so badly on the foreign worker program and saying he did not really have any data to go on and is having to look it up on Facebook and Kijiji. It is the same party that ridiculed and laughed at the Census Canada information that was considered the gold standard for information around the world.

There is another institution that the Conservatives attacked and undermined, and it is the one institution that so far has stood up to them. That is the Supreme Court.

I will not mention the Senate. We were taught in school that legislation goes from the House to the so-called chamber of sober second thought, but it is full of hacks, partisans, and friends of the party who rubber stamp bills again and again. They are not doing their legislative oversight. What ends up happening is the Supreme Court has to address bills.

Before I get to the issue of the Supreme Court, let us talk about the justice department. The justice department has a job to review legislation to ensure that it is charter compliant, that it meets the overall legal framework of this country. We see time and time again the advice that is given is ignored, or perhaps the Conservatives decide to favour their political masters, because this is a government that runs and butts its head again and again on the basic issues of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are beginning to look increasingly ridiculous. Rather than the Conservatives stepping back and saying that they have to respect the Supreme Court, even though they will respect no other institution in this country, the Prime Minister personally led an attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Conservatives attempted to bring in a judge who was not able to sit on the Supreme Court. They had legal advice on this. They ignored it. They created an unnecessary crisis.

We saw the Conservatives' prostitution law thrown out by the Supreme Court. The Conservatives have gone right back at the Supreme Court, banging their heads against it with a bill that will also be found unconstitutional, because it ignored the fundamental issues in the Bedford decision.

Nowhere is this more obvious than on the Spencer decision last Friday that talked about the fundamental legal obligation to get a warrant to get access to IP information and cell phone information. I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries the other day saying, “Oh my God, this is going to mean a four to six week delay in police investigations”. Nonsense. It is a one-day turnaround.

We also have, within the legal system in Canada, the right the police have, if they believe a crime is being committed, to get that information without a warrant. The proviso is that they have to be able to show to a judge later on that there was the urgency. There is still judicial oversight.

The government believes that there is no need for judicial oversight. We have a situation now where 1.2 million times a year, government agencies are grabbing information on private citizens without any apparent warrant. The government says that it is only being done in cases of extreme threat, terrorism, or violence. Obviously that is not true, given that there are 1.2 million requests a year.

All that being said, we had Vic Toews, who tried to bring in his warrantless snooping bill, who stood up in this House and told ordinary Canadians that they were on the side of child pornographers if they wanted to defend privacy rights. They put the run on Vic Toews pretty quickly.

The Conservatives then came back with Bill C-13, which would create the provisions to give legal cover for the telecoms to hand over this information, and Bill S-4, which would allow corporate interests to get at Canadians' information without warrant or disclosure to people.

The other provision, the absolutely bizarre one, is that the Conservatives are now going to allow personal tax information to be transferred without warrant or oversight. They somehow think this is going to get past the Supreme Court. Since Friday's ruling, it is clear that it is not.

Rather than use this institution for the benefit of all Canadians to ensure that we have clear, definable rules in this country, we are going to see the government running and butting its head against the Supreme Court and then howling like a victim when the Supreme Court does what its job is to do, which is to maintain legislative and constitutional obligations.

This brings me back to the Conflict of Interest Act. The government's response and its recommendations, which will protect its ministers, will dilute the act and turn the office of accountability into an unmanageable and unenforceable branch. It has completely broken the commitment it made in 2006 to Canadians.

It was very interesting when we heard from Ms. Dawson, the commissioner, the other day. We asked her about one of the most serious cases we have had in memory in terms of a breach of the act, which was the secret payment made out of the Prime Minister's Office to a sitting senator.

I am not a lawyer, but when I read section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, it says to make a payment to a sitting senator to make a political problem go away is an indictable offence. The RCMP chose not to follow through. The RCMP said that there was nothing to see here, ladies and gentlemen, move on. Yet when we looked at Corporal Horton's ITO, there were serious questions about who was involved in that $90,000, and it was clearly an issue of quid pro quo.

If the RCMP is not going to follow through, and the RCMP said that it had received all the legal advice necessary but did not appear to have talked to the Department of Public Prosecutions, which has oversight in this, then the issue goes back to Mary Dawson. Mary Dawson has no ability to go after the senators. The senators are in a closed world unto themselves. However, Mary Dawson does have the authority to investigate Nigel Wright. She says that she is not investigating Nigel Wright, because she is under the impression that the $90,000 was still under investigation by the RCMP. I find that surprising, because I do not know how it could be illegal to receive the money but not illegal to pay the money. I am not exactly sure. I think Ms. Dawson would do us all a favour if she could explain.

This is the kind of work Ms. Dawson is intended to do. It is to ensure that secret payments are not made to insiders, that backroom pals do not have access that ordinary Canadians do not have. This is why we were supposed to have the Federal Accountability Act. Unfortunately, with the motion and the report, the government has signalled that it has no intention of following through on those commitments.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or moneys that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation 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.

The committee has studied the bill, and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Privacy

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there was another Supreme Court decision this morning, this one telling the Government of Canada that it cannot request telecoms companies to provide information on citizens without a warrant. In layman's terms, it means that spying on Canadians without a warrant is illegal.

Beyond Bill C-13 and its misdirection, we know that the Government Operations Centre has ordered all departments to report on any and all demonstrations within their jurisdictions. These are not illegal demonstrations.

Will the government suspend that directive to spy on Canadians through the Government Operations Centre immediately?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 has been extensively studied, as the member will know, both in committee and in the House of Commons. We have had 12 hours of debate in the House of Commons and 22 hours of study and extensive evidence from all witnesses and all experts on all sides of the issue.

We respect the work of the court, but we will continue to crack down on cyberbullies and online criminals to protect children and all Canadians.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Supreme Court reminded the Conservatives that they cannot make up rules when it suits them.

The right to privacy and the protection of personal information are very important concerns for Canadians. The way in which the government rejects these concerns is unacceptable.

In light of this morning's ruling, will the government finally accept the NDP's request to split Bill C-13 in two, so that the provisions that constitute serious violations of privacy are taken out of the bill? This must be done so that victims of cyberbullying can quickly obtain justice.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives have rejected almost all the opposition's amendments to Bill C-13 on cyberbullying.

This morning, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Conservatives again. The court unanimously ruled that a warrant is required in order to obtain a client's IP address from Internet providers. This casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of their Bill C-13.

Why did the Conservatives not agree to the NDP's request to await the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with the clause-by-clause study of their bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative incompetence has reached a new high. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled what the NDP and privacy experts had been warning all along, that allowing police to pull private information from telephone companies without warrant was unconstitutional. Yet the Conservatives are steamrolling ahead with Bill C-13, which also allows unconstitutional spying on Canadians.

With yet another bill struck down by the Supreme Court, when will the Conservatives finally take a balanced approach that keeps Canadians secure without infringing on constitutional rights?

Agricultural Growth Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to everyone who is watching. I hope they enjoyed their cereal this morning because we know that cereal is a product of agriculture. Everything we eat is a product of agriculture. There are stories of people and farms behind everything we eat, stories of farmers who were taken to court by big companies and lost money. Family farms have had to shut down because they could no longer fight against the big companies.

It is good that we are modernizing and keeping up to date with new regulations. That is not a bad thing, but in so doing, we have to come up with a plan to protect those who may be pushed aside as a result and who do not have the expertise, money or ability to be part of such a market. It is important to recognize that.

My colleague gave an excellent speech about the type of situation that can occur. The farm he mentioned is not the first farm that has been taken to court by a big company for unknowingly having patented plants on its land, and it will not be the last.

We know how agriculture works. The wind scatters seeds elsewhere. There are no borders. It is important to comply with the new regulations, but there must be a plan for the smaller farmers. There must be a plan to protect those who do not have the capacity to keep up with the big multinationals.

It is important to mention that no one is opposing intellectual property. However, in agriculture, intellectual property does not necessarily have borders, as my colleague demonstrated. If I own a field and the seeds from the adjacent property come over to my field, I cannot do anything about it. I cannot put a net over my field so that other seeds do not land on it. The situation is more complex than what the Conservatives are trying to tell us. They are telling us that everything is fine, that everything is going well and that the regulations will work. It is more complicated than that.

One of the first things that the Conservatives did when they came to power was eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. What was the role of the Canadian Wheat Board? It protected small farmers from bigger farmers.

I went to Europe where I met farmers who dreamed about having that kind of board to protect them from multinationals. We know how it works: the bigger farms swallow up the smaller ones, and the Conservatives have decided to disregard this type of relationship by giving more power to agricultural multinationals. What will we end up with? Agriculture that will no longer have local products or local farms.

If the Conservatives do not adopt a Canada-wide agriculture strategy or a national strategy to protect local producers, what will we end up with? Agriculture that does not respect the Canadian tradition of protecting its farmers.

The second thing they did was jeopardize supply management by putting it on the table during trade agreement negotiations. Small farms that are protected by supply management will not be able to keep up with the market and will once again be swallowed up by bigger players.

The ideas in Bill C-18 are valid and legitimate, and it is important to stay up to date and bring in new regulations for the agricultural sector, but we must not forget that people and farmers might suffer as a result. That is all I am trying to say to the government. We need to have a plan.

For example, the National Farmers Union opposes this bill because, it says, it will deprive the smallest farmers of their independence, increase costs for farmers and increase their exposure to lawsuits.

Is that really what the government wants to do? Do they really want to create that kind of instability for our farmers? The Conservatives have already done away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and now they want to get rid of supply management. Is that really how they want to treat our farmers? Do they really want to put them in a position that threatens their security and robs them of their independence?

That would give multinationals an unfair advantage, more power and more control. Is that really what our farmers deserve? No. I can name many people who agree with me. For example, the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which represents Manitoba farmers, said:

We're hearing this has been very successful in other countries in attracting investment in our industry, so that should be positive in the long-term for producers.

We'll be looking to our members for guidance on how they want to see this played out, but I'm glad to hear the Minister talk about farm-saved seed being a priority. That's what I hear from members as well.

Keystone Agricultural Producers believes that intellectual property is extremely important, but that we must also protect our farmers. Therefore, seeds stocked by farms are a priority. I hope that the witnesses who appear in committee will be heard and that the Conservatives will vote for our amendments, if we propose any, or that they will change the legislation.

Based on the Conservatives' record, they very rarely vote for opposition amendments. Yesterday alone, the NDP proposed some thirty amendments to improve Bill C-13, and the Conservatives voted against each and every one.

The Conservatives must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They tell farmers from their provinces that they take their interests to heart, but then they introduce legislation that, unfortunately, will eliminate their independence and create economic uncertainty.

This could open the door to legal action against them by big multinationals who have plenty of lawyers and plenty of money. Unfortunately, smaller farms will be swallowed up by the bigger farms. That is the Conservative ideology.

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions, but I will save some for our work in committee.

I am not clear on how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice interprets public places, so I would like him to clarify. For example, does he think that where Bill C-36 refers to an offence committed next to a school, that means only during school hours? Does this clause apply elsewhere in the bill to criminalize sex workers?

I asked the minister that question, but he never gave me an answer. Maybe that is because he does not know the answer. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice knows. Can he define the expression “sexual services”? What does the bill mean by that?

Also, what about the new Bill C-13, which has just passed another stage without amendment, or rather with just a tiny, inconsequential one, even though we proposed 34 amendments? Could the provisions in Bill C-13, which give more powers to police officers, also apply in this context, with or without a warrant, if a person were advertising sexual services on the Internet? Would the Internet service provider also be guilty of a crime?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, again, this is related to the general category of extremely broad provisions within Bill C-13 that relate to preservation orders. In this case the recommendation is based on one from the Canadian Bar Association that the judicial preservation orders should be restricted to circumstances when the judge is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence under an act of Parliament or a criminal offence under the law of a foreign state has been committed. It would also be a crime in Canada.

In taking that step, amendment PV-12 replaces line 7 on page 16 in clause 20 with the clarification that it must also be an offence in Canada. That same general concept is again put forward in line 17 on page 16. I won't read the whole amendment.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is somewhat in the same vein as our amendment NDP-5. It is consistent with the experts' testimony on the definitions of "peace officer" and "public officer". According to the witnesses, the use of the words "public officer" in clause 20 of the bill is clearly a problem and should perhaps be reviewed.

We introduced our amendment NDP-5 precisely for the purpose of replacing the term "public officer" with "peace officer".

Mr. Chair, I think it is important to mention that all the experts who testified during the study of Bill C-13, particularly the Privacy Commissioner, noted the problem caused by the use of the term "public officer". I think it would be logical for the committee to take the experts' testimony into account and to adopt our amendment NDP-6, which would delete the words "public officer" used in lines 6 to 10 on page 14.

That is the end of my presentation on that subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll call this meeting to order.

This is meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.

(On clause 20)

We've finished with NDP-5. We're now moving on to NDP-6, still on clause 20.

This is the first motion in a set of amendments that remove the reference to "public officer" from the bill. The following amendments are consequential to this change and the vote on NDP-6 will be applied to them as well in order to remain consistent: NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-10, NDP-11, NDP-13, NDP-15, NDP-17, NDP-21, NDP-22, NDP-23 and NDP-24. If NDP-6 fails, NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-10, NDP-11, NDP-13, NDP-15, NDP-17, NDP-21, NDP-22, NDP-23, and NDP-24 will all be removed.

As well, there are amendments that have line conflicts with this change. If NDP-6 is adopted, then we'll worry about that at the time. Okay?

Madam Péclet, would you like to move NDP-6 and introduce it?

Justice

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that at the last minute, Conservative votes were swapped or changed in order to block an amendment to Bill C-13 that would have protected those most subject to hate crimes in Canada. This was an amendment that the Minister of Justice said in committee that he supported in principle.

Instead, Conservatives voted to deny equal protection against hate crimes to transgendered and gender-variant Canadians, even though this very same protection has already passed the House of Commons twice, only to be blocked in the Senate. What do Conservatives have against standing up for vulnerable Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected an NDP amendment to Bill C-13 that would have made discrimination on the basis of gender identity a hate crime. It just so happens that right before the vote, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who supported the amendment, was replaced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Why did the Prime Minister's Office intervene to block this important amendment?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Regarding our amendment, it is important to mention something. During his press conference, when he introduced Bill C-13, the Minister of Justice clearly said—and is still clearly saying—that this bill was only supposed to legislate a specific issue—cyberbullying. I am referring to a number of provisions here.

It is important to remind the committee that the Minister of Justice said several times that Bill C-13 was not an omnibus bill and that its only goal was to legislate in the area of cyberbullying. I put questions to police associations and, according to them, it was clear that law enforcement should be left up to peace officers.

However, the parliamentary secretary told us that not only peace officers would be in charge of enforcing the new legislation. Military police officers and customs officers would also have that responsibility. What the parliamentary secretary is saying—and I see that he is nodding in agreement—is that the provisions of Bill C-13 will not be used only by police officers, but also by other individuals who have not necessarily received the required training.

Various witnesses I questioned on this issue told me that people who do not have the required training to exercise these powers should not be called upon to do so. I am now worried because we are told that the powers vested in the police will be much wider and will also be exercised by federal public officers covered by the definition of the term “public officers”, set out in section 2.

I am sounding the alarm today. People who are concerned about the exercise of these kinds of powers should know that they will be conferred on all public officers and not only on peace officers.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

People who are here will remember having heard a number of witnesses, all of whom were experts in this area, including those from the Canadian Bar Association, say that the terms used in Bill C-13—namely “peace officer” and “public officer”—were much too broad and should be narrowed. For the entire clause of the bill, the term “peace officer” should be understood in the sense of paragraph (c) of that term's definition contained in section 2.

I had some fun during a discussion—but I no longer remember on which bill—just reading all the instances of “peace officers” and “public officers”. It was quite unbelievable to see on how many pages those expressions appeared.

It would be important to narrow the scope of those expressions, so that they would apply mostly to law enforcement. The goal of the amendment is to define those terms within the meaning of section 2, paragraph (c).

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to be here today.

When I saw Bill C-13, it was interesting to note that clause 12 opened up the hate crime section of the Criminal Code to add additional grounds for prohibited discrimination. It seemed to me that this would be an appropriate place to have an amendment to add “gender identity” to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

This is half of my private member's Bill C-279, which passed in the House of Commons more than a year ago and is stuck in the Senate. It's also half of the previous private member's bill, which passed in the previous Parliament. So twice the will of Parliament has been to include gender identity in the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

When this matter was raised with the minister when he was here, I believe that he said to Madam Boivin that he had no problem in principle with this. So I was optimistic that we could make this amendment in this committee and until just a few minutes ago a majority of the members present at this committee had voted in favour of the bill. But there appears to have been some changes on the government side, so now I am concerned. Those who are the most subject to hate crimes in our society are transgendered individuals and it is more than past time that we add this to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. It will certainly serve the purposes of public education and of denunciation, and help provide some protection to a group who, as I said, have some of the greatest difficulties in our society.

I'm hoping the changes on the other side of the government don't indicate an intention to defeat this amendment because that would be to thwart the will of Parliament as twice expressed before. So I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment. In our view, it is counterproductive to other proposals in Bill C-13 that seek to harmonize the periods of validity of warrants and orders that are used in conjunction with wiretap authorizations.

As Madam Boivin will know, in the context of section 184.2 of the Criminal Code with respect to consent wiretaps, which are primarily used for undercover operations in the organized crime context, such a limitation makes little sense and would create an inconsistent approach between consent wiretaps and regular wiretaps. On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since my birthday is approaching, I am feeling generous. So I would say that great minds think alike.

Amendment NDP-2 is in line with what we have heard over the last few minutes. The committee has heard testimony of various groups that have appeared before it.

It is nice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice—who has more often than not introduced bills that provide mandatory minimum sentences—is giving the court a degree of discretion.

I am not talking about minimum sentences here, but rather about the idea of imposing a cap. That's the objective of Bill C-13. It was a good idea to stipulate “for any period that the court considers appropriate”, but it would be much more reasonable to specify that this period could not exceed five years. In this context, that would also provide guidance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

What I thought I'd like to do, picking up some of what I'm sure Mr. Dechert would appreciate, is that since PV-3, PV-4, and PV-5 speak to the same problem, I'll speak to it as a policy problem. You can take it from me that amendments PV-3, PV-4, and PV-5 speak to this policy problem. I will attempt not to go over a minute, and I won't try to accumulate it to three minutes. That's my intention.

What we have here again, the problem that we've referred to in the previous two attempts on PV-1, PV-2, and also NDP-1, is that the bill is overly broad. The way it's drafted, it could ensnare activities that are not within the scope of the purpose of the bill. So we don't, for instance, want to criminalize journalists if they are publishing an image that's in the public interest, if it's the kind of normal operation of journalists to publish images of, for instance, public figures, celebrities. That's not cyberbullying. We may have other public policy reasons for why we don't like that behaviour, but that's not the intent of the act.

This was identified by the Canadian Bar Association in their brief, that the way that Bill C-13 is currently drafted we could actually create a chill in media that when images are in the public interest they can't be published for fear of cyberbullying. The way in which amendments PV-3, PV-4, and PV-5 are drafted is to ensure that no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section, if they're essentially doing it as part and parcel of what we would consider normal journalism. We may not enjoy seeing those images. Goodness knows, I'd have been happy never to have seen Rob Ford smoking crack in his basement. But that kind of image, not that it was an intimate image.... But you can see the direction of the thought.

We really don't intend under this bill to criminalize journalists, and those amendments fix that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did propose an amendment to clause 3 of the bill, which aims to replace lines 20 to 23 of subsection 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The amended provision begins as follows: “Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person...”. The rest of the paragraph would be replaced with the following: “with the intent of injuring, embarrassing, intimidating or harassing that person, is guilty”.

The reason for the amendment is very simple. A number of people have talked about this, but the representatives of the Canadian Bar Associations presented the most compelling argument. They talked about the notion covered under clause 3 of Bill C-13, which states the following: “...knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty”.

According to them, it would be preferable to refocus on the notion of mens rea, or criminal intent.

That is more or less what various ministers called for at the federal-provincial-territorial conference. They wanted an offence to be created for the distribution of the image. In some sad events that have taken place in Canada, the image was mainly used to intimidate, harass, harm or embarrass.

I think the legislation would be clearer, and it would be easier for law enforcement officers and crown prosecutors to issue an indictments if clause 3 did not create a legal uncertainty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order. We are going to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-13. I want to thank each and every one who has submitted amendments on this and on time. I know there were a few slight changes last night that needed to be made.

I also want to welcome Ms. May to the table, who has submitted pieces for amendment as a private member—she might like to call it something else—and we will deal with them as we go. As a member she will be, when it comes to.... As common practice has been I think, Ms. May will get a minute to talk about her amendment that she's proposing on Bill C-13. I might even have started it, I'm not sure, in a previous bill.

I will read out where there is a conflict. So when I say a “line conflict” that means that if this passes, the others will be out of order—not passable because we've already done something with that line. I should let the committee know that I'm not ruling on any amendments as out of order to begin with. They were all in order, so there you go. Thank you for that.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

Do you share—and we would like to know why—the concerns raised by the information and privacy commissioners of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, who felt that Bill C-13 would authorize and potentially encourage the private sector to disclose more data without a warrant to law enforcement by granting extended immunity with regard to such practices?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

In 2010, your office published a reference document titled “A Matter of Trust: Integrating Privacy and Public Safety in the 21st Century”.

So an analytical framework was developed to assess measures that affect both public safety and privacy protection. As you said, the goal of the exercise was to strike the right balance.

Do you think that Bill C-13 provisions are consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

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

All right.

We previously heard from Mr. David Butt. He represented the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance. He's a former prosecutor and has argued many cases before the Supreme Court of Canada.

He said a number of things about the bill. He said that we should all ask precisely what pre-existing privacy rights bill C-13 takes away, and the answer is, precisely none.

He went on to say that the bill does not expand police powers to obtain information without a prior court order. So any suggestion that Bill C-13 authorizes more invasive warrantless cyber-snooping is an urban myth.

Specifically on the point of section 25, he asked whether the police can ask ISPs to provide voluntarily information about the Internet profile. Again, the answer is very little—just a subscriber’s name and address. That is all.

It was his view that this bill, and the provision we're talking about, simply codify section 25 and the case law. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the commissioner for joining us today.

I just wanted to echo what my colleague said.

It's great that we have had several hours of debate in the House of Commons and in committee. However, I think it's important to mention that most of the experts agreed on one matter. They felt that the study of the bill should have been carried out in a more comprehensive manner when it comes to the provisions on access to information. Unfortunately, we could not examine the provisions of other bills, especially Bill S-4.

Although we have carried out a good study, we could have considered the issue in more depth. We could have taken into account other bills that could have an impact on the application of Bill C-13.

My first question is about your presentation. You talked about a lack of accountability mechanisms. In fact, Bill C-13 contains no oversight mechanisms or provisions for notifying individuals whose data has been shared.

For instance, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was struck down by the Supreme Court, not because those mechanisms made it possible to share information obtained without a warrant through wiretapping, but rather because that section did not provide for any oversight or notification mechanisms. The people who were tapped by police officers were never notified of that fact.

I will make a comparison with section 188, which allows for a quick examination by a judge owing to the urgency of the situation. So the Supreme Court ruled that section 188 was valid, since it included an oversight mechanism.

Could you expand on the requirement, in Bill C-13, to comply with, on the one hand, section 8 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms and, on the other hand, the ruling of the Supreme Court that calls for such a mechanism?

[Daniel Therrien]

One of our concerns with the amendment to the immunity clause through Bill C-13 is that it takes away a current requirement that immunity exists in the course of investigations, and that is no longer the case in the clause being proposed to you. To us, that is a concern.

Certainly, to broaden the immunity clause sends a strong signal to telecommunications companies, to enhance the kind of voluntary disclosure that is currently occurring. To us, that has serious privacy implications.

If the purpose of the clause is essentially to codify what existed, the status quo so to speak, then why is it needed? If it is adopted, it does seem to send a signal to enhance, to augment voluntary disclosure—something we are concerned with for privacy reasons.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Therrien. Welcome to our committee.

Congratulations on your appointment. We're very pleased to see it.

You mentioned a few things you would like to see changed in Bill C-13. One of your comments was that you would recommend that the bill be split into two parts so further study could be done. Frankly we've heard that from a few witnesses.

Have you followed the debate in the House of Commons on this bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I don't know whether you have examined this issue, but newspaper articles are being published around the world about all kinds of events, such as the Snowden case. Some providers of IT, Internet and telecommunications services appear to be trying to tighten their criteria so as to protect their clients. Governments do have some involvement in that. We feel that certain governments, like that of Canada, are trying to obtain as much access as possible, while providers are mobilizing to maximally protect the information.

Am I wrong to feel that the government is using any means available—be it Bill S-4, Bill C-13, or others—to expand access to information involving Canadians without too much difficulty?

Do you have anything to say about that?

[Patricia Kosseim]

We are pleased to see that the provision that would have allowed warrantless access to personal information, and especially to subscriber data, has been removed and is no longer on the table. That is clearly an improvement.

However, we did have reservations over some provisions of Bill C-30 that are also part of Bill C-13. I think the commissioner has done a good job of presenting our concerns.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent, thanks.

You, at the office of the commissioner, probably analyzed Bill C-30 at the time. How does Bill C-30 compare to Bill C-13?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I want to thank you and your officials for being here. I am sure they have had more time than you to read Bill C-13, but I still appreciate your contribution to our study.

On Friday, the Supreme Court is supposed to render a decision in Matthew David Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen. Do you think that could affect the work we are currently doing?

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee.

Thank you for your invitation to present our views on Bill C-13.

With me this morning are Patricia Kosseim, Senior General Counsel, and Megan Brady, Legal Counsel.

Today, I will first address the cyberbullying aspect of the bill, and then turn to the elements that introduce new investigative powers, as both aspects implicate privacy.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner unequivocally welcomes the government taking action to address online bullying and abusive use of intimate personal images. This is a pressing social issue that is of serious concern to Canadians.

It is clear that Internet use has shifted many of our traditional views about privacy. Better education, legal reform and public discussion must all play a part in addressing the problem. We feel that a holistic approach is needed that includes public awareness—such as the government's new Stop Hating Online initiative—as well as a strong emphasis on digital literacy education.

We think it is important that children, parents and teachers all have access to educational resources that help explain online risks, and teach responsible use of technology and ethical behaviour in online interactions.

The government has signaled a commitment to digital literacy as part of its recent Digital Canada 150 strategy, and we would like to see continued dialogue and outreach to youth and educators as part of that effort.

Cyberbullying clearly presents grave risks to individual dignity and privacy for all citizens who use social networks and online communications. We believe the criminalization of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and the extension of existing Criminal Code provisions related to harassing communications sends a clear signal. We also need to ensure that cyberbullying carries serious consequences.

There are still clearly some complex privacy questions attached to many of the proposed measures, particularly those concerning some of the new investigative powers.We agree that the laws need to be modernized, but we have concerns about some of the specific proposals contained in this bill. Given the technical aspects of these amendments, my office has provided you with a written submission outlining these aspects in detail.

Allow me now to summarize our main concerns briefly.

I would begin by reiterating my view that, given the complexity of the issues you have been presented with in the course of your study, I would recommend dividing the bill into its constituent parts.

From a privacy perspective, the offence provisions are largely uncontroversial and could be dealt with quickly by the House of Commons and sent on to the Senate for review. On the other hand, given that sensitive personal information and significant police powers are at play, the lawful access components deserve very close scrutiny and would benefit from a focused and targeted review.

Our first concern, Mr. Chairman, relates to the issue of thresholds for authorizations. The accessing of data is significantly more intrusive than its preservation. While reasonable suspicion may be an appropriate threshold for preserving data, we believe that Parliament should closely scrutinize the proposed threshold for judicial authorization to access certain data. The divergence from the constitutional default of reasonable and probable grounds requires full explanation and a justification by government, and merits a cautious approach.

There is a wide range of new powers attached to Bill C-13, under which sensitive information would become more accessible to law enforcement and a wide range of other governmental authorities at a lower legal threshold of reasonable suspicion.

Transmission data provide a useful example of how authorities can obtain sensitive records via a reduced legal threshold under the new regime. Reasonable suspicion to access transmission data uses the precedent of the standard currently required to use a dial number recorder, or DNR; however, the information and records comprising “transmission data” as it is defined in the bill can be significantly more revealing than a record of telephone calls.

We believe that suspicion is too low a threshold for such potentially revealing information in a digital era, when every transaction, every message, every online search, and every call or movement leaves a recorded trace. As a result we suggest the bill use the traditional standard of reasonable and probable grounds to believe for the provisions under which access to information would be granted. This is the standard that should hold until a more compelling case for the use of a reduced legal threshold is presented and thoroughly examined.

A second concern is the broad range of authorities that can rely on these powers. The investigative powers and provisions in Bill C-13 see both peace officers and public officers at all levels of jurisdiction in Canada broadly empowered with a whole range of new techniques. While many law enforcement and security agencies have robust accountability mechanisms, other government bodies implicated by this definition have no dedicated review and no transparency requirements. We find this to be of particular concern.

Thirdly, there is the key question of legal immunity. Bill C-13 contains an amendment specifying that a person or organization enjoys legal immunity should they voluntarily preserve data or provide a document at an investigator's request without court authorization. We are concerned that this broad language could lead to a rise in additional voluntary disclosures and informal requests. This is of particular concern with private sector companies that are otherwise prohibited from disclosing personal information without consent under PIPEDA or substantially similar legislation. In essence, this could amount to permissive access without court approval and oversight.

Ultimately then, we believe Canadians expect that their service providers will keep their information confidential, and that personal information will not be shared with government authorities without their express consent, clear lawful authority, or a warrant.

Finally, there is the question of accountability and transparency mechanisms for new forms of surveillance.

There are no requirements in the bill to report on the extent of the use of any of the new powers. I feel that this is of serious concern, especially given the range of officers who can exercise these powers and the possible effects of extending legal immunity. In many other jurisdictions, ongoing reporting is part of the oversight structure. We believe Canada should have similar ongoing measures for reporting.

Thank you for your attention.

I look forward to any questions committee members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting to order. That means our friends from the media have to leave with their cameras. Thank you very much.

We're at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting 30, as of the order of reference of Monday, April 28, 2014, Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

We are televised for the first hour, and we have the pleasure of having witnesses from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Therrien.

Welcome, Commissioner. You can introduce your guests. You have 10 minutes, and then we'll go to questions and answers.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Cara Zwibel]

The provision in Bill S-4 that has the most relevant link to Bill C-13 is a provision that expands the exceptions in PIPEDA, which I mentioned earlier.

Right now there's an exception, so that a company does not have to seek an individual's consent before disclosing their information to law enforcement or government agencies in certain circumstances. This would expand that to include other organizations that might be requesting information where there's an allegation of breach of contract, for example, copyright claims, and things of that nature.

Really, the problem is that it puts the holder of the information, a private corporation, in the seat of an arbitrator of a contractual dispute or a law enforcement issue, and those are the things that should be done with judicial oversight.

The immunity provision in Bill C-13 obviously plays a big role. In our view. If the provision in Bill S-4 passes, there is an incentive for companies to hand over more information both to law enforcement and to others requesting information. We think the incentive should be going the other way.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Ms. Zwibel, you're aware that there is presently a piece of legislation before the Senate, Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act. I think it's been admitted by the minister that there is a link between it and Bill C-13, yet both the minister and his officials were either reticent or outright refused to discuss it.

Why is the link between these two pieces of legislation important?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Ms. Zwibel, do I understand you correctly to say that Bill C-13 will result in tracking devices, including software, and that it would afford government the power to install malware to track a person? Did you say that?

[Cara Zwibel]

Thank you.

Section 25 says that if you're required or authorized by law to do something, and you act on reasonable grounds, you're justified in doing that. It's basically a justification defence. It's a little bit different from the blanket civil and criminal immunity that's being proposed in Bill C-13. The provision in Bill C-13 doesn't require the reasonableness, so I think there's an important distinction. I think section 25 is, with respect, a bit of a red herring.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Zwibel, you were asked a question about the relationship between section 25 of the Criminal Code and Bill C-13. You started to rifle through your papers to get an answer and you weren't afforded an opportunity to answer the question. This is your opportunity.

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

Mr. Wamback, you mentioned the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and I want to assure you that nothing in Bill C-13 detracts in any way from the application of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses.

Thank you so much. In case I switch—I go from one language to the other—be prepared to have translation.

Thank you for your testimony, and I'm thinking especially of Mr. Kempton. I'm deeply, deeply sorry for what happened. Your words touched me. We are going to try to find that right balance, while keeping in mind the real people who are affected by the bills that we are working on. That is a promise I'm making.

The same applies to you, Mr. Wamback.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

It's rare that we have Facebook here and the Internet Association.

I will address some of my questions to Facebook in a sense, because I heard your testimony on behalf of Facebook. I'm a big fan of Facebook, so don't take what I'm going to say in the wrong way. I'm one of your 18 or 19 million people from Canada.

At the same time, I remember last year when somebody tried to steal my identity. It was like waking up one morning and having people say, “I don't think it's you.” Removing it went well, but we have heard some testimony here about it not always being that easy to remove certain things.

You talked at length about all the efforts and the things that Facebook is making.

You didn't talk much about the legislation, though, so I would like to know what Facebook likes about Bill C-13 and whether there's any part you think we should be addressing. I think we had a good explanation of what Facebook is doing to make it safer and so on, but how does that apply to Bill C-13? Is Facebook concerned about Bill C-13? Do you feel that the orders that could come from courts would apply?

The question might also be addressed to Mr. Beckerman, because a lot of you guys are not based in Canada.

How will that legally affect the companies that you represent, Mr. Beckerman, or Facebook?

Ms. Bickert, are you concerned about Bill C-13? You didn't say a word about it.

[Michael Beckerman, President, The Internet Association]

Thank you, and I apologize for not being able to join you in person.

My name is Michael Beckerman and I'm the president of the Internet Association, an organization comprising 25 of the world's leading Internet companies. Our members are leaders in the Internet industry, and as an industry they are committed to providing ground-breaking services to help improve the world. The Internet Association is pleased to be able to share our views on Bill C-13, the act protecting Canadians from online crime.

The problem of bullying threatens people's ability to communicate safely and privately and can have significant consequences for the people involved. Whether it happens in a classroom, on the playground, or on a website, the consequences are exactly the same. It is not a problem that affects any one website, one school, or one medium.

It is clear that no one participant in our society can single-handedly solve this age-old problem. Instead, it's a problem that all stakeholders—families, friends, teachers and other community leaders, along with governments and the private sector—must work on to address collaboratively.

For its part, the Internet industry has worked proactively to address concerns about bullying that occurs online, through education campaigns, suicide-prevention efforts, and robust technical solutions to address bullying when it occurs.

A number of Internet companies, including Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Yahoo have partnered with a non-profit called SAVE, to launch Responding to a Cry for Help: Best Practices for Online Technologies, which is a guide for other established Internet companies and start-ups that share the best practices of leading tech companies for decreasing suicide risk among users.

Additionally, our members work closely with groups like the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, MediaSmarts, and others to develop targeted public education campaigns on digital literacy, [Inaudible--Editor] online habits, and anti-bullying resources. These efforts are key to stopping bullying before it begins.

A number of our member companies also partner with the Family Online Safety Institute, a global organization, and sponsor their “A Platform for Good”, which is designed to help parents and teachers along with teens to connect, share, and do good online, with the goal of improving online safety for all.

In terms of innovative online tools, our members have robust mechanisms to report abuse when it occurs, including easy-to-report abuse buttons and links that are tied to user-generated content. Our companies also have automated systems, as well as teams of people around the world who review, take down immediately, and respond to content that doesn't meet very strict terms of service and community guidelines.

Although there is no single solution to address the problem of online or offline bullying, we are proud of our members' leadership in bringing new ideas, new resources, and new technology to the table to help our community move forward on this important issue.

The Internet Association members understand that maintaining a safe society requires the involvement of law enforcement. Our members support law enforcement's important mission to maintain people's safety and security, but at the same time we recognize that people choose to use Internet-based services to store some of their most personal and private information. To that end, we believe that law enforcement should be subject to a heightened standard, such as the obligation to obtain a judicial warrant based on appropriate criteria, before obtaining access to people's content, whether that access occurs in cyberspace or the physical space.

Our members are committed to upholding their obligations to coordinate with legitimate law-enforcement investigations, and even go beyond those obligations by building positive relationships with law enforcement, working closely with them in appropriate circumstances. But we do not believe that promoting public safety requires a government to lower its standard for gaining access to people's private communications. Indeed, the public trust requires that we hold ourselves and our officials to the highest standards in this important area.

One of the most important tools used by our members to earn public trust is transparency. A number of our member companies publish the number and types of inquiries they receive from governments around the world. We continue to believe government should be as transparent as possible about the requests they make of companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others, and companies should be able to tell people when their information is being collected by the government, both individually in appropriate circumstances, and in the aggregate.

We are concerned that language in Bill C-13 moves us in the opposite direction. Specifically, subsection 487.019(1) would allow a judge to prohibit persons from disclosing the existence of some or all of the contents of the demand order that they preserve or produce people's private information.

While we recognize there may be limited cases where this kind of a disclosure would create a threat to public safety, this provision of Bill C-13 goes so far as to potentially enable the government to prohibit companies from disclosing even the existence of the demands by government authorities for data, including the number of such demands and whether information was handed over.

Our members publish this type of information because they believe that people should be able to understand the nature and extent of information their government is seeking about them. These reports help give people greater confidence in their governments, that they're acting in an appropriate and a restrained way when they request information about users. And it also helps people feel comfortable expressing themselves online.

We urge the committee to consider drafting this and other gag order provisions in Bill C-13 in a way that would, at a minimum, expressly permit companies to report the aggregate number of preservation and production orders they receive. By continuing to prohibit disclosure of the content of these demands and orders in very limited circumstances where the content of a specific order is particularly sensitive due to security concerns, it is possible to enable that transparency without compromising public safety or legitimate investigative efforts.

As others have noted in public commentary, the bill appears to grant the government powers either to forego a warrant when demanding preservation of data or to obtain a warrant based on lower standards than those currently applicable in the off-line world.

Today I'd like to focus in particular on the second part.

With due respect, we urge the committee to consider whether it is appropriate to lower the warrant standard for government access to individuals' content, as is currently contemplated in Bill C-13. As we understand the legislation, law enforcement agencies would only have to demonstrate to a judge that they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone has committed a crime or will commit a crime to obtain a warrant. We understand that under current law, police officers must satisfy a higher standard of reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed before they can obtain a warrant.

In addition, the legislation appears to permit judges to consider a lower threshold for determining that the evidence resulting from a lawful search will afford evidence respecting the commission of an offence. Instead, they could grant warrants merely if they will assist in investigation. This is widely viewed as a far lower standard.

In the sensitive area of people's private information, particularly in circumstances where they may not know they are under investigation, it is important that we send a clear message to these people that these kinds of investigations will occur only in limited cases where a high bar has been met.

The Internet Association is concerned that lowering the standard in the way proposed by the bill would both erode privacy of individuals who use the Internet and also reduce the confidence in the government's respect to citizens' due process rights. In light of these concerns, we urge the committee to revert to the existing privacy protective standards in the current Criminal Code.

Our members are responsible companies that are committed to ensuring the safety of Canadian citizens online. The Internet industry will continue to innovate and develop cutting-edge technology and tools, and work on programs and partnerships to address cyberbullying and off-line bullying.

We value the committee's attention to this very important issue raised by Bill C-13. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Monika Bickert, Head of Policy Management, Facebook Inc.]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here.

My name is Monika Bickert. l'm the head of global policy management at Facebook. I will be providing my remarks here today in English.

My job at Facebook is all about creating an environment that both encourages people to express themselves and promotes safety and respect. I'm deeply invested in making sure that Facebook is a safe place where people feel comfortable connecting with those they care about. I say this not only as an employee, but also as a mother of two daughters who are growing up in an increasingly connected world.

I came to Facebook after spending more than a decade fighting child exploitation and human trafficking as a federal prosecutor in the United States and as a legal adviser to foreign law enforcement agencies. I share your commitment to keeping people safe online. That's why I feel so proud of the work we are doing at Facebook to give people the ability to connect and to share in a safe and privacy protected way.

We're aware of the complex questions that Bill C-13 raise about cyberbullying, law enforcement, access to data, and other challenges. We appreciate the opportunity to share perspectives with you today on our approach to safety and the way that policy-makers, safety advocates, and industry can work together to build safer communities for everyone, both online and offline. We believe it's important to understand the safety tools, programs, and partnerships that we use to address the challenges of cyberbullying.

Facebook's mission is to help give people the power to share and to make the world more open and connected. Over 1.28 billion people across the globe are using Facebook on a regular basis to share information—messages, photos, videos, and status updates—with their friends and family. That includes over 19 million people in Canada. Facebook is committed to retaining the trust of the people who use our service and to providing a safe and secure online experience.

We've developed a comprehensive approach to keeping kids and others safe on Facebook. That includes strong enforcement of our community standards, robust technological solutions and tools, and partnerships with safety groups to educate people about how best to protect themselves and their friends and family online. We continually work to improve our safety program, and we welcome the feedback that we receive from people who use the service, including policy-makers and safety experts.

Our community standards make clear that we have zero tolerance for bullying, harassment, threats, and explicit content like pornography. We impose strict limitations on the display of nudity. We walk a careful line between respecting people's right to share content of personal importance with the need to ensure a safe environment for everyone in our community. We have teams around the world that work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to reports about content that might violate our community standards. If content does violates our standards, we remove it from the site. We may also take other actions, such as warning or disabling the account of the person who posted the content or, in extreme cases, alerting law enforcement about threats of real-world violence, self-harm, or child exploitation.

We prioritize serious cases, as well as reports of harassment, bullying and other forms of abuse, because we care very much about people feeling safe when they use our platform. We've also deployed technology to block the sharing of child exploitation images on Facebook, including in private groups, or to flag it for immediate review by our safety team.

In collaboration with Microsoft and the U.S.'s National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we use a technology called PhotoDNA. This allows us to instantaneously identify, remove, and report to the national centre, known abusive images. The national centre then coordinates with law enforcement around the world to take further action.

We've established a safety advisory board composed of internationally recognized safety experts, who provide us with timely seasoned advice on our products and policies. We try to make it as easy as possible for people to take action based on problems they have or that they see when they're on Facebook. Not only do we have report links that are displayed prominently around the site—you can find these report links on every piece of content on Facebook—we've also created a range of innovative tools and controls for teens, parents, and educators to resolve conflict, both in the online and in the off-line worlds. For example, based on research that we've done about how people communicate concerns to each other, we've developed innovative social resolution tools that allow young people to use Facebook to ask authority figures, friends, and family members for help when they're in a situation where they're feeling uncomfortable.

Our social resolution tools also help young people to speak up when they see others being bullied. Because most bullying that happens on Facebook starts and ends off-line, we realize that even with all of the work that we do in this area, it will always be parents, teachers, and other community leaders who will have the best context to understand what's happening and the best ability to intercede where appropriate.

While tools are important for enabling people to take action on behalf of themselves or others, we also believe that we have an important role to play in educating people about our policies, how to use the tools to help themselves and others, and how to have crucial conversations about staying safe online.

However, we cannot do this alone, so we partner with leading organizations that reach youth across Canada. We're proud supporters of the Government of Canada's get cyber safe campaign. We have worked with officials, as well as the Canadian Teachers' Federation, to promote our "Think Before You Share" guide nationwide. This guide, which you can find—it's publicly available—gives young people the tools that they need to share safely and responsibly, as well as advice for what to do when things go wrong.

[Cara Zwibel, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Cara Zwibel, and I'm a lawyer and program director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

The CCLA is a national, non-profit, non-partisan, and non-governmental organization supported by thousands of Canadians from all walks of life. This year CCLA celebrates 50 years of working to protect and promote the rights and freedoms of individuals across Canada.

In our role as a defender of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and the right to be free from unreasonable state intrusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee and raise some of our concerns about aspects of Bill C-13.

My comments today will be focused on two main areas. The first is the creation of the new offence of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We believe this new offence as drafted is overly broad and will open the door to capturing lawful activity in a way that may unreasonably violate freedom of expression.

Second, I want to address the new investigative powers included in the bill. Most of Bill C-13 is dedicated to increasing police investigative powers, and in ways that affect not just investigations related to cyberbullying but investigations of any offence under the code. To the extent that some gaps have been identified in the ability of investigators to deal with online crime, such measures are certainly appropriate. However, in our view, the provisions of Bill C-13 do not strike an appropriate balance between investigative necessity and personal privacy rights. They authorize unreasonable intrusions by the state into the personal lives of Canadians. CCLA cannot support the bill without substantial amendments to the investigative powers provisions.

I'll begin with the new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images. In starting on this point, I want to acknowledge that cyberbullying is a concern to many Canadians. Indeed, CCLA shares the view that local, provincial, and federal governments have a role to play in addressing this ongoing challenge. There are certainly real harms and a great deal of embarrassment that may flow from the distribution of intimate images. But the criminal law is a blunt instrument, and using it to address the cyberbullying problem may lead to criminalizing the victims as much as the perpetrators.

At the most basic and fundamental level, this new offence criminalizes expression. Even expression that is hurtful, embarrassing, or deeply offensive is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and may only be limited in a manner that is both reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Restrictions on expression should be narrowly tailored to achieve their intended goals. The goal in this case is a good one. Our concern is that the offence is not narrowly tailored in a way that achieves it.

In our view, the proposed offence is broadly written and limits freedom of expression in a manner that's unreasonable on a number of counts.

First, the offence does not require malicious intent. In light of the ubiquity of intimate images that are floating around in cyberspace, the absence of a malicious intent requirement means that individuals could be held criminally responsible for posting, sharing, or sending an intimate image that is already out there online, perhaps first posted by the individual depicted, and that depicts someone they don't even know.

Second, the definition of what constitutes an intimate image is too broad, and its use of the reasonable expectation of privacy standard will pose difficult challenges to the courts charged with interpreting and applying the law. The concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, used to give meaning to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the charter, is a complex one. In the context of the section 8 charter jurisprudence, the concern is with privacy interests that individuals have as against the state. The proposed offence, however, deals more with the expectations of privacy that people have vis-à-vis other individuals and society at large. This concept will be much more difficult to interpret and apply when the images at issue were not created by the accused and could have emanated from any number of sources. I've included a bit more information about this in my written submission to the committee.

Third, the CCLA is concerned about the orders that may be imposed on individuals convicted of the new offence, particularly orders that prohibit the offender from using the Internet or other digital network. Such a condition, which under the current wording of the bill may be imposed without terms to limit its scope or duration, is a draconian one. Prohibiting individuals from accessing the Internet may effectively isolate them from friends and family, significantly hamper their ability to access information and communicate with the world around them, and negatively impact the employment prospects and educational opportunities of an offender. CCLA believes this section must be significantly narrowed. As currently drafted, in our view the new offence casts too wide a net, and the recklessness standard that it employs is much too low for an offence that criminalizes such a broad range of expression.

I'd like to move now to discuss the new investigative powers contained in the bill, as these give rise to a number of very serious concerns, particularly in light of information that has recently emerged about the extent to which government institutions are already requesting and receiving personal information from telecommunication service providers and Internet service providers without prior judicial authorization and without the knowledge or consent of their customers.

We are pleased to see that many of the more intrusive provisions from prior incarnations of lawful access legislation have been dropped. But we remain concerned about several aspects in the bill, and in particular the immunity provision found in proposed subsections 487.0195(1) and (2). This proposed section purports to grant immunity from any criminal or civil liability to any person who preserves data or provides a document to law enforcement when there is no legal prohibition on doing so.

On its face, this provision appears to be redundant. It simply states that an individual will not incur liability for doing something that is not prohibited by law. The minister has made statements indicating that this section does not do anything new and is simply there for greater clarity. I've also followed the committee's hearings on this issue and understand that many committee members continue to believe that this provision is totally innocuous.

I have to take issue with this characterization and want to caution the committee against allowing this provision to go forward. Contrary to the statements that have been made, the immunity provision could have far-reaching implications and is deeply problematic.

In particular, it seeks to exploit some of the confusion and ambiguity around the legality of disclosing personal information to law enforcement without a warrant. It also seeks to take advantage of the ambiguity in existing privacy legislation and of the evolving nature of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy in light of increasingly advanced and privacy-invasive technologies.

For example, currently our federal private sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act or PIPEDA, requires that corporations that collect personal information in the course of their commercial activities not disclose that information without the knowledge and consent of the individual. There are a number of significant exceptions to this rule, many of which are drafted in extremely broad terms and include providing information to government agencies, including law enforcement officials, in a wide variety of circumstances. There remain differing interpretations of the permissible scope of these exceptions, and in light of this ambiguity, corporations may choose to take a more cautious and privacy-protective approach to customer data out of fear of liability.

In our view, that cautious approach is appropriate, given that law enforcement has the expertise and ability necessary to seek out a search warrant. The immunity provision is in our view a blatant attempt to incentivize private corporations to cooperate with law enforcement, even when doing so poses a genuine risk to customer privacy and may not serve any compelling state objective. This provision should be removed from the bill.

A number of the new investigative powers included in Bill C-13 allow for the preservation of data and the production of documents based on the low standard of “reasonable grounds to suspect”. This standard has been found by our courts to be appropriate in contexts in which the reasonable expectation of privacy is relatively low. Bill C-13, however, uses this standard to authorize warrants for transmission and tracking data.

Contrary to statements that have been made that this is akin to phone book information, that is simply not the case. This kind of data can be highly invasive and can provide a detailed and intimate profile of an individual. Many studies have suggested that in some cases, the information that can be gleaned from this kind of data is greater than that gleaned from actually monitoring the content of communications.

I know my time is short. I want to point out also some implications that result from changes to the definition of a tracking device and a transmission recorder.

These definitions have been changed to include software. This means that provisions that authorize the use of a tracking device or transmission recorder effectively allow for the installation of malware. Police are being given the power to remotely hack into computers, mobile devices, or cars in order to track location or record metadata. In some cases, this is done on the lower standard of “reasonable grounds to suspect”, which in our view is inappropriate.

I've addressed the concerns around the change to the definition of public officer in my written submission.

Finally, I want to address concerns around the absence of transparency and accountability mechanisms related to some of the new powers created by Bill C-13.

The new production order powers may result in the disclosure of significant amounts of personal information to law enforcement and a range of others. The bill includes a provision for keeping confidential the existence of these orders throughout the duration, subject to judicial authorization. We understand the need for confidentiality during investigations. The concern is that once an investigation is over, once the investigative integrity no longer requires that this information be kept confidential, there should be proactive disclosure of the fact that an individual's data has been disclosed.

[Joseph Wamback, Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to attend this hearing today to give witness and to participate in the finalization of this initiative. I'm grateful to see multi-party political support for this bill. For me, my constituency, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians, Bill C-13 cannot be given royal ascent soon enough.

This is not just about young people, but about all Canadians. Bill C-13 speaks to our core belief that the lives and futures of victims of cyberbullying or electronic criminal activity have value and that we, as Canadians, recognize that value. I don't think anyone on this committee has underestimated the horrific effects of cyberbullying on Canadians, especially on our young people.

I wish we could legislate good parenting skills, but as we all know, that's impossible. l also believe that Bill C-13 is not the end. It's just the beginning. We must continue to educate our young people about the life- changing effects of Internet bullying and intimidation and, of equal importance, the consequences and sanctions for that behaviour. I'm a firm believer that consequence is the first step towards prevention. Bill C-13 is the start and for it to be effective, this initiative must be transparent and predictable and, most importantly, it must be perceived as such by all Canadians. That is why I believe that the enforcement and logistics of the legislation are of equal importance and I'm pleased to see them detailed so thoroughly in this bill.

I have reviewed them in detail and I am convinced that there will be no infringements on our individual rights to privacy. I do not believe that the police or the state are threatening the existence of my freedom, nor do other Canadians. I have no concerns about preservation or production orders, nor do any of the parents of victims that I have spoken to recently. I believe that the outcry surrounding these invasions of our privacy are by those who have not read or have understood the provisions in Bill C-13—or they're just being intellectually dishonest.

One of my great concerns has always been the loss of faith in our justice system, especially by our young people. Loss of trust in the system and a belief that it is unjust threatens confidence in our courts and has dangerous consequences, including the serious under-reporting of this type of criminal activity. I firmly believe that the introduction of Bill C-13 will introduce those marginalized and isolated by cyberbullying, especially our youth, that we care and that we are prepared to protect them and enforce this legislation. Failure to achieve this will simply undermine its effectiveness and decrease our collective ability to minimize the occurrence of this type of devastating criminal activity.

Bullying or cyberbullying is not just about the distribution of intimate images without a person's consent. Victims also report that it's impossible to escape from the electronic dissemination of hate and cyberbullying, which includes threats, spreading of false rumours, retribution and, more importantly, social outcasting. It is impossible by the very public nature of the Internet. Its effects are life changing and often result in lost futures, which affect us all.

After a detailed review, I have three recommendations for this committee to consider. First, and I'm sure it has been considered, but I could not find any reference to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the administration of Bill C-13. Since the initiative of this legislation is aimed at young people, I suggest that the Youth Criminal Justice Act also be cross-referenced with the appropriate amendments to that legislation regarding enforcement, investigation, and sanctions.

Second, I believe that to achieve success we need ongoing education about the details and consequences of cyberbullying. This must be continually and routinely introduced and re-introduced and understood by all Canadians, especially young people, so they comprehend the harm and, very importantly, the consequences of cyberbullying. All Canadians, especially our young people, need to be reminded that anonymity on the Internet does not exist and that we need to ensure consequences are available, that they are consistent, that they are predictable, and that they are recognized for this behaviour.

In the aftermath of the assault on my son in 1999, and for years afterwards, my family received e-mails containing death threats, and horrifically disgusting and accusatory messages and posts on blogs and social media sites degrading my family and my efforts to support crime victims and legislative changes to try to make Canada a safer place for our children.

To this day, we are still victims of these events and nothing could be done because the posts and e-mails were always anonymous. These portrayers of violent intent always remained anonymous and their courage to accuse and defame was housed and strengthened by that anonymity.

l have spoken to many children and families who are victims of similar cowardly anonymous attacks via the Internet and the results are always the same. Threats and the spreading false information, rumours, and accusations electronically are more devastating and crippling to the victim than if made in person, just by the very public nature of the Internet. It is no longer one-on-one; it's there for the world to view.

Therefore, I have a third recommendation, which is hopefully again just housekeeping, but I believe is necessary for clarity and, more important, for greater certainty.

Bill C-13, as noted in paragraph 18, refers to sections 371 and 372 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which are offences against the rights of property. This should be expanded to ensure that other offences that contain language related to outdated technologies, such as the telephone and telegraph, be updated as well. With these proposed amendments, these same acts would be punishable when committed using e-mail, text messaging, blogs, or any means of telecommunications and, most important, would allow authorities the same procedural and investigative tools.

These sections include the following: sexual offences; public morals; disorderly conduct, section 181 of the Criminal Code; and offences against the person and reputation, sections 264 and 265 of the Criminal Code.

Cyberbullying or electronically distributed or perpetrated criminal activity exists because it originates from anonymous, malicious individuals, whose identity is very difficult, if not impossible, to track. The reason it exists is because perpetrators believe they are faceless and can never be held accountable and hopefully this will change.

We will never stop electronic crime or cyberbullying, but I believe that this initiative and subsequent education will create awareness of the effects of online crime and alert our young people about its devastating affects on their peers.

I also hope that it will impose serious consequences and sanctions on those who use the anonymity of the Internet to intimidate and bully.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Roy Kempton, Co-ordinator, Anti-Bullying Initiative]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill C-13 and to share with you what my family has experienced over the past five years as a consequence of bullying.

My name is Roy Kempton, and I live east of Cobourg in Northumberland County. In January 2008, I retired after 41 years as a professional engineer and looked forward to my golden years with my poetry and golf.

Seven months into my retirement, my granddaughter, Abigayle Kempton, hung herself in the backyard of her home on Harwood Road, Baltimore, Ontario, two weeks after her 14th birthday. I still feel the chill of that telephone call. Losing my only granddaughter, I lost the focus of a special love that this grandfather and granddaughter shared, and a common passion for writing. Imagine, then, what her parents felt—the emptiness, the second-guessing

Like any family faced with such a traumatic event, we struggled with emotions. We learned from her final letter she had been bullied both verbally and online, and in her words “wanted peace and to be free of the hurting.” She never spoke much about being bullied. We misinterpreted her mood swings as the trials and tribulations of a growing teenager. Knowing now the pain that bullying caused, we are proud that she made the grade 8 honour roll.

She deleted all hurtful messages from her cellphone and her Facebook page. Police told us these could be retrieved. We did not want this. We felt there was nothing to be gained but more pain. We decided to channel our energies on a positive approach, one that would see good things grow from this tragedy. We made our choice in consideration of Abigayle, a sensitive, caring person with a wonderful sense of humour and a hearty laugh.

We learned about the abuse she suffered from friends. Strange to me even yet, those who bullied her admitted to it, leaving a signed note on her grave asking for forgiveness. As one of them, with her mother by her side, spoke to me of her remorse, I realized that there could be victims on both sides of this age-old scourge. She told me that she was responsible for Abi's death. She cried as her mother told me of her suicidal depression and hospitalization. I cried with her and thought, how sad and senseless this all is. She was a child, just like my granddaughter. I did not see a bully, but a sad, pitiful young girl coping with rampant emotions. This was not a time for retribution or justice, or whatever name we want to put on it.

We needed to do something to avoid such a tragedy happening again. We thought of a scholarship in Abi's name at the high school she planned to attend. It became obvious from support of friends and the wider community, we needed to go further. In May 2009, ABI was founded, an anti-bullying initiative using the acronym of her name. She had plans to study animation at college, and one of the characters she came up with is now used to symbolize our program.

Our initiative tries to highlight the tragic consequences of bullying to grade school and high school students. We developed and set up a website and a Facebook page to reach a wider audience. We also publish a newsletter.

Without professional training, but speaking from the heart, we made presentations at grade schools, high schools, churches, local councils and council committees, scout camps, day camps. We met with families in their homes, and dealt one on one with distressed parents and students. We organized rallies to promote awareness. We have been the subject of several local newspaper articles.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of our initiative. At the end of this current school year, we will have presented $15,000 in scholarships to graduating grade 12 students who have shown exceptional leadership in combatting bullying in their schools and the wider community. We also run a grade-school program where we present t-shirts, pins, bracelets, etc. to deserving students selected by school staff. We are currently working with community groups and with school board representatives to have Abi's story introduced to more schools.

In presenting our story we are hoping we can make a difference. We believe that reaching students at an early age is the key to developing better social skills and behaviour. It really begins with family life where respect for others should be taught.

Are we making a difference? Judging by e-mails, letters, and spoken words of encouragement received, the community believes we are. We know that there are groups with programs out there doing tremendous work to nurture kids to live and be taught in a safe environment. We also know that there will always be those who circumvent standards of decent behaviour that may warrant criminal investigation.

As my friend Grahame Woods wrote recently in Northumberland Today:

In the olden days, when I was a kid, the chant de jour in the schoolyard was 'Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me.' Oh, how wrong that was. It was a world where communication was by voice, letter, telephone (for some), even morse code. Yes, today we still have the mindless, oral bullying, but the lethal sticks and stones hurtle through the ether at the thoughtless press of Send - irretrievable, wreaking unseen emotional damage until the recipient can take no more.

Be reminded that it is grandparents and parents who put these sticks and stones in the hands of children as mobile devices, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. Then we scramble to keep our children safe.

Legislation will help but at the end of the day it remains for families to exercise vigilance in a world where we all struggle to keep pace with changing technology. Children should be aware that there are consequences to the misuse of these devices. Regret cannot erase the emotional impact of hurtful words or images sent facelessly at the touch of a button.

I doubt that the events surrounding my granddaughter's death fall under the provisions of Bill C-13. She was bullied by those she once called friends. It was old-fashioned schoolyard torment with a modern technological twist. Notwithstanding, I understand the need for this legislation and believe it can provide protection to those vulnerable to online activity.

Technology can deprive us of peaceful down times. Our love affair with the Internet has unfortunately undermined the very thing we suddenly wish to hold dear when sadly, in some cases, it is often too late. At fourteen, I could escape to a long laneway with high hedges leading to my farmhouse home on a hill surrounded by trees, with no telephone or mailbox. That kind of privacy was from another world, one we can only imagine now.

I hope my presentation today reflects the spirit Abi exhibited in her short but beautiful life. In an imperfect world, if she had dreams of perfection, it surely would have been to be accepted and respected as she was, with flaws and faults we all have. Respect for others is the core of what this initiative is about. It is what this child taught us. It is what we should teach our children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. We are televised.

Per the orders of the day from Monday, April 28, 2014, we are continuing our study 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.

We have a number of guests here this morning. I want to apologize to them in advance: we are sorry that we were a bit late starting, but we were voting.

I will remind the committee that we had a discussion about votes last time, so that we will be able to accommodate both television and video conferencing. We will go a few minutes into the bells. Based on the lecture we just got from the Speaker's chair, we're not going to go too far into bells, but we'll go a little way.

With that, I want to thank our guests.

To save some time, I will go right to our witnesses.

Our first witness is Mr. Kempton from the Anti-Bullying Initiative.

You have 10 minutes, sir. The floor is yours.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, based on the way that Bill C-13 is constructed, which would enable the police to act with modern tools not only to enforce the existing law but also to enforce the new legislation that would criminalize the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, it makes no sense to split the bill. We have to not only protect the public through passing the legislation, but we also have to enable the police to have the modern tools necessary to enforce that law.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns that have been raised about the new privacy commissioner's background and his potential conflicts of interest, he himself believes that Bill C-13 should be divided.

He also believes that the information telecommunications companies have on their clients should be better protected. This kind of information is not the same as what is found in a phone book. This information is much more sensitive.

Will the Conservatives listen to the person they just appointed?

[Gwyneth Anderson]

We brought up the national strategy because we think it should go along with Bill C-13. I think it was Parry who mentioned that different provinces are doing different things.

When we first started, we just started to get involved in our own little elementary school thinking, “Well, we'll just get involved, and we'll just help stop the bullying”. We then realized—it sounds crazy from what we said—it is a culture change.

You can bring programs in. It's like planting seeds, but that's why we suggest that there be a national strategy, so that all provinces and territories are speaking the same language. You have to back it up with education and awareness, because we're just dipping our toe into the digital world. We have a long way to go.

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

Thank you.

My second question goes to you as well, Mr. Anderson.

Your organization advocates for a free and open Internet. I have looked at a number of your communications in which you make the case strongly that the Internet should remain a free and democratic forum.

Do you have any concerns about the impact that the provisions in Bill C-13 can have on the Internet as a democratic forum?

[Dr. Parry Aftab]

So, there are standards.

Any kind of standards don't exist under C-13.

[Dr. Parry Aftab]

Thank you very much.

I just want to clarify that I'm an expert on cyberbullying; we've been doing it for 19 years. I'm a U.S. Lawyer in New York and New Jersey, and I'm not familiar with all aspects of criminal law here, although I have seen the responses of the Canadian Bar Association and others.

If indeed the existing law says it's part of an existing valid criminal prosecution, that test, from what I've been able to read, is not in C-13. If it were part of a valid criminal process and an investigation, I don't have a problem with existing law, but that change is what concerns me. It's the arbitrariness of what this is.

I'm not a legal expert here, but based upon just what you said, I see that there is a substitive difference between the two.

Maybe I should be taking Shaheen's legal literacy program so that I know a little bit more about this.

It's a concern to me that there doesn't appear to be a standard. That language is not in this bill. If it were, I might be more comfortable with it.

[Dr. Parry Aftab]

—that it's a lawful investigation, I think that's the turning point. I don't think that C-13 requires that it's a lawful investigation.

[Marvin Bernstein]

Those provisions under the Youth Criminal Justice Act would continue to apply. I think the point that we were trying to emphasize is that there is a way of strengthening some of the provisions in Bill C-13, so that we don't inadvertently catch certain young people or certain individuals for perhaps some careless behaviours where there isn't the—

[Stephen Anderson]

I think one difference between Bill C-30 and Bill C-13 is that, thankfully, Bill C-30 mandated warrantless disclosure, whereas this bill doesn't mandate it, but it pretty much in practice means the same thing through the immunity clause.

In terms of accountability, I don't see a lot of difference there. There's very little in terms of accountability or oversight that I can see. I don't understand why there isn't any in here. I don't see why we would not add mandating subscriber notifications. I don't understand why we can't all agree that it's a good thing—record keeping of personal information requests so that we actually can look later and see what's happening and have a kind of data-driven process going forward, and a regular release of transparency reports by both government officials and telecom companies.

I would say that while there's been some progress and learning between Bill C-30 and Bill C-13 on the accountability and oversight side, I haven't seen much movement. I'm hoping that there can be some reforms made in that area. I would love to know if someone could explain why we wouldn't do that.

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't going to say a lot on it other than to say that the provision in Bill C-13 should be accepted because without it, the discriminatory reroutes of cyberbullying that often perpetrate hatred and division due to people's ethic origin, age, sex, mental or physical disability, or religion will continue to be unjustifiably excluded from the protection of federal law.

I have to say at this point that I also support a submission by my colleagues, professors Jane Bailey, Wayne MacKay, and Faye Mishna. It was a written submission, and I don't know if they presented it at this committee. I was supposed to join them. They have noted that it is particularly important in light of the unfortunate repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act last year. This provision is also essential given the gap in the Canadian public's knowledge of substantive human rights. As I mentioned, there is a need for legal literacy, and so I commend the committee—or at least on this aspect.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses who have appeared before us. Your presentations on your respective areas were extremely interesting.

It ties in significantly with what we have been hearing since we began this study. Of course, I would have liked more time to explore the matter more.

Professor Shariff, you began your presentation by talking about clause 12 of the bill, which deals with hate propaganda. You did not really have the time to talk about it fully.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been repealed. So clause 12 of the bill is the only protection against hate propaganda we in Canada have left. Some categories that were not there before have been added, which is not a bad thing. So I would like to know your opinion in that regard.

Before you begin your answer, I want to thank Mr. Bernstein. UNICEF Canada did an extraordinary job on the brief you presented and the recommendations you have provided us with.

I particularly appreciate and I think your colleagues on the panel probably agree with your recommendations for section 162 to maybe put more on the mens rea, on the intent, and to clarify this. So it didn't fall on deaf ears, and we'll probably discuss in the committee certain amendments on that aspect.

The other question I have is for Mr. Anderson of OpenMedia on hate crime. I hope I can join you in saying that I trust the government, but if we were able—and here I use a big “if”—to amend the bill to add some safeguards, remove the immunity that seems to bother a lot of people and maybe have some type of

…accountability. In other words, we have to force the authorities that have obtained the information to report on it, somewhat like the way it is done with electronic surveillance under the appropriate section of the Criminal Code.

If we could establish those safeguards—

do you think the bill would be more palatable? And how do you rate Bill C-13 versus Bill C-30? The floor is yours.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to begin with my sincerest apologies to Mr. Therrien. I think this began as a very fascinating discussion, and I believe that you are being set up here. We have less than an hour to discuss with you some very serious issues. These are issues that you obviously take seriously. You understand there's a complexity of issues, yet we are seeing this being rammed through without a chance to really delve into them.

This appointment will be forced through as the interim commissioner, Chantal Bernier, leaves her post today, and we've seen no remote indication from the government that they will hear from any of the privacy commissioners on Bill C-13. Bill C-13 will be the defining issue of privacy in Canada for this coming term.

Today we have begun to get a sense of where we would go with you as Privacy Commissioner and what your concerns would be. First you did not want to talk about splitting the bill, but then, when you reflected on it, you agreed that splitting the bill is important, because this is about ensuring that due process is done.

We're talking about constitutional rights. We're talking about the basic rights to privacy. We're also talking about issues of security. This is not a circus. This is something that needs to be reflected on.

We asked about the fact that the Conservatives have raised the trial balloon that a cop's spidey sense is all that's needed to gain private information from Canadians. You clearly suggested that you were concerned with that.

I would have thought that having an opportunity to have you come forward and talk more about this would allow us to understand what's at stake here.

Yesterday we had three of the privacy commissioners from across Canada raise very serious concerns about this government's attempt to push through Bill C-13 without hearing from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the commissioner's staff, or other privacy commissioners in the country. They said, “given the heightened and pressing interest in Bill C-13, we urge the Committee”—this was the committee for justice and human rights—“to postpone hearings on Bill C-13 until such a time as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can appear and speak to this Bill”.

You certainly indicated you would be willing to do that, and you shared their interests.

Mr. Therrien, this has nothing to do with your qualifications, but this has everything to do with credibility regarding the independence of officers of Parliament to do their job and to be accountable to Parliament. We're not questioning who you are or what your history is, but we need to know and we need, within Parliament, to have that opportunity. I hear what you're saying, and I think you understand that an independent officer of Parliament has to be able to speak to the broader issues rather than to the short-term partisan agendas of any government.

I'm very disturbed at this time that these issues have been raised, issues regarding warrantless access and the concerns that you yourself have raised, coming out of the justice department, about the threshold that has not been proven for gaining access to Canadians' private information.

I do want to apologize for not hearing you correctly when you shared Ann Cavoukian's concerns that an IP address is not the same as a phone book. We've heard from this government again and again and again that if they just call up and they can get that information, it's like looking in a phone book. You, on the other hand, have identified, coming from your Justice background, and the privacy commissioners have identified from their expertise that this is basically the digital profile, the digital fingerprint of every Canadian as to who they are, what they do online, and where they can be located at any given time. That warrantless information needs a higher level of scrutiny.

Now, are there cases in which there are safety issues at stake? Certainly. We know about the issue of telewarrants and the need to be able to move. We know that if an immediate violent crime is in play or there is an issue of terrorism, police are able to access that and the telecom companies turn it over. However, my colleagues over on the other side say that every single case of the 1.2 million requests that were made last year—which we find an extraordinary number—was only to deal with terrorism and violence. I'm wondering, given your background in Justice, whether you think Canada is such a dangerous place.

So, we cannot go through with this motion at this time, because we have not had the chance to bring forward the people from civil society, the people who are experts in this field.

Mr. Therrien, this has nothing to do with you and your position.

We note that the last time a Privacy Commissioner was appointed under a Liberal government, a committee that was chaired under a Liberal government said that two meetings were not enough and that there needed to be a process in place, because this is about ensuring the constitutional rights, this is about ensuring public safety, and this is about ensuring where Canada stands in the global community in terms of privacy.

We did not even get to the issues of data breach. We don't have the time. We didn't even get to the next round of questioning, because this government does not want to have that.

I'm very sorry, Mr. Therrien, that this is being played out on your watch. I think it has the potential impact to damage your ability to do your job, because of the tainted manner in which this government has approached this.

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

I will try to keep you interested after that.

My submission today relates to three aspects of Bill C-13 that I will address in the following order. I want to discuss the non-consensual distribution provision; the clauses relating to lawful access that have already been mentioned; and clause 12, the hate propaganda provision, which I support.

On the non-consensual distribution provision, Bill C-13 has been widely referred to publicly as legislation that is urgent and essential to reduce cyberbullying. It's been argued, as we've heard, that in the wake of tragic teen suicides, something has to be done to stop the non-consensual distribution of intimate and demeaning sexual images. These online activities amongst teens and university students have surfaced as the most insidious and harmful aspect of this phenomenon. Most often they target teenage girls and young women who are most vulnerable to offline sexual abuse, rape, and other forms of sexual violence, which are videotaped or photographed and distributed online without consent.

Clearly, in light of the suicides and the abuse, there needs to be regulations and consequences. But I have some significant concerns that this non-consensual distribution clause and Bill C-13, when taken together with the lawful access provisions, will miss their mark in reducing cyberbullying and sexting among teens, so I'll outline a number of points.

First of all, the provisions are largely focused on kids who receive contradictory messages from adult society. One thing that we seem to have forgotten when we think about legislating cyber-bulling is the fact that it is adult society that creates the norms of social communication. The norms of social communication have crept towards increased tolerance for sexism, misogyny, rape culture, and homophobia. Popular culture developed by adults, especially online marketing, comedy, and reality shows, place physical appearance, social conformity, objectification of women, sarcasm, and demeaning humour on the highest pedestals of socially accepted behaviour. So what do we expect our kids to do? And then we come down and blame them for copying what adults do in society.

I agree with UNICEF that we need to look at prosecution as a last resort. Even though the non-consensual distribution provision does take away from having to apply child pornography laws, which are designed to protect children against them, there are still questions about the sentencing, how the Youth Criminal Justice Act will be applied, and a range of other concerns.

Children receive confusing messages on the legal boundaries and rape culture, for example. Children confront difficult challenges at both ends. On the one hand, they must prove their strength in a digital and online social network where even friends can demean them publicly and excuse themselves by saying, “Just joking” when under peer pressure they might impulsively react or post comments and photographs they would ignore in different circumstances. Teenage girls are especially vulnerable when they decide to assert their sexuality like female celebrity idols, but end up being publicly humiliated through slut shaming when images sent in trust are distributed without consent. This is not going to be the panacea to addressing some of these issues because it's complex.

One of the areas that we found in our research is that young people confuse fun and have difficulty defining the lines between fun and criminal intent. Youth have difficulty defining the line at which their insults and comments become harmful and illegal, in terms of criminal threats, criminal harassment, sexual harassment, ownership of photographs, and public versus private spaces. It is often a competition about who can post the most absurd insults to entertain friends, and the person who's victimized is actually dehumanized. They totally forget about the person at the end of the vitriol, and thus establishing mens rea intent, criminal intent, under the non-consensual clause might be more complex than meets the eye, except in extreme cases.

We need to address the roots of discrimination. It is important to note that the posted content in the forms of abuse both on- and off-line have become more vitriolic, and it is these roots that the law needs to address, not the symptomatic online behaviours by young people. The hate propaganda provisions begin to address this.

There are blurred lines between public and private spaces and content ownership for young people. They told us they have difficulty recognizing the difference between public and private online spaces, the ownership of photographs and videos, because they have grown up immersed in online environments where these lines are blurred. This again could hamper effective application of the non-consensual provisions. These findings suggest that rather than blaming kids for their apparently odd behaviours, we should look at the influence of adult society and adult role models and give them stability and clear boundaries that can guide their moral and social compasses, not harsh laws.

This raises a concern about the current lack of public legal education, because that will have an impact on the implementation of the non-consensual provisions. As far back as the 1980s, Chief Justice Bora Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada observed an urgent need at that time for public legal education. We are not much further ahead. Implementing this new legislation without adequate public legal knowledge is risky because ignorance often results in reactive and harsher responses.

Our research indicates that there remains significant public ignorance about the differences between positivist laws like the Criminal Code and substantive human rights and constitutional frameworks that provide the balance between free expression, safety, privacy, protection, and regulation. This is the balance the government must strive to aim for. The balance, is repeat, is between free expression, safety, privacy, protection, and regulation.

Without sufficient knowledge about human rights and fundamental constitutional principles of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, school administrators, teachers, counsellors, and parents may overreact and be too quick to lay charges or call for charges under these provisions.

We've heard that we need to engage youth in contributing to policy. I'm not sure whether this committee has heard from young people, but it is essential that we give them ownership and agency in contributing to law and policy, as research shows a drop in violence when kids take ownership. The non-consensual distribution clause might be quite confusing for young people who are grappling with defining the lines between flirty fun on Snapchat and harm from non-consensual distribution.

They should have a say in the new law that will affect them so strongly. Without legal literacy they are not likely to understand the ramifications of non-consensual provisions. So we really need to pay attention to the fact that there needs to be legal literacy among adults, among the public, and also among children.

Perpetrators are often victims and, therefore, the non-consensual clause might have the opposite effect if young people who were victims of cyberbullying and react as perpetrators are charged under this law.

As I explained to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights a couple of years ago, I am concerned about the impact of reactive legislation on children and youth who are simply testing social boundaries and that includes the perpetrators.

Am I done? I've got one minute, okay. I'm sorry.

On the lawful access provisions—I'm not going to repeat—I have the similar concerns that were raised earlier and I agree with many who testified here that the lawful access provisions should be rejected, or at minimum separated from the remainder of the bill.

If I may suggest, there are many unanswered questions but the committee should pause and ask themselves questions about how well the social online norms and perspectives of young people are understood by prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, teachers, and principals. What assumptions about youth will law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges bring to their application of the foregoing sections if they are not well informed about research or about the nuances and complexities of the evolving social norms and societal influences on children and teens? So, along with this legislation, we need to bring in the supports that bring in legal literacy and knowledge for the legal community about how the children are challenged in communicating online.

Thank you.

[Daniel Therrien]

Bill C-30 had some flaws and, just as Bill C-13, needed to be examined more thoroughly, in my opinion.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

The privacy commissioners of three provinces wrote to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Mr. Wallace, to ask him to take a break in the study of Bill C-13.

If that was done—and depending of how long that break would be—you could appear yourself.

Do you agree with your provincial colleagues to put the study on hold?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

So, if you were in office, you would like to appear during the study of Bill C-13.

[Daniel Therrien]

I have given you my views on several aspects of Bill C-13.

[Daniel Therrien]

As far as I understand, the acting commissioner is still in office, right?

I think Bill C-13 is clearly a very important piece of legislation when it comes to privacy issues.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Yes. Should she appear as a witness in the ongoing study of Bill C-13?

[Daniel Therrien]

You are asking me whether the commissioner should appear regarding Bill C-13 now?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Therrien, do you think the privacy commissioner should appear before a committee with regard to Bill C-13?

[Dr. Parry Aftab, Executive Director, StopCyberbullying, WiredSafety]

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you very much for inviting me to speak here as a witness today. I wasn't given the option to do it by video conference, but I wouldn't have taken it anyway because I enjoy Ottawa and Canada. I'll tell you a little bit that's not in my prepared notes, but I first fell in love with a Canadian, and I married a Maritimer, so it didn't take long for me to also fall in love with Canada.

I'm an Internet privacy and security lawyer. I run WiredSafety, and we are the oldest and largest Internet safety organization in the world. We are one of five members of Facebook's international Safety Advisory Board. We are the only ones who are uncompensated, to my knowledge.

I also run StopCyberbullying. It's the first non-profit program devoted to cyberbullying also in the world. It's been around for eight years now formally, and much longer informally. We hold summits and bring in young people to help on these issues. Leah Parsons, Glen Canning, and Carol Todd sit on our advisory board at the StopCyberbullying Canada level, as does Sharon Rosenfeldt and Barbara Coloroso. She's been invited, even though she's not a Canadian. Only Canadians can sit on the StopCyberbullying Canada board.

I also have a youth board, and the youth are from all of the provinces in the country, and they provide very knowledgeable input as we look to find ways to improve the safety of other young people. They speak, they do research, and they work with other professionals.

We partner, and we're all unpaid volunteers at WiredSafety, and that includes me. We've been doing this for a very long time. I'm excited to see that Canada is the first country in the world to deal with sextortion, revenge porn, and unauthorized sexting issues.

You also were the first country, through a Supreme Court decision, to recognize that minors may be sharing intimate images consensually with each other. With the couple, if a boy takes it and shares it with a girl voluntarily, or the girl shares it with a boy, or whatever their sexual preferences are, they will not be prosecuted under your strong child pornography laws. It deals with once it starts disseminating.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is a wonderful bill when you're talking about cyberbullying and you're talking about abuse of young people, I think it has some problems. I was the keynote speaker in Nova Scotia when they held their cyberbullying summit, and we held a large summit in Prince Edward Island. When I misspoke before the media, promising that Prince Edward Island was going to do a bigger summit than the one that had been done in Nova Scotia, LinkedIn, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Barbara Coloroso, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Leah and Glen, all came to little P.E.I. to meet with hundreds of young people and other experts in the room to come up with an action plan for Prince Edward Island. We've done something similar with the first nation community in New Brunswick, and our action plan on cyberbullying will be issued shortly. We're working with the premier there, as well as the premier in P.E.I. We were assisting on the action plan in Nova Scotia from the very beginning. We're working with Alberta, we've worked in Yellowknife. We are all across Canada, as my adopted nation, where I think you can solve the problems of cyberbullying better than we can anywhere else in the world. I do this all over the world.

We had one suicide in Italy because of revenge porn issues and cyberbullying. We're seeing them around the world, but nowhere are we seeing more suicides per capita connected to cyber issues than in Nova Scotia. Little Nova Scotia has had three suicides connected with digital abuse. Rehtaeh was the last, but not the first. And Jenna...Pam Murchison has been dealing with this issue for a long time. We have to focus on it here. This is an island, and this a country known for kindness.

There are old jokes on television when they talk about being kind and people who are courteous in this country, about how you care about each other more than you do in other places. Having two houses in the Maritimes, I agree. I think you do care about each other. I think this is a country of community. We can come up with solutions, a number of people on this panel with me today, and others who you've had testify. We've spoken at UN conferences, we've been on task forces together. You have the talent, you have the expertise, and you have a government that cares about our children, and that's crucial.

The one concern that I have is the voluntary disclosure. It's not that I don't trust the Canadian government with our information. I don't want Rogers, and Telus, and Bell, and all of the other telcos in this country to make a decision about my personal information and who they're going to give it to and whether or not it's authorized.

Giving that immunity to them frustrates me. I carry six cell phone numbers with Rogers. If Rogers won't promise that they're not going to turn over information voluntarily, without a court order, without a subpoena, without a warrant, I'm going to change cell phone companies. If Telus won't promise it, then I won't go to Telus, and if Bell won't promise it, whether it's Bell Canada or Bell Aliant.... Someone who is in the business of providing cell phone and wireless services is going to have to tell me as a customer that they are going to respect the privacy contract, the privacy policy that we've all agreed to. Otherwise I have lost contractual rights with a commercial company that's providing services to me, because of that little immunity clause.

Do I want somebody in a call centre or somebody who's close to someone else, who doesn't understand the standards we need, to have immunity from answering to me? No.

I understand in all likelihood that Bill C-13 will probably pass pretty much the way it is. If it does, I'm going to ask Canadians to vote with their cell phones. I'm going to ask Canadians to turn around and hold their telecom companies responsible for protecting the privacy of their users, and if they don't, then we'll find other ways of communicating with each other. But I think if somebody is going to take a lot of money from me every month for my cell phone, then they're going to have to stick with the promises they made to me.

Canada can have all of the lawful information about us—Canadians or anyone who is in Canada—that they want. I trust the government. I do not trust some low-level customer-service person at a telco to make a decision about my personal information.

I live with death threats. I received the RCMP Child Recovery Award for bringing Amber Alert to Canada on Facebook for the first time in the world. I couldn't go back to Washington for six months—nobody would talk to me—because we did it here.

I live with attacks online from cyberbullies plus. Do I want my personal information exposed in ways I can't control? No. Neither should our children have to do that. When Carol Todd said that she doesn't want anyone to give up their privacy rights in exchange for safety rights—or to do that in Amanda's name—I think that says it all.

I think if we just alter that one provision that gives immunity to the telcos, then I could support this bill. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing on cyberbullying, sexting, and revenge porn that we have seen in the world today. I say that non-stop everywhere I talk and when I reach out to Canadians for help.

You have the head of global policy from Facebook coming here Thursday. You don't have somebody from Facebook Canada; you have the head of global policy from Facebook. That's how seriously they're taking this. I know the clerk has been wonderful in trying to reach out to them, but I should tell you, knowing this from the inside, that they're taking this very seriously as well. They've been looking at it from the beginning.

You have the Internet Alliance. The Internet Alliance is everybody, not just Google or Twitter. Everybody else is in there. You can ask these questions, but don't tell me I have to trust telcos to decide what information they can give away and what they can't, not in the name of protecting our children. We can do it without that, with the help of everyone here.

So I offer my help and assistance while I try to get through all of the papers in all of the places I've lived since I was 18 in order to become a permanent resident of Canada. It takes a while when you're 63. I'm trying to remember. My mother doesn't remember them either. But until then, I am a permanent resident in my heart. I love this country, and I love what you can do, and I don't want anyone sacrificing the rights of Canadians to the benefit of a telco.

Thank you.

[Stephen Anderson, Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca]

Thanks for having me, and thank you for this opportunity to speak before the committee regarding Bill C-13.

I'm Steve Anderson, the executive director of OpenMedia.ca. We're a community-based organization working to safeguard the open Internet.

As you may know, OpenMedia.ca works with many other groups to lead the Stop Online Spying campaign, which successfully convinced the government to shelve the lawful access legislation, Bill C-30. Nearly 150,000 Canadians took part in that campaign.

Last year we started the Protect Our Privacy coalition, which is the largest pro-privacy coalition in Canadian history, with over 50 organizations from across Canada.

You know you've hit on a common Canadian value when you have groups ranging from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Council of Canadians, to small businesses, to labour unions, all joining forces on this issue of privacy. As it stands, we have a privacy deficit in Canada, and I'm afraid that Bill C-13 will only deepen that deficit.

I believe this privacy deficit is the result of a democratic deficit. If the government, including members of this committee, were listening to the concerns of Canadians, there is no way you would be paving the way for a range of authorities to have increased warrantless access to our sensitive private information.

To help bring the concerns of Canadians to this committee, I have crowd-sourced this presentation for you today. I asked Canadians online what they thought I should say, and I have done my best to incorporate their input into my presentation. I'll reference them from time to time.

I'll confine my presentation to the lawful access portion, as that is where Canadians have expressed the most concern and I think where I personally also have the most concern.

The Canadians I spoke to had three main concerns: first, immunity for activities that victimize innocent Canadians; second, accountability and oversight; and third, data security.

On immunity, which I'll talk about first, Bill C-13 in its current form provides communications companies that hand over sensitive information about innocent Canadians with absolute immunity from criminal and civil liability.

Recent revelations show that the government agencies made 1.2 million requests for customer data from telecom companies in only one year and that companies apparently complied with those voluntary requests most of the time. After learning of this, Canadians have been looking for more safeguards rather than weakening privacy safeguards.

At the moment, an unlimited swath of information can be accessed by a simple phone call to an Internet service provider. Government agencies don't even need to provide a written request, and we are told that some agencies even refuse to put their requests in writing to avoid a paper trail. This extrajudicial practice works, because there is a loophole that allows authorities to obtain voluntary warrantless access to law-abiding Canadians' sensitive information.

The disclosure immunity provided in Bill C-13 will make the privacy loophole even bigger by removing one of the few incentives for telecom companies to safeguard our data from warrantless disclosures.

Canadian citizen, Gord Tomlin, had this to say on the matter via Facebook:

If 'authorities' need information, they can get a warrant. It's not onerous, it's one of the checks and balances that is supposed to protect our system from abuse.

Danielle had this to say on the OpenMedia.ca website:

If accessing an individual's private information is not arbitrary but is justifiable, then a warrant can be obtained. Otherwise, it is expected that the law [will] protect us from privacy violations...

There were many more like that.

Providing telecom companies who engage in extrajudicial disclosure of Canadians' sensitive information is encouraging moral hazard. It's encouraging reckless and irresponsible behaviour.

I'll now move on to accountability and oversight.

Canadians find it troubling that Bill C-13 makes little effort to keep government agencies transparent and accountable. Most shockingly, there is no requirement that officials notify those innocent Canadians who have had their data stored in government databases. The lack of knowledge and consent by those victimized through surveillance and warrantless disclosure is frustrating to many Canadians.

As one Canadian put it:

I would like to see a requirement that persons whose data has been accessed, be informed of this fact and that there be a major penalty...if there is a failure to comply with this requirement.

The proposed lowering of the “reason to suspect” threshold for transition data warrants is also of concern to Canadians. We're talking about the collection of data—and let's be clear about this—that can reveal political and religious affiliations, medical conditions, the types of activities we engage in online and offline, and whom we socialize with. This is incredibly invasive stuff.

On the topic of accountability, several people also highlighted the costs associated with these data transfers and that they would have to pay for them, and that it would limit our digital economy.

On data security concerns, many Canadians are concerned with how secure data will be once authorities expand their collection through the measures in Bill C-13.

Given recent breaches at federal offices—the CRA and student loans, for example—many Canadians question if we can trust government authorities to properly protect their data from cybercriminals and identity thieves.

One person online said: The federal government, and indeed the vague category of 'public officials,' has a poor track record of protecting private information already. It's common occurrence in the Canadian news environment to hear about some government agency or officials losing the confidential information of Canadians such as last March's revelation the government had lost the student loan information of nearly 600,000 Canadians. Broadening the powers of officials to access this information only increases the danger that confidential information will end up in the wrong hands.

Bill C-13 also problematically expands the bureaucrats and agencies that can access our private information, including CSEC and CSIS, which are currently facing their own crisis of accountability, given the recent Snowden disclosures. I fail to see how that is connected to cyberbullying at all.

Bill C-13 does not, in its current form, provide effective measures to increase transparency, accountability, or reporting on warrantless access to private data.

In sum, I recommend that this committee remove the telecom immunity and weakening warrant standards, while adding new reporting and accountability measures to this bill.

I also want to join the growing numbers calling for you to split the bill up so that we can move on the cyberbullying portion, which I think there is growing consensus around, minus some reforms, and have a proper debate on lawful access.

As one person put it, “Any expansion of government powers needs to be linked to a compelling societal need.”

The lawful access section is not connected to cyberbullying. I don't think that connection has been made for Canadians in nearly enough detail.

I also think it's worth repeating what Carol Todd, the mother of cyberbullying victim Amanda Todd, told this committee. She said:

I don't want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights. I am troubled by some of these provisions condoning the sharing of the privacy information of Canadians without proper legal process.

I think both those on the front lines of law enforcement and Canadians want authorities to have the tools tailored to bringing a variety of criminals to justice. What this bill does at the moment is unnecessarily combine some of those tools with unpopular mechanisms that encourage mass disclosure of sensitive information.

I implore the committee to consider that just one database, the RCMP's Canadian Police Information Centre, has sensitive data on more than 420,000 Canadians. These people have no criminal record of any kind. Many have their information stored due to simply having suffered a mental health issue.

I'd also consider that a Canadian named Diane is one of more than 200 Canadians who recently came forward to say that their personal or professional lives have been ruined despite never having broken the law. Why? Because information about them has been wrongfully disclosed to third parties—in Diane's case, her employer.

Now consider the fact that in recent years federal government agencies alone have seen over 3,000 breaches of highly sensitive private information of Canadians. Consider also that this has affected an estimated 750,000 people.

In Diane's case, she was the victim of a false accusation, which was withdrawn years ago, yet it continues to affect her career. Diane's response after being victimized by this privacy intrusion and having her professional life unfairly curtailed was, unsurprisingly, disbelief, shock, and anger.

Now imagine that Diane was your family member or someone you know. You don't need to put them at risk like this. You can choose to split up the bill and make the necessary reforms whilst dealing with cyberbullying.

Why should Canadian victims be re-victimized by violations to their privacy? Why should those with mental health issues need to live in fear? They don't.

Canadians, including some of the government's biggest supporters, whom I'm working with closely on this matter, are wondering why the government is deepening our privacy deficit when other countries are beginning to rein in surveillance. They're wondering why you're mismanaging our data security.

In closing, as Jesse Kline wrote in the National Post last week, “When the Canadian public, parents of victims of cyberbullying, privacy commissioners and former cabinet ministers all voice serious concerns about a bill, it is a sure sign that something is wrong, and the government should listen.”

Thank you.

[Daniel Therrien]

I just talked about impartiality. I did not deal with Bill C-13 as a Department of Justice lawyer. So there would be no conflict of interest in that regard.

I don't see any other conflicts of interest that would prevent me from taking action. If a conflict of interest were to arise, I would withdraw from the file. I note that the law provides for the appointment of an assistant or ad hoc commissioner. That could be an adequate mechanism.

After seriously considering the issue—and examining my conscience—I currently do not see any conflicts of interest that would force me to withdraw from a file.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you for that.

Under Bill C-13 the provision for warrantless access will now be extended to peace officers, public officers, mayors, reeves, tax officers, and small-town reeves who all can rely on their spidey sense to get warrantless information on Canadians.

Do you believe that will create major problems or do you believe that is warranted?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much for that. This is helpful.

Now in regard to Bill C-13, Conservative MPs have suggested that the only threshold needed for obtaining private information on Canadian citizens from telecoms is a cop's so-called spidey sense. In terms of your expertise in law, do you believe that's an adequate threshold for warrantless information?

[Daniel Therrien]

No, I do not. I was going to follow by saying IP addresses are much more than telephone information because they do include information of interests in websites, for instance, or location. So when I asked the general questions before, transposing this to Bill C-13, I would say there has been no demonstration yet that I have heard that such a level of personal information in an IP address is required, particularly through volunteer disclosure without warrants.

[Marvin Bernstein, Chief Policy Advisor, UNICEF Canada]

Thank you.

UNICEF appreciates the opportunity to present to this committee, so thank you very much.

We see Bill C-13 as one step in the right direction. We certainly commend the work of the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Cybercrime Working Group, which delivered its report. Among its important findings, the working group concluded that existing Criminal Code offences generally cover the most serious bullying behaviour and a new specific Criminal Code offence of bullying or cyberbullying isn't required. However, the working group also concluded that there is a gap in the Criminal Code's treatment of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images or “sexting”, which can lead to excessive responses, such as the laying of child pornography charges against young people. It therefore recommends that a new criminal offence addressing the non-consensual distribution of intimate images be created, and this bill provides for it.

While the report covers a number of important issues very effectively, we do have some caveats. The report doesn’t address the degree of flexibility required when cyberbullies are children or young people. The report seems to be based upon the contemplation that children and young people will always be the victims, and it doesn't consider the unintended implications of removing specific intent and adding an alternative recklessness standard to the constituent elements of the offence.

We are pleased that this bill is before the committee and is receiving further study at this time.

We also would encourage this committee to consider, as I'm sure you will, the important recommendations set out in the Senate committee report “Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age”. In that report, there was a strong call for a national, well-coordinated anti-bullying strategy with the provinces and territories. One of the manifestations of not having that coordinated strategy is that we see the provinces and territories branching out and introducing anti-bullying legislation of their own. There are some common elements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are some significant differences and approaches. Some of those perhaps aren't always in keeping with best practices and evidence-based research, so there is a role for the federal government to coordinate more effectively.

We also propose the development of prosecutorial guidelines that would see young people prosecuted only as an option of last resort.

Finally, we recommend in our brief a series of further amendments to the Criminal Code that would provide for the addition of bullying intent as a requirement of the offence; the deletion of a reckless standard from the offence provision; and the amendment to the open-ended length of Internet prohibitions upon conviction. Right now, the way the provision reads it seems to even give effect to a lifetime ban, which would have very serious implications. We are also recommending an exemption for young people from a child pornography conviction for sexting caught by this new offence and for lawful consensual sexting for selfies.

We would support the provisions in Bill C-13 and commend all of the strong work that has gone into developing the bill, limited to cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, if its provisions were supplemented by the additional Criminal Code amendments we are proposing. These, together with a well-coordinated, multi-pronged federal-provincial-territorial strategy to combat cyberbullying founded on the pillars of prevention, education, child empowerment, and capacity-building, including the appropriate use of legal sanctions, would balance the best interests of all children and young people, whether their experiences are those of actual or potential victims, cyberbullies, or bystanders.

It's important to recognize from our view that children and young people are not just victims but can also be cyberbullies and bystanders, and even when they are victims they can sometimes move into the roles of cyberbullies and bystanders on other occasions. This requires a careful balancing of their rights and best interests when considering the impacts upon all groups of children in these various roles as they migrate from one role to the other. If we are not careful, the bill may end up inadvertently hurting and punishing some of the very children and young people it's seeking to protect.

We appreciate that for the most egregious acts perpetrated by young persons, the relevant provisions of the proposed legislation are more appropriate as a response than the use of child pornography charges. The fact that the proposed legislation would apply to people of all ages rather than unfairly targeting young people as perpetrators is also welcome.

In tandem with any new legislative response to the broader social problem of bullying, UNICEF Canada urges a stronger focus on education and prevention so that young people, be they potential or actual bullies, victims, or bystanders, understand the social, health, and legal consequences of their digital actions for others and for themselves. Children have the ability and resiliency to protect themselves and others and to alter their own behaviour once they are effectively informed about the risks. We should be empowering children at an early age to become good digital citizens and make informed and responsible choices when they use online media.

In the case of children we urge the development of prosecutorial guidelines for any new legislation so that only the most serious cases result in criminal charges against young people. Such guidelines should also encourage the laying of charges for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images under the new Criminal Code offence once proclaimed in force rather than under the more punitive child pornography provisions of the code where young people are charged.

In addition, we recommend the careful analysis and evaluation of both the intended and unintended impacts of this proposed new legislation on children and young people.

In UNICEF's recent report card on child well-being, Canada ranked 21st out of 29 industrialized nations in the incidence of bullying. Canada must examine what other countries with lower rates, such as Italy, Sweden, and Spain, are doing right so we can prevent more pain, more loss, and senseless death.

We know there are a number of different pieces. This is certainly one component. In a recent Canadian Bar Association webinar speaking to the Nova Scotia legislation approach to cyberbullying, it was explained that protection orders can be obtained through an application to a JP or a prevention order can be obtained after a complaint is made to a director of public safety.

It was conveyed to us that in about 250 orders, virtually all of these orders have been applied for or obtained by schools or by parents. This is not a vehicle by and large that young people are actually accessing so there must be some concern about perhaps being subject to further victimization, or perhaps having their parents fined by virtue of the Nova Scotia legislation.

So we need to find responses. This is one mechanism, but this is really after the fact. When we talk about deterrents, and we explain to young people there might be certain consequences, it's important that, in terms of public spots, in terms of profiling some of the implications, the emphasis should really be on prevention and education. We should be talking about responsible behaviour and engaging in constructive and positive interaction with their peers, rather than the punitive side and perhaps attempting to inject the fear or the spectre of criminal sanctions.

Thank you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not trying to put you hard on the spot here, but there have been numerous editorials raising the question of conflict of interest with your position. So for you to say you can't answer questions on the biggest single piece of legislation that's defining privacy rights in this Parliament, that you have no opinion or that you're going to defer your opinion, I find concerning.

On the issue of Bill C-13 being split into parts, do you feel you're in a conflict of offering an opinion when it has been the opinion of the privacy commissioners across the country that the bill should be separated? If you say you want to ask “tough questions” and improve control mechanisms, will you just tell us whether you think it would be better to have that part of the bill separated?

[Gwyneth Anderson, Co-Founder, York Region, Bully Free Community Alliance]

We need a culture shift. It's a huge undertaking, but that should not discourage the effort; for it is not a child's privilege to feel safe and welcomed at home, in school, and in their community, but their right, a very basic right.

When children start taking their own lives and mental health issues are at a national high, the adults in this room need to pay attention and we need to take action.

For all of its positive attributes, technology is being used to inflict harm and to socially victimize. Our youth have no safe place to go. It is easy to say to a teenager, “Just turn it off”, “Don’t look at it”, or “Don't read it”, but their reality is very much tied to what they see and hear on the Internet and social media.

The number of likes they get on Instagram or the retweets on Twitter are a large part of how they socialize today and where they draw their sense of belonging.

We cannot trivialize the reality that our children live and deal with on a daily basis. The Bully Free Community Alliance views bullying as a large puzzle. Countless people hold the pieces to this puzzle: students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, community members, agencies, municipalities, provinces, and our federal government. All of the puzzle pieces need to come together to find and implement a solution.

We acknowledge the efforts of our federal government. We view Bill C-13 as one piece of this complex puzzle. We agree that the Criminal Code needs to be updated and changed for police to respond effectively and quickly to cyberbullying. Is Bill C-13 the answer to the critical challenges posed by cyberbullying? We don’t think so; not on its own. But Bill C-13 is a positive first step forward.

We are aware of the controversy surrounding the privacy aspect of this bill. Protecting the privacy of Canadians is very important, but when our children press an app or sign on to social media, do they really have privacy?

All of us have an expectation of privacy when we share online; however, when someone ignores that expectation or takes advantage of someone, that right to remain anonymous is lost and our justice system should be allowed to protect us and keep us safe.

The right to remain anonymous cannot take precedence over the basic right to feel safe and protected. Bully Free Community Alliance believes there needs to be a national strategy that follows Bill C-13. It would not be fair to Canadians to say that this is all we are doing to address cyberbullying.

We can't stop here. Bill C-13 must be bolstered by a national strategy. Technology will continue to evolve at a rapid pace and so will new ways to abuse it. We must respond with a sense of urgency to put an end to social victimization. This has become a matter of saving lives. We must initiate steps to cultivate a growing culture of respect and kindness for each other.

This may sound like an unrealistic and impossible undertaking, but let us reflect for a moment. We changed a culture on how we view smoking because it was killing people. We changed a culture on drinking and driving, and how we viewed that because it was killing people. We changed a culture on how we view the environment because people were getting sick and they were dying. We can certainly change a culture on how we treat each other. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Bill C-13, together with a national strategy, is a groundbreaking step. Canada should lead the way and we should set the example.

We will conclude with a quote from Anne Frank:

How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.

Thank you.

[Basiliki Schinas-Vlasis, Co-Founder, York Region, Bully Free Community Alliance]

Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Ask.fm, Twitter, Vine, Omegle, Yik Yak, Tinder, Voxer, and Kik are just some of the apps and sites that our youth visit, post on, and download from. They are also the 24-hour accessible apps and sites that subject our children to teasing, taunting, torment, and threats, from which the only escape for some has been death.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Bessie Vlasis. My colleague Gwyneth Anderson and I are co-founders of the Bully Free Community Alliance, a grassroots not-for-profit organization located in York Region, Ontario.

Thank you for inviting us here today. We are honoured to have a voice and to be part of the conversation about Bill C-13.

The Bully Free Community Alliance’s mission and vision is to build and sustain positive communities. Our work began over seven years ago when our children became victims of bullying. We witnessed our young, vibrant, intelligent, and happy children withdraw and become physically sick, anxious, and scared. We felt helpless. We searched desperately for support and found ourselves having to navigate the effects of bullying on our own. We knew that pointing fingers and laying blame would accomplish nothing productive, so our research began and our organization developed.

Our organization collaborates with many stakeholders within the York Region community.

We have partnered for the past four years with the York Region District School Board. Due to our long-standing relationship, we sit on their Caring and Safe Schools Committee and are members of their newly formed Cyber Bullying Task Force.

We are contributors to the Ontario Ministry of Education’s “Parent Tool Kit”, which has just been launched. We are members of the York Region Bullying Prevention Partnership, comprising the York Regional Police, both Catholic and public school boards, Addiction Services of York Region, Character Community, and Children’s Mental Health, to name a few. We work with the Toronto Argonauts Foundation’s Huddle Up Bullying prevention program, as well as the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. We work directly with the York Regional Police and the Town of Newmarket, including the Newmarket Recreation Youth Centre, where we currently are implementing positive programs and initiatives for youth and their families.

As we discovered early on in our journey, there is very little help or support for victims of bullying and their parents. Often, schools are ill-equipped and lack the knowledge, support, and information necessary to successfully address the problem in an effective manner, particularly in cases of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying poses significant challenges. It has no boundaries and no limits. It can only be addressed with efforts that parallel its limitless nature. To effect positive change, we must work together. Our efforts must span communities and provincial borders. We must identify the root of the problem, where we are going wrong as parents and as a society, and how we can make it better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So we'll go with 1 Wellington on Thursday. Let's hope there are no votes.

I think that covers off everything.

Your notice of motion we've looked after. We'll invite the new Privacy Commissioner, who will be fully appointed by Thursday. Hopefully they appear. I will let you know on Thursday if there are any issues.

Thank you, witnesses, for your patience on that. It's an important bill, and we want to make sure that all of the witnesses who have been requested to come and see us do so.

As per our order of reference of Monday, April 28, we are dealing with Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. We have a number of witnesses today. Each group will have ten minutes, and then we will go to a question and answer period.

Without any further ado, we'll start with the Bully Free Community Alliance. We have Ms. Anderson, the co-founder, and Ms. Schinas-Vlasis.

Thank you very much. The floor is yours for ten minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Therrien, for coming and presenting yourself today.

I would echo my colleague, because we only have seven minutes and there are so many issues regarding privacy that I'd like to keep our conversations short and to the point.

The interim Privacy Commissioner who has just left, Chantal Bernier, raised concerns about the warrantless access provisions in Bill C-13, about which she said there was “a lack of accountability mechanisms”.

Would you share her belief that Bill C-13 should be split in two so that the warrantless access provisions are given further scrutiny, aside from the issues of the cyberbullying provisions?

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I felt quite confident that the House would certainly want to hear from the member for Ottawa South, and I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues for that.

Today it is my honour to stand to speak to Bill C-26, and I want to state from the outset that I am reluctant to support the bill. However, we will vote at second reading to send the bill to committee, and will do so in order to provide the government with an opportunity to present what evidence, if any, has emerged since 2012 that has prompted the introduction of even more mandatory minimum sentences.

It was just two years ago that many of these same provisions were contained in Bill C-10. In the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences, as we heard from the minister, have risen by 6%. To repeat, in the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences have risen by 6%.

The House will remember that when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, in 2011, they spoke at length about how these measures would combat child sex offences. I think we are still in agreement that reducing child sex offences is a priority that we all share. The government has made much of the fact that it imposed mandatory minimum sentences, stating that this would somehow reduce incidents against children.

Again, that legislation, Bill C-10, came into force in 2012. Since the coming into force of that bill, and despite the rhetoric from the Conservatives, it must be accepted, and indeed it was earlier in debate this evening, with obvious concern, that child sex offences have actually risen.

I want to make it clear that I do not for one minute believe that the Conservatives planned or hoped for this result, but I do believe that they need to accept the idea of being smart on crime.

At the justice committee this past March, I raised this issue with the minister. It was the same issue that I raised with him in the question and answer period following his speech this evening. I wanted to know why the government would introduce further flawed legislation for these offences when very clearly the evidence suggested that its previous approach had not worked.

The same question was posed at the justice committee when these statistics were introduced by the minister at committee, as they were again this evening. I asked him where the statistics came from, and at that point he did not know. He indicated he would get back to me, and I guess that happened tonight. We now know that these statistics came from Justice Canada.

I asked the minister at committee, on March 6 of this year, “Do you not agree that the stats that show that child sexual offences have increased in the last two years indicate that the increases that you put in C-10 haven't worked?”

The minister responded, and not exactly in the same fashion as he did this evening, but his response was:

I'd answer that two ways. First, I would say that C-10 would hardly have had effect in the time period we're looking at. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it indicates to me that we have more to do. It indicates very clearly that we have to take more steps toward prevention, deterrence, and denunciation.

That was, in part, the exchange that I had with the minister this past March at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a part of which we heard repeated here this evening.

If it were the intent of the government when introducing Bill C-10 to reduce crime as it relates to child sex offences, then it must recognize and accept that its efforts have failed. Some members of the Conservative caucus, including the minister, would argue that not enough time has passed to properly measure the impact of Bill C-10. I assume they believe that with the passage of time, the data will indicate Bill C-10's effectiveness.

If that is the case, why are we here today discussing Bill C-26? Why are we here debating this bill, if, as the minister himself suggested, we need more time to properly assess the impact that Bill C-10 will have in reducing crimes against children? It does not make sense. It has caused many of us on this side of the House to wonder why the government is doing this.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. No one in the House would accuse the Minister of Justice of being Einstein, but the government's behaviour on this issue gives rise to the suspicion that they are playing politics with a very serious issue.

I have said time and again that I find it very troubling that the government would seemingly use sensitive subjects as a potential wedge issue, or worse, to raise money from its base leading up to an election. We have seen this approach to cyberbullying in Bill C-13, presently before the justice committee, where the government is using real victims of cyberbullying to bring in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with cyberbullying. It is using victims to bring in a law that would allow for the widespread invasion of our privacy.

Suffice it to say, though, that on the matter of crimes committed against children, the House is very united. I want to reiterate that no one in this House is immune from heartache when we hear of any child who has suffered because of the actions of an adult. I know that members on all sides share this view.

The Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to the protection of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, our children, against the most predatory of practices: child pornography and sexual offences against children. We support concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

I earlier quoted the justice minister, who had indicated in a response to a question I posed that he believed that we need to do more to combat crimes against children. He indicated that we need to do more in the areas of prevention and deterrence and that prevention and deterrence are important elements in reducing crimes against children. This bill, however, includes no measures to prevent sexual offences against children or measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. Again, why this glaring inconsistency?

By increasing mandatory minimums, the bill would reduce judicial discretion and could result in charter challenges.

We need to know that the laws we are passing will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against children and will not be merely symbolic expressions. That is why we will seek a detailed study and analysis with stakeholders at committee. Liberals will seek to ensure that the policies adopted in this area reflect the best evidence and the latest research available and will not be based on fear and ideology, or worse, on an effort to raise money from a political base using the Criminal Code and this sensitive issue as a way to exploit the fears of Canadians.

We also want an effective law that addresses these issues and not laws that will be met with endless charter challenges defended at taxpayers' expense.

We have some concerns about charter challenges to the sentencing provisions of the bill and about privacy suits that may arise from the offender database. Moreover, travel restrictions may raise concerns as to the mobility rights of Canadians, as guaranteed by the charter. I raise these issues knowing that the government's record on crime legislation is abysmal. Time and again, we see the courts tossing out its legislation, because it is found to be unconstitutional.

Sexual violence, like other forms of violence, is traumatic and devastating. The minister also suggested in committee that along with prevention and deterrence, we need denunciation of those charged and convicted of crimes against children. No one would disagree with that position, but denunciation does not equal deterrence. We must endeavour to find methods of prevention, as well as punishment, while not overlooking the importance of treatment and rehabilitation and the reintegration of offenders.

Evidence-based criminal law policy is a guiding principle of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is through this perspective that we review and critique all legislation.

While we have supported mandatory minimums in this area in the past, we no longer support them as a matter of policy, given that they are ineffective in achieving their stated objectives and may violate the charter. Indeed, mandatory minimums should be the exception, not the rule. Under the current government, they have become the rule, not the exception, despite the fact that mandatory minimums have no basis in evidence pointing to their effectiveness.

There would not be one member of the Conservative caucus who could rise today in his or her place and point to any independent study that would suggest that mandatory minimums work. Indeed, that challenge was advanced to the minister immediately after his speech.

This is not an issue that should divide the House, because we all want to protect children. We in the Liberal Party want to do it in a way that respects the charter, respects evidence and facts, and respects the overwhelming need to be smart on crime.

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

moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to rise in this splendid chamber to be with my colleagues, particularly to speak to such an important bill as Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

The bill, as members know, would touch upon three on three important areas: sentencing reform; the Canada Evidence Act, the evidentiary reforms we believe necessary; and enhancing the practical tracking of sex offenders through our public safety department.

The bill would represent another positive, significant initiative that our government has brought forward to address one of the absolute worst forms of crime: the sexual abuse of children.

As a new father, I must say that in addition to the joy that a child brings to one's life, it is certainly also a stark reminder of the vulnerability of young children and the sacred duty that we all share to protect our youth, particularly, children who are subject to sexual abuse.

It is incumbent upon us to continually assess the current adequacy of the law in that regard. How does our criminal law in fact protect our children and ensure that we are effectively and comprehensively addressing these heinous crimes of sexual abuse?

Sadly, children and youth are far too likely to become victims of sexual offences, more so than adults. For instance, in 2011, police reported that cases had actually gone up. Reported rates indicate that children were five times more likely than adults to be victims of sexual assault. In fact, in 2012, police reported incidents of child sex offences had increased by 3%, and that was up over 3% the year before that. These statistics from Justice Canada indicate, clearly, that the current laws have to be examined and improved. That is what we are attempting to do.

The statistics, of course, do not tell the full story. They do not tell, or speak to, or truly reflect the devastating lifelong impact of a sexual offence on a child.

The amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act set out in the bill would help to ensure that any offenders who have committed sexual offences against children are fully held to account for crimes committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. These amendments would also serve as a deterrent for these heinous crimes.

The bill would also create a high-risk child sex offender database. Practically speaking, this would assist in protecting society's most vulnerable from those who are known to have offended against them and those who are most likely to do so again: a classic incurable pedophile.

To achieve these important objectives of protection, the bill would maintain several different components. First, maximum and minimum penalties for certain Criminal Code child sexual offences would be increased, building upon the recent reforms that were enacted by the Safe Streets and Communities Act, formerly known as Bill C-10.

The Criminal Code already contains comprehensive provisions protecting children from sexual exploitation, including both general and child-specific sexual offences.

The child sexual offence reforms would ensure that anyone who commits any of these offences against a child faces a mandatory minimum penalty. That means jail time, in all cases, if someone sexually abuses a child.

Yet more can be done. The bill proposes, further, to increase the mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties that would apply to child sex offences to better deter and denounce this type of heinous offence. Maximum penalties for breaches of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds, all of which can be described as supervision orders and aimed at protecting those who are most vulnerable again from an individual who has been released who has arguably already been afforded the opportunity to be back in society, albeit with restrictions.

The intent here is to ensure that when people violate conditions imposed by a court, conditions that were aimed specifically to protect a child, there will be accountability. A stay-away order, for example, from schools, pools, and playgrounds is a classic attempt to keep sex offenders away from children. When those violations of probation occur, there would be a specific offence attached.

These tools would authorize judges to impose conditions on child sex offenders or suspected child sex offenders by prohibiting unsupervised contact with children. Again, that would be a protective order made by a court to hopefully pre-empt any further offence. If those pre-emptive orders were breached, the bill would bring about criminal accountability.

A sentencing judge would have to consider imposing a probation order on an offender convicted of a sexual offence on a child, and probation orders could be imposed on an offender sentenced to two years' imprisonment. A peace bond could also be imposed if there were a reasonable fear that a person would commit a child sex offence.

Strict adherence to the conditions imposed by these supervision orders significantly reduces the risk of reoffending. Many breaches of supervision orders do not involve the commission of a new offence that would warrant a new charge, but any breach of a condition imposed to protect children, we believe, would be a significant indicator of risk to children.

Accordingly, the protection of children and the prevention of sexual offences against them demand significant condemnation of all violations of supervision orders. Importantly, this bill would increase the penalties for breaches of the new probation order proposed by Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, so I would describe this as sister legislation. As the Speaker is aware, this new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images very often includes a pre-emptive attempt to stop the spread of the offending material.

We know that in the case of young suicides, it is that devastating feeling of hopelessness that the material on the Internet is being passed around not only in the community but literally around the globe. It has a devastating psychological impact on the individual. This new legislation aims not only to help remove the material but also in some cases to restrict the offender or the accused from having any further contact with that young person, so there is very much a connection between this bill and Bill C-13, I would submit.

This amendment would ensure that penalties for both the new probation order and for child sex offence prohibition orders are consistent. Again, it is important that we have consistency in the legislation.

The bill also proposes sentencing reforms that would clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences, something that there has been confusion on in the past. In general, concurrent sentences are imposed and served simultaneously for two or more convictions that arise out of one continuous act or single transaction, often referred to in the courts as the same event or series of events rule.

Conversely, consecutive sentences are imposed and served one on top of the other for multiple convictions for unrelated offences, as they arise out of separate criminal transactions. The concepts of concurrent and consecutive sentences predate Confederation. Amendments over the years have complicated the statement of the rule contained in the Criminal Code to the point that it sometimes offers little guidance to the courts.

To address this deficiency, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering, where applicable, that sentences of imprisonment be imposed and served consecutively. That is to say that when the court would sentence the offender for multiple offences at the same time, the proposed amendments would direct courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events or a separate series of events would be served consecutively.

This bill also proposes to codify the approach of the courts when one of the offences was committed either while on judicial interim release—or bail, as it is commonly known—or while the accused was fleeing a police officer. In such cases, in order to discourage offenders from committing offences with impunity, courts would usually order that the offences be served consecutively to other offences for which the court would sentence the offender.

The purpose of these proposed amendments on consecutive versus concurrent sentencing is to try to bring about a greater sense of consistency and understanding as to when and why consecutive sentences apply to certain circumstances and to certain offenders. In particular, for multiple child sex offences, including child pornography offences, we believe that sentences should not receive a sentencing discount, as it is sometimes described, whereby a court directs that the sentences imposed are served concurrently, meaning that the offender only has to serve the longest sentence that is imposed for a series of convictions.

Put another way, this proposed amendment would require that sentences for child pornography offences and others would be served consecutive to any sentence imposed at the same time when there has been what is called a contact child sex offence or when there have been multiple victims. Sentences imposed at the same time for contact sexual offences committed against one victim would be served consecutively to those imposed for contact sexual offences committed against any other victim.

This gives individual recognition in the criminal system for each of those victims in the sentence that is meted out. These reforms end the sentencing discount that is sometimes afforded to child sex offenders who are sentenced at the same time for multiple charges. In particular, they ensure that the law recognizes the devastating impact that sexual abuse has on each individual life.

The bill sends a clear message to child sex offenders that there will be no more discount and that they will serve jail time for each and every victim, each and every offence. We believe this is a just result, given the seriousness of the type of offence and the fundamental injustices that have occurred when there have been multiple victims.

Another important sentencing reform included in this bill is to ensure that any evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order—that is, a sentence that was served in the community or while on parole or while on statutory release—is also considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

These amendments will ensure that the gravity of committing an offence while subject to one of these more lenient orders is better reflected in the sentence that is then imposed.

The bill will also make it possible to ensure that the spouse of the accused can testify in child pornography cases. Under the Canada Evidence Act and common law, unless spouses are irreconcilably separated, for most offences, the spouse of the accused cannot testify for the prosecution even if he or she so desires. One spouse is not competent to testify and cannot be compelled to testify against the other. The spouse of the accused is not compellable.

The Canada Evidence Act contains statutory exceptions to these rules permitting spousal testimony for most child sex offences and offences of violence against young persons, but not for child pornography offences. Again, we hope to bring about a greater sense of consistency when it comes to spouses and their competency and compellability before the courts.

The amendments proposed in this bill add child pornography to the list of exceptions in the Canada Evidence Act, making the spouse of a person accused of any of the child pornography offences competent and compellable to testify for the prosecution. In child pornography cases, as we know well, the evidence of the accused's spouse may be required to prove the guilt of the accused. For example, the spouse's denial of responsibility for child pornography on a shared home computer may be necessary to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Without this amendment, child pornographers may be able to get away with this very disgusting crime, and we must put an end to this legal loophole. I would submit that the current state of the law on this issue is unacceptable. Any form of child pornography we know is taking advantage of and exploiting children.

This bill also includes amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. These amendments would require registered sex offenders to provide more information regarding their travel abroad and would permit information-sharing on registered sex offenders among officials, those responsible for the national sex offender registry, and the Canada Border Services Agency. All of this reform is aimed to prevent travelling sex offenders from accessing children in foreign jurisdictions and to facilitate holding them to account for their crimes.

My friend the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will be speaking to this issue. My friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs is a former police officer. I know he shares the desire to break down any barriers to sharing information between agencies to help hold sex offenders accountable. In this day and age, we cannot be seen as a nation that allows those convicted of these heinous crimes in our courts to then go abroad and take advantage of jurisdictions where laws and enforcement may not be as rigorous. We owe a larger duty of care to children in other countries as well. They are equally vulnerable.

Currently, the law as it pertains to registered sex offenders and the reporting of absences of seven days or more for trips within or outside Canada only requires them to report specific designations and addresses for domestic trips. This bill would amend the act to ensure that all registered sex offenders report every address or location at which they expect to stay on a trip for seven days or longer outside Canada, as well as specific travel dates. These amendments would also require registered sex offenders with a child sex offence conviction to report absences of any duration for trips outside Canada and to provide specific dates and locations. These amendments would help facilitate information-sharing with foreign jurisdictions, which I consider to be appropriate.

As well, the bill proposes to authorize national sex offender registry officials to disclose information on registered sex offenders to Canada Border Services Agency officials, particularly in cases of child sex offenders assessed as high risk, who will be placed on their lookout system. CBSA would also be authorized to collect information about these sex offenders upon return from travel outside Canada and to share this information with the national sex offender registry officials.

Given that the national sex offender registry officials and CBSA officials do not currently have the authority to share information on registered sex offenders, we believe these amendments are critical and practical in ensuring that authorities are aware of the activities of sex offenders who travel outside our country. Without this knowledge, it may be impossible to detect and combat this type of criminality.

Last but certainly not least with respect to the importance of this bill, the bill proposes the creation of a high-risk child sex offender database. It would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a publicly accessible national database of high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a province or territory.

All of this, I would submit, is in keeping with previous efforts that we have made to improve our criminal justice system to protect our most vulnerable, particularly our children. We have made numerous amendments and brought forward some 30 criminal justice initiatives in the last eight years, including taking such practical measures as increasing the age of protection, putting in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory, and strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders. All of this is in keeping with our efforts to make this country safer and to make our justice system more just.

We have also put in place the necessary resources to set up child advocacy centres in 10 locations across the country. We have launched the getcybersafe.gc.ca website for public awareness. We have joined in the Global Alliance against Child Sex Abuse Online. I am proud to say that all of this furthers the intent of this bill.

The fundamental message is clear. We must do everything in our power to protect children. I know this is something you share as a father, Mr. Speaker, and we all share as parents and those who care for children. Accordingly, I would encourage all members to support this important legislation.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that Bill C-13 does not create any new protection from criminal or civil liability for those who voluntarily assist law enforcement. It simply clarifies existing protections under section 25 in the case law.

I would suggest she take a look at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clause 225 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Is there discussion on any clauses from 226 to 230? No?

(Clauses 226 to 230 inclusive agreed to)

Colleagues, we have clause 231.

We have amendment PV-13, which is deemed to have been moved. I have a ruling on this amendment.

Bill C-13 amends the Railway Safety Act by removing section 50, which requires prepublication of certain proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette. The amendment seeks to re-establish the prepublication requirement by expanding it to every regulation made under the act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading or a bill at report stage is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment seeks to maintain the prepublication requirement, which is contrary to the principle of the bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

I shall move to clause 231.

Is there discussion?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. O'Sullivan, when we broke, I was about to ask you about striking the right balance between addressing the needs and concerns of victims, while also protecting civil liberties. As you know, we're all struggling with this here. Where do you draw the line between the release of what some people, some civil libertarians, may say is private information and being able to work quickly enough to save the lives of vulnerable people?

On Tuesday at this committee we heard from Mr. Gilhooly, who is both a lawyer and a victim himself. He is a brave man, and he has come forward to tell his story about how he was victimized by Graham James.

I asked him that same question, and he said, “my hope is that we're going to err on the side of giving the police the appropriate tools to intervene”, and that in instances in Bill C-13 where there is no egregious violation of privacy rights that comes into play, “We, as victims...don't want to see rights trampled, but the tie has to go to the victim here”. Let me go on for just a minute also because I want you to know what the other side said. The Criminal Lawyers' Association said that a “tie doesn't go to the victim”. It said, “The tie should go to the charter, which is the supreme law”.

Would you agree that the government has a difficult task in finding the right balance between civil liberties and the protection of Canadians and victims? Would you agree that instances where there is no egregious violation of privacy rights, the tie must go to the victim? What's your view on that?

[James L. Turk, Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers]

Thank you very much.

My name is James Turk. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 68,000 academic staff at 124 universities and colleges across Canada.

We've had a long concern with lawful access legislation as it has come through its various iterations. I would like to bring to your attention three concerns that we have with Bill C-13.

The first is, as Mr. Geist was mentioning, the reduction in the legal threshold to obtain personal records. The second is that Bill C-13 sets out that ISPs that preserve data or hand it over voluntarily will not incur civil or criminal liability. The third concern is that it adds “national...origin” to the definition of “identifiable group” in the Criminal Code. This is the part of the Criminal Code that relates to hate speech. It provides the possibility of criminalizing political discourse.

Let me deal with the first issue, and that is the lower threshold. Current Bill C-13 provisions for a production order for transmission data and tracking data reduce the threshold—as you know, I hope—from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. This is a possible next step after a preservation demand or a preservation order for transmission data. The higher threshold—the current threshold—of “reasonable grounds to believe” still applies for production orders that exclude transmission data, so that if you want the content, the request has to meet the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe”. But if you want the metadata, it's only “reasonable grounds to suspect”.

Given the number of requests we know of in Canada in recent time, and given what we know of what is going in the United States.... You'll recall that in June 2013, the FISA court in the U.S. required Verizon to provide the NSA with all its customer metadata within the United States, including local phone calls. As a result, the NSA collected and retained all metadata for every call, every cellphone call, and every smartphone call attempted or made in the United States.

I agree with Mr. Geist that metadata can make the content irrelevant. The data crumbs that we use in communication technology, including the time and duration of the communication, the specific device that is used, and the geolocation, can allow enormous invasion of individuals' privacy rights.

Let's imagine that a member of this committee makes a telephone call to someone and then a week later visits an office building; sometime later makes a second phone call to a different number and a week after that, visits a different office building. What would the analysis of the metadata of this example look like or tell us? Well, if it is fed into a profile, the metadata on the telephone and the devices of the politician could tell a government agency that the first call was to a doctor; the first office building visited was a doctor's office. The second phone call was to a medical specialist; the second office building visit was to that specialist's office.

So what? We know that a politician has visited two doctors. All the government agency would then need to have access to is the Internet activity of that politician to have a very good idea what disease the politician was suffering from or was concerned about, if the member went on the Internet to WebMD.com/colorectal-cancer—or Parkinson's, or HIV.

Arguably, the metadata in the above example—two calls to two doctors, two visits to two separate doctors, and Internet activity in that time period—is as invasive as the content of communications. Bill C-13 lowers the threshold for state surveillance for that politician's visits to the doctors but maintains a higher level for any email message that politician might send to his or her spouse about his or her medical condition.

I can give you loads of other examples in which analysis of metadata can be highly invasive. Communication between a husband and wife can reveal many dynamics of their relationship: where they live, where they work, the time they go to sleep, when they wake up, when they leave home, and whether they're home together or not.

Access to metadata can also determine with reasonable probability that two people share a close relationship, by seeing that their devices are in the same location on repeated nights; or whether a person has a drinking problem from how often there are calls to Alcoholics Anonymous; or whether they are considering an abortion by knowing whether they have made calls to an abortion clinic; or whether they have a gambling problem, from their having made repeated calls to a bookie or to a helpline.

In other words, metadata are retained by an Internet service provider for a long period of time. The collection and analysis of these data in a large pool of metadata allow it to be matched up with real-world events. This makes it easier to get profiles and violate the privacy of individuals without the higher level of authority that would currently be needed in order to tap their telephone. A lower threshold of metadata opens the door to mass surveillance.

The second concern is the ISP immunity for turning over personal data. The Supreme Court, as you know, has reserved judgment on the constitutionality of the state obtaining subscriber information without a warrant under PIPEDA. We're expecting the decision in R. v. Spencer reasonably soon.

Advances in technology and the value of metadata for state surveillance make ISPs in many ways the gatekeepers of Canadians' privacy information. Offering civil or criminal liability exemption for ISPs invites ISPs to aid invasive state surveillance rather than incentivizing ISPs to protect Canadians' personal information with political and legal means. I would expect Telus, or Bell, or Rogers to have as their first interest protecting the confidentiality and the privacy of their subscribers' information. This bill would encourage them to see themselves as partners in state surveillance of their own customers.

The last comment is with regard to the expansion of hate speech to capture political speech. Bill C-13, as I mentioned at the beginning, adds “national...origin” to the definition of “identifiable group” in the Criminal Code. This part of the Criminal Code relates to hate speech. By including national origin as part of the definition of identifiable groups, certain speech—for example, speech critical of a national government, whether it be Israel, or Cuba, or the Ukraine—could be characterized as hate speech. We don't have to remember too far back, just to the 1980s, when a similar provision was used to prosecute persons critical of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Like others who have appeared before this committee, we would encourage you to split the bill. Combatting cyberbullying is a worthy goal, but expanded surveillance powers over the citizenry by a government has the potential to represent an entire rebalancing between individual freedom and autonomy versus the power of the state. This fundamental tension in democratic society must be approached with care and an almost overabundance of consultation and concern for privacy.

Not doing so—refusing to split the bill and refusing to consider these concerns that Mr. Geist and I have raised—at best will represent for the Government of Canada an exercise in futility. Overreaching legislation will spend the next five to 10 years in the courts, and in our view, will be ultimately struck down as a violation of Canadians' constitutional rights. At worst, refusal to split the bill and revise these sections will increase government surveillance powers at the expense of individual liberty and autonomy, and Canadian citizens will be the worse for that.

Thank you very much.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa. I have appeared many times before committees on digital policy issues, including privacy, but I appear today in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

As you may know, I've been critical of the lawful access bills that have been introduced by both Liberal and Conservative governments. But I want to start by emphasizing that criticism of lawful access legislation does not mean opposition to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to address crime in the online environment.

As Ms. McDonald can attest, when her organization launched Project Cleanfeed Canada in 2006 I publicly supported that initiative, which targets child pornography by working to establish a system that protects children, safeguards free speech, and contains effective oversight.

In the context of Bill C-13 there is similar work to be done to ensure that we do not unduly and unnecessarily sacrifice our privacy in the name of fighting online harms. As Ms. O'Sullivan just stated, there is a balance to be struck, and as Carol Todd told this committee, we should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety.

Given the limited time, let me start by saying that I support previous witnesses' calls to split this bill so that cyberbullying can be effectively addressed in the way that we have just heard and that we can more effectively examine lawful access. Moreover, I support the calls we've heard for a comprehensive review of privacy and surveillance in Canada.

I'm happy to discuss these issues further during questions, but I want to focus my time on the privacy concerns associated with this bill. In doing so, I'll leave the cyberbullying provisions for others, such as those we've just heard, to discuss.

With respect to privacy, I want to focus on three issues: the immunity for voluntary disclosure provision; the low threshold for transmission data warrants; and the absence of reporting and disclosure requirements.

First is the creation of an immunity provision for voluntary disclosure of personal information. I believe this immunity provision must be viewed within the context of five facts. Firstly, the law already allows intermediaries to disclose personal information voluntarily as part of an investigation. That's the case for both PIPEDA and the Criminal Code.

Secondly, intermediaries disclose personal information on a voluntary basis without a warrant with shocking frequency. The recent revelation of 1.2 million requests to telecom companies for customer information in 2011 alone, affecting at least 750,000 user accounts, provides a hint of the privacy impact of voluntary disclosures.

Thirdly, disclosures involve more than just basic subscriber information. Indeed, this committee has heard testimony directly from law enforcement, in which the RCMP noted:

Currently specific types of data such as transmission or tracking data may be obtained through voluntary disclosure by a third party....

In fact, since PIPEDA is so open-ended, content can also be disclosed voluntarily, so long as it does not involve an interception.

Fourthly, intermediaries do not notify users about their disclosures, keeping hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the dark. Contrary to some of the discussion we have heard, there is no notification requirement within the bill to address this issue.

Fifthly, this voluntary disclosure provision should also, I think, be viewed in concert with the lack of meaningful changes to Bill S-4, which would collectively expand the warrantless voluntary disclosure provisions to any organization.

Given this background, I would argue that the provision is a mistake and should be removed. It unquestionably increases the likelihood of voluntary disclosures at the very time that Canadians are increasingly concerned about such activity. Moreover, it does so with no reporting requirements, oversight, or transparency.

To those who argue that it merely codifies existing law, let me say that there are at least two notable changes, both of concern.

The first is that it expands the scope of “public officer” to include the likes of CSEC's and CSIS's employees and other public officials. In the post-Snowden environment, with global concerns about the lack of accountability for surveillance activities, this would run the risk of increasing those activities.

The second is that the Criminal Code currently includes a requirement of good faith and reasonableness on the part of the organization voluntarily disclosing the information. This new immunity provision does not include those requirements, potentially granting immunity even when disclosures are unreasonable.

In short, this provision isn't needed to combat cyberbullying; nor is it a provision in need of updating to combat cybercrime. In fact, I'd argue it is inconsistent with the government's claims of court oversight. I believe it should be removed from the bill.

The second issue I want to focus on is the low threshold for transmission data warrants. As you know, Bill C-13 contains a lower “reason to suspect” threshold for transmission data warrants, and as many have noted, the kind of information sought by transmission data warrants is more commonly referred to as metadata. Some have tried to argue that metadata is non-sensitive information, but that is simply not the case.

There has been some confusion at these hearings regarding how much metadata is included as transmission data. I want to state that this is far more than the question of who phoned whom for how long. It includes highly sensitive information relating to computer-to-computer links, as even law enforcement explained before this committee.

This form of metadata may not contain the content of the message, but its privacy import is very significant. Late last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Vu on the privacy importance of computer-generated metadata, noting:

In the context of a criminal investigation, however, it can also enable investigators to access intimate details about a user’s interests, habits, and identity, drawing on a record that the user created unwittingly....

Security officials have also commented on the importance of metadata.

General Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and of the CIA, has stated, “We kill people based on metadata.”

Stewart Baker, the former NSA general counsel, has stated:

Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.

There are numerous studies that confirm Hayden's and Baker's comments. For example, some studies point to calls to religious organizations that allow for inferences about a person's religion, and calls to medical organizations that can allow for inferences on medical conditions. In fact, a recent U.S. court brief signed by some of the world's leading computer experts notes:

Telephony metadata reveals private and sensitive information about people. It can reveal political affiliation, religious practices, and people’s most intimate associations. It reveals who calls a suicide prevention hotline and who calls their elected official; who calls the local Tea Party office and who calls Planned Parenthood. The aggregation of telephony metadata—about a single person over time, about groups of people, or with other datasets—only intensifies the sensitivity of the information.

These are their comments—the comments of security experts in the area.

Further, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released a study on the privacy implications of IP addresses, noting how they can be used to develop a highly personal look at individuals.

Indeed, even the justice minister's report, which seems to serve as the policy basis for Bill C-13, recommends the creation of new investigative tools in which “the level of safeguards increases with the level of privacy interest involved”.

Given the level of privacy interest that is involved with metadata, the approach in Bill C-13 for transmission data warrants should be amended by adopting the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard.

My third issue is transparency in reporting. The lack of transparency, disclosure, and reporting requirements associated with warrantless disclosures should be addressed. This combines both PIPEDA and lawful access, but it is made worse by Bill C-13. The stunning revelations we have seen about requests and disclosures of personal information—the majority without court oversight or warrant—point to an enormously troubling weakness in Canada's privacy laws.

Most Canadians have had no awareness of these disclosures and have been shocked to see how frequently they are used. The bills before Parliament seek or propose to expand their scope. In my view, this makes victims of us all, through disclosure of our personal information often without our awareness or explicit consent. When asked for greater transparency, such as we see in other countries, Canada's telecom companies have claimed that government rules prohibit it.

I hope the committee will amend the provisions that make warrantless disclosures more likely. But even if it doesn't, it should surely increase the level of transparency by mandating subscriber notifications, record-keeping of personal information requests, and regular release of transparency reports. These requirements could be added to Bill C-13 to lessen the concern associated with voluntary warrantless disclosure. Moreover, such reporting would not harm investigative activities and would hold the promise of enhancing public confidence in both law enforcement and communications providers.

Finally, I'd like to conclude, with all respect, by pointing to a personal incident involving one of the committee members, Mr. Dechert, that highlights the relevance of these issues.

Many will recall that several years ago Mr. Dechert was himself the victim of a privacy breach, with personal emails that were sent to journalists and were then widely reported in the media. This incident ties together several issues, which I have tried to highlight.

First, privacy interests arise even when you have nothing to hide and when you have done nothing wrong. The harm that arose in that case, despite no wrongdoing, demonstrates the potential victimization that can occur without proper privacy safeguards.

Second, much of that same information runs the risk of voluntary disclosure. Indeed, the expansion of the police officer definition means that in theory even political opponents could seek voluntary disclosure of such information and obtain immunity in doing so. Moreover, there is no notification in such instances.

Third and perhaps most important, the content of the emails that were disclosed was largely irrelevant. It was the metadata—who was being called or contacted, when they were being contacted, where they were being contacted, and for how long—that would itself allow for the same inferences that were mistakenly made during that incident. The privacy interest was in the metadata, which is why a low threshold is so inappropriate.

This kind of privacy harm can victimize anyone. As I've mentioned, we know that at least 750,000 Canadian user accounts are voluntarily disclosed every year—one every 27 seconds. It's why we need to ensure that the law has appropriate safeguards against the misuse of our personal information and why Bill C-13 should be amended.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

I would like to begin by providing you with a quick overview of my office's mandate.

Created in 2007, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime receives and reviews complaints from victims, and promotes and facilitates access to federal programs and services for victims of crime by providing information and referrals. We promote the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, we raise awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and we identify systemic and emerging issues that may negatively impact victims of crime. Basically, we help victims of crime individually and collectively.

Bill C-13 covers a number of aspects relating to telecommunication and crime, including creating a new Criminal Code offence for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, modernizing the Criminal Code, and providing new investigative tools for law enforcement. Given my mandate and our limited time today, I will restrict my comments to those sections of the bill that relate directly to victims, touching briefly on the importance of law enforcement's having the tools needed to prevent further victimization.

With that restriction in mind, I fully support the provisions of Bill C-13 that create a new offence related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, as well as the accompanying Criminal Code enhancements related to this offence, including: empowering a court to make a prohibition order limiting access of an offender to Internet or digital networks; empowering a court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet; permitting the court to order forfeiture of the computer, cellphone, or other device used in the offences; providing reimbursement to victims for costs incurred in removing the intimate image from the Internet or elsewhere; and empowering the court to make an order to prevent someone from distributing intimate images.

This legislation, if passed, will help to provide tools necessary to assist in reducing cyberbullying and in providing victims with much-needed supports.

Cyberbullying is a relatively new but devastating issue. Canadians are struggling to find the best ways to understand it and most importantly to stop it. The problem of cyberbullying, as we have heard, is not a small one. In a 2007 survey of 13- to 15-year-olds, more than 70% reported having been bullied online, and 44% reported having bullied someone at least once. Canadian teachers have ranked cyberbullying as their issue of highest concern. Out of the six listed options, 89% said that bullying and violence are serious problems in our public schools.

I know you have had some witnesses come before you to discuss their personal and powerful experiences with cyberbullying. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge their bravery and leadership in coming forward to enrich this important public dialogue, despite how difficult it may have been for them. I have learned from speaking to victims directly that despite how hard it might be, victims come forward to discuss and advance these issues for the greater good, to ensure that others do not suffer the same pain they have suffered.

We know that any kind of bullying, including cyberbullying, can have serious and lasting impacts on victims. What is unique about cyberbullying is the staggering speed and reach of the abuse. In mere minutes, intimate or personal images can be shared across networks and the world, forever exposing their victims.

We also know that trying to contain an image that has “gone viral”, as they say, is no small feat, if not in some cases impossible. Even in situations in which victims work with professionals to remove the image, one can never be sure that someone somewhere doesn't have and won't recirculate these images. The feeling of being forever vulnerable and exposed and the long-term impact of the associated emotional burden that comes with it are something that we don't truly understand yet.

Technology and associated crimes are evolving faster than our ability to fully comprehend the lasting effects that these cases are having on victims. We know generally that victims of harassment report a loss of interest in school activities, more absenteeism, lower-quality schoolwork, lower grades, more dropping of classes, and truancy.

Addressing the issue can be equally overwhelming. For this reason, I support the bill's addition of “intimate images” to section 164.1 of the Criminal Code permitting a court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet, as well as the element of the bill that empowers the court to make an order to prevent someone from distributing intimate images.

In cases in which an order has not been made, removing images is certainly not a straightforward task. For many, the thought of removing images from the Internet can be daunting. How does it work? How can I do it? Where do I turn for help?

In many cases, professional knowledge and service may be required in order to do it with any certainty or effectiveness. However, in cases in which private companies are engaged, there can be significant costs, and these costs should not be borne by the victims. It should never fall on a victim's shoulders to absorb the costs of removing images; that is simply unacceptable.

With that in mind, I support Bill C-13's proposal to provide reimbursement to victims for costs incurred in removing the intimate image from the Internet or elsewhere.

While I support these elements of the bill relating to restitution, I think there is a need first to extend the period for which restitution can be sought; second, to consider alternative supports for victims who cannot carry the upfront costs of image removal; and third, to build in or consider specifically how and when victims will receive information and guidance as to what options are available for removing images and when they can seek reimbursement.

It is my understanding that under the proposed legislation, restitution can only be sought for costs incurred up to the time of sentencing. This can be problematic for a few reasons.

One is that if the victim does not have sufficient funds to pay for the professionally assisted removal of an image themselves, then they may not pursue the option, given the risk that there may not be a conviction or that they may not successfully be reimbursed through restitution.

Second, even when a victim may be willing to take that risk, not all victims have the required funds available or own a credit card that they can use temporarily to cover the expense. In other words, if victims do not have the funds to cover the costs initially or the funds to cover the costs for a long enough period to receive a reimbursement, they will not be able to access the same level of service and protection as other victims, thereby creating an unfair balance in the system in terms of the supports offered to victims.

Finally, depending on the length of time it takes the victim to become aware of the option of professional assistance and/or the company to complete an invoice of work, it is likely that some expenses may be incurred only after sentencing. As I understand the bill, victim expenses occurring after sentencing would not be eligible for reimbursement.

While I support the intention of the bill, I would recommend that the committee consider amending this area of Bill C-13 to better meet the needs of all victims, no matter what their financial means, in terms of the support they may receive with respect to the removal of these images.

In cases in which a victim has the means and the option to pursue professionally assisted removal of images and subsequent restitution, ensuring that victims are provided with information concerning these rights and processes far enough in advance will be key. It is not clear to me how and at what point, if any, victims will be advised of their rights to seek a removal order or to file for restitution. I realize that these are details relating to implementation of the bill and that they may be addressed only at that stage; however, I feel it is important to note for members that without sufficient advance knowledge of these rights and options, victims may miss out on an important opportunity to address the damage done and to receive the supports they need and deserve.

Before concluding, I would like to touch briefly on what appear to be the most controversial aspects of the bill, those that relate to investigative tools and the balance of powers and privacy.

Privacy matters and technical investigative tools do not generally fall within my mandate. It is worth noting that among the victims we have spoken to there is no clear consensus on the elements of the bill. I have spoken with victims who very much support further measures to assist law enforcement in their investigation and who find the tools included in this bill to be balanced and necessary. I have also, like you, heard opposing points of view from victims who do not wish to see these elements of the bill proceed, for fear that they will impinge on Canadians' privacy rights.

From my own perspective I would say that there is a balance to be struck, and the dialogue that Canadians are having is a needed and valuable one. Law enforcement officials need the right tools at their disposal to quickly and effectively investigate these cases in order to help reduce cyberbullying in general as well as to protect potential victims. I believe there are some important tools in Bill C-13 to assist law enforcement in their investigation of these matters, and I support the proposed legislative changes that assist in ensuring that the data needed for investigation is preserved. Without it, there can be no evidentiary basis for important cases to proceed.

In conclusion, I support many aspects of Bill C-13 and commend the government for bringing to the table legislation that could assist in addressing cyberbullying incidents as well as provide victims with support in removing their intimate images from circulation. As stated, however, I would recommend that the provisions relating to restitution be amended to ensure that all victims, no matter their financial situation, be entitled to the same rights, opportunities, professional assistance, and reimbursement of costs, and that it be made clear how and when victims will be informed of their rights.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

[Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection]

We would also like to express some thoughts on a few of the criticisms that are being brought forward about this bill.

First, some are expressing concern that the bill will negatively impact youth and result in many more instances of youth being charged and jailed. As an organization dedicated to the protection of all children, we would prefer if this issue could be solved through prevention, education, and awareness. Unfortunately, there will be times when additional tools are required to deter the behaviour, address the harm, and protect current and future victims, who, in many cases, are also children.

What has not yet been mentioned is that if the accused is a young person, the Youth Criminal Justice Act will come into play. That act establishes unique, conceptual, procedural, and substantive safeguards that are specifically designed to protect the interests of young people. There are detailed provisions included within that act that mandate that each person involved with the young person, from police, to the crown, to the judge, must take into account the level of maturity and development of that young person, and consider alternative and restorative mechanisms throughout the entire process.

Secondly, there have been objections raised with this committee about the recklessness standard being too low. The recklessness standard was a specific recommendation of the CCSO cybercrime working group, in its report to the FPT ministers responsible for justice and public safety. We echo what was expressed by David Butt, from KINSA. The recklessness standard, in a criminal context, is not a carelessness standard. It is definitely the same as the law of negligence. We encourage the committee to ensure that any decision made on the issue of recklessness is based on a full appreciation of the way in which recklessness is applied in a criminal law context.

Thirdly, concerns have been raised that Bill C-13 unduly interferes with the rights of Canadians under section 8 of the charter. The bill has two important safeguards: the requirement to apply for a warrant, and judicial discretion to issue or not issue the warrant. Police have a duty to make full, frank, and fair disclosure of all material facts to the issuing judge when they apply for a warrant. In our view, a judge is in the best position to assess the request in the context of those facts. The only part of the bill that does not require a warrant is the preservation section, but preservation is not the same as production. In our view, this bill strikes the appropriate balance between privacy rights and the safety of Canadians.

[Lianna McDonald, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of this committee, I thank you very much for giving our agency the opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-13.

My name is Lianna McDonald, and I am the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, a registered charity providing national programs and services related to the personal safety of all children.

Joining me today are my two colleagues: Ms. Signy Arnason, director of Cybertip.ca; and Monique St. Germain, our general counsel.

Our goal today is to provide insight and support for Bill C-13, legislation that will assist in addressing the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We will offer some testimony based on our role in operating Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line to report the online sexual exploitation of children.

What we have witnessed first-hand and all too often is really the collision between sexual exploitation, technology, and bullying. For almost 30 years our agency has worked closely with families, police, educators, child welfare, industry, and others in child protection. Through operating Cybertip.ca, we have received more than 110,000 reports regarding sexual abuse and exploitation of children. These reports have resulted in police executing more than 550 arrests and removing numerous children from abusive environments.

It has been through this work that we see the most brutal behaviours towards children, everything from the recording of graphic sexual or physical assaults against very young children by predatory adults to teens trying to navigate a social media fallout from a sexual picture or even trying to cope with the aftermath of a sexual crime that has been recorded. These are not easy times to be a young person.

Several years ago we started to see a shift in reports to the tip line. We began to see young people coming in as both the victim and the reporting person. We recognized quickly the need to respond and as a result created a number of prevention resources. We have made these all available, and with a couple of samples that are very relevant to this particular issue.

While these and other resources are important, what we know is that they are not enough. Technology has become a powerful weapon and the ammunition of choice for those who wish to hide behind the protected cloak of anonymity. New technologies make it much easier to harass and to participate in a toxic digital frontier wherein ongoing biases about sexual misconduct collide with unrealistic expectations of adolescent behaviour, all fueled by the misuse of technology.

While certainly we are sophisticated enough not to place the blame solely on technology, we should be rightly committed to understanding its role in the commission of offences and to deciding how we as a nation choose to respond and modernize laws to adequately address new types of criminal behaviour.

The question we raise today is from a child protection point of view. How are we addressing the privacy rights of children? More to the point, how are we addressing the invasion of privacy of those young people who are currently being harmed? When young people are victimized and technology has been used to memorialize the sexual harm, there is often an additional layer of trauma. The past is their present.

For these reasons, we are supporting Bill C-13, and I want to highlight three key points.

First, we firmly believe that the intimate image offence is much more appropriate than a child pornography offence in circumstances in which both the individual depicted in the image and the individual distributing the image are under the age of 18. The child pornography offences were designed and intended to address behaviour and images that are qualitatively different from what we are discussing today.

Second, we support having the offence cover victims of all ages. Our agency receives reports and communications from numerous young adults impacted by this issue. The reputational and sexual harm that results from the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image is significant, regardless of age.

Third, it is important that such images be removed and deleted quickly to minimize the damage to the individual depicted.

We welcome the provisions in the bill that facilitate these actions. We also see tremendous value in enabling potential victims to apply for court-ordered recognizance against a potential distributor in advance of any distribution.

At this time, Signy Arnason, my colleague, will speak quickly to a few stats and facts, and then Monique St. Germain will speak to some criticisms of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As per the orders of the day, we are pursuing our order of reference of Monday, April 28, 2014, for study 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.

We have a number of guests here today.

For the committee's information, I understand that there may be bells during this time. I have let the witnesses know that if there are bells, we will run over to vote and will come back to make sure that they get on the record with their 10 minutes.

Here is one other piece of information before we go on. I personally contacted Facebook and invited them to show either on Tuesday, which is when we have them scheduled, or Thursday of next week. We have not heard back whether they are taking us up on the invitation. We sent them copies of the motion from this committee from last time.

We were expecting Global News to be here, but they are not set up. As the rules state, there are no pictures once the gavel has been struck.

We are going to begin with our 10-minute presentations. We have the Canadian Centre for Child Protection with us today. We have the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. As an individual, Mr. Michael Geist is here. We also have the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

To make sure we move along quickly, let's have the Canadian Centre for Child Protection begin.

Ms. McDonald, you are taking the lead.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.

I want to speak about why it is important we do this. I have been here eight years. Every year we get a calendar printed in the fall that indicates with little stars the days we can have extended hours. Extended hours are not new. This year, I will admit, that we are doing extended hours about a week prior to when it normally would have happened. It is a normal process, a normal way of doing business in this House that I have experienced eight times.

My understanding is it was the process prior to that. In fact, there were years in the past when extended hours took place in the evenings throughout the year, not just at the end of the session. However, things have changed and this is a normal way of proceeding so we can get some of the work done we need to do.

We have added approximately 20 hours of opportunity for debate per week. That is 20 hours, so 40 members of Parliament could make 20-minute speeches with 10 minutes of questions and comments. Often people split their time. Technically we could get as many as 40 people of the 308, or whatever there is, of us at this particular time. There are byelections going. That would be 40 more opportunities to get up and say what the constituents we represent feel about a particular issue or about a particular bill.

We often get complaints that there is not enough time and that more members from whatever party in the opposition want to speak. This motion provides that opportunity for them to speak.

I would be the first to agree that likely at 11:30 p.m. there would not be a lot of people in the House. Some people would have said their piece and are not interested in talking about whatever issue is before the House, but there is opportunity for other members of Parliament to say their piece. That is what extended hours do. They provide opportunity for as many as 40 members a week. If we do it for three weeks, that is 120 more spots, so almost half the House would be able to speak in those extended hours.

That does not mean we are not meeting during the day, that we are still not opening at 10 and having debate all day long with a break for question period, routine proceedings, and private members' hour. All that opportunity is still there.

We are not limiting debate. We are increasing debate. It is important, in my view. We need to do this. When I go back to my constituency and tell the folks at the local riding association that we passed nine bills, people say to me, “That's it? What did you do the rest of the time?”

I did research on how many hours we spend on this. I think there is a better way of doing it more efficiently and effectively, and I may speak to that. We need to use our time efficiently and effectively to get changes made. Of the 18 bills that we have standing, a lot of them have not even got to committee yet, so all we need to do is move them on to committee.

Our committee right now is dealing with Bill C-13. We have had excellent panels come before us to talk about that bill. We have two more weeks of analyzing that bill, and I think it is an excellent demonstration of why it is important to get things out of the House. Each party has its say, a number of members put on the record their position and what they would like to see changed or why they support the bill, and then it goes to committee for a real discussion with debate. I think we should be doing that much faster, and maybe even providing more time for that at committee, but that does not work with the process we have here.

We are going to debate a private member's bill later tonight that talks about some changes in how we operate. It was brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is some real opportunity for further change. Many of us spend hours and hours having staff members change our schedules because we have to get coverage for this and we are here and we have to give a speech at committee meetings, so we have to have someone cover us here. I do not know what it is like on the opposition benches, but I know what it is like on our side of the House.

There should be a review of how we operate here. Maybe we should have all our committee meetings in the morning with the House not sitting in the morning. Members would not be missing coverage or House duty because House duty would not start. Maybe we should do that. Maybe we should start debate on different items after question period. Maybe we should have all the votes after question period. I know this motion does that, but if we were a corporation we would not be operating this way. It is not efficient. It is not effective and it does not produce results as the smart people in the chamber could do.

My suggestion is that the House leaders from all sides look at why we need to bring the system of how we operate into the 20th century, maybe even the 21st century. It has been a traditional way of doing things. I think it is time to look at all those issues.

People will ask why we need to extend. As chair of the justice committee I will give one perfect example of why we need this time. The Minister of Justice introduced the victims bill of rights, a very important bill to the House. Tonight we will start debating that issue even further. In this case, there are many members of Parliament who would like to speak to the bill because it would make some fundamental changes to how we treat victims of crime in this country. It is appropriate that it is on the agenda for this evening and it gives us an opportunity for many more members to speak to it because we have extended the hours.

I would like to see the bill go to committee. It is still at second reading. I fully understand why so many members would like to speak to it. Extended hours provide that opportunity to do. Then I hope it will come to a vote before we rise for the summer. That would provide the justice committee with an opportunity to get ready over the summer for this very important bill, to make sure we invite the right number of witnesses. A relatively large list of people would like to come and talk on what could be improved, what they like about the bill. I do not know if people understand there are only nine weeks in the fall session between September until we leave at Christmastime. Nine weeks is not a lot of time. It does not provide much opportunity for members to speak to this fundamental bill.

We also will deal with Bill C-24 this week. Many members in the House would like to speak to strengthening the Citizenship Act. There are some fundamental changes in it. If we do not get it done and sent to committee before we leave, we basically will have to start over again in September. People now are engaged in the topic and understand what is going on. There is debate in the House and then the summer comes. Members go back and work in their ridings all summer and they have to get geared up again when they come back here.

I think it is important that we get that bill through, and there are a number of other bills. The opposition finance critic is at committee tonight dealing with the implementation bill, which is a significant bill. There is a lot of discussion about what is happening with that.

We need to be able to move forward, and there is nothing wrong with working late. I heard from the leader of the Green Party and the previous speaker. I do not think there is a lot of opposition to working late on these particular items because it does provide opportunity.

We have heard a little on who can bring forward certain motions, and the opposition is not happy about that. However, the whole concept of adding hours is to make the place a little more efficient and not bogged down with procedural motions, because that is what slows us down here.

There is a place for procedure. As chair of the justice committee, I understand that there needs to be procedure and it can move efficiently and effectively. Those rules are in place for a purpose, and I believe they have a role to play here, but we need to move forward.

There are nine bills, and to be frank about it, there are 18 bills still on the order paper from the government now. We have nine weeks in the fall and then we come to the last session before we break in 2015, and we know we will not be coming back before an election. We do not have a lot of time left from the government's perspective to get the legislation through the House, through the Senate, to royal assent, and into law. Once it becomes law, it then takes time to implement.

In Ontario, I talk to a grade 5 civics class and a grade 10 civics class. They ask how long it takes to get a law through. I am honest with them. I tell them that the reality is it takes at least a year. Some bills are a little faster than others, but in a normal process, from the start when a minister introduces it in the House to royal assent, it is approximately a year. Then, it depends on what kind of law it is, but let us say it is on the Criminal Code, it takes a while for it to get implemented. Also, there are often regulations in other areas that have to be added before it actually comes into force. It is a slow process to begin with.

With the process we have here, in my view, as a city councillor who advocated for the council to go from 17 to 7 for improved efficiency and effectiveness of the councillors, I think we can do a much better job here in the House of Commons for efficiency and effectiveness. We need to look at that in the future, but in the meantime, extended hours help us get our legislation through this House.

Justice

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot protect our children from cyberbullying unless the police have the necessary powers to deal with such cases. That is what Bill C-13 does, and that is why I encourage the NDP to support our children.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you panel for coming. We've had some very good panels for Bill C-13 and today's testimony was excellent. I want to thank each and every one of you.

Just as a reminder, we're meeting on Thursday morning at Queen Street. We have Thursday and then next week to meet on this, and then we'll do clause by clause the week after that.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Marian K. Brown]

Yes. It addresses seizure but also retention of personal information. That falls under the privacy acts of all the provinces, as well as the federal Privacy Act. All police agencies are public bodies that are subject to those privacy acts. So we don't see that it could be anything other than a nationwide and interjurisdictional effort to address the impact of retention and use of personal information by law enforcement agencies.

We're pushing the envelope here but the point is, as I said in my introduction, that as good as you make Bill C-13, it is not going to solve all of the concerns that we face in this confrontation of law and technology.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Spratt.

My second question is for Ms. Brown and Ms. Schellenberg.

On page 2 of your brief, you make the following recommendation:

The Canadian Bar Association recommends dividing Bill C-13 into two distinct bills, separating lawful access provisions from new measures to specifically address cyberbullying.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Michael Spratt]

I think there are some important aspects in Bill C-13. Obviously, new provisions are needed to modernize the Criminal Code and to deal with some of the instances that we've heard about.

Ideally, we could split the bill and fully consider the implications of the lawful access part. But if that's not an option, what we would like to see is the appropriate standard of reasonable and probable grounds that has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vu and corresponds with the fact that reasonable suspicion is only appropriate when the privacy level is low.

It is not enough to say that it may or may not be high, let's get the information, and if it's not high it's not revealing information—no harm, no foul. We, as lawyers, all know that there are no ex post facto justifications, and the fact that you find information, or that it's not intrusive after the search, can't then justify the search in the first place. That's putting the cart before the horse, and that's frowned upon by the courts.

An appropriate standard would be ideal, along with disclosure to affected persons, and legislation about the retention, use, and future dissemination of that data. Of course, tying back to some of the horrific examples of police record checks that have been in the media recently would be very valuable in this bill.

Lastly, when we're dealing with voluntary disclosure, it should be a standard that is in keeping with section 25 of the Code, a section used by the minister to justify what's already in the bill and that is one based on reasonable grounds. That means that if, as a teleco, I have something that causes me concerns, I can hand it over. But as the police, if I'm going to a telecommunications company and asking for the information, I need to show reasonable grounds, which is more than just, “We regulate you; please hand over the information.”

I think those changes would be beneficial and would not set back the positive aspects and the positive intent of the first two pages of this bill.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Mr. Spratt.

In your opening statement, you said you couldn't support Bill C-13 because it was too broad, wasn't constitutional and put the rights of law enforcement above privacy rights.

I'd like to hear your take on those three points. In your view, is Bill C-13 salvageable? And if so, how?

[Marian K. Brown]

I did turn my mind to this briefly in preparation.

As you likely know, those definitions of peace officer and public officer appear in section 2 of the Criminal Code. You have to be cautious because they apply throughout the code in hundreds of sections. When you look at the eight powers that are proposed under the lawful access provisions of Bill C-13, as I've said, seven of those are judicial authorizations. They require “informations to obtain”, these documents of dozens or hundreds of pages of justification. In reality, people who are not professional investigators are not able to meet that standard. But the one section that perhaps is amenable to use for other officials is the preservation demand, which is simply to preserve data without seizing it. That's the one provision that may be amenable to use by a broad range of officials.

Now just as a final note about the definitions, if you look at section 2 of the Criminal Code under “public official”, expecting that person to be is some kind of bureaucrat, in fact you will find that members of the RCMP fall under that part of the definition. So you have to be very careful about the effect of that definition throughout the Criminal Code.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I just want to say that I consider myself a youth and that I understand all that is going on right now with the Internet, and that I could be a victim of it. I just take it to heart the need to have the best legislation for the victims, because I've known victims of cyberbullying. I want to have the best legislation for all Canadians and for victims. That said, thank you very much and I'm going to start.

In the bill we're talking about peace officers. Peace officers not only include police services and policing but also public officers and administrators of federal acts. From questioning the witnesses from the association of police officers at the last committee meeting, it was clear that a peace officer does cover policing broadly and police services, so they don't need to include public officers and administrators of federal acts.

Why would we give extensive powers to, let's say, administrators at the Canada Revenue Agency? Does that mean that these people would have access to our information for another type of infraction?

We're talking about peace officers wanting to prosecute cyberbullies. Why include administrators of federal acts, why include public officers like mayors, etc.? Why?

My question would be for Mr. Butt and Mr. Gilhooly. Don't you think that only police officers cover peace officers broadly? Why do we need to include administrators of federal acts in Bill C-13?

[Marian K. Brown]

If you're asking about non-judicially authorized disclosure, that is currently made under the provisions of PIPEDA or the privacy acts and there's a great debate whether those provisions are tight enough. That goes beyond what we can deal with in Bill C-13—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It's interesting to see so much diversity of opinion, which is not making our job any easier.

Rather than debate with you myself, I will let you debate one another. That will probably make things a bit more interesting.

I get the sense that the two people in the middle are somewhat of the same mind as I am, and that the two at the far ends—not to suggest that your views are as far out as your seats, of course—have a different opinion.

Mr. Spratt and Mr. Brown, I'd like to hear how you respond to Mr. Butt's arguments on the issues of recklessness and reasonable suspicion and on the immunity provision. How do you respond to what he just said? His comments would suggest that the bill is reasonable. I'd like to hear both of your takes on that.

I have a concern about Bill C-13 that no one has brought up. The whole matter of warrants makes us think that people's personal information will be passed around without their ever knowing about it. I haven't seen any amendment or provision being proposed to address that. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that issue.

Thank you. Fill your boots.

[Marian K. Brown, Executive Member, Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Ms. Schellenberg.

We hope that our input today will assist you in understanding how the draft provisions would function, if they're implemented, and of course in understanding what constitutional or charter issues may arise.

We are proposing numerous amendments that all have one of two main goals. Our first goal is to ensure that only truly intentional cyberbullying is prosecuted, and our second is to ensure that privacy interests are protected when data is seized.

Our written submission provides many details that we will not be able to cover today. What I will do now is give highlights of our recommendations on cyberbullying, on lawful access, and on the Competition Act.

First with respect to cyberbullying, as you know, the bill criminalizes a particular form of cyberbullying, which is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Distribution of sexual images of children is already prohibited by the child pornography provisions by the code, but the new section 162.1 proposed in Bill C-13 criminalizes non-consensual distribution of anyone's intimate images, not just young people's. In the CBA's view, this new offence is better suited to dealing with youth cyberbullying than using the child pornography provisions for youth conduct.

We're recommending some amendments that would more closely restrict the new offence to situations of truly intentional bullying. We echo Mr. Spratt's concern about the current wording of proposed section 162.1, which includes the alternative of recklessness. That could, in our view, criminalize conduct that is merely careless, and carelessness is an aspect of youth behaviour. Prosecuting someone who does not have the knowledge or intent required for a criminal offence would be a violation of section 7 of the charter.

In our written submission, at page 5 of the English version, we give an example of an adult distribution of images that would constitute reckless or careless conduct, but which is probably not the aim of this legislation. Because there are scenarios in which carelessness or reckless distribution under the current wording could incur criminal liability, we're recommending two specific changes to the wording.

Our recommendation 2, which appears at page 6 of the English version, is that the following phrase should be added to the offence section: “with intent to annoy, embarrass, intimidate or harass that person”. It's a much more specific formulation of intent. Our recommendation 4, at page 7 of the English version, is that the offence section be amended to remove the words “being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent”.

So we would take out the alternative of recklessness. In our view, those two amendments would ensure that only the distribution of images with a malicious intent would be prosecuted and would ensure that young people are not prosecuted for their merely careless or thoughtless distribution of images.

I'll turn now to our key submissions regarding lawful access. Seven of the eight main lawful access powers in this bill rest with the judiciary; that is to say that seven of those eight powers consist of judicial orders or warrants. The one exception is the preservation demand by an officer, whereby data is not seized without judicial authorization but is simply ordered to be held, so that it cannot be deleted, for a period of time.

So there is no warrantless seizure provision under this proposed regime, but the CBA recognizes that the issue of privacy in data is much broader than these particular Criminal Code seizure provisions. As we've heard from other presenters, perhaps the greatest concern is about law enforcement's obtaining data through the cooperation of service providers without the use of any of the eight powers that are covered in Bill C-13. Obtaining data outside of the Criminal Code purports to be authorized under PIPEDA, the electronic documents act, and other privacy statutes.

We feel it's important to comment that even if the lawful access provisions in Bill C-13 are made perfect, this will not eliminate arguments that PIPEDA and the other privacy acts perhaps should be more strictly applied. Even the very best drafted Criminal Code provisions will not diminish the arguments that voluntary cooperation between service providers and law enforcement should be more closely monitored.

Because of that bigger picture, two of the CBA's recommendations are quite broad. Our recommendation 8, at page 12 of our written submission, is that a single entity be created to monitor the impact of the seizure, retention, and use of personal information by Canadian law enforcement agencies.

Our recommendation 17, at page 24 of the English version of our written submission, is that the federal government conduct an independent comprehensive review of privacy interests in the context of electronic investigations.

Those sound very broad, but we're in a new world here. We're at a perfect storm of legal change and technological change, and it's no wonder that we're having difficulty with it.

Given the bill that you have to work with today, in our written submission we make several specific recommendations for amendments. We believe that three amendments in particular are key to avoiding violations of privacy interests under section 8 of the charter.

Our recommendation 9, at page 14 of the English version of our written submission, is that the officers' preservation demand, which is section 487.012—the only power without judicial authorization—should be limited to exigent circumstances, where data would otherwise be lost or destroyed before a judicial authorization can be obtained.

Our recommendation 14, at page 19 of the English version, is that the threshold for a transmission data production order—and that's section 487.017—should be raised from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe” because transmission data may reveal private conduct.

Similarly, our recommendation 15, at page 20 of the English version, is that the threshold for a transmission data recorder warrant, section 492.2, also should be raised from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”, again because transmission data may reveal private conduct.

I'm going to say a few more words about transmission data. Our understanding is that it's not the same thing as metadata, which we understand to be data left by web browsing that can be located on a personal computer that is seized under a search warrant. We understand transmission data, as defined in this bill, to include not the contents of the communication, but only its origin and destination, direction, duration, time and date, size, and the protocol and type of the communication. That limited definition is very important because intercepting the contents of a private communication actually is a criminal offence under section 184 of the Criminal Code, unless a wiretap authorization is in place.

Bill C-13 cannot entail monitoring of the content of private communications.

I don't want to overlook the so-called immunity section, but unfortunately our working group did not discuss it in detail or make written recommendations about it. You've heard from other speakers about the terms of that section. All we can recommend is that you look closely and comparatively at the proposed section 487.0195, the existing section, which is old number 487.0114, combined with section 25 of the code, and you may wish for comparative purposes to also look at the immunity provision that exists for people who voluntarily assist with wiretap orders, which is section 188.2 of the Criminal Code. You'll see in that section that there is full civil immunity only for people who assist where there is either a judicial authorization or an interception in exigent circumstances. It's a more limited option for immunity.

[Gaylene Schellenberg, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

I'll just introduce the CBA briefly.

Thank you for the invitation to present the Canadian Bar Association's views on Bill C-13 to you today.

The CBA is a national association of over 37,500 lawyers, students, notaries, and academics. An important aspect of our mandate is seeking improvements in the law and the administration of justice, and it's that aspect of our mandate that brings us to you today.

Our submission on Bill C-13 was a joint effort, a team led by our national criminal justice section with input from our privacy and access to information law section, our competition law section, as well as our children's law committee.

With me is Marian Brown, an executive member of our national criminal justice section. That section's membership represents a balance of crown and defence lawyers from all parts of the country. Ms. Brown has practised criminal law in B.C. as crown attorney, as defence counsel, and as counsel for an oversight agency investigating police for over 18 years. She'll now address the substance of our submission and respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[Michael Spratt, Member and Criminal Defence Counsel, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here.

As you may know, the Criminal Lawyers' Association is a not-for-profit organization comprising more than 1,100 criminal defence counsel from across Canada. One of our objectives is to educate not only our membership but also the public on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law. The CLA has routinely been consulted and invited by various parliamentary committees to share its views on proposed legislation pertaining to these issues. The CLA supports legislation that is fair, modest, constitutional, and supported by the evidence.

To cut to the chase, the CLA is simply unable to support Bill C-13. Quite simply, Bill C-13 is not only overly broad but is also likely unconstitutional.

Bill C-13 purports to be concerned with tackling cyberbullying by stopping the spread of intimate images that are disseminated without the subject's consent. The real tragedy of Bill C-13 is that those provisions are necessary, laudable, and should be proceeded with; however, in reality that aspect takes up only a small percentage of the bill. Bill C-13, in the balance, sacrifices privacy in favour of expanded police powers and liberal disclosure standards.

Bill C-13, along with Bill S-4 and Bill C-31, represents a dangerous and in our opinion unconstitutional pattern of erosion of privacy.

Let me speak of the cyberbullying provisions. They are important, are laudable, should be proceeded with, and are indeed necessary in the modern world that we live in. Largely, I don't have any objection to the small percentage of the bill that deals with those provisions.

Having said that, I would add that there is a legitimate argument that those provisions in and of themselves may be overly broad, in that the standard imposed for the mens rea is “recklessness”. That standard of recklessness may go too far, in that it may make individuals potentially liable who don't know or could not have found out the circumstances to which the images that are the subject of that provision relate. To that extent, the problem with the cyberbullying provision is not necessarily its aim but rather its execution in that one small regard.

The bill's aim is to punish those who transmit intimate photos sent to them, when the person who took those images has an expectation of privacy. That is likely to have significant public support, as it should; however, the scope of the provision is potentially overly broad, because it expands the mens rea element. By making “recklessness” one of the potential mens rea standards for that offence, the provision may catch not only the individual who was the original recipient of the image but also those down the line—the second-hand recipients of that image—who may have no knowledge of the circumstances in which that picture was taken or made.

Some caution comes from Don Stuart, a pre-eminent expert in the field of criminal law. As he points out in Canadian Criminal Law, the fifth edition, there is a risk that the recklessness standard can devolve into a far broader conception of fault than is desirable, and a more nuanced approach would involve defining recklessness as knowledge both of the risk and that that risk was likely.

That provision can be seen in other aspects of the code; for example, in item (a)(ii) of section 229, which deals with murder.

A modified recklessness standard in the cyberbullying provision would target the so-called “revenge porn” conduct, without drawing to the net those who simply pass on the photos without context and may not necessarily be as morally culpable.

If the provision is allowed to remain there without a clearer definition of recklessness, the section may attract some charter scrutiny. At that point, the issue would become one of over-breadth: does that section capture individuals who may not be morally blameworthy, but may nonetheless be captured under the recklessness standard? As I said, this is a minor issue with that aspect of the bill.

More troubling is the “lawful disclosure” aspect of Bill C-13. The bill announces itself as being about cyberbullying and protecting Canadians from online crime, but certainly it far exceeds those parameters.

I will start by saying that of course the most controversial aspects of Bill C-30 have been removed—the mandatory warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information. However, there are still some serious concerns. I'll deal with two issues.

The first is that there is simply insufficient judicial oversight in obtaining those orders.

Now, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered the standard for reasonable suspicion, which is the standard we're dealing with in the legislation, in the case R. v. Chehil. The court made it crystal clear that the standard of reasonable suspicion falls well below the normal requirement of reasonable and probable grounds. That's the normal standard we usually deal with. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that the state's interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual's interest in being left alone at the point where credible-based probability replaces suspicion.

The data, which is the subject matter of the searches contemplated in Bill C-13, contains a great deal of personal information. It's a misnomer to simply call it metadata. That dilutes the importance and impact of that data.

I understand that a pre-eminent expert in this area, Dr. Michael Geist, will be testifying at this committee later this week, and I think he will agree that metadata is deserving of an increased level of protection. And indeed he's not alone in that view. When we look at reports in 2013 from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, both reports reveal the heightened expectation and the intimate information that can be revealed through metadata. I would commend you to read those reports. It's quite shocking what can be discerned about an individual's communications and basic information about the individual through simply an IP address or some of the other metadata that's discussed.

Metadata as a starting point has a heightened expectation of privacy, and that is something that has been echoed by the Supreme Court, which agrees seemingly with Dr. Geist and with the privacy commissioners. In the recent case of Vu, which dealt with metadata found on a personal computer, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's submissions—we intervened in that case—finding that ordinarily this information, metadata, can help a user retrace his or her cybernetic steps. In the context of a criminal investigation, however, it can also enable investigators to access intimate details about a user's interests, habits, identities, drawing on a record that the user created unwittingly. Of course, in modern times there's a capacity to store, catalogue, and cross reference this information, revealing more and more.

The Supreme Court's comments about the heightened privacy inherent in this type of data is simply incompatible with the proposed reasonable suspicion standard that's found in Bill C-13. That incongruity exposes this proposed legislation to charter scrutiny, and in my opinion supports a conclusion that there's not only charter scrutiny here but indeed charter infirmity. There's simply no principled and justifiable reason that the new warrant provisions contained in Bill C-13 should not be based on the traditionally and judicially approved standard of reasonable and probably grounds.

Next, moving to the issue of the incentives for non-judicially supervised disclosure, Bill C-13 will also likely lead to an increased request for a telecommunications company to disclose information without court oversight and the corresponding protections. Privacy in this regard should be strengthened and not abandoned. Falling back on section 25 in the current Criminal Code is no answer to this problem. If you read section 25 carefully, you will see that section 25 requires reasonable grounds, and no comfort can be found in the appeal legislation as it offers no protection.

Of course as we see with that existing provision in Bill C-13, it broadens the scope of disclosure. No longer will the requesting organization be under an obligation to actually be enforcing or administering an act. The room for those requests is greatly increased. And indeed we see codification of the civil and criminal immunity which isn't in section 25, and as I said, section 25 requires reasonable grounds, which is completely absent in this section.

The real concern is that the expansion of police power and limiting liability for the party agreeing to disclose will result in increased police fishing expeditions, and of course we have seen from some reports some very alarming information about current practices in that regard.

Indeed, it would have been preferable to have discrete legislation on both the cyberbullying and on the lawful access legislation. However, given the current formulation of Bill C-13, the CLA recommends that the standards for obtaining those warrants be strengthened and brought in line with what the current Supreme Court case law would suggest is appropriate. No one wants to see evidence excluded. No one wants to get it wrong at the outset, and years later find out that the constitutionally suspect legislation was passed, evidence was excluded, and prosecutions were jeopardized because things weren't done right the first time. The provisions respecting the voluntary disclosure should be reconsidered to ensure both fairness, respect of privacy, and ultimately, constitutionality.

[Gregory Gilhooly, As an Individual]

Thanks very much for having me. I consider it an honour to be here, and I have spent the past several weeks reading up on what the committee's been up to. I must say that as a citizen I'm encouraged by the way the committee is dealing with this as a political issue and not as a partisan issue.

It is sometimes trite to say that everything we deal with is politics, because it is, and the political process involves give and take and back and forth, with the result of reaching an end that serves everyone. Partisanship is something else when you are serving another end. To the extent that the written materials, the transcripts, indicate that this committee has been working in a political fashion and not a partisan fashion, I think that is to everyone's credit here.

Just for a quick introduction, I guess I am probably best known, unfortunately, as a victim of one of Canada's better known pedophiles, Graham James. I was in an approximately three-and-a-half-year relationship with Graham, and I came to the justice system as a victim when I decided to come forward with my story. I lived the tension that goes on in this room, because I'm also a lawyer. I'm a graduate of Princeton and then the University of Toronto Law School. I started my legal career at Torys as a corporate lawyer. I've served as general counsel at several companies. I'll get into that later when we start talking about the motivations that a company and legal departments may or may not have to voluntarily give over information.

Suffice it to say that going through law school as a victim was an interesting process. Sometimes we can get caught up in academic and very intellectual arguments when it comes to trying to parse exactly what can and can't go wrong with a piece of legislation. That's the proper process. You play things out to determine whether or not you are dealing with something that will fundamentally infringe someone else's rights. There is that delicate balance at play all the time.

I am not a “lock them up and throw away the key” type, but I must say at the outset that I commend the current government and this committee for the steps they seem to be taking to bring forth legislation of the type that we see before us in Bill C-13.

For full disclosure, I am a Liberal by political partisanship. I was a member of the Manitoba executive back when I was working with Canwest. I was a speech writer for David Matas, one of Canada's leading human rights lawyers. I consider myself lucky to have served the Liberal Party and lucky to have served David Matas, which may make some of the comments I'm going to make today in that context seem surprising, because I clearly live the tension—and you can probably see it as I rock back and forth in my chair—that there is the academic focus on preservation of individual rights and one's privacy, and there is the reality we face in our streets that there are monsters out there. When we sit down to write legislation or to take a look at legislation, we don't often consider the fact that there are monsters amongst us. I am living testimony to the fact that there are monsters amongst us. I have looked into the eye of the devil and have fortunately come out the other side.

I can say that we as a society sometimes, in my view, err in terms of ensuring that the rights of the individual are not sufficiently protected. I like to come at the issue from an approach that is opposite to what some of the people I assume will be speaking after me might take. I believe we have the wherewithal as a society to police behaviour and to ensure that our protectors are at all times acting in our best interests, and that if we ever find that the police or the state is going too far, that we as a society will take steps to correct the overreaching powers of the state.

I do not believe that anyone at any time need be afraid of legislating appropriate tools to protect children, to protect us, or to aid our police in trying to create a better society for all of us. If we make a mistake, we can always go back and correct it. We don't have to ratchet ourselves back at the outset in each and every instance to play against every hypothetical or every theoretical.

We live in a day where technology is changing. We are addressing cyberbullying here when we take a look at this bill, but we're clearly addressing more than simply cyberbullying. We are faced with any number of amendments to bring the Criminal Code into the now.

And to the extent that the police chiefs had issues with the tools at their disposal, my understanding in reading the transcript is that they made that clear to the committee earlier this month.

To the extent that victims welcome new legislation to protect others against things they have gone through, we heard from victims earlier this month as I read in the transcripts. I thought that Amanda Todd's mother was particularly brave in coming forward with her statement that she didn't want Amanda's name to be used as an excuse or an inroad to take away other's privacy rights. But at the same time, she was advocating tougher tools for the police. You can't have it spelled out any more clearly for you than the fact that there is a delicate dynamic: the balance is going to tip one way or the other eventually.

My concern as a victim is that the police have enough tools at their disposal to adequately protect us. My concern as a lawyer is that privacy rights and personal rights aren't trampled on. My reading of the bill here is that, but for a few tweaks, it's a very good step in the right direction. To the extent that your questioning of the police chiefs guided you in a way that gives you better tools and shows you how to craft the legislation properly, I think you're headed in the right direction.

I found it interesting in reading the transcript that, I guess, David Fraser came in. David is a leading practitioner in the field of privacy law. To say that I agree with everything he said I think would be an overstatement, but he is a bright man and he gave, I thought, excellent testimony to you to take under consideration.

What I found most fascinating, though, was when you move from the theoretical of David's testimony and into the practical examples that Mr. Dechert gave. You could see a breakdown in how theory didn't really mesh with what was going on in the real world. At one point when considering what appears to be one of the more controversial aspects in the legislation—the giving of information on the voluntary request when you're not otherwise prohibited from doing so—Mr. Dechert gave the example of a service provider who faces an emergency and you don't have time to get the warrant. The lawyer's answer was, “I would hope that the service provider would do the right thing.”

The unfortunate reality as a corporate lawyer who heads up a legal group is that you can hope all you want, but what the internal legal department is going to be saying is that there's not a chance unless we are clear that you are able to do that.

And so the interesting phenomenon we have in that one provision that seems to be taking up a lot of your time—although I'm focusing on it in the outset—is that the language appears to be a recasting of what is already present in the common law. Why does it have to be there? It's lawyer candy to say that if it's already the law, you don't need it to be the law. Well, there's clearly a problem, because you do need to remind people of their rights and their ability to do the right thing at the right time.

The way that the provision is crafted, it's simply there to remind corporate lawyers like me that you have the ability to do the right thing, and if you do the right thing you're not going to face repercussions from doing it.

I think there could be a slight tweaking of the language. To get technical for a bit—and I don't want to take too much of your time—there's the not prohibited language. The provision is cast so that you're able to give up information that you're not otherwise prohibited from giving up. Perhaps if you changed the concept from not otherwise prohibited or not prohibited to lawful—you're lawfully able to give up—that would be a slight tweaking.

But for that, I think you've got in front of you a bundle of proposed legislation that gives the police adequate opportunity to do the right thing in our society going forward. They need the tools. They've clearly shown a request for appropriate tools. The victims have spoken, and along the way in trying to balance rights and access and tools you're going to offend everybody.

So my hope is that you just continue to go ahead and do the right thing: offend all of us, but make sure that the crimes don't happen on a go-forward basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call to order this meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As the orders of the day indicate, 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, is being discussed. We have a number of witnesses.

I am going to go over a few administrative things for the committee before we get started, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, here's what we have, based on the witnesses we've invited here, based on the suggestions from all parties. We have witnesses today and Thursday, and then Tuesday and Thursday of next week. Then I've set aside for the week after that two meetings at this point, Tuesday and Thursday, to deal with the clause by clause because I'm assuming that there may be a few amendments and some discussion on them. It could go faster than that, but we have set aside two meetings. So the clause by clause will start on June 10.

Obviously we can move motions on the fly, but I would really appreciate it if you could provide amendments by Friday, June 6, the week before the June 10 clause by clause so that they can be translated and circulated to committee members. That would be helpful.

I want to let you know that the organization Facebook is on a number of our suggested witness lists. They have indicated they're not that keen on coming. We've tried to schedule them and they get moved around and so on. Then they wanted to be represented by an Internet providers association, which is fine. All parties requested that we see Facebook, but I don't think we'll see them live. I think they'll be here by video conference, but at least they'll be here.

I would like to entertain a motion to re-invite them to make sure they understand that the committee really wants to see them on this issue.

Mr. Dechert.

Justice and Human Rights

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his support for splitting the bill.

In the previous exchange, the Minister of Justice suggested that I or the opposition members as a group were trying to delay action to protect children and young people from cyberbullying. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a very interesting procedural motion that the official opposition is using, a motion of instruction to the committee to split the bill. The point of splitting the bill is for the very purpose of making sure that those provisions that are about cyberbulling and protecting people, potential victims and the vulnerable from cyberbullying are removed and moved through quickly and that the other parts of the bill enhancing sweeping new powers for snooping be subjected to longer hearings.

I noticed that the Minister of Justice did not like my reference to a Globe and Mail cartoon. I wonder if my hon. colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor noticed today's editorial in the National Post, a newspaper with a closer alignment to the current Conservative administration. It has also called Bill C-13 an unacceptable attack on our privacy.

Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me the time to do this. I also want to thank my colleague, the Liberal member of Parliament for Charlottetown, who did an extensive amount of work on this, as well as the member of Parliament for Malpeque and the member of Parliament for Mount Royal.

The enactment would amend the Criminal Code to provide most notably for a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images. As well, there would complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of the expenses incurred to obtain the removal of 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 restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender.

We are talking about the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence, new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things.

A warrant that would extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications, or warrants that would be associated with telephones and the like, as I mentioned, a streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to an authorization to intercept private communications by ensuring that those warrants and orders could be issued by a judge who would issue the authorization and by specifying that all documents relating to a request for a related warrant or order would be automatically subject to the same rules respecting confidentiality as the request for authorization.

Last, it would also amend the Competition Act to make applicable for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of the 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 related to the transmission or communications of financial data.

It would also amend 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 that I spoke of earlier.

There are some messages that we would like to put out there regarding this. This has been a long time coming. It was first introduced in the House on November 20, 2013. Cyberbullying is a scourge upon our society, as we all know, and has been evidenced certainly in the last two or three years. This is a problem not just in Canada but around the world. The party is supportive, in principle, of legislative measures that would provide law enforcement with additional tools to combat cyberbullying.

This is an area where the Criminal Code urgently needs to be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies.

We believe, however, that 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 that would also include public awareness resources for both parents and kids to allow them to see the signs of cyberbullying which they probably would not recognize under normal circumstances.

We introduced cyberbullying legislation last session that would have modified some Criminal Code offences to cover modern technology, as is done in C-13, which the Conservatives and the NDP voted down. The Liberals introduced legislation that would have addressed new technologies back in 2005.

The Conservative government is only figuring out now that police forces need these tools to keep up with technologies that are increasingly a part of today's crime.

We 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 even the government had to withdraw because of the outrage some time ago.

Some of the bill would duplicate the rejected Bill C-30, such as word for word reproductions of the changes, subsection 487.3(1) of the Criminal Code and all but one word changes to subsection 492.1 and subsection 492 regarding warrants.

We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce lawful access, which the Conservatives promised was dead at the time. That is not necessarily the case now.

Though the title is the protecting Canadians from online crime act, nobody is actually protected under this act. In typical fashion, this is all about punishment rather than prevention. Complex problems like cyberbullying require more than blunt editions to the Criminal Code. This omnibus bill touches everything from terrorism to telemarketing, cable stealing to hate speech, and is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process in the omnibus form that has been in going on in for quite some time.

We have seen that through the budget bills and a lot of the legislation that has passed through the House, so we can only assume that this type of pattern will continue with this legislation. Therefore, we support the motion to have the bill split and the provisions relating to cyberbullying be contained in a stand-alone bill at committee.

We are proposing two amendments.

The first is an amendment that would provide for a statutory review of elements of the bill, including the voluntary disclosure provisions. The sunset clause is a part of a law statute and we can repeal the law part over a specified time period.

The second is an amendment that would require an actual basis a report by telecoms detailing the volume of information being disclosed without a warrant.

As we mentioned earlier, we talked about the splitting of this bill, and we certainly feel this is a way to go. This would be the most responsible thing to do in light of the omnibus nature of this legislation. I believe that by doing this, we would be taking a principled and responsible approach.

Again, I go back to our original message of cyberbullying, which is a scourge on our society. What we can do in the House is reflect by looking at stand-alone legislation dealing with that. Basically, by making this a stand-alone provision, it would go a long way in enhancing the debate. Given the fact that we have had so much debate in the past, so much opposition and that there has been so much talk in the public realm about this legislation, this is something we can support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, but I think he has a problem of selective hearing if he thought my entire argument boiled down to The Globe and Mail editorial cartoon.

I think that sometimes satire is the best way of piercing the veil of increasingly draconian policies. However, it happens that I also referenced the privacy commissioners from Ontario, British Columbia, and federally, all of whom have pointed to serious problems, as well as many other critics who are looking at this.

As a matter of fact, in the language used by Ann Cavoukian, this is very clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing. What could be clearer in saying that in the guise of doing one thing, this particular administration is willing to open the floodgates so that we will have private information from cellphone companies turned over to the RCMP?

I do think that satire often crystallizes an issue quite well. I encourage the Minister of Justice to pay attention when his legislation becomes the stuff of clear satire and the skewering of draconian polices by those, whether privacy commissioners, lawyers, or advocates for our civil liberties in this country, of which I consider myself one.

Before Bill C-13 gets rushed through this place, we should look at it and split the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and I listened carefully to my friend opposite. First of all, I want to state unequivocally that this government is very concerned and takes the privacy issues of Canadians very seriously. That is the very impetus to this legislation, Bill C-13 and others. The government should also indicate that all government agencies comply at all times with Canadian law. It is surprising in some ways that I have to state that, but that appears to be the backdrop to some of the concerns raised by my friend opposite.

The activities of the government's law enforcement and security agencies in particular are all subject to independent agencies and oversight. Again, this is not as if law enforcement or the definition of peace officer enables individuals to, without jurisdiction, without proper oversight, simply access privacy and the private information of Canadians. They have to seek judicial authorization. That is embedded in the bill before the House and now before the committee.

I should note that we have worked closely with the interim Privacy Commissioner, as with her predecessor, in developing provisions within the bill that we think strengthen privacy protection for Canadians, including increasing the investigative powers of the Privacy Commissioner.

In regard to the issue of examination by experts, we now have the bill at committee. We now have a multi-party committee that is looking at the bill in detail as it would in the normal course of parliamentary procedure. It has the ability to call before the committee experts, more than just one expert. Committees are masters of their destiny. The committee can hear from experts with a specialized knowledge and I submit that there are certainly more than one, to speak to these issues and to bring to the forefront in a very public way, and answer in a very public way, concerns that my friend and others may have raised.

I want to come back to the substance of the member's argument with respect to splitting the bill. She would know and others would know that within the bill is an attempt to modernize our efforts to enable law enforcement to now police the Internet. To use the vernacular, it is giving the police the ability in the virtual world to enforce and protect Canadians the way that we see in the normal course of events in the real world in the law enforcement community.

Sadly, many of the provisions of the Criminal Code as they pertain to intimidation, to what we call bullying, the type of intimidation that very tragically led to the death of a number of young Canadians including Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, whose parents we had before committee. This is all about enabling the police to in some cases, pre-empt and prevent the type of very insidious activity that takes place online that caused these young people to feel so despondent that they took their own lives.

To pass a bill that has within its text the words that will create a new criminal offence that would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and criminalize that type of activity that might have saved the lives of Parsons, Todd, and others, but not then enable the police to gather and present before the courts the evidence necessary to obtain a conviction, the necessary ability for law enforcement to uphold the law, would be an empty vessel. It would be a shell of a bill if we did not modernize those provisions of the Criminal Code that allow law enforcement to do their important work.

It pertains to more than just this new provision of the Criminal Code. It pertains to acts of terrorism. It pertains to acts of fraud, all of which and other acts can occur online, as the Speaker and others would know. To separate the bill, I would suggest, would be perverse. It would run counter to the intent of the government to allow police and law enforcement to do their good work.

Speaking of perverse, I find it somewhat contradictory that the hon. member would argue such a point and would suggest that we simply pass this law preventing cyberbullying from occurring, but not allow the police to actually enforce it.

The current sections of the code were put in place during the time of rotary telephones and prior to the Internet. This is very much an overall modernization attempt by the government. It does not pertain to just this new section of the Criminal Code.

What I also find somewhat contradictory in my friend's argument is that she says there is an urgency. She spoke, rightly, with real and genuine passion about the harm being done on the Internet. She was asked a question by a colleague from the NDP about the necessity, in fact I would call it a moral obligation on the part of the government and all members of Parliament, to act to protect young people from this type of activity.

Yet, almost within the same breath, the member suggests we slow down and not act with haste. I think the member used the word “stall”. We are not stalling just for the sake of stalling. That is in fact what would happen. This bill would not advance, it would not come into being, and it would not become law.

I believe there is urgency. I believe there are exigent circumstances, as the Supreme Court would say, that require this bill to become law and that necessitate action on the part of the government. That is why we are bringing this bill forward, holistically, in a way that not only puts new provisions in the Criminal Code but also gives the police the ability to enforce the law.

Bill C-13 specifically would not create new protection from criminal or civil liability for those who voluntarily assist law enforcement. It simply clarifies existing provisions. Further, the provisions would provide protection for those who voluntarily assist police where such assistance is not otherwise prohibited by law. Bill C-13 would not protect or propose to protect a mechanism that bypasses the necessary judicial oversight, as some might have suggested.

I want to come back to one of the witnesses, Carol Todd, mother of Amanda Todd, who was referenced by my friend. I, as a new father, personally cannot imagine the pain and suffering that she has endured, losing her beloved daughter. Clearly this is a subject that is very deep, very emotional for her. I reviewed her testimony. I heard her concerns. As a result, that very day, I reached out to her. I spoke with her in person. The very next day, she came to my office and we had a very detailed discussion about the concerns she had raised at committee. I am not going to go further than that, other than to suggest that I believe she came away with a much better sense of comfort and confidence in what the government was attempting to do.

I do note, and I think it bears repeating, that at the end of the day, and I know my friend will confirm this because she was there, Mrs. Todd and all family members who testified, all said in their testimony that they wanted to see the bill passed as quickly as possible.

That runs completely contrary to the impression that my friend has left, that somehow Mrs. Todd or other family members wanted this bill delayed, wanted this bill split, wanted this bill somehow put into a side track that would prevent it from becoming law. That is a complete mischaracterization of what was said. All family members said they want this bill to become law.

I felt it was incumbent upon me to correct the record on a number of those statements by my friend. I repeat again that this bill is central to our government's commitment to contributing further to addressing the issue of cyberbullying across this country. It is a key element of the government's agenda to support victims and punish criminals.

Again, I find it passing strange that my friend would suggest that somehow victims were being overlooked in this bill, that there was not specific reference or perhaps there was insufficient reference to victims. We have an entire bill dedicated to enhancing victims rights, a bill that was the result of extensive cross-country consultation with justice stakeholders, most importantly the victims and those who work with victims.

That bill is completely in keeping with the very premise and underpinnings of this legislation to enhance the rights of victims, to enhance their involvement in the criminal justice system, the respect they deserve, the information flow. The very critical epicentre of a role that they play in our justice system is contained in commensurate legislation known as the victims bill of rights. Therefore, somehow suggesting that this bill may be lacking in reference to victims I find disingenuous at best.

The issue of cyberbullying, I agree with my friend, is an age-old problem. Technology has irrevocably changed the nature and the scope of bullying. There is no denying that. Bullying is now conducted via the Internet. It is no longer simply happening in schoolyards with pushing, shoving, and fights. This now follows a victim home. It is carried with them in their pocket or on their hip with their handheld device. It is with them in the classroom. It is omnipresent because of the Internet. That necessitates action. It necessitates legislation empowering police to do more in terms of tracking, identifying, arresting, and charging those who are responsible for crimes on the Internet.

This problem, as was referenced, is not going away. It is in fact becoming worse. It is more prolific. It is more broadly spread than ever before. It does not respect borders. It does not respect jurisdictions. Many of these images are permanently in place. Therefore, this legislation, in addition to other things, provides action to remove offending images. It provides the types of pre-emptive acts that we hope might prevent the despondency that was felt by some of the victims, like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, and others.

Over the past number of years this issue has become prolific. That is what I view as a clarion call for government action, not further study, not delaying it, not allowing experts who may have some other agenda in mind, but simply moving the bill into law. There are suggestions that somehow this is against police wishes because in some obscure way this could possibly necessitate a constitutional challenge. As sure as night follows day there will be challenges in the court, but the member opposite is well aware of the fact that the Department of Justice regularly, as a matter of routine, examines legislation for charter compliance. Will this prevent a charter challenge? Of course not. Are we to be reticent to pass laws because a lawyer, an interest group, or an individual may decide to launch a charter challenge? I would respectfully submit that that would be irresponsible, particularly knowing what is at stake. There are literally lives at stake. That is not rhetoric. That is not an overstatement because we know the result of inaction here. We have seen it far too often, and it is going on as we gather here.

We know that this type of action is also going to require much more than simply passing bills. It will require a very progressive and aggressive public education effort. It will require having teachers, parents, police, counsellors, public servants, and I respectfully submit, everyone we possibly can bring to this cause, talking to young people, talking to everyone, about the necessity for responsible action when using the Internet because it is a powerful instrument to have that information in the palm of one's hand but it also requires responsibility and responsible action.

That is what this legislation is about. That is what the bill intends to do. If it is irresponsible, illegal, and dangerous action, we want the police and public law enforcement to have the means to act and to call people to account who have defrauded the elderly of their money, who have perpetrated or attempted to perpetrate acts of terrorism, bullying, or other illegal activity.

The stories themselves, the personal tragedies, are there. They are heartbreaking. I have heard time and time again during consultations that I have been involved with, “What is the government going to do? When is the government going to do it?”

This is what parents are most concerned about. I have not had one parent say to me, “I wish you could just study this more. I wish you could somehow slow this process down so that we could hear from more experts”. They are telling us to do something about it. That is what we are attempting to do, not somehow derail the effort, which I would submit has thus far been quite a non-partisan effort. It has been one that has garnered attention, but only because the stakes are so high, I would suggest.

In fact, I would remind the chamber that we are acting on recommendations that came from federal, provincial and territorial working groups on cybercrime. The working group already studied it extensively, considered whether cyberbullying was adequately being addressed under the Criminal Code, and found it lacking. It found there was a need that had to be filled.

In July of last year, the Department of Justice, on behalf of all federal, provincial, and territorial partners, publicly released an extensive report that was available to the committee. It is entitled “Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images”. All of that and more consultation led to this point, and the working group made nine unanimous recommendations with respect to the criminal law response. It is significant to note that the very first recommendation in that report calls for a multi-pronged, multi-sectoral approach to the issue of cyberbullying. It calls upon all levels of government to continue to build on the initiatives to address, in a comprehensive manner, this serious issue of cyberbullying.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse and support that recommendation. It recognizes that the current situation is intolerable and inadequate. I think most experts agree that something had to be done, and that is where we are. We are now at a point where criminal law reform represents part of this larger multi-sectoral approach that is required.

Returning to the bill before us today, I am pleased to note that all of the proposals contained in the bill were in fact recommended by the provincial, territorial, and federal working group, and supported by provincial and territorial attorneys general, I am quick to add. The bill has two main goals: create the new Criminal Code offence, as I have referred to it already; and, importantly, modernize the investigative powers of the Criminal Code to enable police to effectively and efficiently investigate cyberbullying and other crimes committed via the Internet, or that involve electronic evidence.

The preservation of evidence is a very important part of this. Specifically, the modernization portion of the bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to ensure that the laws are suitable for the technologically advanced world that we now live in. There is a common thread in these amendments, in this effort, and that is to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need in the 21st century to fight crime, and continue, I am quick to add, to respect the civil liberties of all Canadians.

Let me conclude by saying that the proposed new offence and the complementary amendments that would fill an existing gap in the Criminal Code are aimed at providing broader protection for all victims and deterring criminal behaviour. This legislation is not a complete answer, and it would be untrue if I were to suggest that this was the final answer to all of the concerns expressed throughout this process. Yet, it is a key piece of the broader response that is necessary to address this complex issue.

I strongly urge members to support the continued examination of the bill at the committee in its current form, and not to interfere in that process, not to derail that process, not to in any way slow up the passing of this bill. The last thing that parents, particularly those who have children who have experienced this, want to see is any sort of delay or derailment of the process. I am quoting Glen Canning when I say he was of the belief that had this law been in place, perhaps his daughter, Rehtaeh Parsons, would still be with us today.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that wonderfully compassionate question is at the heart of the subject and affects everyone here in the House. Who here has not heard a constituent or a close friend talk about a child of theirs who is being bullied?

We now know that bullying is changing. That is because technology is changing. We should not be surprised. Bullying is happening faster and can cause much more damage. Before, people were teased in schoolyards, and things stayed in the schoolyard, for the most part. Now, with a single click, things go viral around the world. Bullying is on a much larger scale now.

When victims tell me that they think it is too bad the people studying the bill are not talking about them very much, that makes me think it is even more important to adopt this motion. This bill is 48 pages long, but fewer than 10 of the clauses are about victims.

Victims tell us that they do not really feel included in Bill C-13. They feel like this is actually two separate bills. That is why I said that I sometimes felt like I was taking part in a meeting of cyber-whatever experts. For example, law enforcement experts talked to us about lurking, which they do in Internet chat rooms. Then a victim told us that she had been bullied, and so on.

That is why I think that victims were kind of buried in the process. I know that the government wanted to make sure all of the side stuff went through, but all of that stuff got to be bigger than the main event. This is the unfortunate result.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration 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, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for seconding the motion.

As the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

After second reading stage of Bill C-13, it seemed clear to me that it would be best to divide the bill because the bill had strayed from what it was meant to address, which is cyberbullying. It does much more than that. This bill has some 50 clauses, but barely seven or eight clauses on cyberbullying. The issues it addresses vary.

Members must understand why it is important to remove clauses 2 to 7 and 27 from the bill so that we can finish studying them right away. The rest of the clauses need to be studied much more carefully, as many people are telling us.

I made the request subsequent to a motion that did not receive the required unanimous consent of the House. I am trying again because we are now studying different parts in committee and have additional information.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will be able to keep working much longer because the government has indicated that it wants the bill passed before the end of this session. That concerns me because there are not many meetings left. There are still many, many people who want to testify. I would hate to hear that the process is going to be fast-tracked for the most contentious clauses on terrorist activities, telemarketing and theft of a communication service. That is what I suspect will happen so that clauses 2 to 7 and 27 get passed. The bill also includes some of the provisions from Bill C-30.

There is also the issue of privacy and the fact that Canadians have already overwhelmingly rejected the provisions contained in Bill C-30. There is also a series of concerns about which of the provisions where included in Bill C-13, which ones were set aside, which ones were put back in with slight changes, and what kinds of changes are needed.

These are very specialized provisions. They are so specialized that it is rather odd in committee. Parents of victims are there on certain days. At those times we are truly reminded of why Bill C-13 was supposedly introduced. It completely changes how the committee works. The next day, the witnesses might be cyber experts or police representatives.

I do not think this request is crazy or illogical. It makes sense. I have a hard time understanding the government's insistence on passing a bill that contains provisions that are not necessarily widely accepted or that have not been approved by even a small segment of the Canadian public.

The mother of one victim, Amanda Todd, made statements to the committee that some found incredible. If anyone could have been expected to support Bill C-13 100%, it would have been one of the victims in this huge file, but this mother herself recognized that we should not have to choose between security and privacy. These two concepts are extremely important.

I am not saying that we should reject the provisions in Bill C-13 that deal with access to the private data of some individuals in this context.

We have to recognize just how important this is and give it the thorough study it merits, the way it should be done. We have not done that kind of analysis in a long time.

The committee received a letter, and I would like to read parts of it that I find particularly persuasive. I am not the only one calling for the bill to be divided in two, as we have asked in the motion. The letter was addressed to the committee chair, the very competent member for Burlington, and came from Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, whose stance is echoed by many of her counterparts. I would like to read parts of the letter because she puts a fine point on why we are making this request:

As the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, I am writing you to assist the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in fulfilling its duty to ensure that Canadians have both effective law enforcement and rigorous privacy protections. To find the most compelling testimony on this point, you need look no further than to the statement made before your committee on May 13, 2014:

“We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children's privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, 'sextortion' and revenge pornography”.

As you know, these are the words of Carol Todd, whose daughter Amanda took her own life after being shamelessly bullied and abused by a person yet to be brought to justice. The federal government, this Committee, and Parliament as a whole each owe families like the Todd's, as well as all Canadians, their best thinking about both privacy and safety. The fact that over the last decade, the government has repeatedly failed to pass legislation updating police surveillance powers is a sad testimony to the government's failure to honour Canadians' reasonable expectation that they deserve and can have both.

The time for dressing up overreaching surveillance powers in the sheep-like clothing of sanctimony about the serious harms caused by child pornography and cyberbullying is long past. In my view, the government should immediately split Bill C-13 and move ahead quickly to deal with those provisions of the bill that directly address the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images...In the future, further consideration may need to be given to how best to respond to other forms of cyberbullying, for example, of the most unfortunate kind, recently seen on an Instagram account called “IF_U_ON_THIS_KILL_URSELF” (as reported on by Global News). In the meantime, the remaining surveillance-oriented provisions of Bill C-13—some 46 of its 53 pages—should be withdrawn and redrafted.

This work should be approached with reasoned thought and without imposing a time constraint—as this government so often does with everything it introduces in the House—so that we can arrive at and draft good provisions. This is not a trivial matter. We are dealing with people's privacy.

The goal here is to stop crimes, but that does not mean giving carte blanche to the government and police forces to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. There are rules. However, in Bill C-13, those rules are not very clear, and experts do not seem to agree on them. The rules need to be studied and possibly amended, and that will not happen with Bill C-13 as presented in the House and in committee, or with the deadlines imposed on us, or with the commitments by the minister and his government to have this bill passed before the summer break.

It is absolutely cruel, when I see the list of all those who asked to be heard, including experts from across the country. They wanted to be heard on the issue so that we can give our law enforcement agencies the best tools to do their work properly, while respecting Canadians's right to privacy.

Canadians also have the right to be protected by the government. They are already protected by the charter. It has already been noted that Bill C-13 does not include anything on wiretapping. Under the Criminal Code, a person must be notified that they were wiretapped. What is more, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-13 to indicate that the person concerned has to be notified that some of their information and data has been shared. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to inform a person that their data has been shared. There is the issue of immunity that was given to the telecommunications companies.

The real goal of Bill C-13 was to penalize behaviours that have to do with the distribution of intimate images. That is all. Clauses 2 to 7 and 27 have to do with crime related to the distribution of intimate images. That is not the only form of cyberbullying. It is the rest that shows what is really behind Bill C-13.

Our motion calls for an instruction to be given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration 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, the Committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13. It is not only experts who are calling for this action to be taken, but also the mother of one of the victims, a woman whom the government likes to quote regularly.

I think that she was very wise in making this recommendation. The government would not be showing weakness by supporting this motion. Rather, it would be showing that, for once, it is listening to people's recommendations. Our intention is not to reject everything in the second part of the bill, and I would not want to hear the members opposite saying that we do not want to give the police the tools they need. That is not at all the case.

What we want to do is to make sure that the tools that we give them are legal and that the application of Bill C-13, if it is passed without amendment, will not eventually lead to a case before the Supreme Court where another bill has to be rejected. Such an approach will just keep bringing us back to square one. That is not a good way to show serious concern for smart justice in Canada.

Give us some time. That does not mean giving us time to stall for nothing. It means giving us time to hear what experts have to say on the subject. Give us the time to analyze each clause without feeling like we have a gun to our heads because the work needs to be done in the next few hours, the bill needs to come back before the House by June 10 or the bill needs to be passed before the House breaks for the summer. That is not an intelligent way to pass a bill that is so important and that will have such a great impact. Many people are still not sure what the consequences of this bill will be.

We are not rejecting the bill. It simply needs to be examined more intelligently.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee. As members know, our government has a fairly extensive justice agenda. We are dealing with Bill C-13 at present. We have a number of other issues coming forward.

Could the House leader tell the House the effect that the extended hours would have in helping us proceed with our very important justice agenda?

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are a lot of things in Bill C-13. One is that it reopens the hate crime section of the Criminal Code to add additional identified groups. As I know, Chief Chu will be familiar, my private member's Bill C-279, which passed the House over a year ago, is either sleeping or stuck in the Senate, whichever analogy you like.

We have said that we have the intention of bringing the amendment to the committee, since that section is being opened, to add gender identity to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code, which is half my private member's bill.

I'm asking an easy question of Chief Chu. Police deal a lot with violence on the streets. Transgender people are more often subject to violence than others. I wonder whether you would see that as something we could do in this bill.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

One of the other issues or concerns raised at the committee, and I think Mr. Fraser was talking about it, are those surrounding the definition of transmission data. He was saying that under Bill C-13, transmission data is way broader than what you get from the existing Criminal Code provisions for telephone calls.

My understanding is that when you are looking at transmission data, you're only getting the type, the date, the time, the origin, the destination, or the termination of a communication. It doesn’t include the content, and you're not getting all of the metadata. That's my understanding of how it's being defined in the Code.

Does anyone want to comment on that, and let us know your view of transmission data and if it's way too broad as is being alleged?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay.

It seems that Bill C-13 expands access to some of these tools beyond peace officers. Chief Chu raised the example of mayors, but there's something actually more specific in the act. In its definition of who might access some these tools, it mentions public officials who administer and enforce any act of Parliament.. It says that in a couple of places. I guess I'm asking you the obvious. You don't really need that, do you? “Peace officers” would cover anybody that you need, so I'm not sure why the bill expands it to any other administrator of a federal act. It wouldn't affect your work. “Peace officers” certainly covers everyone you've got.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today. I know many of you from the public safety committee, where we're used to seeing men and women in uniform.

I know we have broad consensus in Parliament that there's a necessity to act against the non-consensual distribution of images, but there's a lot more in Bill C-13than just that, so I'm going to focus on some other aspects in my questions.

We certainly heard from the witnesses today your case for updating the Criminal Code and having new tools to respond so you can get timely access to information for investigations of cybercrime. But we've also heard concerns from other witnesses and other members of the public that in providing those tools, Bill C-13 is sometimes overly broad. So I want to focus on the question of lawful access.

Bill C-13 creates the new tool of a preservation demand or a preservation order for data, and I'm probably prepared to concede that may be something that you need to have, but why does the standard of proof change? Why shift from reason to believe to the lesser standard of reason to suspect? Wouldn't this tool still operate at the higher level? Wouldn't it still be a good tool if it was reason to believe?

I guess I'll ask Mr. Chu, as the president of the Canadian chiefs association.

[Chief Jim Chu]

The question you ask is a common scenario. Our school liaison officers dread Monday morning when the kids march into their offices and talk about what happened over the weekend.

In the example you provide of text messages and threats conveyed that way, sometimes we don't have a name. The person is anonymous, but we may have that IP address, which as mentioned earlier, may come from one provider. Then we can use the provisions under the new Bill C-13 to quickly and nimbly get a production order for tracking where that originated and eventually we come back to a suspect. Once we have that suspect—it could be a predator based in California—we would then engage in an international investigation using multilateral assistance.

However, It may be just a classmate, and the victim had no idea who it was. For us to quickly identify that person allows us to intervene to stop it from happening. Quite often a warning is sufficient. If it is more serious and involves intimate images, again, we now have the ability to lay not as serious a charge as child pornography distribution, but the new provisions in Bill C-13.

[A/Commr Joe Oliver]

All of these provisions in Bill C-13 require prior judicial authorization. There are no warrantless access provisions in this bill.

[A/Commr Joe Oliver]

Thank you for the opportunity.

Well, I could touch on a couple of components that will talk about what Bill C-13 will do in modernizing investigative tools.

First of all, in my opening remarks I spoke about preservation. Today we are completely reliant upon the voluntary cooperation of entities when it comes to the preservation of data. To allow time for the police to actually develop the production order or a tracking order of some sort to acquire evidence and pursue an investigation further, as proposed in BillC-13, the police would be able to make a preservation demand of service providers, which would allow us time then to pursue an investigation. And particularly when one speaks of international partners as well.... If it's a domestic investigation, we would have 21 days to prepare a production order. Often we are cooperating in this borderless world of the Internet. It allows 90 days for us and the Department of Justice to work with the International Assistance Group and their international partners to obtain a production order in that process.

The preservation order is another tool that can be used to to preserve the data so that we could then turn to the other means that are available in this bill and in the Criminal Code to obtain more evidence.

With respect to some of the other provisions, they modernize the investigative tools available, and in certain cases they recognize the importance of privacy. Take, for instance, a tracking device. Today, police, under section 492.1, can secure a tracking device in order to monitor location and movements of a thing, which would assist in real-time surveillance, and corroborate other information that we may have during an investigation. It's recognizing the importance of privacy. In the current regime that would include installation of some sort of tool on a mobile device to track an individual, and the threshold there is “reasonable grounds to suspect”. Under the modernized bill that actually increases the threshold for police to “reasonable grounds to believe”. So when it comes to a device that is normally carried or worn by an individual, let's say a cellphone, the threshold for tracking under Bill C-13 has actually increased the threshold.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

My first question is for the chief of the Halifax police. Unfortunately, we've heard from victims that in the early stages of incidents of cyberbullying, there is no recourse for the police in some cases. In other words, without Bill C-13 the police are relatively limited when it comes to the widespread non-consensual circulation of intimate images.

Do you believe that the police require additional tools to do their job in order to protect people from the widespread non-consensual distribution of intimate images? Furthermore, from the position of front-line police officers, can you speak about your experience with cyberbullying cases or specific cases that deal with the distribution of non-consensual intimate images at the early stages?

[A/Commr Joe Oliver]

Please allow me to answer in English.

For cyberbullying, a number of existing Criminal Code offences potentially apply, including criminal harassment, uttering threats, mischief in relation to data.

In addition to a new offence of publication of intimate images without consent, Bill C-13 also amends other provisions to modernize them, provisions, such as section 342.1, when it talks about “imports, obtains for use, distributes, or makes” available—for instance, the unauthorized use of a computer.

Some forms of harassment or revenge include taking over someone's computer, posting images that appear to be coming from them, and those types of things. In those cases, you're involved in more sophisticated investigations that would have to prove the origin of the virus or the defacing of somebody's website. Now in order to do that, in modern day communications, some communication would travel through multiple networks and through multiple service providers.

As for tools that are offered in Bill C-13, I just want to clarify that there are no provisions in here to give warrantless access to information to the police; all of the proposed investigative measures require prior judicial authorization. So in the case of trying to identify where an attack originated from, there is the communications trace production order that would allow us to identify, by hopping through the network, the service provider that actually may possess content. Then we may obtain a production order to actually find the content and details of the offender. So there are a number of means within this investigative toolkit that is being proposed in Bill C-13 that would assist in other forms of bullying. But I must also emphasize it would also assist in other forms of cybercrime.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here today. Your presentations were all very interesting. I am very pleased that each one of you mentioned the need not only to act following an offence, but also to try to prevent that offence through education and awareness. I congratulate you for the programs you have mentioned and I thank you for your work.

If any of you want to say something or to complete the reply of one of your colleagues, please feel free to do so.

My first question goes to Mr. Oliver. In your presentation, you talked about cyber crime in general. We know that Bill C-13—

targets just the particular infraction in the non-consenting distribution of personal images. How would you proceed with a different kind of cyberbullying? This is just a particular infraction that we're targeting right now. It's only the distribution of personal images without consent. But how would you proceed with a different case of cyberbullying? Do you have the tools to proceed, for example regarding an individual who would bully someone by text messages or Facebook messages. How would you proceed?

[Chief Jean-Michel Blais, Chief of Police, Halifax Regional Police]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

My name is Jean-Michel Blais and I am the Chief of Police, Halifax Regional Police Service. Unfortunately, I was not able to join you today in Ottawa, because my schedule is quite full and I have other commitments. However, given the subject you are studying, I am going to testify by videoconference.

As the Chief of Halifax Regional Police, I am honoured that the committee is giving police and my service an opportunity to lend our voices to this important issue. I would also like to thank Chief Chu for extending an invitation to me to participate in this discussion.

As a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and as a chief of police whose community has seen first-hand the devastating consequences of exploitative online behaviour, I fully support the introduction of Bill C-13. It will serve to improve online safety, allow for the effective investigation of Internet and technologically-based crimes, and provide consequences for cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. With the advent of the Internet, no one could have anticipated the pace of technological advancements or the implications they would have on our society, particularly our youth, who are digital natives as opposed to us, a bit older, who are really digital immigrants.

In this technologically evolving landscape, we in policing are currently faced with some laws that were adopted in the rotary telephone era. We require modernized laws, as proposed in Bill C-13, which reflect the Internet era so that we can more effectively investigate and prosecute those using the Internet and other related technological platforms for a criminal purpose. In short, we need laws that recognize more modern forms of technology that did not exist when certain dispositions of the Criminal Code were first created. Furthermore, we require laws that modernize the investigative tools police can use to detect and combat crime while maintaining citizens' right to privacy. Bill C-13 will do that by providing a set of tools that will allow us to be effective and efficient in conducting investigations in today's high-tech environment while at the same time maintaining the judicial checks and balances needed to protect Canadians' privacy.

I want to share with you some examples from my investigators as to how Bill C-13 will strengthen police investigations and better serve our citizens and our communities. Today, as you know, there is no provision in the Criminal Code to address a person sending or posting intimate images of a person without that person's consent. This has become an increasing problem in society where, given the proliferation of social media, adults and children have becomes victims of cyberbullying and harassment through the non-consensual distribution of their intimate images. The proposed amendments would change that, better protecting all citizens from such acts.

The provisions of Bill C-13 will also provide investigators with the option of charging offenders with the non-consensual distribution of intimate images rather than child pornography offences in circumstances where the image is of a person under the age of 18. We view this of high utility in cases where the offender may also be a youth who, given their age and maturation, may not fully realize the devastating consequences of their actions, yet could currently face a criminal record for child pornography offences. Today's laws were not crafted with that intent in mind, and police believe that the provisions in the proposed amendments provide a more measured and appropriate approach and response in such instances.

On a personal level, I remember in 2003 when I was in charge of Manitoba's integrated child exploitation unit, all of our suspects were males in their 20s and 30s from various backgrounds. Some lived in their parent's basements while others were successful investment dealers and professionals of all stripes. If we had been asked then what the future would reserve for us, we would never have thought that in ten short years, people, including children, would be able to transmit graphic images that would constitute child pornography or result in some form of harassment simply through the use of a hand held cell phone.

This leads me to ponder, as both a police executive and a father of three children, as to what technologies have yet to be created that could result in further exploitation of children and adults. With C-13, it is proposed that offences involving harassing and indecent phone calls be changed to reflect modern means of communication to include harassing and indecent communication via telecommunication, broadening the scope of the offence to reflect today's technologically advanced milieu.

Police will be able to make traditionally sanctioned preservation demands and obtain preservation orders to secure data by telecommunication service providers or social networking sites until such time that investigators are able to obtain a production order or a search warrant to legally obtain the evidence. Currently, information can either be deleted or unpreserved by these entities as there is no legal obligation for them to do so. This is compounded by increasingly shortened data retention periods due to the inconceivable amount of data generated on today's technological platforms.

As I mentioned earlier, online exploitation has had devastating consequences here in Halifax, the effects of which reverberated around the world. To echo Chief Chu, we recognize that changing the law is only one part of the equation. But this bill, when it is coupled with education, awareness, and integrated community services, is a significant step forward in helping police and the community at large to effectively and efficiently deal with cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, acts that perpetually revictimize the victims.

Ideally, when education and awareness approaches ultimately fail, the justice system must be properly equipped to respond. Nova Scotia has been at the fore of this issue, with introduction of the Cyber-safety Act just over a year ago. This, coupled with the law amendments of Bill C-13, will provide a powerful combination in addressing criminals who exploit or harass the vulnerable online.

As police agencies deal with cyberbullying and the perpetually expansive use of the Internet to commit other cybercrimes, we owe it to all such victims to be able to adequately investigate these files. We must fulfill an advocacy role for all Canadians and send the message that we will no longer tolerate the online victimization of our citizens.

It goes without saying that, as men and women respectful and ever-mindful of their imperious obligation to the rule of law, this must be done in such a way so as to respect the privacy rights of all Canadians. It is for that reason that we at Halifax Regional Police lend our support to this important and required legislation.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

[Carson Pardy, Director of Operation, East Region, Ontario Provincial Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members.

It's a pleasure to be here today, and on behalf of our new Commissioner Vince Hawkes, it is my pleasure to be here to represent the almost 6,200 uniformed and 2,800 civilian members of the Ontario Provincial Police. Joining me today is Staff Sergeant Carole Matthews, manager of the OPP technological crime unit, who can address some specifics regarding the investigation of technology-based crime on a number of levels.

We appreciate your interest and welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation and in support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

There are a number of aspects to Bill C-13 that are supported by the police community, of which the OPP has had an opportunity to provide input since the introduction of the bill last fall. The OPP had representation in and contributed to the cybercrime working group, which is part of the criminal justice coordinating committee of senior officials which advised Public Safety Canada prior to the introduction of the legislation. Detective Staff Sergeant Frank Goldschmidt of the child sexual exploitation section of the OPP was the representative on that group.

We also supported statements made in January 2014 by Chief Constable Jim Chu, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Now-retired OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis was also a staunch supporter of a previous iteration of this important legislation. We have also tried to do our part to reduce crime and victimization through various public education and awareness initiatives.

The OPP is continually educating front-line officers about issues such as self/peer exploitation so that we can better assist educators, parents, and teens themselves when we are asked for support. The OPP has been developing Internet committees within high schools to educate teens about the serious consequences of self/peer exploitation.

Our people talk about the devastating effects and potential criminal risks associated with this activity. We are also providing information and links to resources, such as www.youthconnected.ca, which has been developed and populated by and for teenagers and, of course, www.NeedHelpNow.ca.

As police, our biggest concern is that teens are unintentionally victimizing themselves by sending inappropriate images of themselves to others. They seem unaware of the consequences when the images often go viral across the Internet or other social media sites. Police are seeing that many teens cannot cope with the shame and embarrassment of what they have done. Many become depressed, anxious, and sometimes suicidal.

The OPP child sexual exploitation unit, on average, receives three to four sexting complaints each week, making it the highest reactive investigative occurrence fielded by this unit. Depending on the individual circumstance of each incident, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada may or may not have occurred. Offences include possession and distribution of child pornography, extortion, and threatening.

Similar complaints are received regularly by OPP school resource officers and members of the OPP crime prevention section youth issues unit for investigation. The OPP has been a proud supporter and partner of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the initiative supported by Public Safety Canada called NeedHelpNow. NeedHelpNow is a web-based resource designed to help Canadian youth, especially in the age 13 to 17 demographic, manage the negative consequences that can occur when sexual images are created and distributed online and to reduce further harm.

NeedHelpNow.ca provides teens with practical steps to regain control over the situation, helpful information about how they can seek support from a safe and trusted adult, and strategies to manage harassment that may occur both online and offline, such as bullying.

The OPP has also been supporting ongoing efforts to call for improved and updated legislative tools to help our police get access to the information we need to investigate child sexual abuse via the Internet, cyberbullying, and other criminal activities using the latest technologies and platforms.

Some of the laws regarding police accessing and using electronic information haven't been updated in more than 40 years. Investigations involving the most vulnerable people in our society, our future leaders, our children, and crimes like online luring, cyberbullying, and self/peer exploitation, or sexting, are time consuming and cumbersome, and in effect, they actually protect the identities of child predators and the materials that they produce.

Thanks to recent legislation, Internet service providers, ISPs—whose own national association, we want to say, view us as their partners—have a legislated duty to report when their services are being used for purposes related to child abuse.

We are still seeking a means to reduce the complexity and the inherent cost of these investigations. Current processes include serving ISPs with a search warrant, a production order, or a law enforcement request for subscriber information relating to a particular Internet protocol address.

Many have raised concerns regarding their personal use of the Internet and privacy of their information. What we want I can liken to using a licence plate number called in as a tip to the police about a dangerous or impaired driver. It's the same thing here. The OPP and its police and community partners believe the Government of Canada's legislation strengthens our ability to obtain vital information quickly, which can then be brought to bear on Internet predators, regardless of their location.

As has been demonstrated by police across North America and around the world, we are making progress in combating Internet child luring, sexual exploitation and abuse, through great police work and information sharing, greater public awareness through partnerships with third-party agencies, such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, in the cybertips program, and by being equipped with ever-improving and legislative tools that need to be modernized to help us keep up with an online society.

Bill C-13, as proposed, will enhance our ability to investigate hate crimes as well.

While the Internet and new communications technologies have true, positive value for us as a society, they also have a downside. These new communication technologies are allowing old crimes to be committed in new ways, and they are fostering the development of new crimes. There is no question, some of the legislation involving technology and communications in Canada is out of date.

I can speak to a couple of important differences at a high level, and perhaps Staff Sergeant Matthews can speak to these on a more specific level during questions. Under the current legislation, police can only access the very basics of subscriber information—name and address, maybe a phone number—on a totally ad hoc basis from Internet service providers. This means there is an inconsistent response which impedes investigations and many times prolongs victimization.

Under the proposed legislation, ISPs will be compelled to provide this information in a timely fashion and on a consistent basis. Access to this information will be strictly controlled and limited to law enforcement officials who would be fully trained in these procedures and subject to auditing and/or reporting processes. The outcome will be that the police can quickly and consistently gain access to information that makes a difference to our effectiveness in investigating and preventing criminal activity and victimization.

We see very few negatives with this bill and the various proposed amendments. Should the legislation pass and be brought into force, the OPP recognizes that we will face an increase in calls for service and case workloads related to the investigation of intimate image offences. The OPP will also face resource pressures from investigating complaints related to these new offences.

Of course, the role of the police isn't to create legislation. That's the job of our elected officials. But, in the interest of public safety, we do sometimes need to enter into careful discussion in a public forum that will help inform and shape these matters. Our role as law enforcement is to respond effectively to criminal activities that have found a particular home on the Internet or have been enabled through new communication technologies. The OPP takes its public safety mandate very seriously.

Members of our Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau, as well as the OPP Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau and the child sexual exploitation unit, take an intelligence-led, coordinated approach to share and leverage information on criminal activities. It takes this intelligence-led, integrated approach with our partners in policing and continued advocacy for the legislative tools needed to meet the law enforcement challenges of today.

We have not been shy about underlining the need for updated legislation that will give us effective tools allowing us to prevent and investigate criminal activity. We do appreciate the federal government's support to enhance what we do to prevent vulnerable persons from being exploited and victimized and to keep our communities safe.

Thank you.

[Chief Jim Chu, President, Chief Constable, Vancouver City Police Department, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I'm pleased to be here as president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I'm also the chief constable of the Vancouver Police Department.

As mentioned, we're the bundle known as the CACP. We represent over 90% of the Canadian police community, including federal, first nations, provincial, regional, and municipal police agencies. We're really pleased to be able to present information first-hand.

First of all let me say this. The CACP fully supports Bill C-13. Let me get right to the concerns we're seeing on the front lines of Canadian communities every day. The proliferation of crime has moved to the online environment.

Traditional crimes, like criminal harassment, threatening, kidnapping, fraud, a decade ago would have been conveyed with a letter or something through the mail, or perhaps a voicemail. Now, as we know, the vast majority of those crimes are perpetrated online, through text messages, e-mails, through Facebook postings, through revenge websites, through message boards like ask.fm, Kik, or many more websites that exist in cyberspace.

I should also note that a lot of these websites that are used by young and old are based overseas in countries like Latvia or other places in Eastern Europe.

Let me focus right in on young people today. I have this information from our school liaison officers who work in the high schools and elementary schools in Vancouver. Their experiences are similar to what's experienced across Canada.

The amount of online bullying, threatening, sextortion, harassment, and stalking online is more prevalent than ever. Why is that? I look around the room and think that some of us in our youth had to meet the bully face to face in the playground or in the hallways. Schools could deal with that by either moving you or moving the bully, and that would end it, whereas now in the online world it doesn't end. It's 24/7. You go home at night or you go out on the weekend, the bully gets kicked out of school, and it can still continue.

Moreover, many more people can be a bullies. Before, you had to be doing it face to face, whereas now those bullies are emboldened by the anonymity of the Internet, so there are more people doing it. In fact, there are more people being predators out there as well.

Probably all of you, because I know you're in political life, have seen the venomous, abusive comments that are one of the dark sides of social media. As adults, and as people in public life, we're used to coping with it. But think of young people. When they experience something like that it's extremely traumatic. It's frightening, and it progresses to the point where the victims causes harm to themselves because they're so upset and traumatized by what's happened to them.

These are the young people who don't have any safe haven.

Also, if something is posted online can mean that it's out there forever. At least with a written note you can destroy it, put it in the garbage. A written note is passed among just a few people. Those are all who see it. Now, online means the world can see it.

To combat this problem, the police need modernized tools. We need to intervene quickly to stop it from becoming worse.

For a lot of young people, when we're intervening it's not going to result in charges. Give us the tools to help more of these victims, and when we do have a victim, help us to stop the bullying and the harassment early, and stop it from becoming worse, because the worse it gets, the more serious it becomes. Then, of course, it is very traumatic for the victim.

It could lead to criminal charges. In the majority of cases we handle right now, we just resolve at the school level and it doesn't result in criminal charges.

But remember that some of those young people who perpetrate cyberbullying are making bad decisions, whether it's from bad influences in their life.... Again, we want to stop them so that they don't progress to doing something stupid that causes harm to someone else, and they will have to live with that for the rest of their life. Or, if they're taken through the criminal justice system, again, those will be consequences they will have to live with for the rest of their life.

Help us to intervene early.

Of course, we are also engaged in education and we partner with our schools. In Vancouver, especially, we have multilingual brochures because the schools have a struggle to keep up with the technology. Many parents have an even harder time, especially if they are new to Canada, to be able to monitor what their kids are doing, and to put in place protective measures so their kids are acting responsibly.

Let me say this. Canadians believe in privacy rights, and so do the police. We have seen that Bill C-13 does not create any ability for the police to compel the release of information that does not go before a judicial authority. That's a very important point. But it helps us get certain information quickly, for example, the routing of Internet traffic so that we can determine who sent a threatening message.

Sometimes that's going to be a dead end. So give us the tools that help rule out those dead ends. For example, we may go through a telco and get information that tells us something originated in a Wi-Fi café. Hopefully we can resolve that and determine that in a matter of hours, not several days, which can be the case right now.

Let me conclude by talking about the concerns of the public and the misinformation that's been spread. I don't know if it's inadvertent or deliberate, but I'll give you three examples of incidents that I've seen recently in the social the news media.

This is a picture of a police officer listening to the phone call of a young girl. There's also another variation of this picture. This same police officer, the actor, is standing over somebody as they surf the Internet. Today, to monitor phone calls in real time we need a wiretap warrant. Those are very hard to get under part VI of the Criminal Code. Those wiretap warrants take 500 to 1,000 pages. They can take weeks to write. My point is that Bill C-13 doesn't change that. We cannot do that. As for monitoring the surfing habits of Canadians, I asked our officers in the Vancouver police department and they said they'd never had part VI approval for an IP address. It rarely happens.

Let me point out another news story that kind of gave me cause for reflection. It's titled, “How federal bill C-13 could give CSIS agents—or even Rob Ford”, referring to the mayor of Toronto—“access to your personal online data”. In the Criminal Code, there is some ancient wording that says a mayor is a peace officer, and I suppose a mayor could exercise their powers and make arrests on the streets of their communities, although I've never heard of one doing that. But I would be flabbergasted if a mayor wanted to write a production order, show up at a telco and say, “Give me private data”. It's not going to happen. So putting Rob Ford's name in this headline I think unnecessarily alarms Canadians and is unfair to legislation that's coming forward.

This last opinion article starts with this, and it's from a Halifax newspaper.

Picture this: You arrive home tonight to discover that your friendly neighbourhood police officer is going through your papers and your computer files, making notes on your private information — without a warrant.

If you picture that, it's concerning. Can that happen? First of all, there's no provision for us to do that today without a warrant to search a home, to search a private computer. Warrants have to be obtained from judges with reasonable grounds to believe it's a very high standard. But the writer equates that to Bill C-13, saying that now it's warrantless access to all the Canadians' private information.

In closing, I know Canadians are concerned about their private information. This bill does not allow the police, nor do we want, to go through the private information of Canadians without the proper judicial authorizations. Please give us the tools to help stop people from being victimized. And for those people who have been already victimized, give us the tools to help them not be retraumatized, because the investigation takes days and weeks as a result of our cumbersome processes to get the necessary information to identify the perpetrators.

I will now turn it over to my colleague—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll report those back, thank you very much.

We have two more quick items.

First, the supplementary estimates (A) were introduced in the House yesterday. There are no supplementary (A)s for this committee, so we won't need to deal with supplementary them, which makes me very sad. Anyway, there aren't any, so we have nothing to do.

Second, we made a commitment that we would try to bundle witnesses—you can see here today that we have the police forces. We have one issue. The people from Facebook cannot make it on the day that we're having other Internet providers here. They're willing to come a week later, so with the permission of the committee, we will put them on another panel. It might not be a full bundle, but we'll have Facebook as an organization.

We do want them here. I would agree with that.

Okay? Thank you very much.

As to the order of reference of Monday, April 28, 2014, Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, we have witnesses today to talk to us about the bill.

We have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police here, with Mr. Jim Chu. From the Ontario Provincial Police we have Carson Pardy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Joe Oliver. And there are others here with them, who will introduce themselves. From Halifax by video conference we have Jean-Michel Blais, the chief of police.

Thank you for joining us. Each organization will get 10 minutes to address the committee, and then there will be a question and answer period.

My first witness today is from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mr. Chu, the floor is yours.

[Glenford Canning]

Yes, sir.

I want to address your point, and I think right now when you look at Bill C-13.... I've read opposition to it the last few days. I've read people's concerns about it, and some of them raise some legitimate stuff, but no one is offering something better right now. That's my problem. I don't want to see this whole thing thrown out, but at the same time, I would like the people who are saying.... I'd prefer it if they said they had a better idea. If it's a better idea, I'm 100% for it. I don't care where it comes from or who's doing it or anything like that. If there's something better, let's go with that, but please do something.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you so much, everyone, for being here today. All of your testimony has touched my heart once again.

I'd like to thank Ève. I'm not a sitting member of this committee, but she knows how deeply I care about this issue.

This is why, as Carol mentioned, when I was elected to Parliament in 2011, Steve and I, in my office, spent a full year investigating this issue. We wanted to put forward the bill that was introduced in the House in May of 2012; but with the different rules, as you all know, we were only able to debate it in the fall. I'm not going to complain about the fact that my national strategy on bullying prevention was defeated in the fall of 2012. Those who voted against it will have to answer for that.

I and my other NDP colleagues fully approve of the new rules in Bill C-13 about the distribution of intimate images without consent. However, my fear is that with a cyberbullying bill, the government will believe that after Bill C-13 is passed, the federal government will have done what it needed to do regarding cyberbullying.

Mr. Hubley, tell me if I'm wrong here, but in your son Jamie's case, there was no sharing of intimate pictures. But it was still cyberbullying that he experienced for so many months. I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about what you think the federal government could do—laws or whatever else—that touch on other types of cyberbullying. It could be text messages full of hatred or name-calling. It could be a Facebook group that is created to humiliate an individual but where there are no intimate images being shared on that Facebook group, or it could be a fake social media profile where false rumours are being spread but there are no intimate images. All of those types of acts are cyberbullying.

Can you tell me a little bit more about what else the government should do about cyberbullying that does not involve intimate pictures being shared?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Sure. I always like to talk after Robert. I also almost jumped out of respect because I so feel for you guys that I understand that anybody would raise any objection to Bill C-13...but not the part on the distribution of images. I'm even a bit against the title because it hints at something that is not there, because it's not the cyberbullying bill like it's called. It's really the anti-distribution of intimate images. That would have been more proper as a bill because that's what it...and plus the tools for police and which tools to give.

I don't think anybody around this table wants to pass too much time on protecting necessarily the cyberbullies, but we do want to make sure that the warrants that will be granted, issued, are legal and, as Robert just said more eloquently than I did before, that they will not be struck down because we all know how long it takes in court.

Some of you, such as you, Ms. Reda, have seen the justice system. It's not the fastest thing in the world and it's very highly emotional for victims who go in front of it. So imagine if you pass one, two, three years in front of the system just to see the warrant being struck down and all the proof that was with it struck down. That's what we're trying to avoid. So it's not protecting the cyberbullies. It's making sure that in our framework we have a Charter of Rights, we have some laws that have to be applied, we have some jurisprudence, and everything fits together.

That's why again I repeat, sadly, we have to take so much time on the second part to give the tools. We all agree it needs more tools because I often hear my esteemed colleagues from the Conservative Party saying we need to give the tools to policemen. Of course, we need to give them tools that are more in sync with the 2014 tools available. Yes, they have to be able to do things, but when we know that we can obtain a warrant by a phone call now, there are judges accessible so fast, a justice of the peace, if you have reasonable grounds and you know something has been committed....

You said something, Mr. Canning, that hit me. You said that no laws will give competence, or whatever. It's true because you can give the best of tools and if they're not applied there's nothing that will improve anyway.

So I think it's important to know, especially from you because I think Bill C-13 is all there because of you. It's sad that it took that, it took the death of kids, to make politicians realize that we needed to modernize certain aspects of the Criminal Code in this day and age, because everybody has been aware of bullying and all its forms for a long time. So it takes a will and sometimes it takes some dramatic events to make things move. So be it, but we still have to do it well.

That's all I want to say. I will never take kindly to those asking questions if it is seen that we are not protecting who has to be protected. We're just trying to do the best job and that's why my first message was that hopefully we can all work together. For the people who are more into police, we have a policeman at the table, an ex-policeman at the table. We have people with all types of backgrounds and we'll really do our best to put the best tools in the hands of the enforcers to make sure that our kids are safe as well as the whole population, because it's not a bill just about kids. It's about everybody.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thanks very much.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for coming and telling us their stories.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the losses of all three you, Carol, Allan and Glen, and to offer my condolences to you and your families. I want to thank all of you, not just for today but for the days and weeks and months and years you've been telling your stories to try to make change, to try to ensure that your memories and the memories of those you've lost are shared by others, and to try to ensure that we learn from what has happened to you. That takes a tremendous amount of courage, as has been suggested before.

I represent Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, where Rehtaeh lived and where Leah now lives. Leah was here about a year ago with the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Justice, and we talked about how—and Glen mentioned this—the Province of Nova Scotia was finally forced to respond and put in place a number of initiatives. A lot of work has been done to coordinate the different agencies that are involved—mental health services, victim services, justice, police efforts, and so on.

What can we do at the federal level in this whole picture, besides education?

They talked to us about changing the Criminal Code so that people are held accountable, so that there are consequences to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We in the NDP, in the official opposition, made a commitment then to do that, and, as you know, we introduced a private member's bill. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest it was perfect. It was two pages long, and it was pretty straightforward. It was meant to establish clearly the consequences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and to change the Criminal Code where it was meant to be changed in order to make sure there were consequences.

Now we have a bill that has similar provisions. I'm sure the provisions are probably better as they relate to the cyberbullying aspect of it, but there are four pages, and then there are another 70 pages that deal with other matters. My concern has been that if we don't get it all right—these issues of privacy are very complicated—the law will end up getting struck down. It will end up getting tied up in the courts, and we will have failed in the attempt to reach our goal, which is to hold people to account and to ensure there are consequences for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

That's why, I would suggest to you, this business about anybody who's not 100% for this bill being somehow in favour of the perpetrators over the victims is absolute nonsense, and I am offended by it. I have to tell you that. I am offended by it. That's not why I'm here. That's not why I introduced my private member's bill in the first place. It was to stop it, and it was to do it clearly and simply and quickly, and we can do that. I want you to understand that is our intention.

We raise questions and we hear from people because the other part of this bill is complicated. I am concerned, because I believe this to be true—that it will end up causing problems, and we won't achieve the goal we are determined to deal with, which you have all worked so hard to try to get us to respond to.

I want you to understand that because we're committed to do that. We will continue to be committed to do that whatever happens with Bill C-13. I want to acknowledge and honour the commitment that you've made to this issue and thank you for all of your work.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I wouldn't say it's more malicious, because I think bullying by definition is malicious anyway, but it's more anonymous because of the tools that are accessible. At the same time, if there are ways.... We offered to separate the bill so that we could concentrate on one aspect that is less controversial. I'm not saying that the second part is controversial, but I'm saying it's more technical, more complicated. But the fact that it's more complicated shouldn't make the first part be adopted in a slow fashion. There is already an infraction that could be in the Criminal Code that is not there until we finish the whole.... So that was the reason.

I do hope—and this is the message to my colleagues around the table—that we'll try to make it law, because nobody wants to see.... I agree with you, Mr. Canning. In view of what happens, sometimes we tend to say, the heck with the rest, if we can save one life.

At the same time, if we know that because of the framework of laws that we have in Canada the whole inquiry will be killed in courts because everything that will have been obtained with a bad warrant.... That's what we're trying to make sure we're not doing. I want it to be very clear in everybody's head that it's not because we work for criminals. It's because we want to see the end result confirmed and not be destroyed because something wrong was done. That is that.

But I suffer for you, because I don't think anybody can understand, unless we pass through what you've passed through. I feel your pain, Ms. Todd, so much, and I really am impressed with the way you're able to look at the whole situation in a very reasonable way at the same time. I can tell you that on our part, we'll try do exactly the same thing, because I think that is what all of your kids—and you, Alycha, and Ms. Chiles—went through.

By the way, I've asked, Ms. Chiles, that Facebook come here. They have vast interest in privacy and the access to.... I hope they hear what you have been saying today. We put them on our list because we know that many of the things happening right now go through Facebook and that they rather wash their hands, saying, well, it's not our fault; it's private PIAs. But they're hosting that, so they have to maybe hear the message that you're making.

Those are the comments I wanted to make. I really hope we can make the best bill of out of Bill C-13. Maybe it will do more than we all hope. Maybe it will make a whole committee work in the same direction for the first time since I was elected in 2011. It's my dearest hope.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you so much, all, for your presence here because I think you bring back what this bill is supposed to be about. I'm really happy that you're all here together at the same time so we can really focus or refocus Bill C-13 in a sense.

I agree that the bill should be split, quite simply because what should have happened is happening. We are spending a significant amount of committee time discussing the matter of

that concerns invasion of privacy, when we should be talking about the aspect of cyberbullying, which is the title of the bill. My heart breaks every time, because every time we talk about the other part, we're not talking about what has brought us to this bill.

I'm not sure I have questions for you, honestly. I mostly want to use my five minutes in a sense to maybe.... You told us, Ms. Reda, what our role is, and I really understand it. I think everybody understands that we're there for Canadians and are here to protect. It's part of our job to protect, and to do so in the best way. This is my hope and dream.

You were talking, Ms. Todd, about the legacy of hope of Amanda, and the same with Rehtaeh, and the same with Jamie. Your kids are heroes. You are also, by the way, just by virtue of the fact that many people would just.... The grief and everything that you're going through is just so hard that we can't fathom what you're going through. But at the same time you're stepping up, you're going public, and you may be helping people not to do the same thing and helping us to address the issue in the right way.

The only thing I'm hoping that Bill C-13 will achieve, through your kids and everything you've gone through, is that it might be the first bill we can look at in a bipartisan way. That's my ultimate hope, that we're all here for one reason and one reason only. We want to have the best measures in the Criminal Code to help out.

But we're all aware that it takes so much more education. I think, Carol, you were talking about the importance of education. I won't tell you how old I am, but bullying was on the ground in my school, when I was a young kid. It motivated so many people. For me, it was to become a lawyer to defend the people who were bullied, which I thought was disgusting. Now it's more defined, it's more—

[Kimberly Chiles, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I will preface this with the fact that I'm taking a slightly different approach and being very open about my experience in the hope that it can help others.

My name is Kimberly Chiles and I have been asked to speak to Bill C-13, as a victim and a survivor of what is commonly referred to as “revenge porn”.

On the last Friday of October 2013, I began to get an absurd amount of "friend" requests on Facebook from men all over the world. Facebook had just changed its privacy settings and I thought I might have missed something, so I frantically set about trying to rearrange those. I was still getting the same amount of requests by Sunday evening, so I made a public post on Facebook, asking my friends if I had missed something. Somebody sent me a private message to let me know that this was not a coincidence and sent me a link to a website called MyEx.com, and there I was. My images were shared with the world at the click of a button. He found them because a popular online celebrity magazine had this website, MyEx.com, in their favourite links.

To make matters even worse, someone had commented three comments down—visible to anyone—adding a direct link to my Facebook profile, so anyone that visited this site then proceeded to visit Facebook.

The anguish that was instantly triggered was like nothing l'd experienced to date. Panic set in, and I began to shake and sob. My mind raced, realizing quickly how swiftly these images could and would be seen. Family, colleagues, students, potential clients, friends, and strangers alike were privy to my personal...my privacy, my body. I was violated, I was in shock.

How could someone be so malicious? I called my current boyfriend, and he immediately took action. He spent the next hours determining ways to get these images taken down. We Googled, we looked for support, and on MyEx.com, there is the option to pay $500 and have it removed by removenames.com. They are the same people. This is extortion. My images and personal information was posted on a heinous site and they know exactly what people do when they find these images of themselves: they panic, and they will do anything to get them removed.

We were quick to find out about a group called DMCA Defender—that's digital millennium copyright—and their fantastic track record and their reputation via endrevengeporn.com. My boyfriend hired them that same evening and we began working on my case that evening. They started contacting the web hosts, the site itself, and the search engines, to have my images removed.

This is not an expeditious process and with every second that passed, the panic and mortification of this experience grew. The unwanted attention from around the globe continued as men filled my Facebook “other” inbox with their opinions about me or my profile. They hit on me, made comments about my body, and about myself. I even received offers to connect or hook-up because they would be in town. Some took the route of warning me and trying to strike up a conversation, because apparently some people actually believed what was written about me was true. The shame of this scenario continued.

This was actually the pinnacle of a year and a half of ongoing issues. I immediately knew who was to blame. I split on amicable terms with the man these images were sent to. He and his ex-wife were in a battling, drama-filled relationship. They had a young daughter. I gave him an out and he took it. I had not spoken to him since them.

At one point in our relationship, which was brief—only four months long—he had mentioned that she may have my name; he caught her with his phone. I said that I was not concerned, that we would deal with whatever, never thinking that this would take place. These images had not been shared at that time.

She had initially contacted me through my business website a year and a half prior, and made it clear that she was spiteful. Her messages were crass and mean-spirited and placed the blame on me for her broken marriage. He had already left her and moved out long before l'd met him. However, I did not respond, knowing that any kind of response would show her that she had my attention. She continued to contact me through various forms of social media, directly and indirectly, sometimes pretending to be her, sometimes pretending to be him, signing crude, derogatory, hateful messages. I never responded to her cyberbullying and harassment.

I am a business owner. I am self-employed, and I also teach at the University of Alberta. I have an active online profile and do much of my networking by online means. She had crossed a line and I was stricken by fear of who might see it, shame for the people who did and what they might believe or the conclusions they might make about me. I was horrified at the seemingly bottomless pit of who this may end up in the hands of. It was just the worst feeling, and it was paralyzing.

The next morning I called the Edmonton Police Service. The officer who answered the phone listened to most of my story and then cut me short to let me know there was nothing he could do, that this was not a crime. I had no proof, and he guessed I shouldn't have put my pictures on Facebook, to which I quickly responded that was not what I had told him at all. I asked him if he had a daughter and said that he might change his tune if his daughter had come to him and said this is what was happening. I then told him I expected him to send an officer to my house to take a statement from me, and by day's end that did happen. We chatted at length about what had taken place and I had him leave the statement forms with me. I filled out a three-page statement and was able to attach seven pages of evidence from her of her online harassment.

In the meantime, the constant barrage of unwanted attention continued. I feared going out in public, responding to LinkedIn, Facebook, or emails, afraid that everyone had seen my pictures. It made me paranoid and ashamed. I started feeling like this would never go away and that the abyss of the World Wide Web would devour my images and information, making them forever available to anyone that Googled my name.

DMCA Defender continued their efforts, regularly checking in with me to update. They were supportive and reassuring and never once minimized what I was going through. They work until the images are down and unsearchable. Meanwhile, I had to continuously follow up with the police myself, and while the constable who was looking after my case seemed relatively supportive, he made it clear that it would be difficult to find recourse for this because, again, it was not technically a crime. Over and over again my brain went back to the idea that this was debilitating to me, a 38-year-old woman, confident and successful, and that 14-year-old me would not have been able to cope. I would have ended my life then. I say that without hesitation.

That awareness and empathy kept me fighting. I knew that I would continue to research and to find resources. I would connect with other survivors and advocates in the U.S. and Canada. I followed up regularly with the EPS to see if they had contacted the accused. I wanted to sue. I wanted to get a lawyer. I wanted justice. I wanted to nail her to the wall for doing this to me, to my reputation, and to my psyche. My bank account, however, was not in a position to do that.

I had my partner and best friend searching online for my name every day, because I was physically ill and could not do so myself, to see if anything had changed. I trusted no one outside my circle, fearing that everyone had ulterior motives. I am still burdened by this today, wondering if every attempted new contact has somehow seen something that they shouldn't have. It's been an awful experience. I found it frustrating that I could pick out each attack and label it under other things, like bullying, harassment, assault, copyright infringement, non-consensual sharing of personal information. But there wasn't one thing in place that I, as a victim, could refer to, or the authorities could refer to, in order to protect me and other victims and survivors, that made this a criminal act, that gave me some recourse.

Over a month went by and my images now appeared in a basic Google search, not just on the MyEx site. DMCA confirmed underage girls were also now on this site and that they were working with the FBI to have the host and the site shut down. Meanwhile, in my case, they had successfully contacted the accused, and they had denied any involvement. I had to keep fighting. I had lots of proof and I knew there had to be a way. I continued steady contact with everyone involved and relied on my network to keep me going. I was experiencing heightened anxiety and was quick to cry. I lost weeks worth of work. My focus was terrible. My time was spent researching this topic and related cases. This was the hardest thing l've been up against. Finally, on December 6 of this last year I was advised that the DMCA Defender was successful in having my images and connected information removed.

These explicit images, my personal information, my Facebook page, were all posted without my consent. Those images were shared with the expectation of privacy. My trust and privacy were violated. The ownership of those images is not transferable. I share my story in relation to Bill C-13.

This bill is being labeled the revenge porn bill. I liken my experience to sexual assault, to rape, to harassment, but not to pornography. Internet crime existing in that grey area that it does provides no recourse for the victims of these experiences. My own judgment and decision matrix should not be called into question when I call the authorities and police for help. The lack of resources within the municipal force definitely played into their inability to delve into this, but so did their awareness and education on Internet crime.

I was advised that the RCMP have a small task force dealing with Internet crime, but what step does a person take to move this from what is viewed as a civil hearsay matter at a municipal level up to a federal level? The lack of sensitivity and abrupt condescension and callousness I experienced was unacceptable, as were the excuses and dismissals.

As I understand, the purpose of a search warrant is to allow investigators to locate, preserve, and examine evidence relevant to criminal liability. A search warrant can be used not only for collecting evidence supporting a criminal charge but also as an investigative tool for alleged criminal activity. A search warrant makes valid an act that would otherwise be considered trespass. The charter requires that for all warrants police must provide reasonable and probable grounds established upon oath to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search. Those requirements are set out as a minimum standard, consistent with section 8 of the charter for authorizing search and seizure.

Ensuring that there is specific legislation and criminal liability in these scenarios of harassment, assault, and attacks would set precedent and streamline the course of action that authorities have to investigate allegations or instances. I think it is important to point out that non-consensual gathering and/or sharing of personal data essentially make victims of us all, leaving us all vulnerable to privacy violation, unjust information sharing, judgment, and misconceptions. It makes sense to continue fighting for victims' rights and protect these rights within their own legislation, and to continue to consider the benefits of due diligence and process within our charter.

As it stands, it requires that for all warrants police must provide, reasonable and probable grounds, established upon oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search. These requirements set out the minimum standard, consistent with section 8 of the charter, for authorizing search and seizure. As well, the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” is greater than mere suspicion but less than on a balance of probabilities when the totality of the circumstances are considered.

If there is a reason to believe that a crime has taken place, the police and authorities already have the ability to obtain any data that they need.

Earlier this year I was advised that the accused was being served with a production order for two years based on evidence I'd provided. Someone in the EPS had enough IT experience to dig a little deeper and continue gathering damning evidence against her and him. At this time, I'm waiting for an update, but was unable to reach the constable prior to meeting with you today. I will continue to use my experience to create and document the process, persons, and organizations that are there to help. With any luck, those of us speaking to this bill will help dissuade you from moving forward with what could be seen as an omnibus bill and persuade you to consider the critical issues of revenge porn and search and seizure separately, so that the proper due diligence for Canadians is taken.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share my story in the hopes of helping others.

[Alycha Reda, As an Individual]

Bonjour. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for taking the time to invite me to speak about Bill C-13.

I speak to you today not only as a victim, voter, or Canadian citizen, but as an advocate for all victims whom this bill could have helped; not only such people as Rehtaeh Parsons or Amanda Todd, but the nameless victims of cyberbullying, sextortion, and sexual violence across this country.

l'm happy to be here today to understand and address the public's controversy with Bill C-13, and as well its privacy restrictions, although—I will be honest—I do not fully support this bill, because in the end I don't really understand it. I understand that sometimes, though, we must be willing to compromise a bit of our privacy for our own safety.

What is privacy? In constitutional law, it is the right of people who make personal decisions regarding intimate matters, while under the common law it's the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably secluded from public scrutiny. This is the privacy that I am fighting for, Mr. Chair, the privacy that ensures safety and security and that as well may save lives one day, such as the lives that we have lost.

Today, in our generation, we are witnessing incredible advancements in technology. The Internet, for example, has become one of the most significant forms of communication used today. It is a fantastic, addicting tool. We use the Internet as well as our mobile devices to gather information, share photographs, pay our taxes, chat, or gossip, and now we use this tool to exploit young men and women and as well to bully and create and distribute child pornography. We also lure, and now we hear rumours of our own government trying to use this bill to essentially break the privacy of law-abiding citizens just so that we can catch the bad guys.

Mr. Chair, I mentioned previously that I am a victim of this disgusting act. When I was 16 years old, I was lured, sexually assaulted, and blackmailed by Canada's most prolific online predator, Mark Gary Bedford from Kingston, Ontario.

Many Canadian citizens are still unaware of who this predator is, and for the last seven years, before my publication ban was dropped, I broke that ban and travelled all over parts of Canada, bringing awareness of the effects of sexual exploitation, revenge porn, who my offender is, and how dangerous it is to give out personal information online.

Many of us Internet users have positive and negative experiences online. With just the click of a button, we can say, witness, and pretty much do anything. The excessive availability of information and constant access to one another's personal lives can certainly be useful, but are we aware of the dangers that it can create, of the criminal acts that you may not know are even criminal—bullying, rumours, gossip, threats, exploitation, luring, social ostracization, and even human trafficking?

What is my role in all of this? As a public speaker, it is my role to reach every Canadian citizen, including the members of Parliament as well as Prime Minister Harper. My role is to continue supporting and encouraging our youth to participate in the online world, while providing awareness and education that will continue to empower our youth to be safe and respectful online.

I will continue to fight for the rights and privacy of our Canadian men and women of all ages, races, and sexual orientations, including those who are still not here today. I will continue to be a public speaker and take a role as an activist and supporter. My role as a supporter and activist has been more proactive than my own government's in trying to make a change. It is very sad that I am more trusted by strangers, when I come into their community to speak. It is also unfortunate that the citizens of this country cannot rely on their own police, MPs, and leaders of this country, yet they trust a victim.

Unfortunately, when I was going through the events that led me to where I am today, not only did the legal system fail me, but so did certain organizations geared towards aiding people like me, as did my government as well.

All of this in the end relies on you, the leaders of our country. I spoke about roles earlier and what my role in this country is. Now your role is as a leader of this country. It is your role to help protect us and our children, my child. I also hope that we as a country can make the right decision in better protecting ourselves.

Thanks.

[Glenford Canning, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to come here today and express my thoughts on Bill C-13.

My name is Glen Canning. In April 2013, my daughter Rehtaeh Parsons ended her life following a very traumatic sexual assault and months of cyber-harassment. The worst part of the harassment she endured involved a photo that was spread by text messaging and on social media.

I would first of all like to clarify that the lens l'm looking through is much different from the lens many others are using when they are looking at Bill C-13 and in searching for a workable solution. I'm a father who has lost a daughter. A beautiful, intelligent, kind, and promising daughter. Because of that I'm angry, I'm hurt, and I'm determined to do what I can to address and attempt to fix a serious flaw in our criminal justice system.

The more serious aspect of the flaw has left police officers trying to fight what I liken to guerrilla warfare, using conventional tactics that are outdated, slow, ineffective, and often misguided. Many families facing a crisis similar to ours share much of the same story. Officers are unsure what to do, what laws apply, or how to gather evidence from online sources.

I recently spoke to a young woman who was stalked online and had an image passed around her high school. The image showed a young man holding a hunting rifle. He was standing in front of a tree with the photo tacked on it. The photo was the young woman, and her eyes were shot out. The police officer who spoke to her told her the best way to fight this was to stay off Facebook.

The first and most important step we need to take to combat online crime involving harassment, stalking, threats, and image sharing, is to stop treating the victim like they are part of the problem. They are as innocent as the drunk-driving victim.

Our family has been deeply and forever changed by what happened to Rehtaeh. Much of Rehtaeh's story has been very public.

A fifteen-year-old girl going to a sleepover at a friend's house. It's innocent enough, and most parents can relate. During the night she has a drink, then a few too many, and she is young, and hasn't yet experienced the quick effects of alcohol. In the next few days a story spread that she has slept with four boys. She recalls nothing. Then a photo is shared. It shows Rehtaeh hanging out a window naked from the waist down while a male performs a sex act on her, and looks at the camera smiling, giving a thumbs up. Rehtaeh has no idea that any of this even happened.

The police are called. The photo goes viral. Police officers are told who took it, who has it, and what is being done with it. They do nothing. They seize no cellphones, track no phone numbers, speak to no witnesses, and gather no evidence. In the end, the only cellphone they went after was Rehtaeh's. They had warrants in for cellular data, but those warrants took months to process, and the damage was done. Hundreds of people had, and most likely still have, that photograph of Rehtaeh.

The police later claim that what happened with the photo was not a police or law enforcement issue. They stood by and did nothing as her life was destroyed, and they told us it wasn't an issue for them.

l'd like you now to consider something a little different: the same girl, same incident, and the same photo. In this version of the story, the police see a clear violation of the law. They immediately turn to telecom companies to find out who has the photo, who it's being shared with, and they do everything they can to stop its spread and to hold the sharers responsible. They do this in a matter of hours. Most importantly, they make sure when Rehtaeh Parsons tries to start her life over again in a new school that image isn't going to show up and tear her apart all over again.

Our daughter's story remains a very public story, and it's easy for anyone to picture her in their minds: her smile, her glasses, and her long hair. Most of you have families and children of your own. Picture someone you love, and ask yourself which story ending you would have preferred.

Bill C-13 is not going to replace indifference or incompetence when it comes to addressing cybercrime, but hopefully due to stories like Rehtaeh's, Amanda's, Jamie's, and Ally's, police departments across Canada are getting the message that this can be deadly, and it needs to be addressed quickly and effectively.

We live in an age of instant messaging and viral videos. Every day Canadians go online to enrich their lives, to share their dreams, to reach out to family and friends, and expand their horizons. Others do so to hunt children, lure teenagers, spread hate, terrorize and torment, and rejoice in bringing pain and sadness to others.

Social media, the Internet, text messaging, email, shares, and numerous other means of mass communication have all dramatically changed the way we reach out to each other. When Rehtaeh died, her mother shared a post on Facebook that spread throughout the world in literally a matter of hours. It's that fast and it's that powerful

In the wrong hands, it's just as fast and it's just as powerful. Someone in Rehtaeh's shoes won't be helped unless the speed of that help is as viral as the problem is.

I do believe, if properly enforced, the amendments to Bill C-13 would have made a difference to Rehtaeh. I will never know if the police had the power and ability to stop that photo from spreading. If they had, it's quite possible l'd be looking at my daughter's picture in a yearbook instead of a newspaper article.

I respect privacy as much as any Canadian does; however, I believe Bill C-13 is not about an invasion of privacy. It's about allowing police officers to effectively address the many challenges of instant mass communication and abuse. Technology has changed our lives dramatically, and we need to provide new tools so police officers can hold accountable those who use this technology to hurt and torment others.

I am not standing before you today with concerns or worries about what Bill C-13 might mean to privacy. I am before you today because we can't have another Rehtaeh Parsons. It seems so out of place to complain about privacy while our children openly terrorize each other to death for “likes” on Facebook.

l'm not presenting you with evidence of one whose life has been destroyed by an invasion of privacy. In fact, I don't know if anyone's life has been destroyed by an invasion of privacy. l'm here to underscore the impact of a life lost because we failed to prevent the distribution of images that could have saved that life—Rehtaeh's life, my daughter's life.

Thank you.

[Allan Hubley, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today in support of this bill and also in support of the other families here today to share their experience with you.

We are all here because we are concerned with the issue of bullying, and we want to bring about change. Over the past two years, I've been talking to neighbours, friends, and people across our city, our province, and our country. I sincerely believe that change is coming if we work together to help address this challenge facing families in every community.

By way of introduction, I will give you a little background on me and what has brought me here today. I first moved to Kanata in the late 1970s and have been actively involved in building our community for many years. I organized youth forums where we brought young people together to talk about their issues. I started the Sandra Ball youth recognition program, where I gave out over 400 awards to young people for doing good things in our community. I was also the founder of the Bill Connelly charity, which paid the tuition for young people wanting to go into the building trades. So I know many of our youth in our community, and I believe I have an understanding of some of their issues.

In 2007 I was named the City of Ottawa's citizen of the year and then in 2008 I received the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award, but my proudest accomplishment was to be blessed with three wonderful children. Christine Leigh is over 30 now. James should be 18, and Josh is now 15. I say Jamie should be 18 because we lost him to suicide in 2011, after years of bullying that left him in a severe depression despite our best efforts to save him. I need to confess that I am still literally learning how to deal with the pain from the loss of my boy, and I want you to know that I appreciate the kindness that our community has shown my family as we find our way without him.

It's almost three years later and a lot of people now know how beautiful my boy was, and I feel that others share our sense of the immense loss. Since losing Jamie, my family chose to honour his memory by doing all we can do to ensure that no other family will suffer the unbelievable, indescribable pain of a preventable loss of life with so much promise. Nobody's child should be coming to that conclusion when they think about their life ahead in our beautiful country. In fact, people from across Canada and around the world have reached out to us, sharing their personal pain and also their survivor stories. We know we are not alone in wanting a better world for our children.

Dr. Levy, who is Ottawa's chief medical officer of health, tells me that we have over a thousand people a year, just in our capital city of Ottawa, who are seriously attempting suicide. I pray that together we will conquer each of the factors one by one, including bullying, that can lead to this fateful decision that my boy and others are making all too often, before it affects one of your families.

Earlier I shared with you that I believe change is coming. I believe this because many people have pledged to stop bullying in Jamie's memory and in the memories of others. That gives us hope for a better day. We have an opportunity to right some serious wrongs, and if we are successful, we can make a better place for the future but it will take effort and determination.

Winston Churchill once said that change is inevitable; however, progress is optional. On this issue, progress cannot be optional. How can we make sure the changes we are working on mean progress and a better future? Do we have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of young people? Together, I sincerely believe that we do. I'm going to share my view and hope that you will agree with me, because I can't do this alone. Everyone in this room has a story to tell about bullies. You may have been bullied. Maybe you were physically bullied. Maybe you were verbally assaulted. It doesn't matter because both hurt and both can cause a lifetime of damage.

When many of us were younger, you could go home to avoid a bully, or you could go to a friend's house for protection. It was possible to feel safe, but that is not the case anymore for today's children. Today we have cyberbullies who can attack you with an email or text message. They can attack you through social media and sites like Twitter and Facebook with little to no consequences, and all behind a cyberwall so you don't even know who your attacker is today. You may be fortunate and only be bullied a few times, while others must endure the relentless attack on their mental health for years. Imagine how many lives have been negatively impacted because of bullying. Studies can present various numbers, but for me the bottom line is that one is too many.

People get bullied because they are tall or short, because of the colour of their hair, because of how thin they are, or just maybe because, like me, as I prefer to think of myself, they are built like a teddy bear. A bully will attack you based on your place of birth, your religion, perhaps your financial status, or even your sexuality. To limit our protection against bullying to only identified groups, as some propose, is wrong. Every child deserves our best effort to protect them.

Whatever distinguishes you as an individual can make you a target. We need to work together to turn that around. As a proud Canadian, I believe we should celebrate our differences, respect each other for who we are, and rejoice in the fact that in Canada we have the freedom to be different. Jamie was trying to advance that goal in his school before we lost him. He had a vision of a club where everyone could go to be themselves. Members would learn to respect each other's differences and support each other, and one day kids could be safe to walk the school halls or the streets of our community and everyone would be accepted for who they were. He was going to make the world a better place, and I know in my heart he would have succeeded if given the chance.

I believe that much in the way we have done with impaired driving or spousal abuse, if we can start today to attach a stigma to bullying, we can reduce the damage that this is causing to Canada's future potential. Bullying is not a character flaw that you are born with. It's one that you learn, so there must be a means to stop it. We could make Jamie's vision of acceptance a reality and in doing so make a better future that does not include bullies.

Even though this is an issue that is contributing to the loss of life and damaging many more lives, and it is entirely preventable, we still have people trying to find ways or excuses not to do more to protect our children.

I would like to know why we, as users, are not compelling those who are responsible for social media sites, for example, to cooperate with law enforcement. If they owned a coffee shop or a physical place of business and we saw this activity, which we see happening on Twitter and Facebook, for example, we as patrons would demand change. Parents want to know why we are struggling to add muscle to our criminal code so that police can act on complaints of cyberbullying. You will meet other families like mine who have already paid too high a price while we wait for laws to protect our children from the invisible cyberbully.

Bill C-13 in my view is meant to help reduce cyberbullying and help police obtain the evidence needed to punish those among us who prey on our beautiful children. Our children need you to use your power as parliamentarians to protect them. Parents across Canada are watching and hoping you will do something to help them.

Remember the words of Churchill and please ensure change is progress by passing this bill and giving law enforcement the tools needed. Please find it in your hearts to make the right decision to help ensure that no more young people are damaged. They are our future. Let's do what all of us can to help them.

Thank you for listening.

[Carol Todd, As an Individual]

Honourable members, thank you for asking me to submit testimony as a witness for Bill C-13. I have submitted written testimony also, and this is my oral statement today.

My name is Carol Todd. I am an educator in British Columbia, but I am best known as the mother of Amanda Todd. Amanda has become a prominent figure worldwide in the fight against cyberbullying, sextortion, and revenge pornography.

She was born on November 27, 1996, and died too briefly at the age of 15.

While Amanda died far too young she left a legacy. The legacy is one of promoting greater awareness and education to the issues that surround cyberbullying, social media safety, and ultimately, mental health. Amanda was able to share this with us on her YouTube video, which has been viewed approximately 30 million times across the world.

Just recently someone was arrested and jailed in the Netherlands, being held responsible for some of the digital abuse and sextortion that Amanda had to endure online. The enforcement groups around the world must be commended for having worked together to make this happen.

I have travelled broadly to share her legacy. I watch the faces of young people, their parents, and their grandparents when I speak about my daughter and her legacy. They all understand the tragedy of Amanda's cyberbullying, but too often these families think that this could only happen to someone else, to someone else's child, or someone else's grandchild—ultimately, not in my backyard.

I might have thought the same thing before the perfect storm that resulted in my daughter's death.

I often talk about Amanda's story as the perfect storm. Her life from ages 12 to 15 encompassed the following areas: sextortion, bullying online and offline, cyber-harassment, mental health that included depression and social anxieties, learning challenges, and a medical diagnosis of ADHD. There were also ongoing moves from school to school that resulted in unstable peer relationships. The once bubbly daughter I had became reclusive and quiet. Unfortunately, Amanda was no longer able to handle the stress of what was going on around her.

Each of us can face our own special perfect storm, and while we cannot control everything, we can control some things. Creating a law to criminalize sextortion and revenge porn is a powerful first step in our fight to stop cyberbullying.

In order to stop cyberbullying, we will need additional things to Bill C-13's cyberbullying provisions. It will need to include education and awareness in our communities, in our schools, and in our governments. Both adults and youth need to step up to make the changes that will, in effect, make the necessary differences in our world and in our society.

We will need to have mental health programs improved and prioritized. We will need to teach families to communicate better and provide digital supervision. We will need the assistance of industry members such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, and Apple. We will need to gather the non-profit leaders together with community leadership organizations to develop local and national programs. We also need a place where families can go for help.

I have been working closely and have ongoing conversations with other parents in Canada and around the world who have lost their children to cyberbullying and revenge pornography. I have also been in discussions with various organizations in Canada and in the U.S. about what has been going on in our social media world with respect to issues and legislation, and ultimately, change.

I've spoken to numerous young people, parents, law enforcement agencies, industry leaders, and governmental representatives in my mission to spread Amanda's legacy on her behalf, in addition to the many more who have watched via the videos and the documentaries that have been filmed and screened about her story.

Bill C-13's cyberbullying provisions are needed for my wish to come true as a mother of a cyberbullying victim. While I applaud the efforts of all of you in crafting the sextortion, revenge porn, and cyberbullying sections of Bill C-13, I am concerned about some of the other unrelated provisions that have been added to the bill in the name of Amanda, Rehtaeh, and all of the children lost to cyberbullying attacks.

I don't want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights. I am troubled by some of these provisions condoning the sharing of the privacy information of Canadians without proper legal process. We are Canadians with strong civil rights and values. A warrant should be required before any Canadian's personal information is turned over to anyone, including government authorities.

We should also be holding our telecommunication companies and Internet providers responsible for mishandling our private and personal information. We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children's privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, sextortion, and revenge pornography.

Social media sites should also be held accountable to what is happening on the Internet highway.

Some of the areas that could be addressed include: having a central number or a list of numbers that include police or parents that could be called when something is online and needs to be removed quickly; consequences for social media sites that do not respond or address the problem with removal of the reported information or photos in a timely manner; identifying and holding people responsible for inappropriate photos and images, and negative statements made towards other people on social media sites, and organizations where incidents can be immediately acted upon; and most importantly, there needs to be serious consequences for the sites that do not respond. For example, having an international accord could be a possible solution. It should also include wording that allows similar sites to be covered under these laws. That would be the Facebooks and the Instagrams of the future.

Personally, I would like to see compensation for the surviving victims similar to a crimes compensation board, not necessarily in the form of a cash settlement, but compensation that takes into account costs associated with incidents, such as lost wages, therapy, and whatever else is necessary for a grieving person or a person suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. For the finer points of the privacy concerns, I defer to the privacy professionals also providing testimony on Bill C-13.

On my own behalf, I have one request. If there is any way we can separate these controversial provisions from the law designed to help other Canadians avoid the pain experienced by Rehtaeh and my Amanda, I would support that process. This would allow this bill to be free of controversy and to permit a thoughtful and careful review of the privacy-related provisions that have received broad opposition.

I do not want my privacy invaded. I don't want young people's privacy compromised. I don't 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 every where.

I use the snowflake as an example of how precious, unique, and individual all of our children are. A snowflake is one of a kind. There are no two snowflakes that are the same. Our children, too, are one of a kind; no two are the same. A snowflake is brilliant and beautiful, as so are each of our children, and sadly they are very fragile. No matter how tough and strong our modern children appear, or how much they know about technology, they are still children and extremely fragile.

In conclusion, I want to thank all of you for the time and effort you have put into creating a law to address an abuse that has cost the lives of too many wonderful children. I want to thank you for inviting me to speak here before you today and submit my formal written statement in support of the cyberbullying provisions of Bill C-13, and also to include my thoughts about the other privacy issues that have been added to this bill.

I want to thank Canadians for their support and the Canadian government for putting cyberbullying at the centre of its safety and security strategies. I also want to thank the global community for all the support it has shown to Amanda's legacy, our personal family tragedy, and those of other families represented here today, as well as those who are not able to be here.

The voices of the children we have lost are silent, so it is through Amanda's legacy that we can continue to make those silent voices be heard. Please remember on behalf of my daughter Amanda, she wanted the world to be a better place, free of bullying and harassment. If she only knew the impact that she was making with the simple making and posting of her YouTube video.... When it comes to stopping cyberbullying, we are all in this together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

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

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

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

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

Our first presenter for 10 minutes is Ms. Todd.

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

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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have the anonymity. He continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

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

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

With that, I'll adjourn.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

[Fahd Alhattab]

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

[Marlene Deboisbriand]

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I find Mr. Dechert's questions interesting.

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

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

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

However, as Mr. Dechert said,

she came forward.

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

business as usual.

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

let's call the cops.

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

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

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

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

[David Fraser]

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

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

My next question is for Mr. Fraser.

Could you sum up for me, in order of priority, the problems with Bill C-13 that you mentioned to us in your presentation?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thanks also to the witnesses for joining us today.

My first question goes to the representatives from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada.

Could you tell me whether you were consulted as Bill C-13 was being developed?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

My second question goes to Ms. Deboisbriand from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada.

In your presentation, you mentioned focusing on restorative justice. You also said that the key to that kind of strategy is education.

For the benefit of all the MPs here, could you talk about your experiences in the trenches, the experiences young people are having and what provisions on restorative justice you would like to see? It may not be included in Bill C-13, but it could be included in a future government initiative.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

So when you refer to the 1.2 million pieces of data with regard to voluntary between what you're assuming is mostly law enforcement of one frame or another from a telco, what is your concern to which Bill C-13 would preserve?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I just get a little confused when I start hearing about the 1.2 million pieces of data that are voluntarily...yet there is no other avenue for the police to do an investigation. There's just nothing. So this actually clarifies their ability to request the preservation of data as opposed to the voluntary preservation of data. It gives them some legitimacy to be able to go to the courts and say, “Listen, we followed the rules,” because more often than not what happens—and agree or disagree—when you get to court there's a lot of presumption that goes on because there's lack of data for the police to be able to utilize and present.

So I just don't understand where we're concerned that what's going to be put in Bill C-13 would be any worse than what we have now.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

I want to focus my questions in on the authority or the police powers as they exist today as opposed to what Bill C-13 will bring to police powers. I use my knowledge and my background with the RCMP. Having been so fortunate to be an affidavit for and the author for a part VI, I can tell you, and you are probably aware, that it's not a fun ordeal to go through.

Let's take it right back to the start of an investigation. We can use either a sex crime or a drug crime by way of example, because those are the two that normally are going to go down the road of an intercept, historically.

If I go to Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus—whoever it is—as a police officer, would you agree that the first thing I don't want to do is jeopardize the investigation? Would you agree that I don't want to jeopardize the investigation?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It should be amended, in that sense.

Thank you, Ms. Guthrie.

I will go back to you, Mr. Fraser.

Could you specify the type of amendment you would like to see to section 487.0195(1), when it is done without authorization or voluntarily? Should people have to be informed in those cases only?

It reminds me of the time when our committee was studying Bill C-55 about electronic surveillance. Perhaps other members of the committee will remember. The Supreme Court said that there was a deficiency in the Criminal Code in that respect because people never knew when they had been subject to electronic surveillance.

What is being said today is all well and good, but a number of cases will not result in charges at all. Information may be circulating anyway. Should there be specific provisions for all the cases in which charges have been laid? In those cases, we would end up knowing because the Crown would be forced to disclose the information. What kinds of provisions should we include in Bill C-13 to make sure that people are informed, within a reasonable timeframe, that they have been under electronic surveillance? If I remember correctly, I think that a period of 90 days was considered.

Should there be an automatic notification so that people find out that their information has been circulated, whether or not it came after a warrant?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The minister appeared before committee last week and said this immunity that is contained in this section is not new. It's been there since 2004. It's enshrined in the common law. It's also part of the Criminal Code.

Can you respond to that? Is this something that is new? Is this something that should be of concern to those who value their privacy? Is it a further encroachment above what was there before Bill C-13 comes into place?

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

So that information that includes the location of the individual can be disclosed, Bill C-13 actually raises the threshold to reasonable grounds to believe—is that correct?—in what's called a tracking warrant.

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

Okay.

If we had another case like Amanda Todd.... And my understanding is that this individual tricked her into providing an intimate image. He then went back to her with the threat that if she didn't provide even more revealing intimate images, he would post the first image to a Facebook site. He knew through her Facebook site online who her friends were, where she went to school, etc.

Without the provisions that Bill C-13 is seeking to add to the Criminal Code, how would a police officer, had Amanda Todd or somebody like her been able to come forward after the first image was provided but before the subsequent intimidation, have been able to find that individual and prevent him from posting the first image and threatening her and forcing her to provide any subsequent images?

[David Fraser]

I do. The only condition I would add to it...or “condition” isn't the right word. As it's written in Bill C-13, it allows a law enforcement officer who requires the preservation of that data to impose any conditions that officer deems fit, which gives too broad and open-ended a level of discretion to the law enforcement officer.

If they want to couple that with a gag order or something else like that, that should come from a judge, in my view.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of our guests for being here today and sharing their expertise with us.

Mr. Fraser, I'd like to start with you. You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were pleased to see the creation of a Criminal Code offence for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Then you gave us your views on some of the investigative powers that are covered in Bill C-13.

Are you familiar with the report of the cybercrime working group, which is made up of experts from each province and territory? Are you familiar with their recommendations?

Do you agree with their recommendations with respect to police investigative powers?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses here for coming to help us hopefully improve Bill C-13.

But I would like to tell Mr. Fraser and Ms. Guthrie from the outset that we share your opinion that it would have been preferable to divide the bill. The representatives from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada are saying the same thing. We introduced a motion in the House to divide the bill, listing exactly the same sections that the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada mentioned in their brief. Unfortunately, we were not successful.

Everyone has their own expertise and there are people who have extremely specialized expertise in privacy, in electronic surveillance, in all kinds of areas. Unfortunately, we have to get down to the task and look at all the provisions.

I do not want to rain on your parade, but we tried and the government said no. That being said,

you raised some quite interesting points in connection with some of my concerns. I might like us to talk about them in a little more depth.

I do not want to ignore what the representatives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada said. I heard their message. We had a meeting about it too. Actually, that was where the idea of dividing the bill came up. Most people do not see a lot of problems in the first part, but they see huge ones in the second part.

Mr. Fraser, you talked about the burden of proof. The burden of proof, to me, is the difference between reasonable grounds to suspect and reasonable and probable grounds to believe. Those terms are a little more familiar for those who have practiced criminal law.

For the benefit of the committee, could you highlight the distinction between the two? I do not know if you have read the minister's response. He seems to feel that a burden of proof based on reasonable and probable grounds to suspect is already well accepted by the courts.

I will ask you the same question, Ms. Guthrie.

Mr. Fraser, could you also spell out for me your position on immunity. I am not sure I completely grasped it.

Section 487.0195(1) says as long as it is “not prohibited by law ”. What specifically does that refer to? Does it affect the Charter? If I have the right to privacy, does the fact of distributing private information about me go against that? So would that immunity not exist?

Could you spell out for us a little more clearly and precisely the hidden cases in which immunity would not apply, if there are any? I would like to see whether the risk that most privacy experts have told us about in section 487.0195(1) is as great as they say.

If any other witness has an opinion that they would like to share with us on this matter, please feel free to do so.

[Steph Guthrie]

Thank you for having me here today.

I'd like to thank my fellow witnesses, who both had really eloquent and valuable things to say.

My name is Steph Guthrie. I am a freelance feminist and digital strategist. For the last year I have been speaking and writing at length about the issue that Bill C-13 claims to tackle.

While the bill's name in the press is the “cyberbullying” bill, the more specific problem that I think is addressed by components of Bill C-13 is actually known as “revenge porn” more specifically, a term that I hate for both its inaccuracy and its sexualized sensationalism. Whatever you call it, though, we're talking about sharing sexually explicit images without the consent of the person or persons depicted. While some such cases might involve hacking, in many cases the subject actually consented to share the images with one person for private use, such as a sexual partner, and that person then violates their trust and shares the image with others, despite the subject's in most cases obviously implied expectation of discretion.

The crux of the harm that is inflicted here is the violation of informed consent. If I share an image with another person privately, that consent is not transferable. Had I known that the other person might later share the image with others, I would be unlikely to consent to letting that person access the image in the first place. So any consent I provide to a person accessing that image is pretty clearly contingent on them keeping it to themselves.

For me, informed consent is an integral part of privacy. Indeed, in her influential privacy by design framework, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian cites freely given and specific consent as a vital element of digital privacy. Cavoukian's principle can be applied to non-consensual intimate image sharing, which—let's be honest—is a really clunky and cumbersome way of describing what is ultimately cybersexual assault. A survivor of cybersexual assault did not provide specific consent for their image to be shared with others. The perpetrator simply treated their consent as transferable to any other use, any other disclosure.

As I'm sure some other speakers over the course of considering this bill will share with you, the results of this are devastating. It does mostly happen to women, although men are not immune, and it destroys their lives. The images follow them into their job interviews, on their first dates, and to the laundromat. In some cases the perpetrator of the cybersexual assault incites violence or stalking against the survivor, publishing their personal information and the dates and times of their professional engagements, encouraging their “fans” to make an appearance.

In any case, the assault constricts the survivor's ability to live life normally and comfortably because they are constantly living with the idea that the people they encounter in their day-to-day lives may know intimate things about them that they didn't consent to share. Even if the survivor knows they did nothing wrong, they still must deal with the judgments, misperceptions, and intrusions of others. For many survivors, their ability to move freely, safely, and happily in this world is limited.

I am fortunate to not yet have been attacked and tormented in this way, but I could be. It's common for authorities and the media to malign people who send so-called sexts as teenagers with poor judgment and poor impulse control. But that doesn't line up with reality. According to a Harris Poll in 2012, a full 40%—that's not a majority, but it was the largest percentage—of people who send these images are in the 18 to 34 age range; and 20% of all adults sext. In fact, a McAfee survey puts that number closer to 50%. I'm willing to bet that a lot more than 50% of us have trusted a romantic or sexual partner only to learn later that our trust was misplaced.

Cybersexual assaults can and do happen to a lot of us. When Rehtaeh Parsons died by suicide after months and months of torment from her peers and indifference from authorities following her own sexual assault, first in the flesh, then online, I heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper say: “...we've got to stop using just the term bullying to describe some of these things....What we are dealing with in some of these circumstances is simply criminal activity.”

While I join my fellow witness in favouring a restorative justice approach, at the time I was already a vocal advocate for legislation to tackle cybersexual assault, and was accustomed to hearing political and legal decision-makers blame the victim for it. So I was cautiously optimistic at Prime Minister Harper's remarks.

Then I realized, as many Canadians realized, that most of Bill C-13 is not really about what happened to Rehtaeh Parsons. Buried within Bill C-13 is a set of decent Criminal Code amendments to tackle cybersexual assault. Though I do see some minor issues with those amendments, which my fellow witnesses have already covered off quite well, and I can certainly refer to them in greater length during the Q and A, I do think that the base for good cybersexual assault legislation is there in Bill C-13. But you have to dig pretty hard to find it amid the many other sweeping amendments that more closely resemble the lawful access provisions found in Bill C-30 back in 2012. That was the time when Canadians were told that opposition to the bill was tantamount to supporting child pornographers.

While some of the more egregious elements of the former Bill C-30 have been removed from this latest incarnation—and I'm glad to see that—it still significantly expands the state's capacity for surveilling Canadians without the pesky oversight of our court system.

One of the most troubling provisions in Bill C-30 was that it mandated the disclosure of user information to police without a search warrant. The newly designed provision in Bill C-13 very cleverly softens this, instead stating that police can request information, and the person or organization to whom they direct their request can voluntarily comply. However, the very next provision in Bill C-13 removes all civil liability for anyone who discloses another person's information to police upon request. This granting of immunity removes much of the incentive for an Internet service provider, or anyone else, to deny the request.

As law enforcement officers and prominent figures of power and authority in our lives, it is also debatable the extent to which a person might feel compelled to provide the information to a police officer, even if technically they are volunteering to do so.

In the last week, a steady stream of damning media reports have indicated that the practice of voluntarily disclosing user information to police is already in full swing among Canadian telecommunications companies, with the state making over a million requests for user information in the course of a year—and that was back in 2011—all without warrants, i.e., without due process. All were quite obviously without users' consent.

Perhaps most of Bill C-13 isn't really about cybersexual assault, but I find it interesting that it violates some of the same privacy principles, such as freely given and specific consent. Most of us do not and would not give free and specific consent for the state to access any, and potentially all, of our data by way of our Internet service providers if we had any meaningful choice in the matter.

The consent we give is to our Internet service providers. If the police want our information because they suspect we are engaged in criminal activity, well, most of us would assume that is what search warrants are for.

Bill C-13 enshrines the idea of transferable consent in law, immunizing anyone who shares our information and violates our privacy without adequate legal justification for doing so.

While obviously different in many ways, the limitations on personal freedom imposed by Bill C-13 bear some striking similarities to those imposed by cybersexual assault. The state could be following us into our job interviews, on our first dates, or to the laundromat. The bill's provisions will restrict Canadians' ability to live life normally and comfortably because they are constantly living with the idea that the state, when they encounter it, may know intimate things about them that they didn't consent to share. Even if they know they have done nothing wrong, they must still deal with the judgments, misperceptions, and intrusions of the state.

For many Canadians, if Bill C-13 passes as written, our ability to move freely, safely, and happily in this world will be limited. That's why it pains me to say that after a year of arguing for legislation that criminalizes cybersexual assault, I cannot support this legislation as written. We should separate the components of Bill C-13 that deal directly with cybersexual assault from those that do not and debate them as different pieces of legislation. They are different issues.

Not only would this be in the best interest of Canadians, but I believe it would do greater justice to survivors of cybersexual assault than amalgamating their cause with another one that serves the state's pursuit of power more than it serves Canadians.

Thank you.

[Fahd Alhattab]

Fantastic. Thanks for having me, guys.

I'll give you some quick background about myself. My name is Fahd. I'm an Ottawa native. I've been here for about 16 years now. I like to say that I grew up at the Boys and Girls Club. I've been going there for about 10 years as a kid, and I started volunteering. Today I work there as both a volunteer and as a staff member. Thank you for having me here today at committee to speak about Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

As some of you might know, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada are leading providers of quality programs for the healthy development of children and youth. Our association has 99 clubs and reaches over 200,000 children and their families in over 650 community service locations across Canada. So we're vast, and we really work with a lot of youth and really understand the issues that they're facing and the issues that we need to address.

Let me start off by saying that we very much welcome the action to address the harms of cyberbullying. We're concerned about the far-reaching consequences of cyberbullying and think that Bill C-13 is proposing to address one of the harmful manifestations of cyberbullying and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

Currently, young people who share intimate images of minors, and sometimes their own peers, are being charged with child pornography. We think this legislation is obviously more appropriate as a response than the use of criminal pornography charges. In this sense, we say thank you. This is a very positive step that Bill C-13 is taking forward.

We understand that Bill C-13 has also raised concerns on the respect of privacy. Young people deserve to be protected from cyberbullying, but they also deserve to be protected and respected for their privacy. Now, we're no experts on privacy, so our only recommendation on that is to encourage you to listen, obviously, to any concerns that are brought up, any considerations that are brought up, by the experts who are dealing with privacy, to make sure that we're protecting youth from cyberbullying but we're also protecting our children and youth and their privacy rights.

I have three main points that I'm going to bring up. Hopefully you can follow my train of thought; sometimes I ramble.

First, I want to talk about the importance of consulting with some of the youth that we work with. Bringing in legislation is great, but sometimes we have a different view on how the world of the Internet works for us and how it works for them. Second, to coordinate efforts across Canada, I'll be talking a bit more about the different legislation that's happening in different provinces. Unfortunately, the Internet doesn't really have borders. We have to take that into consideration. We also have to look at restorative justice versus criminal punishments.

I'll start with the first point, the consultation with youth. Young people are more connected. You all know this, and those of you who have kids. Young people are more connected that any generation before them. A recent study conducted by MediaSmarts actually polled 5,000 youth from grades 4 to 11 in the provinces and territories and found that youth in Canada have a universal access to the Internet: 99% of them have access to the Internet outside of school. We're digital natives. Twenty-four percent of grade four students have their own cellphones and that percentage increases to 85% by grade 11. The reality is they have access to everything and they're using it to socialize with peers. They're using it to find information. They're using it for sports, sexuality, and health. They're testing their boundaries, right? It's natural. It's a natural fit. So with the increased connectivity and the new social norms around electronic communications, young people are vulnerable to cyberbullying.

As David said, a lot of young people are victims of cyberbullying, and this bill will affect them the most. So my recommendation is that it is very important to speak to the youth and really understand where they're coming from and how they see that it will affect them on a very detailed basis.

To the second one, the desire to address cyberbullying has resulted in a patchwork of legislation across Canada. That really creates risks for children and youth confused about their responsibilities and rights, and the legal repercussions of their actions.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and the CCSO cybercrime working group both recommended that the federal government play a lead role in coordinating efforts to address cyberbullying, in part through a national prevention strategy, legal education, and digital citizenship. Whatever is decided and happens and moves forward, we argue that the leaders need to take charge, coordinate the message, and make sure that the federal government is playing a very strong role.

The government’s new campaign, Stop Hating Online, is fantastic. That's great. Those are the kinds of things we need. Taking the time to partner with organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, which serves 200,000 youth, would be even a bigger step, the next step forward. These campaigns are important. They really help what we're trying to do by educating young people and really moving them forward.

The last one is around restorative justice. We like to think we can educate our youth, but despite our best efforts the kids will break the rules. We were all kids. We work with them, or we have kids—I don't have any yet—but the reality is that's what's going to happen. You can imagine that to punish a sixth grade kid for pressing “send” on a cellphone and sending a picture that he received to a friend.... Giving him a legal punishment of child pornography doesn't seem logical to me. I know that many of you will agree with that.

What we've done is we have restorative justice programs. These foster responsibility in the wrongdoer and ensure accountability and meaningful consequences for the crime. The impulsive sharing of intimate images without consent, with no severe malicious intent, is perfectly suited for this type of intervention.

The Boys and Girls Clubs in British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon, and Ontario have been offering youth restorative justice programs for several years now with great success. In recent years we've actually been referred sexting cases.

The Ontario Provincial Police recently reached out to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Kawartha Lakes, to ask if they would partner with them to respond when youth are accused of sexting. The OPP will refer cases of youth between the ages of 12 to 17. The clubs' restorative justice program has been well established and has a very solid track record.

Similarly, Durham Regional Police Service refers sexting cases to the Boys and Girls Clubs in their area as part of the pre-charge program. The club has seen a few of these cases now, and prepares individual restorative plans for each case, because each case is different for many of the youth in how it ends up unfolding.

Obviously, as we know, education around this plays a big role, and it has involved educating minors about the consequences of sharing these intimate images and how sharing puts the recipient at risk of child pornography charges. As they come to understand this, their actions change and they understand the legal repercussions behind sharing these images.

As I said, a lot of our programs are very refined for the youth and very tailored to the youth, customized to them. The measurement sanctions are dependent on the severity of the offence. A lot of times we see young people who don't have the malicious intent but kind of go with it, and they end up having charges that are not adequate for them.

To summarize, let's protect the privacy of our children at the same time as we protect them from cyberbullying.

Let's consult with youth about the importance of this bill and how it affects them, and how we can ensure it protects them.

Let's coordinate our efforts across Canada to make sure that everyone is receiving the same understanding, and understand that the Internet does not have borders.

Let's take a restorative justice approach instead of a criminal offence approach.

Thank you.

[David Fraser, Partner, McInnes Cooper, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for providing me with the opportunity to speak with you and the committee today.

For the purposes of introduction, my name is David Fraser. I'm a partner with the Atlantic Canadian law firm McInnes Cooper, but I do need to emphasize that I'm here speaking as an individual. My comments and opinions shouldn't be attributed to my firm or its clients or other organizations with which I'm associated.

I've been practising Internet and privacy law for over a dozen years now. I've represented a range of clients over the years, including victims of cyberbullying, victims whose intimate images have been posted online, and I have represented and advised service providers.

Most notably, I was part of a team at my firm that took the case of a 15-year-old girl, a victim of cyberbullying, to the Supreme Court of Canada. This was the first time that the court had the opportunity to consider the phenomenon of cyberbullying, and the unanimous court came out very strongly to protect the interests of this victim of sexualized cyberbullying. But I've also advised people who have been accused of cyberbullying, and I hope that this experience from a number of different perspectives will provide this committee with some assistance in its very important task of considering Bill C-13.

First, looking at the bill as a whole, I'm disappointed that Bill C-13 combines two very different but related matters: the dissemination of intimate images on one hand, and law enforcement powers more generally on the other hand. Both aspects raise very important issues that merit close scrutiny, but we're seeing the debate about police powers as overshadowing the discussion about cyberbullying. That said, we do have one bill in front of us and I'm pleased to provide you with my thoughts.

It has been suggested that Bill C-13, if it had been enforced, could have saved Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons and other young people. That makes a good sound bite, but the world is much more complicated than that. The creation, possession, and dissemination of child pornography is and was a crime. So is the creation, possession, and dissemination of voyeurism images. So is extortion. So is criminal harassment. So is sexual assault. But that said, there is a gap that we should fill, which is the malicious dissemination of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted in them, regardless of the age of the person depicted in the image.

We need to be very careful about how we craft this offence, however. The current reality is that young people and adults, whether we like it not, take photos of themselves and voluntarily share them with intimate partners. Those digital images can easily be spread around without the consent of the person depicted. We want to criminalize the boyfriend who posts pictures of his ex-girlfriend online without her consent, the so-called revenge porn. We want to criminalize the actions of the person who forwards around images of current or former intimate partners. In each of those cases, the individual would know, or ought to have known, whether they had the consent of the person depicted in those images.

But we need to be cautious. We shouldn't inadvertently criminalize behaviour that's not blameworthy. Someone finds a picture online of someone naked—I understand there are pictures of naked people on the Internet—and forwards it to a friend. That person knows nothing about the circumstances in which the photo was taken. It could be a professional model. The photo could have been posted by the person in the photo herself. There's no way to tell whether consent was obtained, whether there was any expectation of privacy at the time that the image was created, and the individual, in this case the accused, would have no way of determining this, would have no way of contacting the person in the image to find out. So the real challenge arises when addressing third parties who do not know the person depicted in the image, nor do they have knowledge of those circumstances in order to figure it out.

The provisions in the bill use a recklessness standard, which in my view is too low. Recklessness applies where a person should have looked into it but decided to be wilfully blind. However, given the huge number of images online, it's not possible to look into it. This is especially important for online service providers, who have no way of knowing and no way of finding out the circumstances under which an image was taken or uploaded. We need to be especially attentive to crafting the law so that it will survive a challenge in the courts, and recklessness poses a risk of having a law struck down or making criminals out of people who are not truly blameworthy.

Turning now to the part of the bill related to police powers, the first one that I'd like to speak about is transmission data. Bill C-13 creates a production order for transmission data and warrants for transmission data recorders. It has been said that the purpose of the transmission data provisions of the bill is to extend the current police powers—which are coupled with judicial oversight, I'm very pleased to see—related to telephone information and move that over to the Internet age, the idea being without significantly altering the status quo, simply altering or modernizing what's already an existing police power.

While this may be a very reasonable objective, this must be done also very carefully, because transmission data in the Internet age is very different from transmission data in the traditional plain old telephone system. With conventional telephony, transmission data refers to the number called from, the number called to, whether the call was connected, and how long that call lasted.

In the Internet context, the amount of information that's included in the kind of out-of-band signalling information and what it reveals is dramatically different. It would include the IP address of the originating computer, the destination computer, information about the browser that's being used, information about the computer that's being used, information about the URL, the address being accessed, which can actually disclose content, even though the definition of transmission data is intended to exclude that.

It will also tell you what kind of communications are being done. Is it an e-mail communication? Is it an instant message? Is it peer-to-peer file sharing or otherwise? So it provides much more insight into actually what is going on than just phone number information.

An interception of transmission data would tell law enforcement agencies whether the target of surveillance was visiting a search engine, an encyclopedia site, a poker site, or a medical site. Furthermore, the data would provide greater insight into the likely physical location of the surveillance target. This is a dramatic expansion of the information that's provided and available, compared to traditional telephone communications.

As anybody in this room knows, I expect, the way we use computers today is dramatically different from the way we used telephones 15 years ago. We use them as spellcheckers. We use them to find out facts. We use them for a much wider range of activities. With the disclosure of greater information through these transmission data orders, you're revealing much more about an individual. 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, so we're sure that we are, in fact, paralleling what is intended, which is to take the telephony tool and move that into the modern Internet age.

I would also note that in all of these orders—again, I'm pleased that they're subject to judicial oversight and judicial approval—there is no mechanism in these for notifying the individual after the fact that their information has been accessed, which I think is something that happens with respect to wiretap orders. Certainly it happens with respect to search warrants. I believe that should be extended into this environment as well for these sorts of production orders.

Finally, I would touch very briefly on the issue of service provider immunity that's touched on within this statute. I find this to be gravely problematic. I think it's a very cleverly crafted provision. We're told that this is simply for greater certainty, but it goes beyond that. Everything we know suggests otherwise.

It says that you will not be liable for handing over any data that you're not prohibited by law from handing over, and if you do so you're civilly immune. Now, only the criminal law and other regulations create prohibitions against handing over information, but you can hand over information when you're not legally prohibited and still incur civil liability. Civil liability is there for a reason. I may not be legally prohibited from accidentally driving my car into yours, but if I do that, you're entitled to damages from that. I should be paying for the harm that is caused.

If there were an immunity provision that said you could not sue me if I did something that was not legally prohibited, that would be squelched. That would go away. So this provision, I believe, should be removed. It can't be fixed and will only encourage overreaching by law enforcement.

In conclusion, while we don't have Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, in front of us, that fits together with the immunity provisions. I'm concerned that the two taken together will extend the amount of information not only available to law enforcement but will extend the information available to other civil litigants and others. Although I understand it's not within the jurisdiction of this committee, I flag the fact that Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 do, in fact, fit together, and somebody should look at that interrelationship.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you today. The cyberbullying provisions are an important step forward and will, if properly tweaked, address this very serious problem. The rest of the bill needs to be very closely examined to ensure that it does what it is supposed to do and nothing more. It should be about providing the police with appropriate tools, with adequate thresholds and accountability, and judicial oversight, but not redrawing the line with respect to personal privacy.

I very much look forward to discussing this issue with you further. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call this meeting to order. It's meeting number 22 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As per the orders of the day and the orders of reference of Monday, April 28, 2014, we are dealing today with Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

We have three groups of witnesses here today. Here as an individual, we have Mr. David Fraser, who is partner in the law firm of McInnes Cooper. From the Boys and Girls Club, we have with us Marlene Deboisbriand, the vice-president of member services, and Fahd....

What's your last name, Fahd?

Safeguarding of Personal Information

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to conclude the debate on the opposition motion.

I will read the motion, because after hearing such garbage today, I was beginning to think that I was not talking about the right one. This is what the motion, moved by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, is asking of the House:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

I cannot believe that today, May 5, 2014, the Conservatives are going to vote against this motion. It is absolutely incredible. We heard all sorts of drama from the Conservatives about extremely important security issues. They shifted the debate from the opposition motion, which simply calls on the government to grant the Privacy Commissioner's request and make certain information public. It seems quite reasonable to me.

Today is the best possible day to be in the House. This morning, we debated Bill C-567, which was introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and is all about access to information. This motion is completely justified in light of the context, but they are saying all kinds of things.

I would like to comment on a question that my colleague from Timmins—James Bay asked the last Conservative member who spoke. That member laughed in his face even though the question was completely relevant. It was about peace officers, not as the local paper defines them, but as the Criminal Code defines them.

I would like to give my colleagues opposite a little lesson about the Criminal Code. It is important to define the notion of “peace officer” accurately, because Bill C-13, the government's supposed cyberbullying bill, refers to that notion. That bill is about much more than cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images.

According to section 2 of the Criminal Code, a peace officer includes:

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when

(i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or

(ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act [or] the Excise Act...or a person having the powers of such an officer...

I could keep reading this definition until 6:15 p.m. It is not so far-fetched for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to suggest that Mayor Ford could request certain information.

What is more, the NDP has been heavily criticized today for some of its requests. However, in La Presse this morning, there was an article by Joël-Denis Bellavance on the information we are looking for with the official opposition motion moved by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. Mr. Bellavance reported that the Privy Council Office also made a request of all its departments. The PCO wanted to know who these people were who made 1.2 million requests for information about Canadians. There are 1.2 million Canadians who are allegedly affected by these requests.

All day, the Conservatives have been telling us that this is terrible, that what we are asking for is scary and that the NDP does not know what it is talking about.

I even heard one of the ministers of state, a junior minister over there, say the times have changed.

I think we all know that. Information circulates quickly, I agree. Regardless of the fact that times have changed, there are still laws that apply in this country.

We all know that this Conservative government likes to intrude on Canadian taxpayers' privacy and could not care less about almost every law around. When this government gets caught, it takes a holier than thou stance or it suddenly takes a few strategic steps backward and comes back with what I like to call the Trojan Horse tactic. In other words, it disguises its approach in another way.

Everyone in the House remembers Bill C-30, introduced by my favourite minister, the former minister of public safety. I was going to say something unkind, but I will be careful. Thank God the public woke up and made a concerted effort to ensure that the government backed down. This goes to show that ridicule never killed anyone. However, sometimes it kills political careers, even though politicians will often end up becoming a judge somewhere. Everyone kept telling the former public safety minister what he was in the process of doing. They ridiculed his bill. Sometimes that is what it takes with this government.

Their concerns were heard. The Conservatives withdrew the bill and suddenly we had Bill S-4 and Bill C-13, which deals with cyberbullying. Who in the House would not want to protect victims? Who would not want to say at some point that we passed legislation after a number of young people committed suicide as a result of bullying? That is rather disgusting, although there are other unparliamentary words that could be used. It is problematic to rise in the House and say that, on the contrary, we are in favour of cyberbullying. However, once again, the Conservatives introduced five or six pages of text that were more or less accurate and then combined them with tons of provisions that amend all sorts of legislation.

Fortunately, the Minister of Justice told me that he would give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the time needed to examine those provisions. Perhaps we, the members of that committee, are not the best people to examine those provisions. Fortunately, we will be hearing from many experts.

I still believe that the motion that I moved at the beginning of the debate on Bill C-13 made complete sense. I proposed dividing the bill in two so that that we could do what we do best: examine the provisions of the Criminal Code and make sure that the new provisions regarding the distribution of intimate images fall within the parameters and meet the test of the Criminal Code.

Instead, we are going to be spending a lot of our time looking at the aspects of the bill dealing with privacy and how certain telecommunications providers will be able to disclose information without a warrant, or with a warrant but with a lighter burden of proof, and so on.

Unfortunately, since the beginning, this government has shown us that it has no credibility. Every week, there is a new drama featuring one of the people sitting in the front benches. At the end of last week—and it has continued into this week—it was the Prime Minister and his serious insinuations. Sometimes, not saying enough is the same as saying too much. He attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Members on the Conservative benches are wondering why we do not trust them. Why are we suspicious when we get bills like Bill S-4 or Bill C-13? We are wondering what is behind those bills.

People have been debating this motion all day in the House. I repeat that it does not get any simpler than this motion, which calls on the government to follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. Who does not want to follow that advice? Who is against making public the number of disclosures, when even the Prime Minister's Office is quietly checking into this matter? The Conservatives are simply afraid of doing things. They want public information on our constituents, on Canadian taxpayers, but they do not want anyone other than themselves to have access to that information.

That is why the government does so much behind closed doors. The representatives of the people, here in the House, certainly have a right to know. We are getting questions as well. I hear from people, and I am sure that my colleagues in the House, even on the Conservative side, are hearing from people. I am shocked to see that many of these people, from the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance, who made a point of calling themselves the voice of the people, are now the biggest puppets, sitting in their seats, terrified to rise and say that this makes absolutely no sense.

At some point we need to wake up and go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents, who are asking what is going on with their information, who has access to this information, when and why. Are there 1.2 million criminals somewhere in Canada? Is it because we have relaxed our rules so much that everyone—ISPs, telecommunications companies and others—feels justified in passing on information? The companies know that they will go unpunished if they freely share information on anything. That is dangerous.

Some people here in the House say that times have changed. That is true. I can do research. In fact, I do not claim to know all the sections of the Criminal Code, and I was able to find the section on the concept of peace officer right away, in two seconds. It was actually quicker than that as I think it took me one-tenth of a second to find the definition in the Criminal Code. Sometimes I tell young people or future lawyers that they are lucky because, in my day—I do not like to say this because it dates me, but it is a fact—when I did my research, I had to go to the law faculty library and open maybe 18 books before formulating an idea. Now, we just click on a button.

However, just because information travels at astronomical speeds, it does not mean that the privacy guarantees and protections granted to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be trampled by a government that does not care about protecting its citizens.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I am sort of surprised at his reluctance, given all his talk about oversight, to support this motion, which is about oversight. The person who does oversight for Canadians is the Privacy Commissioner, who has raised the alarm bells.

I would like to also suggest to my hon. colleague that the proposals the government is bringing forward to legalize what has been happening with the 1.2 million requests would actually vastly expand the ability of all manner of people to conduct any manner of fishing expeditions.

I would like to refer to an article in the National Post today, talking about Bill C-13. It says it will take out the caveat of the necessity to actually be investigating a crime when you call up a telecom and want information about an average Canadian. That would be removed. I find it staggering that we would not need to have a reason to investigate someone, that someone would just be able to investigate it and it would be legal.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is okay for the government to vastly expand who can make those calls. It would not just be the RCMP or CSIS now. It would be all manner of public officers. It would include tax agents, sheriffs, reeves, justices of the peace, people who work in the fisheries department, and mayors. I would like to ask my hon. colleague, if he is in a dispute with the mayor in his jurisdiction does he think that the mayor should have the legal right that would be enshrined in Bill C-13? Perhaps they do not read their own legislation. I know they do what they are told over there. A mayor would have the right to call a telecom and ask for the IP information on an average Canadian citizen? Come on.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

It has been fascinating listening to the Conservatives, because in their upside-down world, they are opening the door to widespread snooping and spying on Canadians but are somehow protecting their privacy.

I ask my hon. colleague about what we are reading in the National Post about the government's supposed fix, Bill C-13. We have been hearing from their tough-on-crime guys. It is all about the police investigation and the importance of investigation. We need to be able to investigate and go after the crooks, the perverts, and the crazy terrorists. However, under Bill C-13, the Conservatives' fix would take out the provision, the caveat, that enforcement agencies would actually have to be doing an investigation. It would no longer be for investigating crime but for anything that would help in “administering any law in Canada”.

It is the ultimate free ride for fishing expeditions, not just for law enforcement but for corporations. Under Bill S-4, corporations could demand information on our Internet use, as could public officers, which include, if we look up the definition, reeves, mayors, and even people who work for the Department of Fisheries, fisheries officers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the government is so intent on changing the law to allow widespread snooping. Is it possibly because this is what the standard practice has become under the Conservatives' watch?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House this afternoon in support of the motion by my colleague, the MP for Terrebonne—Blainville, on this great opposition day.

It is a day in the House to be talking about privacy issues. This morning I had the privilege of speaking in support of Bill C-567, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document), put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

This morning's bill and this afternoon's motion complement each other very well. Together they demonstrate to Canadians our NDP desire that it be the citizens of this country, not the government of this country, who are able to conduct their lives with a reasonable expectation of privacy and that it be the government of this country, not its citizens, that has the obligation to operate in a manner that is transparent, open, and accountable.

If there is a simple conclusion to draw from the sum of the whole day, it is that the current Conservative government has it backwards, upside down, and twisted all around. The Conservatives stand in support of government privacy, of, in fact, the necessity to operate free from the scrutiny of the citizenry of Canada and those they elect to hold the government accountable.

How, the Conservatives ask in response to Bill C-567, can they operate at once openly and honestly? If they are to tell the truth, it must be behind the curtain, they argue, in the dark, out of earshot, and away from the gaze of the public and opposition members of this place. On the other hand, they demonstrate no mere disregard of the privacy rights of Canadian citizens. They demonstrate an appetite, a voracious, seemingly insatiable appetite, for the private information of Canadians.

Much is made of the fact that we live in new and different times, with new forms of information and new means of accessing that information. There is truth, of course, to this, undeniably. I think all of us are alive to the ease with which information we consider private is accessible to those who want to put some effort, and not much is required, into accessing it. Our expectation of privacy is diminished as a result, simply because we know the ease with which we are vulnerable. Therefore, we see the narrative here being one of the need to modernize our laws to take these new circumstances into account. That does not account for the conduct of the current government.

The problem before us is not simply one of a government that has not come up to speed, that has failed to respond in a timely way to these new circumstances, and that has left exposed loopholes in the formulation of the laws of this country. That would paint a picture of an incompetent or slow, but certainly benign, government. No, the current Conservative government is anything but benign.

Confronted with a loophole for accessing the private information of Canadians, a benign government may simply fail to close that loophole. The current government lets through that loophole, fully, completely, and head first, with great enthusiasm and an obvious lust for what it might find on the other side. What we have before us is evidence of this lust.

Very recently, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, revealed that Canadian telecom companies disclosed massive volumes of information to government agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency, and provincial and municipal authorities.

Telecom companies disclosed personal data to the Canadian government 1.2 million times in a single year. We can of course concede that a balance is to be found between privacy rights, public security, and other concerns, including immediate danger to life. However, this can be nothing other than an indiscriminate fishing expedition of monumental proportions that the Privacy Commissioner has revealed to us.

These volumes equate to information requests with respect to one in every 34 or so Canadians. The vast majority of these requests are made without warrants. These volumes equate to a request for personal data, by the federal government to a telecom company, once every 27 seconds.

So great is the volume of information requests that one telecom company has advised that it has installed what it calls “a mirror” on its network so that it can send raw data traffic directly to federal authorities. Michael Geist, a digital law professor at the University of Ottawa, says this of what is happening:

This is happening on a massive scale and rather than the government taking a step back and asking is this appropriate...we instead have a government going in exactly the opposite direction—in a sense doubling down on these disclosures

It is easy to find further evidence of this doubling down, of this appetite for private information. One cannot help but note that Bill C-13, which is purportedly about cyberbullying, is more about lowering the bar on government access to information. The “reason to believe” standard is being replaced with a “reason to suspect” standard, opening up much greater warrantless access to electronic information. Moreover, Bill C-13 would allow a broader and lower range of government officials to have access to the private information of Canadians.

Bill S-4 will also be coming before this House, we suspect. That bill would permit non-governmental organizations and corporations to have access to information from telecom companies. FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, buried deep in the budget bill, would expose the financial information of about one million Canadians to the U.S. government, and so on.

In light of all of this, one could argue that there is a kind of naiveté to the motion I speak in support of today. Certainly the first part of the motion is easy enough. It is, in fact, all the Privacy Commissioner has requested. She has said:

I'm not disputing that there are times when there is no time to get a warrant—life is in danger....

What we would like is for those warrantless disclosures to simply be represented in statistics so that Canadians have an idea of the scope of the phenomenon.

...It would give a form of oversight by empowering citizens to see what the scope of the phenomenon is.

It is a modest enough proposal: at least let me see what it is the federal government is doing here.

However, we are also asking the government to close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without warrants. In so doing, we must recognize that we are asking the predator to restrain itself, to bind itself, to limit its own appetite for our private information, to guard itself. It has no such impulse, no such sense of constraint, as is obvious from the 1.2 million requests, by Bill C-13, by Bill S-4, and by FATCA.

Here is the very saddest part of this. As we engage with each other through the technologies of this modern world, we do so with some trepidation about how exposed we are to the prying eyes and interests of others, and part of what we need to be concerned about now, we find out, are the prying eyes and interests of our own government. Rather than being able to rely on our own government to support us and to protect our privacy in this modern world, it appears that our government is itself a cause for concern.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in support of the official opposition New Democratic motion introduced by our superb colleague, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. I should point out that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the equally commendable member for Beaches—East York.

The motion before the House today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

If we think about those words, and I know Canadians will think about the text of the motion, who could possibly not support this? Who could possibly oppose a motion of the House of Commons in Canada that the government should simply tell the public how many warrantless disclosures are made by telecommunications companies at the federal government's request and close a loophole that allows the indiscriminate disclosure, meaning the improper disclosure, of personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant?

I would have thought that every member of the House would stand in support of such a motion, a motion that preserves and protects the very elementary privacy rights and expectations of Canadians everywhere, but that is not the case, because Conservatives in the House do not support the motion.

I am going to talk about how the motion came to be.

In summary, the motion addresses what we now have learned are rampant requests to telecommunications companies in Canada by various government agencies for Canadians' private information, often—in fact, normally and mostly—without a warrant.

We are calling on the government to listen to the Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of the House, to make public the number of requests disclosed by these companies, and to tighten the rules that allow it to happen.

This came out of an access to information request that determined that at least one Canadian telecom was giving the government unrestricted access to communications on its network, according to documents from Canada's Privacy Commissioner. The documents were obtained by University of Ottawa digital law Professor Michael Geist. He cited at that time an unnamed telecom firm as saying that it had allowed the government to essentially copy the communications data moving on its networks.

I quote Mr. Geist:

Interception of communications over data networks is accomplished by sending what is essentially a mirror image of the packet data as it transits to network of data nodes.

Then the Privacy Commissioner's document states:

This packet data is then sent directly to the agency who has obtained lawful access to the information. Deep packet inspection is then performed by the law enforcement agency for their purposes.

“Deep packet inspection” is a method of analyzing Internet traffic to determine the exact type of content. It can distinguish between emails, file-sharing and other types of internet communication, and can be used to build statistics about an internet user.

This statement appears in the document prepared by the law firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson for the Privacy Commissioner. It summarizes nine telecom firms' responses to questions about law enforcement access posed by the commissioner.

Mr. Geist called this “an incredible admission”.

He asks:

Are there legal grounds for these disclosures? Who is doing this?

He goes on to say later:

Given the uncertainty of the enormous privacy implications, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is surely entitled to investigate this admission using her current powers under PIPEDA.

Documents subsequently released by the interim Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, revealed that the government made about 1.2 million requests for subscriber data about Canadians from Canadian telecoms in 2011 alone. Mr. Geist calculates that it works out to one request every 27 seconds, and the Privacy Commissioner's report showed that telecom firms complied with the requests at least 784,000 times.

This issue engages one of the most important values that mark our nation. It is a value that marks our democracy. It is cherished by Canadians, valued by Canadians, and expected by Canadians. That is the value of privacy.

The government exists to protect its citizens. It exists to safeguard our rights, our interests, and our opportunities, so when the government is actually found to be the source of secret requests to private firms to try to get private information about Canadians without their knowledge and without ever appearing before a judge in a court to demonstrate that the government has any lawful interest in that information, in my view that is a violation of the most fundamental precept and obligation of the government. That is what is happening under the watch of the Conservative government.

I want to go through a few facts here. Canadian telecommunications providers collect massive amounts of data about their subscribers. These are the firms that have been asked by the government's agencies to disclose that information to law enforcement agencies. In 2011, providers responded to almost 1.2 million requests, but the actual total is likely even greater, since only three of nine telecom companies told the commissioner's office how many times they granted the government's request for customer data.

In 2010, RCMP data showed that 94% of requests involving customer name and address information was provided voluntarily, without a warrant. The Canada Border Services Agency obtained customer data from telecom companies 19,000 times in one year, and it obtained a warrant in fewer than 200 of those cases. Significantly, one Canadian company has told officials that it has installed “what is essentially a mirror” on its network so that it can send raw data traffic directly to “federal authorities”.

The Privacy Act, which is meant to protect Canadians' privacy and keep the government accountable, has not been updated since 1983, before the Internet, Google, email, Facebook, and Twitter were even invented. PIPEDA, which protects Canadians' privacy in the private sector, has not been updated since 2000. Once again, that is before Facebook, Twitter, and social media had really taken off in our country.

I would think that if the government is really concerned about the values of privacy and protecting Canadians' rights, it would spend time in this place modernizing those acts and doing so in a way that is consistent with Canadians' expectations. Instead, it is doing the opposite. It has introduced Bill C-13, a bill that is expressed to be aimed at attacking cyberbullying, but which is expected to expand warrantless disclosures of Internet or cellular subscriber information to law enforcement.

Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, has been introduced in the Senate. It would also extend the authority to disclose subscriber information without a warrant to private organizations, and not just law enforcement agencies. It would also allow telecom companies to disclose the personal information of consumers without their consent and without a court order to any organization investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of a law.

There are many validators of the New Democratic position. New Democrats think privacy laws should be modernized and strengthened to better protect Canadians' personal information, not weakened. New Democrats believe that we can and should aggressively pursue criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law without treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals and violating their rights.

Privacy is something that must be judiciously and carefully guarded by every generation. We have people as diverse as Benjamin Franklin, who said that those who would give up liberty for a little security deserve neither. We have organizations as diverse as the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who are joining together in their concern about the issue of violations of privacy and surveillance of Canadians' private interests on the Internet by the government.

I say that what Canadians want of their federal government is for it to protect their privacy interests, not be complicit in violating them.

For the Conservative government to allow 1.2 million requests to go to telecoms for Canadians' personal information without their consent, without their knowledge, and without a court order is something that every Canadian in this land would disapprove of.

I ask all of my colleagues in the House to vote for this well-thought-out motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for sharing her time today. She gave an excellent speech on this topic and it is an honour for me to speak to this issue. I appreciate the New Democratic Party using its supply day that provides opposition parties an opportunity in every session a number of days to put forward any items they would like for discussion.

Frankly, in the past some of the topics that have been brought forward on supply days I thought were very much a waste of important time that the opposition is allotted. However, in this case it is important. It is in the news. It is something that has been happening in terms of information that is out there and it is important for us to have a debate on this and discuss what the facts are in this case and going forward.

There is an important balance required between privacy and the ability of law enforcement, in particular, to be able to do their jobs. The Conservatives have has put in around 30 measures since we have taken office to improve issues with privacy and access to information regarding this and it is always important to have a balance.

There have been a few misconceptions propagated in the press or in the House and connections with what was in the newspaper and Bill S-4 in the Senate that talks about PIPEDA and a number of other areas, but I want to focus on what is in front of us today. The main question is what type of information our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are requesting from telecommunications service providers.

The vast majority of those investigations were agencies requesting voluntary co-operation. Before we go any further, it is voluntary co-operation. They ask and the service providers provide. They are not providing all the content of what an individual may be using or looking at through their IPS or service provider, whether it is a cellphone or the Internet, but they are providing basic address information such as name and address.

A simple example would be this. The police could look in the phone book. They know where I live. I know who is on my street. I have lived there for 16 years. Police might come to my door and ask if so-and-so lives next door. I have to say “yes”. I voluntarily provide that information and that is basically what has been asked for. I do not give the police permission to go into my neighbour's mailbox, open their mail, and read their mail. That is not the permission we are providing and that is being accessed here.

I would not expect the police or anyone else to be able to go into my mailbox in my house. I am happy for them to come to my door to find me. I think that is information that has been out there for many moons, but they are not entitled to go into my mailbox and read my mail. They can if they get a warrant through the judicial system that allows that to happen. That is exactly what is happening here.

The world is changing. In the late eighties, early nineties, I worked for a company and I had what was called a car phone. It was on a post attached to the floor of my car. At that time, there were few of us who had them, but times have changed. Now 21 million Canadians have access to a cellphone, they are texting and it is a different type of communication. There is no reason why we, as the government or the police force or intelligence agency, should not be able to keep up with the times. How are we going to do our jobs if we do not keep up with the times?

Many of my constituents think that government is always behind the times, and some days here I actually agree with them.

However, it is not about the content of this information that is voluntarily being provided. If a company decides that it does not wish to provide it on a voluntary basis, then the police force, intelligence agency, or whoever is asking for it, is required to go and get a warrant or whatever legal document they need through the legal system to be able to have access to that information. I have no particular issue with this. Does any of this information require a warrant? Not if it is voluntarily provided.

I would say that if there is any further detail about exactly what somebody is accessing through their email, who they are emailing and all of that larger data, even as it is grouped, is not allowed. One needs a warrant for that particular information. Megadata is not covered in the voluntary aspect of those requests and they would still need a warrant.

I think members will find that the information that has been asked for and voluntarily provided is very simple address information. The parliamentary secretary indicated a number of uses for that information, and I think that is appropriate.

I can say that if I had a loved one who was missing or recently found and officials were able to contact me because they were able to find, through who they were dealing with, my phone number so they could let me know that they had found this individual, I would be very happy for the police to do that.

I had my home broken into a number of years ago and we had some property stolen. We voluntarily provided the police information to contact us if they were able to find some of our stolen goods. In fact, the police did. They found it at a pawn shop and they contacted us. They were also able to track down the individual who was in our home and prosecute the individual for the crime against us.

This is the kind of information that is now available and required. It is address information that happens to be in an electronic format. It is not on paper any more. It is not a phone book on paper, but in an electronic format, and officials are able to use that.

The justice committee that I chair is presently looking at a cyberbullying bill, Bill C-13. We are just embarking on that study and as of tomorrow we will hear from victims of cyberbullying. We will also hear from police forces and agencies that protect children. I will be interested to find out how they feel about basic address information being provided to law enforcement organizations to help prevent this kind of abuse and tragedy that happens to our young people throughout the country.

I have great faith and trust in our law enforcement agencies, as I think all of us do in this House. I am confident that our law enforcement agencies are following the law that is on the books presently. They are gathering information that they are entitled to, which is given voluntarily to help them solve crimes. For information that is deeper and more informative that they need, they will get the proper legal documentation, whether that is a warrant or other devices available to them. I have confidence in our system.

I have confidence in our law enforcement agencies. I believe it is important to balance the issues of privacy and protection of the public. I believe our law enforcement and intelligence agencies do an excellent job for Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with interest, and a little surprise. This is a government that seems to be talking out of the both sides of its mouth. It first says it is just basic data that anyone can get in a phone book but that we need to do it immediately to stop all kinds of terrorist threats.

She mentioned ISP numbers and IP addresses and said that is ordinary; it is like looking in a phone book. I would like to quote Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who I am sure my hon. colleague would agree is a vigilant defender of Canadians' rights. She said that getting government information on an IP address is not like the digital equivalent of using a phone book. She stated:

...customer name and address information ties us to our entire digital life, unlike a stationary street address. Therefore, “subscriber information” is far from the modern day equivalent of a publicly available “phone book”. Rather, it is the key to a much wider, sensitive subset of information.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why this large subset of sensitive information would be opened up under Bill C-13 to so-called public officers, which would include reeves, wardens, fisheries officers, and mayors. Under Bill S-4, this information will also be turned over to corporations that ask for it through telecoms. Then the telecoms would be given blanket immunity not to tell Canadians. Why is it that the government is going to expand who has access to this sensitive subset of information on the private lives of Canadians?

Privacy

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were spied on 1.2 million times last year, and under the government, it is about to get a lot worse. Under Bill S-4, the Conservatives will now make it legal for corporations to call telecoms and demand an individual's personal information.

Under Bill C-13, peace officers or public officers, who are defined in law as small town reeves, fisheries inspectors and officers and yes, mayors like Rob Ford will now be able to call telecoms and demand our personal information.

It is like a massive fishing expedition. Why has the government declared open season on the private rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens?

Opposition Motion—Safeguarding of Personal Information

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do take the member up on the first point that she made. All Canadians should be concerned about privacy. All Canadians may be concerned about it, but the Conservative government is definitely not concerned.

I mentioned two bills, Bill C-13, the bill aimed at attacking cyberbullying, and Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. Both of these bills expand warrantless disclosure of Internet or cellular subscriber information to law enforcement.

There is no oversight. The Conservative government does not have a grip on the laws of social media.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the motion by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

The motion calls on government to make public the number, and just the number, of warrantless disclosures made by telecom companies at the request of federal departments and agencies. The motion also calls on government to close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

To simplify, how many times have telecom companies handed out personal information about Canadians without a warrant to government? The government must find an immediate way to shut down the loophole that allows such personal information to be released.

We live in an incredibly connected world. Earlier this year I travelled to Tanzania, Africa, to tour Canadian development projects with a group called Results Canada. Its mission is all about ending extreme poverty, and I did see some extreme poverty. One of the images that will always stick with me is walking into a maternity ward at a rural hospital, or what they called a hospital. The maternity ward was crammed with nine or 10 beds, but there were two women in labour to a single bed.

The Tanzanians I met were the finest and best kind of people, a lovely people, but they were living with basically nothing. Still, almost every adult I came across, who could have absolutely nothing but the second-hand clothes on their back and be sleeping under a tree, still had a cellphone, and they looked at the screens as often as we do.

My point is that from Tanzania to Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, my neck of the woods, the dependency on the Internet and on cellphones is universal.

Just this weekend I read an article by Stephen Hawking, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, on how artificial intelligence—and we are almost to that point—could be the worst thing to happen to humanity. It would be more or less the rise of the machines. I cannot even imagine a country being led by a robot.

Oh, wait; yes, I can.

Another article I read this weekend outlined how U.S. intelligence whistle-blower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. I do not know if it is to that point in Canada, but we do have some serious cause for concern.

Let us look at the numbers first.

In late April, we learned that government departments and agencies—the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, and CSIS, the Canadian spy agency—requested personal information from telecom companies almost 1.2 million times in 2011 alone. That is staggering. It is a jaw-dropping rate. As the previous speaker said, it is one request every 27 seconds.

However, the number of requests for personal information is most likely greater than 1.2 million, because three of nine telecom companies told the Privacy Commissioner how many times they granted the government's requests for customer data, not how many times the government asked for the data. It was how many times they gave the data.

It is reported that wireless telecom companies complied with the government's requests for customer data at least 785,000 times. The 2010 data from the RCMP show that 94% of requests involving customer name and address information was provided voluntarily without a warrant.

Here is another indicator or how often warrants were used or not used. Canada Border Services Agency obtained customer data from telecom companies 19,000 times in one year, but it obtained a warrant in fewer than 200 of those cases.

Do Canadians have a problem with telecom companies handing out their personal information left, right, and centre? Yes, we do. This is not 1984 or Brave New World. The idea of a Conservative Big Brother does not sit well with Canadians.

That said, it is generally understood across the board that police need information to catch criminals and to protect Canadian society. There is no time to get a warrant when a life is in danger, when a life is in jeopardy.

However, this is beyond that. At least 1.2 million requests for personal information, most times without a hint of a warrant, is a staggering statistic. The current Conservative government is paying to access our personal information, to the tune of between $1 and $3 for each request.

More than two years ago in this House, the former minister of public safety, Vic Toews, introduced Bill C-30, a bill to expand police surveillance of the web. At the time, he said “[You're either] with us or with the child pornographers”. That statement got the attention of all of Canada, and the immediate and appropriate backlash forced the Conservatives to back down, to walk away from the bill.

Since that outrageous bill was dropped and Toews was appointed to the Manitoba bench—but that is another story—the current government has introduced other legislation to this House that it says will protect the privacy of Canadians. In fact, the legislation may actually increase spying on Canadians without a warrant. The first example, Bill C-13, is a bill that is aimed at tackling cyberbullying and is expected to expand warrantless disclosure of Internet and cellular subscriber information to law enforcement agencies. Another example is Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, which would extend the authority to disclose subscriber information without a warrant to private organizations, not just law enforcement agencies.

The government has a bad habit of doing through the back door what it cannot do through the front door. The current government also has some hypocritical tendencies. On the one hand, the Minister of Industry argued that the long form census was intrusive, so the Conservatives eliminated it. On the other hand, this administration has no qualms and sees nothing wrong with invading the private information of Canadians and not telling them about what it is doing. It has repeatedly introduced legislation that would make it easier for Conservatives to snoop on Canadians.

Here is another example of hypocrisy. This country's information watchdog has said that it has been flooded with complaints that the current Conservative government is too often citing security in order to withhold documents requested under the Access to Information Act. The Conservatives are using the security excuse to withhold public information at the same time that the floodgates are open on the personal information and security of Canadians.

We live in an age where technology is advancing at an incredible pace and rate. Yet, the Privacy Act that is meant to protect the privacy of Canadians and keep government accountable has not been updated since 1983. That was before the Internet, Google, email, Facebook, and Twitter. Another act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, has not been updated since 2000, also before social media was born.

New Democrats believe that privacy laws should be modernized. We also believe they should be strengthened, not weakened, to better protect the personal information of Canadians. We also believe we can pursue bad guys and throw the book at them without treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals and violating their rights.

I will end with words from Edward Snowden, the former U.S. intelligence contractor, who said last week that state surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance. He said:

It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.

In so many ways, the Internet and social media are the new frontier. They are still the new frontier. It is our duty to ensure that laws and security do not fall to Big Conservative Brother.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House on behalf of the people of Pontiac to support the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague, who does an excellent job when it comes to protecting the privacy of Canadians in the digital age.

I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who tells me that his riding is the most beautiful in the country. However, I have to disagree with him because surely Pontiac is the most beautiful.

The subject of this motion could not be more important: the privacy of Canadians. The good people of the Pontiac are as concerned as other citizens that the increasingly technological world we live in should respect the privacy of individuals. This privacy may be breached in all sorts of ways today, but governments, as well as companies, have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that they protect the private lives of Canadians.

To me, the privacy of Canadians is sacrosanct. We are a G7 country where democracy has been stable, and we have a duty to our fellow citizens in this regard. However, we must remain constantly vigilant when the government begins to creep into the lives of Canadians. This is a slippery slope in any democracy, and certain inherent dangers exist in the sharing of private information with the government. This begs the question: what limits are imposed on governments today when they request information that is not voluntarily given by Canadians?

We have learned recently that Canadian law enforcement agencies have begun to request massive amounts of information on Canadians from telecommunications companies. Due to advances in technology, it is the telecommunications sector, and providers in particular, who collect massive amounts of data about their subscribers.

What is worrying is that this is not the first time we have heard this. In 2011, according to the Privacy Commissioner, telecommunications providers responded to 1,193,630 requests for the personal information of Canadians. That is an average of one request every 27 seconds. This does not even cover it, since only three of the nine major telecom companies actually informed the commissioner's office of how many times they granted the government's request for consumer data.

Of this staggering number of requests, figures provided to the office in late 2011 show that wireless telecom companies complied with the government's request for customer data, and the vast majority of these requests were done without a warrant or even information sent to the individuals concerned. No consent was sought, and no consent was given.

The situation is so bad, and so many requests have been made, that one major company actually had to install a mirror of their data on a network so that it could send this raw data traffic directly to the federal authorities requesting it.

A concerted government response is clearly required and urgently needed to protect the privacy of Canadians. Instead, seemingly to have an increased amount of information on Canadians, the government has actually eroded the protection of the privacy of Canadians since it formed government. Whether this has been on purpose or by accident, we can judge the consequences.

For example, it has consistently refused to update any of the laws that keep the government accountable with regard to the privacy information of Canadians. The privacy laws have not been updated since the 1980s. That was before Facebook. In fact, the Internet was in its infancy back then. We have to do better.

By allowing thousands of breaches of personal information, the government has also consistently shown itself to be incapable of adequately protecting Canadians' privacy within its own departments, as we have seen with the recent Heartbleed situation or as one can recall from the letter debacle at the CRA. Contradictions abound, because under the pretext of protecting the privacy of Canadians and while decrying heavy-handed government, the industry minister argued that the long form census was intrusive and eliminated it, yet the government sees nothing wrong with invading Canadians' private information without a warrant and without even telling them.

It has repeatedly introduced legislation that makes it easier for Conservatives and the government to snoop on Canadians. For example, we can remember the public safety minister's introduction of the infamous Bill C-30, known as the online snooping bill. Fortunately, Canadians were paying attention. They were outraged, and the government was forced to back down. Since then, though, Bill C-13, the government's cyberbullying law, though well-intentioned, includes lawful access provisions that would expand warrantless disclosure of information to law enforcement by giving immunity from any liability to companies holding Canadians' information if they disclose it without a warrant. This makes it more likely that companies would have to hand over information without a warrant, as there are no risks they would face or any criminal or civil penalties if they do so.

We can also mention Bill S-4, the new so-called digital privacy act, which would go even further and allow private sector organizations to hand over Canadians' private information. This again could be done without consent and without a court order to any organization investigating a breach of contract or potential violation of any law. This could also be done in secret, without the knowledge of the affected person.

We may, quite reasonably, ask why the government is not taking the privacy of Canadians more seriously. Where is the libertarian zeal that motivated so many of my colleagues on the other side of the House, the idea that government was too big and too intrusive in the lives of Canadians? The reality is that government has crept more into the lives of Canadians under the watch of this government than at perhaps any other time in Canadian history.

Many questions remain unanswered. The citizens of my riding would like to understand why breaches to their privacy are happening more and more frequently. The onus is on the government to prove there is enough crime or potential terrorism or other matters of national security to justify 1.2 million requests for personal information in a single year.

However, what concerns me the most is the lack of due process. It seems to me that when law enforcement agencies decide they want private information on citizens, at the very least there should be a good cause for them to seek it. In our current situation, that determination is assured by the warrant process. If a request does not meet the requirements of a warrant, then it should simply not be made.

Since I am short on time, I will skip ahead. Essentially, Canadians have a right to know who is snooping on them and how they are doing it. I just do not understand why the Conservative government does not simply come clean with Canadians and give them the whole picture of what is really going on. On our side of the House, we want this information to be provided to Canadians as rapidly as possible.

Canadians understand that law enforcement agencies need information to track down criminals.

However, the fact that the government is requesting Canadians' personal information from telecommunications companies without a warrant 1.2 million times a year is completely unacceptable. The problem with warrantless disclosure is that it is uncontrolled and results in information being disclosed much more frequently than is justified.

In conclusion, it is clear that our privacy laws need to be updated in order to better protect Canadians' personal information. These laws must not be weakened. We need to be able to take effective legal action against criminals without infringing on the rights of law-abiding Canadians and treating them like criminals.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, presently before committee, contains in it an immunity for the voluntary, secret, and warrantless disclosure of information by telephone companies. Bill S-4, presently before the Senate, expands the entities that can receive this information, so the two of them added together would result in greater lawful, warrantless, and secret disclosure of Canadians' subscriber information.

Does the minister not feel that Canadians have any right to know when and how their subscriber information is being disclosed to an increasingly broad audience?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his great speech. He mentioned that Bill C-13 will expand the abilities of government agencies and public officers, and even those of certain mayors and certain people in the fisheries department, which is somewhat odd. However, one thing it does is give legal immunity to telecommunications companies that decide to disclose voluntarily customer data.

Although this is a huge loophole in the law that we have created and today we are hoping that we can close this loophole through our motion, one of the things a telecommunications company might think before disclosing data is whether it could get in trouble, be sued, and so forth. That is the one little tiny threshold that we have in place right now. We are removing that with Bill C-13.

I want to ask my colleague this today. Is he scared that we might be creating somewhat of a quasi-governmental spying agency through telecoms?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on this very important issue. The New Democratic Party calls for accountability and an explanation on behalf of Canadians into the widespread spying and interference of Canadians' Internet use and their cellphone use under the current government.

What we are asking for today is eminently reasonable. We are asking simply to ensure the powers of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the member who represents us as a parliamentary officer, who represents the Canadian people, and that she have the authority to ensure that the laws of this land are being followed.

Now, we have a government, of course, that will do anything it can to obstruct the work of the offices of Parliament because right now the offices of Parliament are about the only bulwark standing in the way of the numerous underminings of Canadians' legal rights, and even the illegal activities that are being undertaken by the Conservative Party.

It has been said that one of the foundations of a democracy is to ensure maximum transparency for government and maximum privacy for citizens. However, the current paranoid and secretive government has flipped it. The Conservatives have maximum privacy for their black holes of administration where they refuse to answer the simplest questions, and they are getting maximum transparency on the lives of Canadian citizens to the tune of 1.2 million requests of telecoms last year.

Now that is a conservative number, and I say “conservative” in the way the Conservatives have begun to use this, because not all the telecoms bothered to even respond to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. That is a very disturbing trend.

What does the 1.2 million requests mean? It means that every 27 seconds someone from a government agency, who, we do not know; for what reason, we do not know; for what possible motive, we do not know; picks up a telecom and asks for information about the private lives of Canadian citizens, and gets it without warrant.

Let us debunk the excuses we have heard from the Conservatives on this.

First is the bogeyman excuse. Conservatives use the bogeyman all the time. The bogeyman is out there roaming the streets. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham the other day made it sound like his neighbourhood was a case of Shaun of the Dead. There are these violent criminals and terrorists all over the place and so the Conservatives have to be able to call up a telecom immediately to gather any information they need whenever they want it.

Those laws already exist and it is fairly straightforward to get information if a violent crime is occurring. However, we are being led to believe that the bogeyman is out there and the current government has to stop it.

How does the government define terrorists?

I think we should say that, in this whole piece on spying, we are dealing with the revenge of Vic Toews. I refer members back to February 2012 when Vic Toews branded the new anti-terrorism strategy, “building resilience against terrorism: Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy”.

The government was going to go after terrorists, which included domestic extremism that is “based on grievances--real or perceived--revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights...environmentalism and anti-capitalism”.

If a person is against the Northern Gateway Pipeline, under the current government's framework, he or she is a potential terrorist. Therefore, the government can decide to follow his or her movements, as he or she is one of the bogeymen.

A concern about animal rights is not that of concern for animal rights such as our Prime Minister's wife who tells us that 1,000 murdered or missing women may be a great cause, but they are here for abandoned cats. The government is probably not spying on the Prime Minister's wife. However, someone else who might have concerns about animal rights, and it is in there, is a potential terrorist and worthy of picking up the phone.

One of the other excuses is that the Conservatives are not asking for anything that is not already the norm. It is just like picking up a phone book and looking up a number. Calling a telecom and demanding private information on Canadians is just like using a phone book.

The Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ann Cavoukian, says that is a load of bunk. She said the following about getting even basic subscriber information such as ISP numbers:

...customer name and address information ties us to our entire digital life, unlike a stationary street address. Therefore, “subscriber information” is far from the modern day equivalent of a publicly available “phone book”. Rather, it is the key to a much wider subset of information.

Then the Conservatives say, “Don't you trust our police?” We certainly would trust the police. However, we also see that Ann Cavoukian has said that at no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning that Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings in the current law. The privacy commissioners in their joint letter, also write to the Prime Minister saying, “The capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny” is the heart of the issue.

We all remember when Vic Toews stood up in the House and told Canadian citizens who were concerned about the fact that they were being spied on, that they were basically in league with child pornographers if they had the nerve to stand up for them. That was such a boneheaded move and it caused such a blowback on the government that they had to retract the legislation. Why would the Conservatives show intent on pushing that through? We now know, they were trying to legalize what has become the common practice. Their shadow world of spying on Canadians is not legal. Gathering this information without warrants is not legal. This is why they put forward Bill C-30, to attempt to deal with it. We all remember Vic Toews had one of those pieces, “The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with” their ability to spy on Canadians.

That seemed like such a bizarre request at the time, but we have seen with the NSA and the widespread spying on American citizens and citizens around the world is exactly what Vic Toews was getting at, which is the ability to create mirror sites. The fact that we just learned in Der Spiegel that the NSA tapped the underwater cable network between Europe and U.S.A. to listen in on what ordinary citizens were doing on the Internet. The Conservatives have the same vision. They wanted to legalize that ability, and they were frustrated.

We are hearing the biggest excuse from the Conservatives. They realize the Vic Toews approach of accusing ordinary Canadians of being like child pornographers really did not work, but now they would reassure Canadians that they would fix it. They will fix it all right. They will fix it so that not only they will get to spy on Canadians, but anybody who wants to will be able to spy on Canadians: corporations can spy on Canadians, and all manner of very dubiously named authorities now will be able to spy.

Let us go through some of the issues on Bill S-4 and Bill C-13. According to Michael Geist, Bill S-4 will “massively expand warrantless disclosure of personal information”, because under Bill S-4, “an organization may disclose the personal information without the knowledge and consent of the individual...if the disclosure is made to another organization”. Not the laws of the land, not the RCMP, not anti-terrorism units, but if an individual is in dispute with a corporation over some contractual obligation, it can call their telecom, have their information handed over and they will not be told.

The Conservatives will certainly fix it. They will fix it to make widespread snooping of everything we do all the time perfectly legitimate for any corporation that just phones up and says it wants to know what they are doing on the Internet.

That is not all. Let us look at Bill C-13, which will give a public officer or a peace officer the ability to call telecom, demand information, and the telecoms will receive legal immunity for passing over this private information.

An interesting article in the National Post points out that Rob Ford will now be able to make these requests, because, oh, yes, he is a public officer, and under the act, if Rob Ford wants to find out what his neighbours are doing, interfering with the drug gangs in Rexdale with whom he might be friends, he would actually be able to make the calls.

The Criminal Code describes these peace officers, public officers, as including reeves of small towns, county wardens, who would be able to get information, and even people designated under the Fisheries Act. However, there is another element that is really important. Under the present laws, even with all this snooping that is going on, it has to be part of an investigation. The government would remove the caveat that says this snooping, this spying on the rights of Canadians does not have to have anything to do with an investigation. If the Conservatives want a fishing trip, if they want to keep tabs on them, they will be able to do so.

This needs to be dealt with. This is a government that is spying on law-abiding citizens and treating them as criminals, and it needs to be held accountable for this abuse of Canadians' rights.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. I have great respect for the excellent work she does for Canadians on this very important file.

I would like to ask her about the spin we are hearing from the government. Conservatives keep changing their story about how they actually somehow care for Canadians' private information, and the Minister of Industry is telling us that Bill C-13 and Bill S-4 will fix the problem. They will fix it, all right.

Under Bill C-13, anyone designated as a public officer will be able to gather information without a warrant. It is in the bill. Under clause 20, what a peace officer or public officer would be in the Criminal Code would include wardens, reeves of small towns, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and persons designated under the Fisheries Act, meaning that the Fisheries Act would be able to get information from the telecoms about folks in Timmins—James Bay who are out fishing. Of course, mayors are included as well.

It seems to me that the government is now moving backward to actually legalize widespread snooping and open up snooping to all manner of people who have no business being able to find out personal information, what people do on the Internet, or who they phone.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the government is telling Canadians that allowing widespread snooping by wardens, reeves, sheriffs, mayors, and people designated under the Fisheries Act will somehow protect Canadians' privacy.

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should follow the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and make public the number of warrantless disclosures made by telecommunications companies at the request of federal departments and agencies; and immediately close the loophole that has allowed the indiscriminate disclosure of the personal information of law-abiding Canadians without a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

I am very pleased today to move this motion to ensure that justice is served for Canadians. However, I am very disappointed to have to rise once again to protest this government's extremely reprehensible actions.

I would have thought that, after three years, it would have finally understood. However, once again, the government has been caught spying on its own people.

With such ridiculous statements as, for example, if we did not support bill C-30 we were siding with pedophiles, the government has constantly tried to minimize the impact of its proposed measures on the lives of Canadians, all the while boasting and insinuating that it is proposing reasonable and necessary measures, which has been proven to be false by many impartial stakeholders.

The Conservative government called our assessment “speculation and unwarranted fearmongering” or a series of outlandish conspiracies made up by the NDP. After being harshly criticized by the public, media, and civil liberty and rights groups, as well as by privacy experts, the government finally listened and withdrew these bills or let them die on the order paper.

However, we still need to point out that exploiting the personal information on Canadians without reasonable cause and without a warrant is a huge violation of their privacy. I do not think I have heard about 1.2 million criminals being convicted of accessing personal information in 2011.

Last week, new revelations showed that government agencies and departments allegedly asked telecommunications companies to share personal information with them without a warrant. Not once, not a hundred times or a thousand times. They asked 1.2 million times.

We condemn this highly questionable tactic, since there is no legislative oversight to determine whether the government's reasons for accessing this information were valid.

Like many Canadians, I understand and support the need for security authorities to have the tools they need to fight crime in our country and to make us feel safe at home.

However, how can the government justify 1.2 million requests in a single year to achieve that goal? That happened in 2011, and the government was not required to explain what this information was necessary or how and for what it would be used.

When I think of the majority of Canadians who abide by the law and who could be affected by these requests, I find it unacceptable, disgusting and incomprehensible that the government is treating them like criminals.

The privacy of Canadians has been taken lightly by past Liberal and Conservative governments for far too long, and Canadians affected by the thousands of data breaches in government agencies are paying the price. To hear that the government is snooping on them as though they were common criminals when they have done nothing wrong is another blow on top of it all. Last week the government tried to make us believe these requests were made for public safety reasons, but let us look at the case of the CBSA.

In response to my order paper question, after reviewing the number of requests made from the CBSA in one year, we find that no requests were made in exigent circumstances. The 18,849 others were made in non-exigent circumstances. From these requests, only two were made for national security reasons, none for terrorism alerts, none for foreign intelligence, and none on the grounds of child exploitation, so it is hard to believe the government when it says that these millions of requests were made for national security reasons when the numbers speak a very different truth.

Canadians understand that law enforcement institutions need information to identify, catch and judge criminals. However, when the government makes 1.2 million requests for Canadians' private information from telecommunications companies per year, that is not just about cracking down own crime; that is spying.

The vast majority of Canadians are law-abiding. There is no reason for the government to engage in such broad spying activities. If the Canadian government decides to spy on its own citizens, it should do so only if it has reason to suspect them and only with a warrant.

If the law permits this kind of warrantless spying, the law must be changed immediately, and that is what the NDP is trying to do today. If the government needs a warrant to listen to Canadians' phone conversations, the same should apply to their online activities.

We understand that certain extremely urgent circumstances do not permit the obtaining of a warrant. However, the information we received from the Privacy Commissioner last week goes far beyond the imaginable: 1.2 million requests for subscriber data without a warrant is unacceptable and unjustifiable.

In Canada, we are very lucky to have a legal framework for obtaining a warrant. That framework protects Canadians and prevents abuses by the authorities. Unfortunately, there is a loophole in the system the Liberals introduced.

Today, the Conservatives are taking advantage of that loophole to spy on their own citizens. Clearly, the government is no longer in control of the warrantless disclosure procedures.

As I said earlier, the Conservatives' spying cannot be justified on national security grounds. Moreover, it is done in secret. The Privacy Commissioner is not even informed.

If the government had a real, viable motive for snooping on Canadians, it would have no problem whatsoever with warning Canadians when they were being snooped on, it would have no issue working with the OPC, and it would strengthen our laws to better protect Canadians against these types of abuses.

We do not know why, how often or how long the government has been spying. What is even more incredible is that the Conservatives have long been trying to expand the legal framework around requesting information without a warrant. If the government decides to spy on Canadians, there should be just cause, it should be overseen by the courts and it should happen only under exceptional circumstances.

What is even more ridiculous than the government's unwillingness to protect Canadians' privacy is its complete lack of understanding about the scope of the problem. Just last week, the Privy Council Office asked that all departments provide details about the number of personal information requests submitted to various telecommunications companies over the past three years.

That proves that the government has abused the loophole in the law to the point where it has lost control of its departments on this issue.

The Conservatives have proven that they are unable to protect the privacy of Canadians. The Privacy Act dates back to 1983, before the arrival of the Internet, and PIPEDA has not been updated since 2000, before the age of social media.

Instead of strengthening the laws and increasing government accountability, the Conservatives are moving in the other direction. Instead of protecting Canadians' privacy, Bills C-13 and S-4 will increase the likelihood that the government will spy on its own citizens. From an ethical standpoint, that is extremely problematic.

With Bill C-13 alone, the government would expand the number of people who can make requests for subscriber data so that even people like Rob Ford could access our personal information. It would create legal immunity for voluntary disclosure of personal information and it would expand the circumstances under which personal information could be disclosed.

As if that were not enough, the government is using taxpayers' money to spy on them. Government agencies pay telecommunications companies between $1 and $3 for each information request. That means that, at the very least, Canadian taxpayers have paid between $1.2 million and $3.6 million to be spied on. I say that is the minimum because only some of the telecommunications companies have disclosed how often they provide information to the government.

If all of those information requests were justified, and if the telecommunications companies were not worried about disclosing their practices, I would likely not be making this speech today. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are trying so hard to hide their spying that it is worrisome.

What are they using all that personal information for? Can they even justify the importance of the information? It is clear that the government believes that Canadians are criminals because it spies on them without their knowledge, as though it suspected them of something. This motion defends the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians, and it is meant to counter the government's nefarious attempts to get information by the back door.

Since becoming the critic for digital issues, I have risen dozens of times to draw attention to and criticize the alarming state of our privacy laws. Laws that are meant to properly protect us in the digital age should have been revised years ago and are now unsuitable for protecting the public and our children.

In my time as opposition critic for digital issues, I have seen not one but four different pieces of legislation introduced in the House that would facilitate government snooping instead of fixing the problem.

Canadians are worried. They are right to be. The Internet that they have known as an open and free space for social and political discussions is threatened by the snooping of their very own government. Law-abiding citizens should be able to benefit from the Internet without the threat of being treated like common criminals.

I ask all my colleagues to vote in favour of our motion in order to restore Canadians' trust in matters concerning the protection of their privacy and of the Internet as the social and political tool it should be.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A good part of my amendment is very similar to the one that was just defeated, but it has additional clauses that are worth describing.

As you can tell, the goal here, and again these were recommendations from a number of witnesses, certainly the Chief Electoral Officer and Democracy Watch, and a few others, I believe, calling for the preservation of the telephone numbers that were called as an integral part of keeping track of the use of these kinds of campaign tools, especially if they're going to be misused. It would be a very good way to check, for instance, if it was a legitimate call or an illegitimate call, based on robocall servers having a list of the telephone numbers. If a telephone number was called that was never on that list, you'd have a pretty good sense you're looking for someone else.

But the second part of my amendment also deals with the commissioner having the ability to...and it is part of Elections Canada's brief at the bottom of page 6. There should be a mechanism not involving a court order for the commissioner to obtain access to call scripts or recordings, or to request that they be preserved beyond one year if a court order is anticipated. This particular provision that I'm putting forward is actually modelled on something that may look familiar to government members on the other side. It's actually modelled on Bill C-13's preservation demand provisions in the online bullying bill, to ensure that there can be a request that material be preserved before it might be destroyed in the ordinary course of business.

So I think I've probably given you enough details on this, Mr. Chair. It does make the system more robust. More critical information is preserved, and it is also more accessible to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who without having to go to court for a court order, can just ask the companies that have that material in their possession to retain it and preserve it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, my speech will be in both official languages, but I only have one copy. What I have said so far was not in my written text. However, I will be happy to answer questions in both official languages.

Basically, dear colleagues, my goal today is to provide you with as much information as possible to obtain your approval for the Main Estimates 2014-15 for the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

If I may, I will get started right away so I can respect the amount of time I have.

I would like to talk to you about two very important aspects that have come up since the last time we met. As you know, we have strengthened our commitment in relation to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. I think it is important to mention it. With respect to the initial commitment of $60 million, $25 million was earmarked for public safety. Since then, we have concluded an additional agreement that would grant funds based on a 50-50 cost sharing formula for the full amount of the decontamination work. I am particularly proud of the fact that we are committed to supporting the Quebec government financially with respect to the amounts required for all the decontamination and restoration work of the site.

Obviously, we have also given our support to the Alberta communities that were devastated.

In March, our government announced an advance payment of $500 million in funding under the disaster financial assistance arrangements for costs incurred by the Province of Alberta for the severe and tragic flooding.

One of the extremely important public safety issues that I mentioned in my opening remarks is our relationship with the Americans, a relationship that is based on the market and trade, and on safety. That is why Public Safety Canada is responsible for implementing the agreement signed by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper, the beyond the border initiative.

More recently, Canada and the United States launched phase two of the pilot project, which involves pre-shipment inspection of cargo trucks at the Peace Bridge border crossing, between Fort Erie, Ontario, and Buffalo, New York. I was accompanied by Minister Nicholson and some American representatives. This is one of the deliverables of the beyond the border initiative, but not the only one. There are still other results to achieve and we are currently working on them.

This past January our government launched the anti-cyberbullying campaign, Stop Hating Online, to protect youth from cyberbullying, an issue that we all know can have devastating consequences. This builds on the protecting Canadians from online crime act, the legislation introduced by my colleague, Minister MacKay, and we seek support of all members for that important bill.

The campaign includes TV, online, and cinema ads aimed at parents and youth with a focus on the potential legal consequences of sharing intimate images online as proposed under the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

The Stop Hating Online website, which provides concrete tools and tips for youth, parents, and educators is a great success. Our data is showing that this is one of the most effective campaigns the government has undertaken. We have had hundreds of thousands of visitors to the website since the campaign's launch, and Public Safety has been recognized for the high level of engagement it has seen on the Stop Hating Online initiative.

Let's talk now about the Main Estimates 2014-15 or, you might say, investments in safety.

The total funding for which I am seeking your approval is $8.399 billion. That is for the entire public safety portfolio and includes all the agencies represented here today. This is a net increase of $349.3 million, or 4%, over the Main Estimates 2013-14, which was approved and presented by my predecessor.

These investments will allow our government to continue to carry out vital programs needed to ensure safe and effective borders, a correctional system that actually corrects criminal behaviour and takes care of inmates with severe mental health issues, and a safe and secure country for all law-abiding Canadians.

Let me discuss some items found in the main estimates that are of interest to the members and certainly to Canadians.

Essentially, the increase can be attributed to the increase in financial transfers that we are going to make as part of the disaster financial assistance arrangements contribution program.

But there's some good news in the main estimates, such as Corrections Canada is returning to the fiscal framework nearly $119.5 million because the projected growth in the prisoner population as a result of our agenda on crime measures delivered....

As we have always said, locking up dangerous and violent criminals is the best way to reduce crime, and this is what is happening. The good news is that this is happening and the high projection of inmates is not materializing. On April 12 there were some suggestions that a lot of costs will be incurred for housing inmates. Well, we can see today that has not materialized. Correctional Service Canada is returning $119.5 million to the fiscal framework.

Regarding the Canada Border Services Agency to fulfill the Beyond the Border commitments, this request for $91 million is to modernize our border's infrastructure. I can give the example of Aldergrove where I was during this spring break...for modernizing our facility. These investments are important to ensure our border is safe and effective, and to allow the free flow of legitimate trade and travel, which is one of the key aspects of Beyond the Border, as well as slamming the door on criminals and terrorists who seek to harm law-abiding Canadians.

Lastly, as I indicated earlier, I would like to draw attention to funding requested directly by Public Safety Canada, notably a $662 million increase for funding under the disaster financial assistance arrangements. As you know this program is meant to help Canadians when they need our help, and that's what is happening here.

Clearly, a number of natural disasters have occurred. It is important to know that the process to reimburse expenses under the disaster financial assistance arrangements contribution program can sometimes take several months, if not years, after a disaster occurs. Initially, it is the provinces that reimburse the disaster victims and then there is an approval process for the expenses. That is why the expenses that have been approved under the arrangement include expenses related to the spring floods in Manitoba in 2009, the forest fire in British Columbia in 2010, the spring floods in Saskatchewan in 2011, and Hurricane Igor in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2010.

In 2012, there were also torrential rains in Nova Scotia.

The budget before you today also includes $500 million down payment, if I may call it that, for the unprecedented flooding that occurred in southern Alberta in 2013.

In summary, whether we are educating Canadians on the impact of cyberbullying, implementing the beyond the border action plan or helping communities recover after natural disasters, our government has the safety of Canadians at heart.

I would also like to mention that this budget provides for the modernization of the agency, which is under the direction of Ian McPhail, to put forward measures that we hope will strengthen the accountability process in terms of Royal Canadian Mounted Police monitoring.

I will be pleased to answer your questions. At the end of my first hour with you and when my colleagues answer your questions, I hope you will be able to support the Main Estimates 2014-15 relating to public safety.

[Donald Piragoff]

Thank you.

I can't comment with respect to the Amanda Todd case because, as you know, the British Columbia Attorney General has laid charges in relation to that case in respect of a person in the Netherlands, so that's an ongoing investigation.

The other part of your question was around what the United States or other countries have to assist them that we do not have.

Specifically, Bill C-13 would enact a lot of investigative tools, things such as the preservation order, the order that says “do not delete this data until we come back with a production order or a search warrant to actually access it”. That is a power that the Americans have had for many years, for at least for 15 or 20 years. We don't have that power.

That's also a power created by convention in the Council of Europe, a convention that, as the Minister indicated, we have signed but not yet ratified, and we will be the last of the G-7 to ratify it, if Parliament passes this bill.

Other provisions that would assist would those allowing the obtaining of transmission data. Basically that's data not with respect to the actual content of an e-mail, but one where it was sent, the route it took going through Rogers, through Bell, through Telus, through AT&T, going from the sender to the person who received it.

In the case of a cyberbullying situation, you have an e-mail that is received by the potential victim, and let's say that e-mail was part of the Bell network. You go to Bell network and Bell network says, “Well, that came from Rogers”. And then Rogers says, “Well, we were just a link in the chain. It came from AT&T”. Then you have to go to AT&T and say, “Well, are you their end point?”, and AT&T says, “Oh, no. That came from another service provider”.

These tools would enable the police to have all these ISPs preserve that data so that it's not routinely deleted, which is part of their practice, because they only hold it for a certain period of time. It would also allow them to get a transmission production order to say they're not asking for any of the content of the e-mail, but just want to know where the e-mail comes from. Did it come from across the street and go through all this routing, or did it come from another province or another country? That's all the police are asking.

Later on in the investigation, when they start to realize that maybe this were not just a suicide, that there may have been some criminality involved, that someone had encouraged someone else to commit suicide, then when they have a higher level of evidence and actually have reasonable grounds to believe, they can go to the ISP with a search warrant or a production order and say they now want to see the contents of the e-mail.

As the Minister said, it's a ramping-up system where at the first level, all you have is some suspicion that these e-mails might involve criminality, but you don't know that. All you want to do is to follow some leads, so you use the first tools to get the leads. When you get more evidence and you have more of a foundation for moving from suspicion to reasonable grounds to believe, then you start going after information that has a higher privacy standard, such as e-mail contents.

[Donald Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Justice]

I can talk about Bill C-13. Bill S-4 is another bill, and it's not our bill. That's the bill for the Minister of Industry, I believe, so that's his responsibility. You'd have to ask other officials or other staff, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that bill.

In terms of the interplay, as the minister said, the Criminal Code provision enacted in 2004 was enacted for the purpose of clarifying that when Parliament enacted production orders in 2004, the enactment did not have a negative effect on the common law power of citizens to voluntarily provide information to the police, whether it be telcos or whether it be a person at the door. When the police come knocking at the door saying that there was a big ruckus across the street last night and asking if they saw anything, the person at the door has the choice of saying that they don't want to talk to them or saying, “Yes, I saw a lot and here's what I'm telling you.” That person would be protected. That's the common law power. It's in section 25 of the Criminal Code.

There was a concern about having a power to compel people to provide information: would this have a negative effect on the voluntary ability of people to provide information? So section 487.014 was created at the time, for greater certainty. As it says, “for greater certainty”, the fact that there is a production order does not affect the ability of people to voluntarily provide information, and that provision also said that people who provide voluntary information get the benefit of section 25 of the Criminal Code. Section 25 of the Criminal Code is the provision that says if you do something that you are authorized by law to do, you are protected from civil or criminal liability.

What the new amendment does is update the existing section 487 provision to do two things. One, because there are other types of tools that have been created by the bill, such as preservation orders, if a company voluntarily preserves data, this makes it clear that not only in providing the data but also in preserving the data voluntarily, one would be protected from civil or criminal liability.

The current situation right now with many of the telcos, for example—you wanted to know the relationship, Mr. Casey—is that there is no ability to compel a telco or an ISP to preserve information. The authorities have voluntary cooperation from some telcos and some ISPs, but not all. Nevertheless, we do have some who do voluntarily cooperate with the police and will voluntarily preserve data while waiting for the police to come back with a search warrant or a production order.

This would, then, extend the immunity provisions to also include those individuals who voluntarily preserve data, to ensure they are not liable civilly or criminally because they voluntarily cooperated with the police. That's the relationship between the two, Mr. Casey.

In terms of what the authority is, as to when telcos or other companies are authorized or compelled to provide information, one would have to look at PIPEDA, and again, that's not in my purview of expertise.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister seemed quite reticent to talk about the interplay between Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Am I okay to ask about that? Are the witnesses comfortable talk about that?

[Normand Wong]

I was involved. I chaired that group. The working group was a subgroup of the cybercrime working group. It was basically an ad hoc group, containing not only members from the federal, provincial, territorial working group on cybercrime but also any other interested FPT working groups. It met a number of times over the course of the spring and early summer to develop this report. As the minister said, it came to be unanimously accepted by FPT ministers of justice and public safety.

The recommendations of that report are reflected in Bill C-13 and both parts of Bill C-13, including the new offence and the complementary amendments for that new offence, as well as the modernization of the Criminal Code and the introduction of modernized and improved police powers for this Internet age.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few questions. The first is in regard to restitution. I understand that the penalties outlined in Bill C-13 include restitution so that victims can recoup some of the expenses associated with having images removed from the Internet or social media sites. I wonder if you could expand upon that and what it means.

While you look into that, perhaps I could ask an additional question.

In June of 2013, the working group of the coordinating committee of senior officials on cybercrime published a report, “Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images”. Can you comment generally on that report, who was involved, and what its main recommendations were as they relate to the bill?

[Normand Wong]

You are correct vis-à-vis the new offence, but you have to remember that Bill C-13 covers more than the new offence. It also modernizes the Criminal Code, other substantive offences vis-à-vis modern technology, and provides police with the investigative tools they need to investigate Internet crime and any other crime involving electronic crime.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Am I wrong to say then that

...the scope of Bill C-13, with respect to the offence of distributing intimate images, is still fairly limited?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

What about the provider? Let's say Facebook. Can they or any other type of server be pursued in some aspect for the fact that they host the image? There are a lot of the questions right now on C-13.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I like the fact that we can use the term “maître” in French to designate these individuals. Actually, I think it is used almost exclusively here for lawyer.

Thank you for being here, despite your busy schedule. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights keeps you very busy, no doubt.

My questions concern the offence of distributing intimate images. In preparation for these hearings, I met with a lot of groups, obviously, and they shared their concerns with me. That is the case for representatives of Facebook, something we are all familiar with. We will very likely hear from them during the committee's work. The offence as worded in Bill C-13 could be perceived as much broader than intended. In short, there are certain concerns, and I will share them with you.

Among others, under the provisions on the offence of distributing intimate images, which is the new section 162.1 proposed to be added to the Criminal Code, the accused cannot be deemed guilty if the person in the image gave his or her consent. Therefore, if a minor consented to the distribution of the image, it is likely that the author will not be charged under the new section 162.1, which allows consent as defence, but instead under the offence of child pornography, which does not allow that defence. However, the sentences are much harsher for child pornography. If the accused obtained the minor's consent, could the accused be charged with child pornography and receive a harsher sentence than if the accused had not obtained the minor's consent, in which case the accused would be convicted of distributing intimate images?

We are also talking about not attempting to obtain consent; in other words, letting things slide. As we know, things move so quickly, without necessarily being motivated by criminal intent. Some people are concerned that people are considered as having committed criminal offences and prosecuted as a result when they had absolutely no criminal intent.

What do you say to those people?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Pierre.

Mr. Minister, I have just enough time to ask you a quick question.

In his Bill C-279, my colleague Randall Garrison adds the expression “gender identity” to section 318 of the Criminal Code. Do you have an objection to amending clause 12 of Bill C-13 in a similar way to include gender identity in the definition? It would be good to know that ahead of time, because it could provide an indication to the Conservative members of the committee.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I have time for one more question.

Canada signed the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime in November 2001, as well as its additional protocol on hate crime in July 2005, but has not yet ratified them.

Will Bill C-13 be used to ratify the Convention on Cybercrime?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Goguen.

Again, your legal background is shining through. You would know that it's already illegal to steal cable. It has been part of the Criminal Code since 1975. So this is not new. To steal cable, to steal signals, to possess a device used for telecommunication theft, this has been something that has been codified for many years. The behaviour is prohibited in other sections 326 and 327. It's a type of theft.

What we're again attempting to do is modernize through this Bill C-13 and these longstanding offences and the update around telecommunication language to expand the conduct that it covers and to make it consistent with other offences is what is found in this bill.

It would add, for example, imports or makes available. That type of language gets to the subject of transmitting inappropriate images, the type of images, nude images that can be most offensive and most humiliating for individuals. The approach itself, in principle, I would suggest, is not a substantial change. It is consistent with previous practices and code sections.

Moving onto the police investigation part, the tools that enable police to do their work to investigate, it includes updates to the existing Criminal Code production order provisions that deal with things such as financial data and transitions, because we know that Internet white-collar-type crime, fraud, is also very pervasive. This bill empowers police in that regard to preserve and get at necessary data, financial data in many cases, to help them build a case that protects citizens, to protect individuals who may fall victim to those predators who use the Internet to perpetrate financial fraud and crime. It's part of other efforts that are made by financial institutions themselves, the other legislation around proceeds of crime, money laundering, terrorist financing. These are all issues that are intertwined and, I would suggest, that are consistent with the effort found in Bill C-13.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Goguen. Thank you for your work and your interest in this.

I would suggest that given the insidious nature of some of the online activity that we're talking about here, as in all things in the criminal law it requires balance. Bill C-13, I would suggest, very much seeks to strike that balance, and you will have to a chance able to hear from others on this as well. It creates a new data preservation scheme. The tools are intended to allow police to safeguard and preserve necessary evidence. Mr. Wilks, as a police officer, can certainly speak to the importance of the police ability to do just that.

This is about the preservation of a virtual crime scene that we're talking about. It also seeks to prevent deliberate or accidental interference in the administration of justice by having that critical data, that critical evidence, disappear. While this bill doesn't create additional obligations for telecommunications companies, it does very much put in place a practice in which police can preserve that important information, that data and evidence. It does not require them to retain data or develop new infrastructure, but it requires that do-not-delete orders to be respected, which I would suggest is critical, to answer your question.

Another feature of this bill in seeking balance around privacy and investigation is that once the demand or order requiring the preservation of that evidence has expired, that is, the order not to delete certain computer evidence, the Internet service provider is free, of course, to act however they choose, whether they normally preserve all the data or choose to delete it, as you would expect in the physical world. Once an investigation has been completed or a warrant has expired, there is no further legal obligation.

So it is in keeping with existing police and court practices around warrants and around seizures, while at the same time responding to the very real technical aspect of how data is preserved, relayed, and treated in the Internet and the electronic world.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I disagree with you on that one, Minister. Honestly, I agree there need to be tools, but what I submit to you is that you might not have reviewed the aspect of the tool as much, especially in view of the backlash your government received against Bill C-30. As for cyber-intimidation, it is pretty much unanimous—everybody agrees there's a need to do something about it.

I go back to the core of my question. What type of review have you done to make sure that when you introduce a new concept—because I agree they do need a warrant, but you have changed the burden of proof....

It is no longer the same thing. Every lawyer who practices criminal law is familiar with the principle of having "reasonable grounds to believe". You are also familiar with it because you were a Crown prosecutor and a defence lawyer. Yet suddenly we are talking about "reasonable grounds to suspect". New concepts are being introduced here.

Did you have these concepts tested before introducing Bill C-13, which will have a lot of ramifications beyond cyberbullying and the distribution of images? In fact, this bill casts a very wide net.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here. Once again, this meeting has been shortened because of a time allocation motion by your government on another bill.

Having said that, I appreciate the fact that you seem to want to fix some of the bad impressions that Bill C-13 left with experts in the protection of privacy and other areas. However, the fact that all those voices were raised against the bill the same day it was tabled and that those people saw some concerning similarities between it and Bill C-30 suggests to me that, in practice, after the Conservatives have passed it in the House, Bill C-13 may not be as clear as you seem to believe. That concerns me a little and I end up asking the same question every time you come and present us with a new government bill.

The short title you have given to Bill C-13 is the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. However, it touches on much more than online crime. In fact, it also includes a very limited section on distributing intimate images.

After drafting this bill, did you have it checked? I know you have your officials from the Department of Justice, but did you consult with your experts on the Constitution and the Charter to determine whether the bill would pass the tests we all know it will inevitably be subject to? It seems to be the fashion for the Conservatives to find themselves before the Supreme Court. Do you have assurances aside from just your personal perception that everything is hunky dory? Have you received serious legal opinions that give reasonable assurances that your bill will hold water in a very high percentage of cases, and not just in 5%, 10% or 15% of cases?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, colleagues.

I am pleased to be joined by Justice Canada officials. We are here to answer questions with respect to Bill C-13.

I am very pleased to be before the committee to speak to Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act.

Chair, colleagues, I submit to you that Bill C-13 is an important piece of legislation aimed at protecting Canadians from crimes that are committed over the Internet or online. It does so in full compliance with Canadian law.

One of the ways in which Bill C-13 accomplishes this important goal is by proposing a new criminal offence aimed at a particularly contemptible and insidious form of cyberbullying involving the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It has literally resulted in the devastation of lives, the loss of lives. I can't help but think of young Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and others who have fall victim to this insidious type of activity.

The second way in which Bill C-13 accomplishes this goal of protecting the public is by proposing changes that would ensure that the Criminal Code and other federal legislation is able to keep up with the high speed of technological change. The need to modernize is deeply embedded in this overall intent.

In this vein, Bill C-13 proposes some minor updates to existing offences while at the same time modernizing the judicially authorized powers that police use, to investigate crimes committed, using electronic networks or that of electronic evidence. I stress for emphasis that “judicially authorized” authority is invoked here.

Turning first to the issue of cyberbullying, as I mentioned, the bill proposes a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Essentially this offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images, as defined, without the consent of the person depicted. It is a very nasty, cruel attempt to humiliate or worse, and has, as I mentioned, a pernicious effect that has become all too prevalent, particularly amongst young people.

This proposed new offence would fill a gap in the criminal law, and respond directly to one of the recommendations made by federal, provincial, and territorial officials in the June 2013 report on cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

It may be of interest to note, Chair, that this report received unanimous support from federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice and public safety. These sections around intimidation, harassment, and related sections in the current Criminal Code context go back to age of the rotary dial telephone, so the need for modernization is real.

The proposed bill has a three-part definition of intimate images. In short, an intimate image is one that depicts nudity or sexual activity, was taken in a private setting, and one in which the depicted person has a privacy interest. This approach, like the existing voyeurism offence in section 162, is similarly designed to protect the privacy of the person depicted.

Clearly this Criminal Code section and the accompanying sections are not the entire answer. It will require a much more holistic strategy, as members of this committee are aware. There is much public information-sharing and education involved. We need to reach out to the schools. We need to have law enforcement and the justice system itself more broadly involved. There have been numerous public information efforts undertaken, including pink days and anti-bullying days that are dedicated at various sports and entertainment venues. It will require that holistic approach.

The bill also includes a number of complementary amendments related to the proposed new offence.

For example, the court would be authorized to order a person in possession of intimate images to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person would commit the proposed new offence.

In addition to pre-emptive action, such as peace bonds, which have that ability to deter, the court would also be authorized to order the removal of non-consensual posted intimate images from the Internet.

Further, Mr. Chair, upon conviction under this new offence section, the court could order a seizure of equipment—a computer or a hand-held device—make a prohibition order restricting the offender's access to the Internet or other digital networks, and order the offender to pay restitution to permit the victim to recoup expenses incurred by securing the removal from the Internet of non-consensual posted intimate images.

This bill also proposes to modernize investigative powers. These updated tools would assist police in the investigation of not only the proposed new offence, but also all online crimes and any crimes that involve digital evidence, such as, for example, fraud or the distribution of child pornography. These amendments are long overdue, I suggest, and police report that over 80% of major crimes now leave electronic evidence.

While Canadian law enforcement continues to use investigative tools that pre-date the Internet and were primarily designed to collect physical evidence, there's great work being done, as I'm sure the committee is aware, at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. They do tremendous work and outreach with police forces across this country and with victims.

I would like to be clear that while some of these amendments were previously introduced in a former bill, Bill C-13 does not contain the most controversial aspects of warrantless access. Mr. Chair, in particular Bill C-13 does not include any provision that would allow the warrantless access to subscriber information or that would impose obligations related to telecommunication infrastructure modification.

These amendments relate to investigative powers and were strongly recommended by the same FPT working group that recommended the new proposed offence to respond to cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This working group recognized that the important link exists between the proposed new offence that affords the protection and ensuring that police have the necessary tools with which to investigate it and other related online criminal activities. It is, I would suggest to you, very much intertwined—the new offence and the ability to police and enforce under the current provisions.

To give you a quick example of why these modernizing amendments are needed, we need to look at basic but essential telecommunications data, a phone number and an IP address. To obtain a phone number, police can then use the existing built-in production orders in the number recorder warrant, proposed subsection 492.2(2). This is granted by a court on reasonable grounds to suspect. That is the standard. To get the same type of information in an Internet context, such as an IP address or an e-mail, police currently have to use a general production order, which is granted on reasonable grounds to believe, which is a different, higher standard.

This is not only an inconsistent treatment of similar types of information, basic information, it also means that in many cases police, in the context of an Internet crime, will not be able to meet the threshold to begin an investigation. Bill C-13 proposes to correct this.

In terms of reasonable grounds to suspect, I want, Mr. Chair, if I could, to take you through a few of these modernization proposals. One of these proposed new tools is data preservation. Essentially, the data preservation tools are known as “not delete” orders, which would allow police to ensure specific computer data is safeguarded while they apply to the court for proper authorization to acquire that data in order to preserve important evidence. We have police officers, I know, who are part of this committee and can speak to that important preservation exercise.

These tools will provide essential support in the investigation of offences where much of the evidence is in electronic form. It is an era where crucial evidence can be deleted—sometimes inadvertently, sometimes deliberately—with a keystroke. Police, I suggest strongly, need this power.

The data preservation scheme includes a number of important safeguards. For example, once a preservation demand or order has expired, the individual in question is required to delete all the information he or she preserved unless retaining it is part of his or her normal business practice.

Bill C-13 also proposes to update the existing judicially supervised production order scheme. These amendments would result in a comprehensive tool kit that would include a general production order, which is comparable to a search warrant, and four specific and more narrowly focused production orders that will often help police initiate their investigations.

The four specific production orders contemplated by Bill C-13 would allow police to obtain four types of information: first, data to determine whether someone or something was at a specific moment in time, so it's tracking data; second, data that relates to the occurrence of telecommunications, such as an email associated with the telecommunications, so it's transmission data; third, data to trace a telecommunications item in order to determine the identity of a suspect; and finally, basic financial information such as a bank account number or the mere existence of an account of a particular person. It should be noted that this production order for financial information is already in existence.

The bill also proposes to modernize two existing judicial powers, warrant powers: the tracking warrant and the number-recorded warrant. These warrants are unique in that they allow police to collect the type of information in real time, and although the bill has been criticized in the media in particular for lowering judicial scrutiny, I would submit and point out that the proposed tracking-warrants amendments that apply to the tracking of individuals actually raise the standard of judicial consideration from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”. This increased privacy protection recognizes advancements in technology and their impacts upon individual privacy. However, police continue to be able to track things under the existing “reasonable suspicion” standard.

Finally, the bill also proposes amendments to achieve some efficiencies with regard to wiretap applications. These amendments will ensure that Canadian courts in all jurisdictions will use the same processes when they seek to obtain court orders related to wiretap authorization. The proposed amendments would create a single application for judicial warrants and orders that are related to the execution of wiretap authorization. This new process would clarify that the judge who issues a wiretap authorization can also issue the other supporting warrants or orders without requiring a separate application. In some jurisdictions, police have to go before several judges for these related powers, such as tracking warrants, a process that not only is inefficient but that also prevents the judge from getting the full picture of the investigation.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, I would like to take just a moment to address a few of the misconceptions that have been reported on Bill C-13.

Some have mistakenly led others to believe that the proposed legislation would encourage telecommunications service providers and banks to disclose information on their customers without authorization. I want to be very clear. The proposed legislation would not provide the police with any new powers for voluntary disclosure, nor does the bill propose to create a mechanism to bypass the necessary court oversight. To start the provision in question, proposed section 487.0195 is a “for greater certainty” provision and as such cannot grant police any additional powers. These provisions exist to clarify what is already part of the law. As part of their general policing duties, police may already obtain information from a third party voluntarily, without a court order, if—and this is the important part—the person or organization is not otherwise prohibited by law from providing this information. For example, they can already assist police in providing information if they are not prohibited by their duties under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the PIPEDA. Persons who assist police in that fashion are protected from liability in those cases.

To be clear, this power exists in common law already. The 2004 clarifying amendment was meant to preserve this common-law power. It is found re-enacted here in this bill, and is intended to do the same. The proposed amendments in Bill C-13 are not designed to alter this in any way but are meant to make the provisions clearer and more transparent.

It was also suggested that the bill creates new warrants for police to obtain metadata using a lower threshold production order. This is also incorrect. Metadata refers, as members would know, to a large class of information that has been described as data about data. Examples of metadata include background information about an electronic document such as software, the type that it uses, its size, kilobytes, the size of characters it contains, etc. In relation to an electronic photo, it can include the number of pixels, the type of camera, and perhaps the date, the time, and the location the photo was taken. Some have suggested that metadata may contain personal information about people. It should be noted that Bill C-13 does not propose to capture this type of information according to its proposed definition of transmission data.

In fact, the definition of transmission is narrowly defined and captures only data that relates to the act of telecommunication. The definition of transmission data is the modern equivalent of phone-call information, not what is actually contained in the conversation, and these proposals are meant to ensure consistent treatment of similar information.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that this package of reforms is a targeted approach to serious forms of cyberbullying. All of the amendments to the investigative powers have been proposed here to provide police the appropriate tools to investigate crime in this Internet age, while at the same time minimizing the privacy impacts on Canadians.

I thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 28, are that we commence consideration 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. We are fortunate to have here today the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, with his staff to kick off the discussion of this legislation that has been referred to this committee.

Minister, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'll call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting 21, and it's Thursday, May 1.

Before we move to the orders of the day, we have the third report from the subcommittee from last Tuesday, which authorizes two things: one, that the Minister of Justice come next Thursday, May 8, for our main estimates, and second, for the beginning of today's study on Bill C-13.

Can I get a motion to approve that?

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and comments.

She is absolutely right. Bill C-13 is a useful part of the fight against cyberbullying. The first problem is that the Conservatives already voted against a similar bill that we introduced.

The second problem is that this bill is a catch-all. It contains amendments to certain laws concerning financial data of banks, such as the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as well as changes that concern telemarketing and the theft of a telecommunication service. It includes a number of the provisions of the former Bill C-30.

If Bill C-13 actually allowed us to seriously address cyberbullying, we would pass it quickly. Unfortunately, this is a catch-all that contains some very bad measures. That is what we have a problem with.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way has acknowledged the importance of this bill. It is an ongoing issue now in Canada.

Lianna McDonald is the CEO of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg. Lianna has a lot of experience in working with victims of cyberbullying. She said that Bill C-13 “will assist in stopping the misuse of technology and help numerous young people impacted and devastated by this type of victimization”. For someone like Lianna McDonald who works every day with this, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about her very insightful comment.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13. We could call it, among other things, the bill to protect Canadians against cybercrime.

This bill focuses on cyberbullying and bullying, something that I feel very strongly about. I have worked on this almost since I became an MP and even before that. I am the father of two daughters, one in elementary school and the other in high school. Thus, I am very concerned about the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. Furthermore, I was formerly a teacher. I was a high school and adult education teacher for almost 10 years.

I realized that bullying and cyberbullying are very important concerns. We have to tackle them and work on prevention. In fact, prevention is the first thing we must work on. This bill provides for solutions once the damage has been done, but we also have to work on prevention.

In that regard, even before I start talking about the bill, I would like to point out that the NDP is leading the fight against bullying. Two NDP members did an excellent job of bringing this subject to the attention of the Conservatives, who really did not have this on their radar. The first, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, worked very hard after being elected to introduce a motion, which unfortunately was defeated by the Conservatives. I still cannot believe what happened. It is mind-boggling to see all that.

What is important is that this motion was about a bullying and cyberbullying prevention strategy. The strategy was very well laid out. I will come back to that later because it really is an important element that the Conservatives should take a look at.

There was also the bill introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Bill C-540. I still do not understand why the Conservative did not vote in favour of this bill. I do not understand why they voted against it, since the main provisions in that bill can be found in Bill C-13. We could have saved some time if everyone had supported the bill introduced by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which could have been sent to committee to be amended. That is what democracy is about. We fully support democracy.

However, it is completely unacceptable that the Conservatives voted against the bill and have now introduced a very similar bill. Furthermore, they are turning it into a partisan issue by saying that the Conservatives are the ones who drafted this bill and that they are very good.

It is sad to see this kind of partisanship in the House of Commons, especially on such an important issue. We are talking about the future of our youth. Young people are our future. We need to take care of them because our wealth lies in them. We need to pay attention to them and combat bullying and cyberbullying. This should not be a partisan issue. We should have been able to address this problem, which transcends party lines.

I am very disappointed that we were not able to move forward with these bills.

Before I go into more detail on Bill C-13, I would like to commend some groups in my riding of Drummond for the work that they have been doing day in and day out for years. Recently, in 2012, there was a big event to provide information, promote awareness and speak out against bullying.

All of the groups in the greater Drummond area that work every day on these issues were there. Sometimes large events like this are organized, but most of our organizations' work is done on a day-to-day basis.

The anti-bullying committee, which is part of the anti-violence committee, welcomed representatives from Sûreté du Québec, the Commission scolaire des Chênes, Collège Saint-Bernard, CALACS La passerelle, CAVAC, École aux Quatre-Vents—which has shown great initiative in the fight against bullying—Buropro, Commun Accord, the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the CSSS and others. Many concerned people in the greater Drummond area came together in the fight against bullying and cyberbullying. This was a major gathering in the greater Drummond area.

Earlier, I listened to the excellent speech given by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I also listened to the very heartfelt and passionate speech given by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has been fighting against bullying and cyberbullying for a long time.

The NDP members are the ones at the forefront of the fight against bullying and cyberbullying. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-13. However, we do so with a twinge of regret because we know that the Conservatives voted against a similar bill that we introduced.

This bill contains all sorts of measures. Unfortunately, the Conservatives use good bills that make sense, such as Bill C-13, as catch-all bills. This is what we call omnibus bills. They confuse the issue and therefore we do not know whether we will vote for or against the bill. If the fight against cyberbullying were the main focus of the bill, we would definitely have voted in favour of it.

What this bill is missing is a focus on prevention. I know how important that is from my experience as a teacher and a father and from listening to my colleagues, such as the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He proposed a strategy to combat bullying and cyberbullying. I would like to talk a little bit about it because it is extremely worthwhile. It is disappointing that the Conservatives voted against it, but it is not too late.

Front-line groups in Drummond and Sherbrooke are essential, as the member for Sherbrooke so rightly pointed out during his speech. They are the ones doing the work on a daily basis. However, the government must also stand firm at the national level, give good guidance and provide support.

I see that I have less than a minute to talk about this important, topical issue. The motion moved by the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord stated that the House should study the prevalence and impact of different types of bullying, including cyberbullying. It is important to understand what this is really about. Then, we need to identify and adopt a range of evidence-based best practices to combat bullying and cyberbullying. Finally, we need to promote and disseminate anti-bullying information to Canadian families.

Schools and organizations are important, but families are too. Parents have a role to play by talking to their children about the serious nature of what they are doing. Bullying and cyberbullying are serious and can have a serious impact on the community.

The organizations that are working on this issue in Drummond and Sherbrooke and across Canada need support.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the warrantless production of documents and the warrantless search is now a thing of the past, and that this element of Bill C-30 is not present in Bill C-13. However, there is something in Bill C-13 that would provide immunity to Internet service providers and telephone companies when they produce records at the request of law enforcement authorities. In order to make it easier for them, this immunity would apply to both criminal prosecution for the production of these records and any civil suit.

Given that the member's position is that there are no longer warrantless searches, is it not the case that there is now an incentive for co-operation among Internet service providers, or at least a disincentive has been removed, which is tantamount to having warrantless searches all over again? What the government is doing indirectly is what it tried to do directly, through Bill C-30.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to speak in the House to Bill C-13, from a couple of perspectives.

As the chair of the justice committee, I am looking forward to the discussion and debate we will have with the many witnesses who come forward on this important bill. Because of the issue of cyberbullying, the Government of Canada, and all of us, recognize the importance of Bill C-13 and taking a proactive approach on this.

However, before I get into that, I will admit that I did not know much about the aspects of cyberbullying. Therefore, over the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to talk to my daughters, who are 23 and 24, one of whom has just graduated from university. The other one is still in university, which is not that far away from high school.

We live in a relatively affluent community. There is no denying that Burlington is relatively affluent. I asked them what they knew about cyberbullying in their high school or this community. To my surprise, both of my daughters indicated there were two incidents within their own high school. Young women were photographed without their consent, in what I will describe as compromising situations, and those images were distributed throughout the high school. It did not result in the kind of tragedy that we have had elsewhere in Canada; however, it was an absolute form of bullying that I was not even aware of.

This issue, which we all agree is an issue, does affect all areas of Canada. There is no economic disparity in terms of lower-income people being more apt to experience higher aspects of cyberbullying than higher-income communities. It affects everyone. That is why this bill is important and needs to be comprehensive.

I know we have heard a few discussions from the other side about there being a motion to deal with a strategy. Strategies are great for collecting dust. From our perspective, we need action. This bill takes action.

We heard that there was a private member's bill from the opposition on a specific portion of cyberbullying, which is accurate. However, I think we have, in a more appropriate way, taken a more comprehensive approach to attacking this issue and applying the laws of the land to it.

I have not heard anyone say that this is not a complicated issue. Once in a while it has been said that there is a simple answer. There is no simple answer. What we are doing today will not end cyberbullying. I do not think that anyone is declaring a victory over cyberbullying.

However, these are the tools we need to attack this problem. We need to make it a criminal offence. We need to give police and the judiciary the tools to enforce this law. We need it so that when we do catch these individuals who are spreading inappropriate, non-consensual photos of youth, which is the example I will use because we are familiar with it—although it can happen at all ages, and the bill does not apply just to youth but to everyone—the country will have the tools to say that it is a criminal offence, something that we will not tolerate, and they will face a consequence for doing it. In addition, we will provide the police with the ability to do investigations, to collect evidence to sustain a criminal offence in terms of prosecution through the court system.

My hope is that as we attack this problem through the police, the judicial system, and our criminal court system, and that as those who are committing these crimes are found guilty, it will be a wake-up call to end cyberbullying. It is a process that will not happen overnight, but it is one that we need to start.

I want to talk for a few minutes about some of the myths we have heard regarding this bill. In one of the earlier speeches, someone said we are making the stealing of cable signals illegal. Guess what? Stealing cable is already illegal. People are not allowed to take cable without paying for it. That is already in the Criminal Code. All the bill does is to improve the wording, to capture that activity and the new ways of telecommunications and cable providing Internet services. That is what the bill would do. Stealing cable signals is illegal. Everyone in the House should know that and should not be questioning why it is in the bill.

A big myth about the bill is that it incorporates the controversial elements of Bill C-30, which rightfully was withdrawn by our government, in response to two things. One was regarding some activity that could take place that would not require a warrant. It was clearly in the bill, and it is not in Bill C-13. Every activity requires a warrant. That was the reaction we had, and we went through the bill and changed the process to reflect what we heard from the public and the opposition parties.

We should be congratulated on that, but that is not what happens around here. That is part of the problem with the House. When a government listens to the opposition and the public and makes a change, it should be congratulated and not criticized for making that change. That is not what happens around here. The government was told that it was not competent to know that in the first place, so it was criticized for making a change. Why bother making a change? In this case, making the change was the right thing to do, and that is why we did it.

There was another piece in Bill C-30 that dealt with the framework by which a provider of Internet services would have to have something so that we could monitor the traffic, basically. We got rid of that piece. It is not in the current bill, and that was part of what we heard in terms of a response to Bill C-13.

I have heard from the opposition members not to be reactive, to be proactive. This is exactly what Bill C-13 does. It is proactive activity that the police are able to undertake so they can do their job, so we can bring criminals who are attacking our young people to justice. Being proactive is exactly what Bill C-13 does.

The third issue we heard about is that this is an omnibus bill. We agree with making it a criminal offence, which is excellent, and everyone should agree with that. However, there are other parts in the bill that actually implement the criminal offence, that allow the police and the judicial system to charge folks, investigate, bring them to court, and bring them to justice, to end this horrific crime that is mostly done against young people.

We need Bill C-13. I am looking forward to the committee stage. It is my understanding that we have a tremendous number of witnesses to talk about the different issues. That is where the debate will really happen, in terms of witnesses telling us what could be better. We will have a discussion among the members of Parliament, ask good questions, and we will get the best bill we can to help protect the young people of this country.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on Bill C-13. We have heard a few times today from opposition members about splitting the bill, and it was part of a previous question.

We seem to have agreement among the parties that first, the bill is going to go to committee, which is excellent; and that second, making cyberbullying a criminal offence is important. However, there seems to be a discussion about whether we give the police and the legal system the tools to actually enforce that criminal offence.

Can the member talk about why it is important that the bill have both? Not just identify and create a criminal offence for cyberbullying but also give police and other law enforcement and judicial systems the ability to enforce the new criminal law.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

I would like to use this opportunity to speak to some of the misconceptions about this important piece of legislation. Much has been reported in the media about Bill C-13 proposing an expansive new power that would allow police to collect and obtain evidence without a court order. Further, it has been reported that this new provision would encourage telephone and Internet companies to provide as much information as they want, because they would be protected from criminal and civil liability.

In all honesty, I am not sure where to start when addressing these assertions because they are misleading and inaccurate. The much maligned provision in question is the proposed section 487.0195 of the Criminal Code. This proposed section has been portrayed by some as a convenient way for the police to sidestep court authorization requirements by requesting, from organizations, for example banks, telecommunication service providers, et cetera, voluntary disclosure or voluntary preservation of documents or data.

I want to be clear at the outset that this provision is included in Bill C-13 for greater certainty only. As is the case for similar types of provisions used sporadically throughout the Criminal Code, proposed section 487.0195 is intended to clarify Parliament's intent relating to a provision and to assist the courts in interpreting the law. To be clear, proposed section 487.0195 would not provide the police with any new powers.

Under the law today, and under the law prior to the creation of production orders in 2004, police, as part of their general policing duties of common law, have always been permitted to obtain information voluntarily from a third party without a court order. In 2004, production orders were included in the Criminal Code to allow police to obtain a court order that would compel a third party to provide information in situations where the third party could not or would not do so voluntarily.

I say “could not or would not” here because companies have obligations regarding the protection of information. Companies that collect the personal information of Canadians have to store it, use it, and disclose it in accordance with privacy legislation, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In addition, they may have other relevant obligations not to disclose information, for example, pursuant to their contractual agreements with the customers.

It may also be of interest to note that most privacy legislation is crafted in a permissive manner when it comes to disclosures. This means that the legislation spells out when a company can voluntarily disclose information. In other words, the legislation permits the disclosure of personal information in certain circumstances but never requires it.

This is a very important point, because there have been concerns expressed that section 487.0195 is somehow creating a new power requiring companies to provide access to information. It is not a new power, it is merely a re-enactment of an existing “for greater certainty” clause, nor does it contain any requirement to co-operate with a request. Police can ask for the voluntary disclosure of information, but the third party is free to refuse to disclose it until a judicial warrant or order has been issued. The initial version of this “for greater certainty” provision was enacted in 2004 as section 487.014 of the Criminal Code. It was created to make it clear that there was no need for the police to obtain production orders when persons were providing their assistance on a voluntary basis as long as there was no prohibition against the person doing so.

To put it another way, the primary purpose of this provision was, and still is under the proposed section 487.0195, to clarify that police do not need a judicial protection order every time they ask a person for information.

To sum up on these points, section 487.0195 is not new to the Criminal Code. It has existed since 2004. It is not a power. By its very definition, it can only clarify what already exists in the law, and cannot be the source of new legal authority.

The explicit protections from criminal and civil liability now found in subsection 487.0195(2) of this “for greater certainty” provision have also been mis-characterized as a “get out of jail free” card or as a provision that will open up the flood gates and allow the free flow of information between the private sector and the state.

It is true that Bill C-13 proposes to amend the law to explicitly refer to the protections from civil and criminal liability when a person chooses to provide voluntary assistance to the police. However, this amendment would not be a major change to the law as it presently stands. The Criminal Code currently provides this protection under section 25, which is cross-referenced in the current version of this section, section 47.014. The cross-reference to section 25 in the law currently and the new text proposed in Bill C-13 are both designed to clarify that a person who discloses information could not be sued or prosecuted for voluntarily providing information that they are not prohibited from disclosing.

It should be noted, however, that the considerable case law interpreting the scope of the existing protections under section 25 is consistent in that it only protects conduct that is reasonable in the circumstances. This is not a blanket protection for assisting police. A telephone company that voluntarily provides information to police that they are legally obligated to protect, including under contract, could not avail itself of these protections.

To be clear, whether Parliament again legislates in this area or not, this protection already exists through the court's interpretation of section 25 of the Criminal Code. Including language in the bill that explicitly indicates more clearly the existing protections from civil and criminal liability in the current law is not a proposal for substantive change. It would make the provision more transparent and understandable on its face. This is not a significant development of the law in this area, nor is there any hidden agenda.

This provision is not expected to have a large impact on current practices. All it does is clarify and make more transparent the current protections. This clarification may help new companies that are just entering into co-operation with law enforcement for the first time to more easily be able to understand the scope of the law in this area. They would not have to hire lawyers to research the jurisprudence to understand how the protections afforded by current section 25 of the Criminal Code would apply in this context.

I will take a moment to speak about the other minor changes that are proposed for this section. Bill C-13 proposes to incorporate a reference to preservation demands and preservation orders into the section, to clarify that a person may also voluntarily preserve data, so long as doing so is not otherwise prohibited.

Bill C-13 also proposes to remove a reference to the public officer “enforcing this or any other Act of Parliament” from the current section 487.014 to ensure that the provision is not misinterpreted as precluding voluntary co-operation in the context of general policing duties that do not directly relate to the enforcement of a statute. Such common law police duties include contacting the next-of-kin of an accident victim, returning stolen property to its owner, or contacting the homeowner in the case of a break-in.

Police are better able to keep society safe and to investigate criminal activity when persons, groups, and organizations are willing to assist them. The purpose of the current Criminal Code section 487.014 and the proposed section 497.0195 of Bill C-13 is to ensure that police and the public can continue to work co-operatively. In the context of this provision, the proposed legislation does not provide the police with any new powers. The bill proposes small revisions to the current law, to make clearer in what circumstances the police do not require production orders if a third party voluntarily assists in a police investigation by voluntarily providing information.

I would add that the type of mis-characterization of the bill that we have witnessed by some commentators distracts from fruitful debate on the subject. This is an important bill, not only for what it provides Canadians in the form of increased protections on the issue of cyberbullying, but also because it provides police with an investigative tool box for modern technology that protects and respects people's privacy.

Canada's international partners have been using these kinds of updated tools for over a decade. These new and modernized investigative tools will not only give police access to the information and evidence they need to apprehend Internet criminals, but they will also assist police in addressing crimes generally in today's advanced telecommunications environment, where smart phones and computers are ubiquitous and telecommunications technologies are constantly evolving.

These tools have been carefully tailored to balanced the interests of the state in collecting vital evidence relating to the commission of a crime with personal privacy interests that Canadians value so profoundly.

Each tool was calibrated to reflect its relative level of invasiveness against the privacy interest in the information it is used to obtain. Although many of our international partners have had access to these types of tools for well over a decade, the extra time Canada has taken to enact these updates has allowed us to learn from the successes and failures of others, and I am confident that the investigative toolbox that Bill C-13 would provide police has incorporated the most sophisticated privacy protections for Canadians.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill. In doing so, I wish to salute the leadership and thoughtful analysis that has been provided by my colleague, the member for Gatineau. As is so often the case in the House, I wish I could simply stand in this place and enthusiastically support this Conservative initiative, but once again the Conservatives cannot stop themselves from overreaching.

As others have noted in this debate thus far, the official opposition requested unanimous consent to have the bill divided into two parts and to allow the part that was initially introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Bill C-540, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, dealt with in one fashion, and ask that it be adopted as quickly as possible in committee because of all-party support. Why could this not be about that? Because it is about more than that. Other provisions from the defunct Bill C-30 should be studied separately, in the NDP's view, and given the attention that they so desperately require.

I am going to speak first about some of the cyberbullying issues, then focus upon what are called the lawful access provisions and the critique that so many people have made about those provisions, and then return in the few minutes available to the issue of cyberbullying, which is so critical.

Even in this fractured and divided Parliament, I cannot imagine many colleagues who would disagree with the need to better protect people of all ages from the distribution of intimate images without their consent. We have clearly heard from families, educators and law enforcement officials that there is a need to update the Criminal Code to address this kind of malicious activity. There seems to be no doubt about that. In fact, a few months ago I attended a presentation on Parliament Hill that was hosted by ResearchImpact, Canada's knowledge mobilization network group, that is seeking to maximize the economic, social, health and environmental impacts of research.

Among the presentations I heard in the Centre Block was one by a University of Victoria professor on a program that Professor Bonnie Leadbeater, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Victoria, was involved in as a researcher. She is also the author and evaluator of WITS LEADS, an elementary school program, a program designed to bring together schools, families and communities to help elementary school children deal with bullying and peer victimization and to encourage adults to respond more effectively to children's requests for help.

This cutting-edge research by Professor Leadbeater and her peers has made a real impact across the country. In fact, for her work, Professor Leadbeater was awarded the Partnership Award by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research this past year. I am happy to see such important and applied research on bullying from my community and that it has had such national impact.

Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are taking a straightforward issue that everyone supports and making it into something much more complicated than it needs to be. That is why the NDP has proposed the splitting of this bill, with all of its unanimous support, from those parts that are, frankly, much more controversial, as I will describe in a moment.

We all know that the initiative for Bill C-13 was the tragic events of the highly-publicized suicides of two adolescent victims of cyberbullying, Rehtaeh Parsons of Nova Scotia and Amanda Todd from my province of British Columbia. Frankly, the bill essentially repeats what my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, had already put in his bill, as I said earlier, so obviously there is no issue of support. However, the scope of the application of Bill C-13 is so much larger and targets a whole lot of other issues that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, issues like access to bank financial data, the Terrorist Financing Act, telemarketers and the theft of telecommunications services. These are all in the bill before us today.

It is the issue of access and warrantless disclosure of personal information from Internet service providers to “lawful authorities” that is at issue for this other part, the larger part of this initiative, and it is that I wish to address now.

Many experts on privacy law have expressed great concern over this initiative. A famous privacy lawyer in Halifax, David Fraser, has expressed it as “really cynical and disappointing”, to use his words. He says that there is a whole bunch of irrelevant and other stuff in here that is going to distract from the legitimate discussion of how to fine tune it and get it absolutely right. He is, of course, right.

I would like to focus on the very current critique of the bill by Professor Michael Geist who is perhaps one of our most famous academics and practitioners in this field.

Professor Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, is a professor at the University of Ottawa. To say he has written prolifically on this topic would be an understatement. As recently as two weeks ago, he wrote the following:

The debate over Bill C-13, the government's latest lawful access bill, is set to resume shortly. The government has argued that the bill should not raise concerns since new police powers involve court oversight and the mandatory warrantless disclosure provisions that raised widespread concern in the last bill have been removed. While that is the government's talking points, I've posted on how this bill now includes incentives for telecom companies and other intermediaries to disclose subscriber information without court oversight since it grants them full civil and criminal immunity for doing so. Moreover, newly released data suggests that the telecom companies don't seem to need much of an incentive as they are already disclosing subscriber data on thousands of Canadians every year without court oversight.

This is not an opposition politician speaking. This is probably the leading academic expert on this matter in the country who is bringing this to our attention. No wonder there continues to be great concern.

Professor Geist goes on to talk about the work that the Privacy Commissioner is doing, the recommendations she has released designed to enforce privacy protections in the age of cybersurveillance and a report that includes recommendations for reform to our private sector privacy law to:

—require public reporting on the use of various disclosure provisions under PIPEDA where private-sector entities such as telecommunications companies release personal information to national security entities without court oversight.

That is what is before us.

Civil liberties groups and academics sent a public letter to the various leading telecom companies asking them to shed new light on this policy of data retention and sharing policies. The claim is that our role in the whole surveillance activity remains a bit of a mystery, but there can be little doubt that Canadian telecom and Internet companies play an important role as intermediaries that access, retain and possibly disclose information about their subscribers' activities. These are the kinds of concerns that have so many Canadians continuing to be concerned.

I would like to read another quote into the record from Professor Geist. He says:

In fact, Bill C-13, the so-called “cyberbullying” bill, includes a provision that is likely to increase the number of voluntary disclosures without court oversight since it grants telecom companies and Internet providers complete immunity from any civil or criminal liability for those disclosures....The privacy implications of this secret disclosure system are enormous...

I wholeheartedly support the initiative on cyberbullying. However, once again, I wish the government did not overreach and go into this area of lawful access, which causes so much concern in the communities across the country.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Bill C-13 is a bill that is all inclusive. It provides what we want to do with regard to cyberbullying, but it would also enhance the ability of police to do investigations through electronic means. We need to continue down this road. This is a great start, and I look forward to looking at Bill C-13 at committee.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to stand here speaking to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. The legislation would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It would empower a court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet, and it would permit the court to forfeit a computer, cellphone, or other device used in an offence outlined in this legislation.

Amendments to the Criminal Code would include creating a new offence to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, with a maximum sentence of five years' incarceration or six months' imprisonment on summary conviction. It would also direct the sentencing judge to consider upon conviction whether that person should be restricted from use of the Internet for a specified period of time.

It would also authorize the judge to order the removal of an intimate image from websites if the person depicted did not consent to the image being posted. It would allow the judge to order restitution, following conviction, to the victim. It would empower the court to seize and order the forfeiture of property related to the offence, such as computers and mobile devices.

Furthermore, a justice could issue a peace bond where, on reasonable grounds, he or she believed that an individual would commit a new offence. Last, and quite importantly, a person could also ensure that the spouse of an accused person was eligible to testify against the accused in court.

As a former police officer, I am a little biased on this legislation, because I believe that it goes as far as it needs to go. I will explain to my colleagues why I believe it does.

A lot of the existing powers that assist police in investigations have not been modernized for some time. In fact, it is long overdue. For the most part, police are working with 1980s legislation in 2014. It is a bit of an advantage to the bad guy, as the police are always playing catch-up. As we have heard previously from other speakers, they want to hear why the police cannot react more quickly. The reality is that the laws are not there for them to act more quickly.

This legislation would provide for the preservation of volatile computer data. Found under proposed section 487.012, a police officer could make a demand, in form 5.001, requiring a person to preserve computer data in his or her possession. Unless the demand was revoked earlier, it would expire 21 days after it was made. This is probably the most valuable tool for police in this electronic age. It would allow the police the time needed to obtain a warrant to seize evidence. In this electronic age, data can be destroyed or quickly moved. This in itself would allow police to act in a more proactive manner.

I would like to speak to this a little more. The fact of the matter is that with computer data, when police identify a suspect, they do not have the ability to go to that person and say that they need to hold on to the information and cannot delete it, move it, or do anything with it. They would be able to do that through form 5.001. They have not been able to do that to this point in time. It would be a huge opportunity for the police to actively investigate something more proactively.

It would require judicial authority to acquire preserved computer data. As mentioned above, the police would be given the authority to preserve the evidence, but they would still have to obtain a warrant to seize the evidence. That has always been the case.

There is a misconception sometimes that police can just go and grab something and do not need a warrant. The fact of the matter is that there has always been a judicial requirement to seize evidence. Otherwise, once it gets to court, it is thrown out. This bill would give the police an added 21 days to preserve evidence and to be able to obtain a warrant.

The bill would modernize the Criminal Code to recognize all forms of communication. Until recently, the Criminal Code commonly identified communication as either oral or written. We have come a long way in the last 20 years. The Criminal Code identifies what can be received electronically by the police through oral or written means. As I said, we have come a long way, especially with the advent of Facebook, the Internet, Twitter, and Instagram. A lot of these things have really changed the way the police have had to do business.

Most communications today are made by electronic means. Today, to write a letter and put it in a post office box is foreign to most people. It just does not happen. Most of us in this place right now are looking at an electronic device. We are not looking at a piece of paper. We pay our bills online, and we communicate using mobile devices.

This legislation would give police better tools to better track and trace telecommunications. We live in a world where electronic messages and photographs can be distributed instantly anywhere around the world. Giving police the tools to react quickly is not only needed but well overdue.

I have heard from the other side that we should split the bill. Members like one part but not the other. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have one part without the other. It is not possible. We have to be able to give the police the authority and the ability to track electronic data, as is known today, that was not there 20 years ago.

Finally, this legislation would streamline the process for obtaining multiple warrants and orders relating to the execution of wiretap authorization. I was the author of two Part IV affidavits in my time as a police officer. I can tell the House that it is a long and arduous process that requires multiple layers of investigation, each of which must be verified and then reviewed and approved by a Supreme Court judge. To get to this level of investigation, all other forms of investigation must have been exhausted. This form of investigation is not taken lightly by any level of police or judicial department.

My good friend from York Centre in his speech mentioned DNRs, or dial number recorders. It brings me back to a few years ago, when we used those prior to getting to a full wiretap. Just to get a dial number recorder opportunity to place on a phone line goes through a huge amount of paperwork and justification for a Supreme Court justice.

With so many forms of electronic devices available to the public, police must have multiple tools available to them, including wiretap evidence, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and every Canadian, that it is used as a last resort.

It is far too easy in this day and age to do hurtful, irresponsible, and illegal activities that were not possible not so many years ago. With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other forms of social media, we have seen how it is used to humiliate, and in some cases, to have the worst of outcomes, because the victim has absolutely no control over an anonymous, faceless predator.

People who commit these cowardly acts need to be held to account as quickly as possible. This legislation is a good start. We must recognize, as legislators, that when it comes to the Criminal Code, we must provide the most up-to-date laws so that both the police and the courts can deal with this type of crime.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their welcome this evening. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13. This bill is close to my heart, and it deals with a sensitive issue that can also be emotional for some of my colleagues.

I commend the government for introducing this bill to create a national strategy on cyberbullying and cybercrime, which could also be included. The NDP will support any measures that combat cyberbullying, as such measures are in line with our principles on the right to privacy.

Such measures are almost exactly what we need, in response to rapidly developing technologies that are changing the way young people interact with each other every day. I said that the measures were almost perfect because this bill contains one measure that is in line with a measure that we presented in the House. The rest of the bill still has several flaws, which I will talk about in my speech today.

We also regret the fact that it took a number of high-profile cases, such as the ones in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, before our government finally decided to take action to combat cyberbullying and bullying in general. Bullying is not restricted to the Internet. It can happen in person every day, especially at school.

We also regret that the Conservatives refused to support the sensible, direct and simple Bill C-540, introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. It is odd that the content of the government's Bill C-13 is nearly identical to the bill we introduced that was not supported by the Conservatives. One has to wonder whether the Conservatives were playing politics. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. It is up to them to answer that question.

Two years ago, in the 41st Parliament, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved Motion No. 385, which suggested that the government create a national bullying prevention strategy to address the issue of bullying in general—not just cyberbullying—but the motion was not supported by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives, who today are saying that they are the great protectors of our youth and that they want to fix the situation, actually had the opportunity to help us do that in the past. Unfortunately, they did not support us.

It is sad that the government sometimes seems to wait for tragic events to happen before taking action. We have also seen that with other files. We could prevent rather than react to these very tragic situations that often result in loss of life.

Therefore, we need legislation to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We support this part of the bill that will prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images because we had proposed this same measure in 2013, about 10 months ago. The Conservatives did not support this measure then, but it is being reintroduced and we will support it. Had this been the only focus of the bill, we could have supported it right away. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

A number of things have also been included in Bill C-13, such as parts of Bill C-30. Members will recall that, in the first session of the 41st Parliament, if my memory serves me well, the minister of public safety—who is no longer an MP—introduced the now-defunct Bill C-30. This bill raised the ire of Canadians across the country. The minister was eventually forced to back down and withdraw the bill, dubbed the electronic surveillance bill. It was not well received by the public. As I was saying, the Conservatives eventually withdrew the bill.

Unfortunately, a number of the measures in Bill C-30, for which there was no consensus, are found today in Bill C-13. That is one of the reasons why we cannot support this bill in its current form. We will support the bill at second reading in order to try to fix the bill in committee. However, as we told the government, we would have been open to splitting the bill in order to study only the part that members seem to agree on and to pass it quickly. We could then have focused on the somewhat more contentious parts.

Bullying is a very important issue that particularly affects youth aged 12 to 14. According to research, they are the most likely age group to be victims of cyberbullying. This scourge has a serious impact on the mental health and well-being of young victims. Studies are painting a negative and troubling portrait of the impact that cyberbullying is having on our youth. It results in anxiety, poor school performance, hopelessness and helplessness. It can also lead to very tragic situations, such as those we have recently witnessed.

According to the 2012 impact report by Kids Help Phone, cyberbullying victims and offenders are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide, unfortunately. That is a very worrisome finding.

When talking about bullying, we do not always mention the negative impact it can have on the victims who often find themselves in a very difficult situation. They clearly need help right now. That is why we support the first part of the bill, which would give those responsible for enforcing the law another tool to crack down on this scourge. We could bring those who hurt others to justice.

In addition, we realize that this issue affects far too many children in Canada. We also need to work on prevention. Punishing those at fault is not the only answer. We need to be proactive about preventing bullying before it happens. That is a foreign concept for the Conservatives. Often, they present measures that punish those in the wrong. That is fine, but we also need to put plenty of effort into preventing cyberbullying to simply avoid having victims. If we successfully prevent it, we can reduce the number of victims because some crimes will not happen in the first place. It is more important to prevent it before it happens, especially given the negative impact it can have on the victims. That is all the more true today, in 2014. Young people are increasingly exposed to new technology through the Internet. This means that, in some cases, they are now being bullied not just when they are in the schoolyard but also 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I am ready to answer questions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-13. I would remind my colleague that the New Democratic justice critic, the member for Gatineau, in her opening speech, wanted the bill to get to committee for a complete examination. I would like to quote from that member's speech:

I think the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill. I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect carefully. We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill.

My point is this. I think this is our third or fourth day of debate and I think there may be one more day of debate on this item. Then we need to get it to committee, because my understanding is that a tremendous number of people want to come to speak to it.

Would the member tell us why it is important for us to get the bill to committee to be studied as soon as possible?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a point in claiming this is an omnibus bill. The opposition seems to see omnibus bills at every turn.

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill. It combines a proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to address cyberbullying with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but other existing offences that are committed via the Internet.

I would urge the member, if he is serious about combatting Internet crime and giving the police new tools to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, to support Bill C-13.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-13.

This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in order to bring them up to date with 21st century technologies.

These updates to the law would respond to new challenges posed by modern technology in the context of bullying, often referred to as cyberbullying, in a number of ways, including by creating a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

Bill C-13 would also revise investigative powers to make sure they respond to modern technologies so that police have the tools they need to investigate offences arising in the context of current communication technology, including offences that can occur in the context of cyberbullying behaviours, such as the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

I would like to take this opportunity to expand on some particularly important and innovative aspects of the Criminal Code amendments, and in particular the new concept of transmission data. I think the proposals in Bill C-13 for changes in this area are going to have a really positive impact on how investigations are conducted here in Canada.

First I would like to tell the House about the new transmission data warrant.

For the past 20 years, the police have been able to ask a justice for a warrant that would permit the police to find out phone numbers dialed by a suspect or by someone phoning that suspect. Such warrants could be issued by the justice when there were reasonable grounds to suspect that this information could assist in the investigation of a crime.

However, these days this sort of information, sometimes referred to as call identifying information, encompasses not just telephone numbers but also the Internet equivalents of telephone numbers and includes some technical data that all kinds of more advanced calling features can generate on a network.

It is unfortunately the reality for police today that investigators face challenges when working with the existing dialed number recorder warrant. It is sadly out of date, as it was not designed for the kinds of things that can be part of call identifying information today. The provision was created in 1993 for traditional telephones.

Another change in the way people communicate that has had significant impact on investigations is the increased use of the Internet since 1993, which means that voice telephony is far from being the only way that people regularly communicate.

An additional impact on investigations comes from the convergence of different communication technologies. Nowadays the lines between traditional telephones and the Internet are certainly blurred.

Many cellphones today can be used to access the Internet if, for example, people want to see something on the Internet or send a message. Phones can also rely on the technology of the Internet to make a traditional call. Millions of subscribers use VoIP, or voice over IP, which enables the phone to make use of the Internet to make a traditional voice telephone call.

The result is that the technology uses IP, or Internet protocol, addresses in addition to telephone numbers. It is a sort of hybrid. This kind of hybridization creates problems for investigators. It was also never envisaged 20 years ago, when communication was done through the traditional phone lines for which the current warrant was designed.

This is important. These changes in communication technology have led to the proposal in Bill C-13 to update the existing dialed number recorder warrant in section 492.2 of the Criminal Code and replace it with a transmission data warrant. The proposal in Bill C-13 to create an updated warrant, called a transmission data warrant, makes sense. This new warrant will reflect the new realities for communication technology and investigative techniques.

The sorts of address data police now need to conduct investigations cannot be obtained using telephone records or standard equipment for older technology such as a dialed number recorder. The updates to the law would ensure that a criminal would not be able to avoid police investigative techniques because he uses modern technology, such as VoIP, to make his calls instead of a traditional telephone.

A new legal concept was needed for this update to the existing number recorder warrant to encompass the greater complexity of call identifying information in the modern telecommunications context. Bill C-13 proposes a way to create this new concept, a new category of information called transmission data, which would apply to Internet routing information as well as traditional telephone numbers.

Transmission data would be specifically restricted to certain parts of what is called the header data, which includes things like the email address and information about the mail servers that transmitted the email, but the concept is carefully designed to explicitly exclude the content of any message so that invasions of privacy are minimized. This means police would not be able to use the transmission data warrant to find out what a person has typed in as the subject field. More importantly, police will not be able to use this type of warrant to find out what was typed into the body of the email.

In addition to updating the dialed number recorder warrant provision by replacing it with a new transmission data warrant, Bill C-13 also proposes a new judicial production order aimed at obtaining transmission data when it is stored. This is a change to the structure of the existing number recorder warrant, which included a production order within the warrant provision. Bill C-13 proposes a separate production order to obtain transmission data located in the same place in the Criminal Code with the other production orders.

This proposal is part of the overall approach of Bill C-13 of creating a slate of specific production orders that provide specific tools for police to use to obtain particular types of information. The bill proposes specific and tailored new production orders for transmission data, for tracking data, and for tracing a communication, along with the existing specific and tailored production order for financial data and the existing general production order, all of which together compose a new scheme of production orders proposed by Bill C-13.

The threshold for the specific and tailored production orders is “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been or will be committed”, as these orders are narrower in scope and less invasive.

In contrast, the threshold for the broader general production order is “reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be committed” to reflect its greater intrusive potential. These thresholds are consistent with the current approach to thresholds for production orders in the Criminal Code.

This approach is designed to provide tailoring to particular privacy interests through giving police specific tools designed for specific access, which allows a judge to assess each type of request to the appropriate standard.

Given the discussions currently occurring both domestically and internationally around access to metadata, it may be useful at this point to speak briefly to the distinction between metadata and transmission data as proposed in Bill C-13.

“Metadata” is a term that can be used to describe any data about data. It can encompass a fairly broad range of information, including information that would not be part of the definition of transmission data.

“Transmission data”, as set out in Bill C-13, is carefully and more narrowly defined. It is information relating only to the dialing, routing, addressing, or signalling of telecommunications. As I mentioned earlier, it is explicit in the definition of transmission data that it cannot reveal the substance, the meaning, or the purpose of the communication.

It is important to understand the limited, specific, and focused ambit of what is being proposed in Bill C-13 in relation to transmission data, as these limits address some concerns that some people have expressed about broad abilities to access all kinds of information with ease. Bill C-13 proposes a clear framework for particular types of access to data, in particular transmission data, if granted by a judge or justice.

The transmission data warrant and production order will provide police with some of the investigative tools they need to fight crime in a world of changing technology. It has been precisely designed to do so with appropriate privacy safeguards.

I therefore encourage all members to give Bill C-13 their full support.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no confidence in the government doing anything right when it comes to dealing with young people's safety.

Michael Geist, a Canadian research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, compared a number of provisions included in Bill C-13 to the controversial Internet snooping legislation. We know how divisive that was. Bill C-30 was killed by the former justice minister in the face of widespread criticism.

You had this mountain of opposition and you withdrew the bill. Now you bring it forward, and in it you bury something that is so important. It is all about protecting our young people from cyberbullying. That is playing politics.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today 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, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

It will come as no surprise that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. There are elements in the bill that I think we have waited too long to implement. At the same time, we have to be very conscious that when we deal with legislation, it needs to be concise but it also needs clarity.

I wonder what kind of message we send to Canadians when the title of a bill has so many components that it leaves many people wondering what the bill is really about. The fact that there are so many subheadings to the bill shows that it is not just looking at cyberbullying and consequences to update our legislation. This is another example of legislation where the government has cobbled together various pieces of its agenda and thrown in something on which I would say we have unanimous agreement.

We did request unanimous consent that the bill be divided to allow similar provisions from our colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who, by the way, has done amazing work on this file, that is Bill C-540, and the aspect that relates to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We asked that it be adopted rapidly in committee, since it has all-party support.

This is where frustration sometimes sets in this House. This is something we could have done, all-party, everybody in agreement, with that particular component of this legislation. We are all in agreement. We could have separated it and passed it; I believe that component has been debated many times. Then we could have spent our time debating the rest of the bill.

There are some problems with the rest of the bill, but that part of the bill that encompasses Bill C-540, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, could have been adopted unanimously and it could have gone on to the next stage.

I urge my colleagues across the way to consider doing that. They have a majority and could make it happen. They would certainly get consent from our side to separate it that way. We could get something moving in a very timely manner.

The world has changed since I went to school. The kinds of bullying and activities in school are very different now. Bullying is bullying. However, we have different types of bullying. There was a time that if an individual were bullied by somebody at their school, they had to write them a letter. That would happen very rarely because they did not want to get caught, or they would bully the individual to their face. With cyberbullying now, people can bully an individual 24/7 using social media.

I am often amazed at how many of our youth have cell phones. They are not just phones; all of the social media and the Internet are on there. Our youth are very actively engaged. They carry their phones with them, which brings the bullying right into their homes, 24/7.

By the way, I am not saying that we should ban all cell phones for young people. I can see our young people in the House looking at me, wondering if that is where I am going. Not at all. However, I am saying that because technology has changed how our young people interact with each other, so must our legal system. However, we have seen the shortfalls of our legal system. It was not equipped to deal with some very tragic circumstances. Because of that, we have to update our Criminal Code and law enforcement.

However, more than anything, I think we also have a responsibility to educate. Media literacy is very important. We taught children, long before we had all this technology, how to communicate in a positive way and not to hurt each other's feelings. In a similar way, I think our schools, as well as parents at home, have to work with our young people to teach them ways to manage this new world. Even though we may not live in that world, we have to help to construct a safety net for our students and young people, which is what this legislation is all about.

Months ago, we could quite easily have separated and dealt with cyberbullying in the bill proposed by my colleague, the incredibly hard-working member of Parliament for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Instead, here we have a very complex bill, which will now take time. Some of my colleagues will say that it does not have to take time if we agree to everything that is in the new bill. However, I cannot. There are problems with many parts of the bill before us, and I know we will be bringing amendments when it gets to committee stage.

I always want to use the word “student”. Being a teacher all of my life, that is how I think. However, for our young people, we have to do the responsible thing and try to take the politics out of dealing with this safety issue. This is an issue that has been sensitized because of a number of recent tragedies. I have talked to young people who have told me how terrible it is and how alone they feel when they have been bullied through cyberspace.

I would not say that words do not hurt because they do hurt. I can remember being at school when people got yelled at, and I could see the look of hurt on their faces. Sometimes they were beaten up because children can get into fights. However, what we are seeing with cyberbullying right now is that it is 24/7, and there is no escape.

We know the young people who are vulnerable. We know that it is people from, let us say the gay and lesbian community, the students who are not out. Even the students who are out can also become a target, through the use of anonymity and fake IDs that people can create in this world.

However, to quote the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on Bill C-13, “the federal government is using this pressing social issue as an opportunity to resurrect much of its former surveillance legislation, Bill C-30”.

We remember when a certain minister was told what was thought of that bill. They feel that this proposed legislation is a resurrection of that bill and the government is trying to sugar-coat it by throwing in a much-needed bill to protect our children.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way who, as we know, is very active on a daily basis in terms of debate, and I think that is great. He raises a number of issues, such as this one.

When we talk about cyberbullying and the Internet, if fraud is taking place, such as identity theft, or if one's correspondence with people is used by someone in an immoral or illegal way, that needs to be part of what we talk about in cyberbullying and needs to be part of what we talk about in Bill C-13.

I am pleased that the member asked that question because we want to make sure that we cover the bases as widely as we can. When the bill goes to committee, we will have another opportunity for input by witnesses. That discussion about weaknesses or concerns can be brought up and looked at in committee also.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my Conservative colleague a question about Bill C-13.

I want to ask her a very specific question about why the Conservatives decided to include many things that are not necessarily related to cyberbullying. This bill on cyberbullying has been given a fine title. We are pleased that this bill was introduced and we are going to support it at second reading.

However, I want to know why the Conservatives incorporated things that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, such as the two-year sentence for stealing cable. Can my colleague tell me what exactly this has to do with cyberbullying? Why did the Conservatives decide, as they do in many cases, to include many other measures that are not necessarily related to the original purpose of the bill?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House as a representative of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, particularly today as we speak in support of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. As we have heard today from all speakers, it addresses the serious criminal behaviour associated with cyberbullying.

This is an issue that affects Canadians across the country, whether in small communities, like mine, or in large cities, in remote areas, or in urban areas. It is an issue of grave concern to all of us. For Barb and me, who are parents and grandparents, as aunts and uncles, as parliamentarians and as Canadians, we take this for what the act talks about.

We have all heard of the tragic results of cyberbullying. My colleagues who spoke mentioned a number of individuals who have been captured and caught in the effects of cyberbullying. There are stories of children so distraught that they take their own lives because they can no longer handle the barrage of taunts, threats, and humiliation that is absolutely heartbreaking to them and everyone around them.

We have the opportunity to take decisive action now and try to prevent, as much as we can, future tragedies. The legislation before us is one that would move us ahead with reforms to our laws to deter the effects and types of destructive behaviour. Certainly, having stronger penalties in place would act as a strong deterrent to those who would post intimate pictures of someone online without their consent. It is also critical, and we have heard a lot about that today, that every possible step be taken to prevent bullying in all its forms.

In my time today, I want to talk about our government, and specifically Public Safety Canada, which is prepared to establish a number of prevention, education, and awareness activities. As the lead federal department on the issue of cyberbullying, Public Safety Canada is tackling this form of intimidation. This includes supporting programs that work to change behaviours among young people to prevent bullying of all types, whether online or in person.

For example, our government is currently supporting the development of a number of school-based projects to prevent bullying as part of the $10 million that was committed in 2012 toward new crime prevention projects to address this and other priority issues such as preventing violence among at-risk youth and offending among urban aboriginal youth. Education and awareness are also critical to addressing this harmful and extreme behaviour. We are working on a number of initiatives to encourage youth. We need youth themselves to speak up and to let adults know what is happening.

Our government supports the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which operates Cybertip.ca, an initiative that started in 2002, and NeedHelpNow.ca. These are websites that Canadians can use to report online sexual exploitation of children and to seek help for exploitation resulting from the sharing of sexual images.

In addition, the RCMP Centre for Youth Crime Prevention offers resources such as fact sheets, lesson plans, and interactive learning tools to youth, parents, police officers, and educators on issues such as bullying and cyberbullying. We also talk about cyberbullying during Cyber Security Awareness Month, which takes place each October.

The focus of Public Safety Canada’s Get Cyber Safe campaign is to educate Canadians of all ages on the simple steps they can take to protect themselves from people who want to do harm to them online, or for things like identity theft, fraud, and computer viruses.

Part of helping our people stay safe online includes making them aware of the dangers of cyberbullying and what they can do to stop it. As part of our efforts in this regard, Public Safety Canada launched a national public awareness safety campaign called “Stop Hating Online”, in January 2014. It does a number of things. It provides information to youth and their parents about the potential serious legal consequences around cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images without consent.

It also informs Canadian adults that they have a role to play in the prevention and reporting of cyberbullying and raises awareness among young Canadians regarding the types of behaviours that constitute cyberbullying and the impacts of that on people. We want to help them understand that they can be more than a bystander, and give them information on how and when they can stand up to cyberbullying.

We want to make sure that we go beyond that. In order to reach as many people as possible, we want to make sure that we cover both adults and youth. Our government wants to work closely with the private sector and other government partners to deliver the campaign using a wide variety of media, awareness activities, but with a particular focus on using social media to spread the word and encourage Canadians.

I hope that members of the House were able to see some of the ads played on national TV networks between January and March. The idea was aimed at parents and youth, the latter being a little more edgy and dynamic to capture the attention of our tech-savvy youth. Both ads illustrated how easy it is for kids to share intimate images of each other through mobile phones and social media, often without much thought. Both ads end with a clear and serious message: that sharing intimate messages and images without consent is not only wrong, it is also illegal—something we are working toward with the legislation before us.

Because the younger generation is not necessarily watching the evening news, the same ads were played online and at movie theatres. The ads drove people to a comprehensive website called “Stop Hating Online”, which provides concrete tools and tips for youth, parents, educators, and all those concerned about cyberbullying. The campaign uses social media like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to reach out to youth.

This is where we are seeing a significant engagement and positive feedback from youth and parents who are embracing this campaign and telling us clearly that they are not going to accept this destructive behaviour for themselves, their families, or their friends.

In fact, Facebook Canada reported that interest and engagement is much higher than average for the Stop Hating Online initiative. It has also had over one million views of the youth-oriented ad on YouTube since its launch. Facebook accounts for more than 60,000 times its usual hits. We are saying that when we reach out across all media and all types of contacts, it is starting to hit home. As we watch television news and listen to reports of those who have been caught in this, they need to understand the severity of it.

For obvious reasons, as a proud parent and grandparent, I would ask members of the House to support Bill C-13.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to respond to my colleague.

To begin, I would like to commend the initiative in his riding. He mentioned that there are groups in his riding that help young people deal with bullying. That is wonderful. That is why the fourth pillar of my national bullying prevention strategy called on the government to provide more financial and other types of support to front-line organizations that are already doing good work across Canada. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.

To prove just how important this is, and I will end with this, here is a quote from a 2012 Kids Help Phone report:

...cyberbullying can be very damaging to young people’s mental health and well-being. According to recent research, cyberbullying has a range of negative social, emotional, and educational outcomes on victims, from anxiety, to poor concentration and lowered school performance, to hopelessness or helplessness, to depression and suicidality.

Clearly, the government needs to do something, something more than just Bill C-13.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is the case for the vast majority of my colleagues in the House, the subject of cyberbullying and bullying in general is something I am deeply concerned about. This issue is so important to me that I decided that my one and only bill to be debated and voted on in the House would be about bullying. That is why, almost two years ago, I introduced a national bullying prevention strategy. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois voted overwhelmingly against it.

Ten minutes is not a lot of time for me to say everything I want to say about this. Before I begin my speech, I would like to respond to my Conservative colleague who has just finished her speech and answers. The parliamentary secretary talked about how proactive her Conservative government is when it comes to dealing with bullying. That is a lie. It is not true. This is 2014 and we are debating Bill C-13.

In 2011, 15-year-old Jenna Bowers-Bryanton took her own life. She lived in Truro, Nova Scotia. When the media reported the news, Jenna's parents, family and friends spoke about what this young woman had gone through. They said that she had been bullied via social media. She was receiving vicious messages and comments from anonymous sources. In these messages, she was even told that she should kill herself.

According to her parents, Courtney Brown, another Nova Scotian, was bullied via Facebook in 2011. She too committed suicide when she could no longer deal with the situation. These are two cases of young Canadian women who, in 2011, were victims of Internet bullying, which is called cyberbullying. The Conservative government, which was in power at the time, did nothing.

Meanwhile, the opposition introduced two bills. We are proactive in the NDP. I spoke about how my initiative to implement a national bullying prevention strategy was defeated. The bill introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour focused strictly on closing loopholes in Canadian legislation to prevent the distribution of intimate images without consent. The Conservatives voted against this measure twice.

I therefore do not believe the Conservative member when she says that her government is proactive. That is not true. This debate has been very emotional for me. I was talking about this earlier with my parliamentary assistant, Steve Slepchik. We sent some messages back and forth about how sad we felt when preparing my speech, which is still somewhat off the cuff. We researched the number of young people who had committed suicide as a result of bullying since we were elected in 2011. Some took their own lives as a result of cyberbullying. Others were bullied at school. We in the House of Commons know the difference, and we know that bullying in schools falls more under provincial jurisdiction. However, we also know that telecommunications fall under federal jurisdiction, and that is why the federal government must play its role in that regard, a role that goes beyond the measure this government has proposed.

I would also like to remind members that the NDP is in favour of this bill since it is quite similar to a bill that we ourselves proposed. What is more, when it comes to cyberbullying, we agree with the part of this 75-page brick that closes the loophole with regard to the distribution of intimate images without consent. However, cyberbullying has a much larger scope than that.

I have another example, and it always makes me sad when I talk about it. Todd Loik, a youth from North Battleford, Saskatchewan, also took his own life at the age of 15. He was being taunted and teased online, but it was much more than that. He was threatened and bullied on Facebook, until the night he decided to take his own life because he could not take it anymore. Even his mother, who read with great sorrow the Facebook messages to her son, called them disgusting.

She even said that he received these insults on his cell phone and home computer.

The cyberbullying of young people in Canada and around the world is more than just the distribution of intimate photos without consent. Passing Bill C-13 and giving it royal assent will not give the Conservatives—who boast about enforcing law and order, but actually do very little about it—bragging rights about having done something to set limits on and curtail cyberbullying in Canada. The distribution of intimate photos without consent is just one aspect of cyberbullying.

Youth suicide is covered extensively by the media, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Parliamentarians in every Canadian province and territory have admitted that they were victims of bullying. I am one of them. We have to do something. We must adopt a national bullying prevention strategy that will give parents more tools.

In Canada, parents who know that their child is a victim of bullying or cyberbullying do not have the tools to deal with it. The government can use the means at its disposal to inform the Canadian public and to provide parents with documentation that will help them do their job and defend and equip their children.

The Conservatives' approach would simply have us criminalize cyberbullying instead of preventing it. Unfortunately, bullying leaves scars. When a young person is the victim of bullying over the course of months or years, the harm has been done, even if the bully is punished. However, the victim is sometimes no longer even alive when the bully is punished. Is that fair? I do not think so. The families and loved ones of bullying victims, even those who do not resort to suicide, are left with scars.

I would not want any young person in Canada to be the victim of bullying, but bullying most often involves young people. It could be a matter of carelessness or cruelty on the part of these darling angels who are not aware of how much their actions can hurt others. Some young people imitate their parents or loved ones. When they see their parents saying negative things about a colleague or being mean-spirited, the children absorb this information and emulate this kind of behaviour at school, on the bus or on the Internet.

I wish we could pass legislation requiring Canadians, teens and children to show love for one another, so that we can put an end to bullying and cyberbullying, but I know that is unrealistic.

However, it is not too late to take action, and the government must not rest on its laurels. After it passes Bill C-13, it must move forward and impose further controls on cyberbullying. We need to work on prevention.

For example, the committee should look at meaningful measures to ensure that a teen who is bullied via text message, Facebook, Twitter or email can access a government-run website to complain. The teen could take a screenshot and indicate where the bullying took place, so that the police can investigate it. By working with Internet service providers, we could track down the bully and send an email warning to the owner of the IP address, which is likely the parents. That way, the parents could do their job and talk to their child about what they have done.

Those are some concrete ways to combat cyberbullying that the NDP would like to work on.

I thank my colleagues for taking all of this into consideration.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for mentioning the names of some of the young people who, in the time since we were elected in 2011, unfortunately took their own lives to end the pain caused by bullying.

These days, many cases of cyberbullying do not involve the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. What does the member's government propose in Bill C-13 for those particular cases of bullying?

I read this voluminous, 75-page bill and I did not see any measures for protecting our young people from cyberbullying that does not involve the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

Can my Conservative colleague elaborate on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

I would like to first set out a bit of context in terms of where we have come from. Members might be aware that it was 25 years ago when the first test was done on the World Wide Web. We have to look at how far we have come in 25 years.

Facebook, a powerful tool, was introduced in 2004. I might be dating myself a bit, but I remember going to my first tutorial to learn about the World Wide Web, and it was very complicated. There were DOS commands and giant computers. Now we have the ability to take a picture with something the size of our palm and distribute it immediately around the world. That is an absolutely incredible change over a relatively short 25 years.

Before I go into the details of the bill and why it is so important, I need to reflect on the fact that this tool in some ways has been fabulous for Canadians and people around the world. I remember a colleague telling me how his grandmother in Argentina every night read a book over Skype to put his child to bed.

We have the ability to pay our bills by email. We have the ability to interact immediately with family around the world. It is much easier to keep those connections we treasure and value.

As politicians we have seen the dark side of the Internet. Anyone who has a Twitter account or a Facebook account regularly sees some of the very vicious comments that come in through those forums. As my colleague across the aisle just said, these comments are often anonymous and vicious. As politicians, we deal with that, but that is nothing compared to really overstepping the bounds and the issues some children and adults have had to deal with.

A quick Google search on cyberbullying immediately brings up hundreds of names. There is Ryan's story, Bronagh's story, and Megan's story. Look at Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. Just recently we heard the she allegedly fell victim to someone on the other side of the world.

Times have changed incredibly, and we need to change with the times.

This legislation proposes changes to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The bill would create a law to address the behaviour that can occur in cases of cyberbullying. This new offence would be called non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Investigative powers need to be updated to ensure that they are in line with the modern technology I just talked about, where in one minute, something as small as one's hand reaches across the world.

I would like to expand a bit on the amendments to the Criminal Code and highlight how they are designed to ensure appropriate privacy protection in the face of the new technology. It is a difficult balancing act, because we need to ensure that privacy is protected while providing the tools to tackle these horrendous issues.

There are a few areas I would like to talk about. I will start with preservation orders and demands and updates to the tracking warrant provisions, which are essential tools to ensure that effective investigations are conducted in Canada when the police are faced with crimes involving technology.

What is this new preservation order? The preservation order would create new powers, to be used in both Criminal Code and Competition Act contraventions. The goal of these two new provisions is to ensure that volatile computer data will not be deleted before the police have time to get a warrant or court order to collect it for investigations.

The need for these tools is obvious. Not only is computer data easily deleted but it can also easily be lost through carelessness or just in day-to-day business practice.

A preservation order or demand would legally require a person to keep the computer data that is vital to an investigation long enough for the police to seek the judicial warrants and orders necessary to obtain the information. This tool would ensure that the police could get the investigation under way without the loss of really important evidence.

People may have concerns about the impact of these amendments on a person's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. They might have heard about Europe's data retention regime and worry that our legislation is going to import that to Canada. That is not what Bill C-13 is doing.

Data retention would allow the collection of a range of data for all telephone and Internet service subscribers for a defined period of time, regardless of whether or not the data was connected with the investigation.

Bill C-13 does not provide for data retention. It provides for data preservation, and that is a very important fact. It would require that specified computer data in connection with a specific investigation and specific people be preserved for a limited period of time.

It is important to understand that this data would not be turned over to the police unless they first obtained a judicial warrant or court order for that disclosure. Also, any of the data that was preserved and whose presentation was not otherwise required for regular business purposes would have to be destroyed as soon as it was no longer needed for the investigation. This would protect the privacy of Canadians. This would also ensure that the regime created in this bill did not inadvertently result in the kind of data retention I have just described.

As members can see, the data preservation scheme the government is proposing is actually quite constrained in its focus and has been designed as a stop-gap measure so that the judicial warrants and the court order police obtain subsequent to access to the evidence are not rendered useless. Again, it is a really important intermittent tool.

Another change Bill C-13 proposes is updating the Criminal Code's existing tracking warrant provision. Of course, this warrant was created in the early 1990s. Police could obtain and use this warrant to track people, cars, or objects. Again, as I described earlier, so much has changed in tracking technology since then and in the accuracy of this tracking technology. The continuity with which it can track things has also improved.

Because of the improvements, the existing tracking warrant is outdated, and its privacy safeguards no longer reflect the reality of modern tracking technology, which could allow for greater privacy invasions than before. This is an important thing we thought we had to tackle.

Bill C-13 proposes to heighten privacy protections for the most invasive uses of tracking technology. This legislation would do this by creating a dual threshold for tracking warrants.The police would be able to get the first kind of tracking warrant the way they have always been able to get one for the less invasive type of tracking: prove to the judge or the justice that they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the warrant will assist in the investigation of an offence. The police would use this warrant to track objects, vehicles, and transactions.

However, for the more invasive technique of tracking a person using a device usually worn or carried by the person, such as a cell phone, the police would have to get a second type of warrant, which would provide for greater privacy protection than the first.

Bill C-13 would provide that to get such a warrant, the police would have to prove to the judge that they had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a tracking warrant would assist in the investigation of the offence.

Legally, this is a tougher standard to meet, and as a result, it would provide more privacy protection than the first type of warrant, which is about tracking objects. This is an important distinction, as it reflects a higher level of protection, commensurate with the more intrusive potential of tracking persons, which is reflected in the second type of tracking warrant. It was designed to very carefully meet that difficult balance in terms of giving the police tools in the modern day that ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place.

To bring things to a conclusion, I talked about two specific measures. Canadians have understandably been outraged by the crimes committed through the use of the Internet, including massive fraud and horribly cruel incidents of cyberbullying. I believe that Bill C-13 is both a necessary and balanced response. It would enable law enforcement to have tools to respond to these criminal activities. I encourage all members in this House to support Bill C-13.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comments. It is a privilege to share a desk with him here in the House of Commons. I get the benefit of his very sharp sense of humour, which does not always appear through the microphones.

I thank him for his kind words. Like all members of the NDP caucus, he has been a firm supporter of LGBTQ rights, and I am very proud to be the spokesperson for our party. It is the only party that has a spokesperson for LGBTQ rights in the House of Commons.

I guess that I am feeling charitable today. I am going to say that I hope that the omission of gender identity from the additions to the hate crimes section was inadvertent. Sometimes, we make Machiavellian conclusions about what is happening in the House when they are not really deserved. I am just not sure.

If we were going to amend that section and the House has already pronounced twice on the issue, it would seem to be obvious then that gender identity should have gone into clause 12 of Bill C-13. When we get to committee, we will certainly be suggesting that it be dealt with at the committee stage.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands takes a reasonable approach to these matters.

I would point out that when Bill C-13 was introduced, on this side we offered exactly what the member suggested. We told the government we were prepared to take out those urgent matters dealing with cyberbullying, have them in a separate bill, and pass them expeditiously through the House. It rejected that approach to doing so. Therefore, while I take seriously that the government wants this action to happen, I remain concerned that at each turn there is more and more delay on things that could have been done much earlier in the House.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is a mystery to me.

We had Amnesty International provide leadership, in creating a letter from 100 civil society organizations, which was sent to the Senate earlier this year, asking it to take urgent action on Bill C-279. Within two days, there was a response saying that it would act immediately and nothing has happened. So obviously the sense of what “immediate” means in the Senate and in this House is quite different.

My plea with senators today is to deal with Bill C-279 expeditiously and also, when this bill gets to them, as I am sure it will before we recess for the summer, to also deal with Bill C-13 expeditiously. I have to say that I am not optimistic that this will actually happen.

In conclusion, let me say I am proud to stand in this House today and speak to Bill C-13. It does contain things that we need to take action on, but, and there is always this unfortunate “but” when it comes to legislation from the current government, too many things have been stuffed into the same bill and so we are going to have to have some serious discussions in committee about some of the other things that have been tacked on to this bill. One of those is something I am very interested in and that is the question of gender identity in the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code.

I hope we will have co-operation in committee and that we will be able to get that amendment made, get Bill C-13 through this House, and take at least some limited action against bullying and cyberbullying before we recess for the summer.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must start by thanking my NDP colleagues for allowing me to speak on Bill C-13 today, because as a result of the application of time allocation for what I think was the 58th time, many of my colleagues will not have an opportunity to speak on this bill. Despite all of my colleagues obviously being New Democrats, we are a very diverse caucus with different experiences, and we represent different kinds of ridings here in the House of Commons.

I have risen to speak in favour of Bill C-13, but I do so with some reservations.

Unfortunately, the bill is, in effect, yet another omnibus bill that mixes together many other issues with the one that should have been central—that is, bullying and cyberbullying. Instead we have a rather mixed bag of provisions instead of a focused response to the urgent challenges of bullying and cyberbullying.

Rather than trying to address all the issues in the bill, I want to focus my remarks today on two aspects: first, the need for effective action to combat bullying; second, the proposed amendment to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code which, surprisingly, also appears in the bill in clause 12.

Since 2011, we in this House have had several opportunities to act on the issues of bullying and cyberbullying, but unfortunately we have made little progress. Nearly 18 months ago my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, put forward a motion, Motion No. 385, which called upon the federal government to develop a national strategy with concrete steps to combat bullying. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted down the motion, dismissing it as a call for further study, when in fact it was a call for leadership from the federal government in the fight against bullying and cyberbullying.

Last summer, on June 17, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-540, which would amend the Criminal Code in order to make the non-consensual making or distribution of intimate images a criminal offence. At that time, we asked the government to expedite passage of the bill in order to try to prevent further tragedies like the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, which took place as a result of cyberbullying. Unfortunately, the government preferred to wait for its own bill, which has delayed action on this critical issue for nearly a year.

What we have before us now in Bill C-13 is much narrower than a strategy to combat cyberbullying, though it does have some provisions similar to those the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour proposed many months ago.

We are, of course, supporting the bill going to committee, precisely because some legislative action against cyberbullying is necessary, but again I want to emphasize that focusing on bullying after the fact can only be part of the solution.

Today I want to reiterate two points I made when speaking 18 months ago in support of our motion for a national anti-bullying strategy. They relate to the pervasiveness of bullying in our society and to its amplification by the existence of new technologies.

The prevalence and pervasiveness of bullying in Canada is truly shocking. In fact, bullying is happening around us all the time. In one analysis of Toronto-area schools, it was found that a student is bullied every seven seconds.

Egale Canada conducted a survey of homophobia and transphobia in schools across Canada. It found that 74% of transidentified students, 55% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, and 26% of non-LGBTQ students reported being verbally harassed. More than half of those reported that this bullying occurred on a daily or weekly basis.

One UBC study of students in grades 8 to 10 found that 64% of students reported they had been bullied. Even more saddening for me is their acceptance of that inevitability, because 64% of these same students said they found bullying to be a normal part of school life.

People are bullied for an almost infinite number of reasons, but almost all of those reasons are connected to hostility toward deviation from the perceived norm: for being too short, too tall, too fat, too thin; for where they were born, the colour of their skin, the language they speak at home; for having an accent, for the clothes they wear, for sexual orientation, for their gender, for their gender presentation, for what they are able to afford. The list goes on and on, but the result is always the same: creating a sense of exclusion for the victims of bullying.

As technology has advanced, so has the means of bullying, with social networking, smart phones, and the Internet becoming second nature to people in Canada, especially young people. So has utilizing these resources for bullying. As a result, bullying has become intensified and its impacts more widely distributed.

Bullying is no longer a problem that only happens at school, on the school bus, or on the playground. It is no longer just a workplace problem. It can now follow victims home and invade their lives 24 hours a day each and every day of the year.

The consequences of bullying and the effects of bullying need to be taken seriously. We all know that the impacts of bullying on youth can be drastic and long-lasting. Young people who are bullied are more likely to face depression. It is estimated that male victims of bullying are five times more likely, and females victims three times more likely, to be depressed than their non-bullied classmates.

People who are victims of bullying are more susceptible to low self-esteem and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and illnesses. Young people who are bullied are more likely to engage in substance abuse and self-harm, and in recent years we have seen the tragic rise in the trend toward youth bullycide. The list of those young people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying is already too long, and unfortunately continues to grow.

The costs of bullying are found not just on its impact on individuals. Bullying has wider social costs. One study has found that of elementary school bullies, one in four will have a criminal record by the time they are 30 years old.

We can and must move beyond our platitudes and expressions of concern about bullying and not limit our responses only to actions taken after the damage has already been done.

We all know that these bullying behaviours are learned. People are not born with hearts full of hate. At the root of our response to bullying must be efforts to build a more open and accepting society. If there was a real intolerance for discrimination and hate, then bullying clearly would not be so pervasive.

We could make a good start by calling bullying what it really is. We need to recognize that most bullying is rooted in sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism. These are serious prejudices that most Canadians find unacceptable in theory, but for some reason they are deemed acceptable when they are expressed in the form of bullying.

The need for a broad strategy as well as for anti-bullying legislation is so obvious. Unfortunately, what we find in the rest of the bill is a mixed bag of only tangentially related provisions, some with no clear connection to the problem at all.

Some things in the bill have been brought forward from the previously failed Bill C-30, but fortunately in this version it looks as if the important principle of judicial oversight of police access to Internet communications may be preserved. I look forward to hearing from Canadians about this aspect again when the bill reaches committee.

One surprise in Bill C-13 was the inclusion of clause 12. This section proposes the addition of some important provisions to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. I am at a loss to explain why this proposal has suddenly appeared in the bill, but I think it is a positive thing.

Bill C-13 suggests adding national origins, age, sex, and mental or physical disability to the existing provisions of the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. While the connection to the other aspect of the bill is not immediately obvious, as I said, I do believe this is a good thing, but what is missing from this section is gender identity. This House has twice voted in favour of adding gender identity to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code, yet it is not included in clause 12 of the bill.

My own private member's bill, Bill C-279, is still stuck in the Senate more than a year after being passed in this House, and while I remain hopeful it will be adopted soon, there is an obvious potential problem in the conflict between Bill C-13 and my own private member's bill. Unfortunately, if the Senate does pass Bill C-279, clause 12 of Bill C-13 would inadvertently undo half that progress. Bill C-13 in its present form would actually remove gender identity from the hate crime section of the Criminal Code if my private member's bill has already passed, so when we get to committee, we will be having a serious discussion about an amendment to add gender identity to fix this omission.

It was more than three years ago that this House, in a minority Parliament, voted to add gender identity to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code, and, as I said, more than a year ago we voted to do that in my own private member's bill, so I am hoping that this proposed amendment to the hate crime section was inadvertent in its omission of gender identity and that this omission can be fixed in committee.

Let me return to what I believe is the important question that should be at the centre of Bill C-13, which is that there is an urgent need for Parliament to provide national leadership in the fight against bullying.

Despite our concerns about the bill being an omnibus bill and despite many of the other things stuffed into Bill C-13, we are supporting sending the bill to committee so that we can continue the dialogue on the important issue of bullying and cyberbullying.

What is of concern to me, as I mentioned at the outset, is the attitude that has become prevalent on the other side of the House that when three or four members have spoken, it is time to end debate. The very root of the word “Parliament” means a place where we can talk about the important national issues.

I feel it is a great privilege to stand here and speak to Bill C-13 as a man who comes from the LGBTQ community, which suffers inordinately from bullying. I think I bring a perspective somewhat different from that of some other members of the House. As someone from Vancouver Island, where we have a lot of early adapters of new technology, I know we see huge problems of bullying and cyberbullying in local schools. Frankly, teachers are at their wits' end in trying to find ways to deal effectively with it.

One thing that has been common in the responses I have received is a warning that we not look simply to criminal sanctions for youth to combat cyberbullying and that criminalizing bullying for young people could in fact be a serious problem.

I come back to the idea that we cannot just focus on what happens after the bullying. We have to provide national leadership in coming up with ways to attack this problem before the damage actually takes place. Some may say that is not a federal responsibility, but it is in the sense that when bullying and cyberbullying reach their most vicious levels, they often result in criminal acts. Since the Criminal Code is the responsibility of this federal Parliament, then we do have a responsibility for crime prevention. I would argue very strongly that a national strategy to prevent bullying and cyberbullying is a matter of crime prevention.

On the other side of the House we hear a lot of discussion about victims. We share the concern for victims in Canadian society, but how can we do our best job in addressing the needs of victims? We can do that by preventing victimization. Once again, there is a responsibility for the House to look at what we can do to make sure that victims are not created through bullying and cyberbullying.

When we get to committee, I would ask members on the other side to keep an open mind about those other things that we can do. We do not need just to find criminal sanctions, although there are some things here that I agree are necessary and that will be useful in the most extreme cases, but there are many more things we can do to make this the Canada that we all love and believe is a great place that includes a space for all Canadians.

Unfortunately, the evidence of bullying and cyberbullying shows that is not always the case. Whether we are talking about immigrant communities and their desire to contribute to Canada fully or whether we are talking about the LGBTQ community and our desire to be accepted in Canadian society and play our role very fully or whether we are talking about those with disabilities who are often sidelined in our society, we have to take all the measures that we can to make our country more inclusive and make it one we can all be even prouder of than we are now.

How do we do that? I come back to this argument again and again. We put forward a motion calling for a national strategy to combat bullying and cyberbullying, and this is where Bill C-13 falls short. It has measures looking at what we can do after the fact to investigate criminal cases of bullying. It has measures to help apprehend those people who ultimately have performed criminal acts when it comes to bullying, but it does not have measures that would help reduce this problem in our society.

I will return to my concern over Bill C-279.

It is a difficult situation for some people to understand. My bill should have already passed through the Senate and should already be law. We now have a situation in which transgendered Canadians are subject to hate crimes and bullying and are the group most subject to violence of all groups in our society. If that private member's bill—which passed the House a year ago, as I said several times today—had already been passed, we would have some of the tools we need to combat the epidemic of violence against transgendered people in Canada.

Canada is not alone. Transgendered people are the most subject to violence everywhere around the world. I remain very sad that the Senate has taken so long to get down to business on passing Bill C-279. It held hearings and heard witnesses a year ago in June at the human rights committee. It essentially finished the process of examining the bill and found it acceptable; then, because of prorogation, the process had to start over.

I am at a loss to see why the bill has to go back to another committee, this time to a legislative and constitutional affairs committee. We have had the promise from the senators that they will take up the bill in committee soon; however, that promise was made in February and we are now in April.

I am emphasizing this in Bill C-13 because this is where the two bills come together: in clause 12 and those amendments to the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code that are in this bill but fail to include gender identity. We have this unfortunate grinding of gears between the two Houses here. If in committee we are able to add gender identity to Bill C-13, that would be a good thing, because as a government bill it would make its way through the Senate expeditiously. I have now begun to fear that Bill C-279 will face the same fate as the previous bill on transgender rights and that it will die in the Senate without action before the next election. If we can get half a loaf here in Bill C-13, I am prepared to work for that. I look for support from the other side in correcting what I hope was an inadvertent omission of gender identity from those amendments that are in clause 12.

When we go back to our ridings when Bill C-13 is in committee, I know that all of us will hear from members of our communities about the urgency of what we are doing. And I know we will hear again from the Conservatives about the urgency. However, I have to emphasize that we have had many opportunities since 2011 to actually take action on what I call “remedial actions”, those things that take place after the fact. Again, I remain disappointed that the Conservatives would not expedite the private member's bill from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and we could have already had the non-consensual distribution of sexual images in the Criminal Code by this time. We would not still be waiting for that to happen. Of course, we could have already had a committee that had prepared a national strategy with concrete actions to combat bullying and cyberbullying.

As we near the summer recess, I am hoping Bill C-13 will actually get through, but then it also would face the hurdle of the Senate. Would the Senate deal expeditiously with this bill? Would it actually get these provisions passed in a timely manner? I can only hope that it would, but the irony is that Bill C-13 would go to the Constitution and legal affairs committee of the Senate where my private member's bill is also supposed to be going. The chances of both getting through before we get to summer seems kind of small. We have both the broader group of all those who face bullying and the narrower group of those trans Canadians who are depending on the Senate to take effective action soon. However, that just does not seem to be the way the Senate proceeds.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, preventive measures are very important, which I think we would all agree on, but we also have to ensure we put a process in the bill, which we have done, that allows individual privacy to be protected, data to be retained and preserved, and a court order to be garnered before existing data is used. Police officers cannot simply say that they are going to start an investigation and grab all the information just for information sake. They actually have to ask for it to be preserved. They have to go the court to seek the appropriate legal warrant to use the data and then proceed with the criminal investigation. That is why Bill C-13 is so much better than what was proposed by the opposition.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a disgusting act to go online to convince somebody to take his or her own life. I think everybody in the House would agree with my colleague that his motion was an honourable one, a motion that definitely needed to come forward. I hope to see it enacted as we move forward.

One of the important things we are seeing in this, and which he highlighted in his question, is the fact that we are giving police the tools to actually trace where information comes from and who is doing this type of stuff. It is not being done to just one person; it is being done to multiple people. It is a sickness that needs to be dealt with. I call it a sickness because I do not know what else to call it. It is very disgusting when someone takes on the role of convincing somebody else to take his or her own life.

Having said that, we need to ensure we have balance. We need to ensure we preserve people's rights, dignity and privacy, and we want to ensure that exists. We also want to ensure that when we come across a situation where this is happening, police officers can have the data preserved so they can get court orders and warrants to do the proper investigation. There has to be a proper process put in place, which has been done in Bill C-13.

I look forward to seeing what impact these changes would have and that hopefully this bill would solve the issues involved in cyberbullying and the people who are disgusting enough to try to convince somebody else to commit suicide.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for outlining some of the effects of Bill C-13 and how it would help to modernize the tools available to our police forces to investigate, to actually reflect the fact that there are many changes in modern technology.

A number of years ago I introduced a private member's motion in the House, Motion No. 388, which sought to clarify an offence in the Criminal Code of encouraging someone to die by suicide. While it currently is an offence in the Criminal Code, it was not clear in the code as to whether that included telecommunications and Internet technology. Motion No. 388, which passed unanimously in the House, called on government to implement some of those changes.

I was pleased to note that in the comments made by my colleague and also some comments I was able to read that the bill would actually give police better tools to track and trace telecommunications, their origins and destinations. Could my colleague highlight how the bill would make it impossible for those who would presume to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet to continue to do that kind of devious work?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which would update the Criminal Code to respond to the pernicious issue of cyberbullying. Bill C-13 achieves this goal by proposing new criminal offences of distribution of intimate images without the consent of the persons depicted.

Further, to ensure that police are properly equipped to investigate and enforce the proposed new offences and other criminal offences that involve the use of the Internet or that leave behind electronic evidence, the bill also proposes to modernize the Criminal Code's investigative tools. Similar modernization updates are being done to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Competition Act to ensure that they remain responsive and relevant to the requirements of modern technology.

The bill has received considerable attention in the media, including for the proposed amendments to the investigative tools. I would like to focus my remarks on those elements of Bill C-13 that deal with the investigative tools amendments.

It is not uncommon to hear people talking about how technology has changed their lives. The Internet allows us to book airline tickets from the comfort of our homes, at any time of day or night. GPS systems allow us to get from Montreal to Saskatoon without a road map and without stopping to ask for directions. It has also changed the way that we communicate with each other. Mobile phones keep us connected to each other no matter where we are, and text messaging has made communications so fast and cheap that it is easy to stay in touch with people halfway around the world.

Canadians are world leaders when it comes to using the Internet. In 2012, 83% of Canadians over the age of 16 used the Internet in their personal lives, and that number continues to rise. The possibilities and opportunities that these technologies open up for us are nothing short of incredible. However, just as these technologies can be used to bring people together, they can be used for nefarious ends. Technology can facilitate a wide range of criminal behaviour, including the sexual exploitation of children, identity fraud and, as we have seen most recently, serious forms of cyberbullying.

Technology has also introduced us to new crimes that simply did not exist before there were computers. Crimes like computer hacking and denial of service attacks have been added to the criminal justice lexicon.

Technology has changed the types of evidence that are left behind after a crime has been committed. Previously, a telephone number may have revealed the identity of a suspect; this information may now be found in the transmission data of an email. Conspiracies can be created in online chat rooms, and people even speak of electronic fingerprints.

It is time to update the offences in the Criminal Code to reflect these new ways of committing old crimes, as is the case when we think about bullying versus cyberbullying. The amendments in Bill C-13 would update the investigative powers in the Criminal Code and the Competition Act to ensure that investigators have the tools they need to deal with the evidence in this new technological environment.

Some of the proposed Criminal Code modernization amendments found in Bill C-13 would update existing offences, while some of them would update existing investigative tools or create new ones.

With regard to the existing Criminal Code offences, Bill C-13 proposes to update the crimes of conveying false information, indecent communications, and harassing telephone calls found in section 372. Currently these three offences contain language related to outdated technologies, such as the telephone and telegraph. With the proposed amendments, these same acts would be punishable when committed using email, text messaging, or any means of telecommunications.

As much of the prohibited conduct in section 372 is currently relevant to traditional bullying, for example, repeated and harassing phone calls, the proposed amendments would ensure that these offences are also responsive to cyberbullying.

Further, the bill proposes minor updates to other Criminal Code offences. The amendments are part of the government's efforts to modernize the Criminal Code as it relates to new technologies. For example, amendments to the offence of possession of a device to obtain telecommunications services are also being made to another possession offence in the Criminal Code in relation to the possession of computer hacking tools. These amendments make the two similar provisions consistent with each other and, in an effort to increase transparency, update them to reflect the current jurisprudence in the areas that hold that a device includes a computer program.

On this particular issue, it has been very wrongly reported in the media that Bill C-13 proposes to criminalize the theft of cable signals. In fact, the theft of cable signals has been in the Criminal Code since 1960.

As to Bill C-13's proposed modernization of investigative tools, these amendments are designed to target electronic devices and tailored to ensure minimal intrusion on privacy and civil liberties.

There has been some confusion about some of the investigative tools included in the bill. I hope to dispel some of these myths today as I explain the rationale and the reasoning behind these necessary changes to the criminal law.

First, the bill proposes two new tools aimed at preserving volatile electronic evidence. They are called preservation demand and preservation orders. I would like to emphasize that preservation should not be confused with data retention schemes.

Nothing in this legislation would require Internet service providers to collect everyone's information and keep it on hand indefinitely. A preservation demand or order would require a person or a business that is not the target of the investigation to preserve a prescribed set of computer data, for example, an intimate image found on a website. The data could be preserved only for a limited amount of time in association with a specific investigation.

A good way to think of this particular tool is as a “do not delete” order; it simply asks the person to preserve or save the information already in his or her possession for a limited period of time. This tool is essential to enable the police to conduct effective investigations in the area where crucial evidence can be deleted with a simple keystroke.

The preservation demand or preservation order would provide the police with enough time to go to a judge and get the warrants or orders needed to obtain the highly volatile evidence. The police can do this without fear that the data they need will be lost or deleted, either intentionally or inadvertently as a matter of regular business practices, during the period that it takes to obtain a warrant or production order for that data.

The duration of the preservation order would be limited to 21 days for domestic investigations and 90 days for international ones. This means that if a police officer does not get the court order or a warrant obtained for the preserved data before the demand expires, that data would not be retained in the ordinary course of business and would be destroyed. The data would not be provided to the police without a court order or warrant.

If the duration of the preservation order needs to be extended, the police would have to return to a judge or justice to obtain a preservation order. The police would then be given up to 90 days to get the production order or a warrant to obtain the data that has been preserved. If the police do not get the production order or the warrant by the time the preservation order expires, the person in possession of the preserved data is required to destroy it, unless his or her business practices otherwise require that it be retained. This means that only specific computer data would be preserved under this scheme for a limited period of time and only for the purpose of an investigation.

An even more fundamental privacy safeguard of the scheme is that the computer data that would not otherwise be kept by a business would be destroyed as soon as it is no longer needed for an investigation.

These safeguards exemplify our efforts to respect privacy throughout the bill, and to respect privacy under Canadian law.

In addition to the preservation scheme, the bill proposes to update the existing production order regime. A production order is a judicial order that requires third parties, such as a bank, to provide the police with documents containing data in connection with an investigation. This is in contrast to a search warrant that would also be issued judicially but would allow the police to search for the material themselves.

There are currently two types of production orders in the Criminal Code. These are production orders for a very particular type of basic financial information, such as the status and type of bank account, as well as the more general production order for any type of data that might be needed to conduct an investigation.

Often the requirements of an investigation are quite targeted, and general production orders could provide the police with a lot more information than they require in certain circumstances. In those cases, it makes sense to have specific tools, such as a financial data production order, that would allow the police to obtain the specific data they are looking for and that are designed to reflect the expected privacy associated with that particular type of data.

One way of thinking about this kind of tailoring is as privacy with precision. Instead of using one big tool for every problem, we would be providing several tools that are more precisely suited to specific types of problems.

The bill proposes to retain two existing categories of production orders already found in the existing Criminal Code. In addition, it is proposing three more to deal with specific types of data associated with modern technology.

In particular, Bill C-13 proposes to create production orders for historic tracking data, which would permit police to determine, for example, the pattern of bank card usage for a period of time; historic data related to the routing of telecommunications, such as the time an email was sent, and to which address, which would be known as transmission data; and historic data designed to trace specific communications.

The last type of production order would be a very important tool to address the complexities of modern communication, as it would allow the police to trace the origin of communications that may have gone through several different service providers before it reached its destination.

Other changes that are being proposed in Bill C-13 would impact the existing tracking warrant provisions. This is different from the production order for tracking data which provides information about past movements.

Police have been able to get judicially authorization tracking warrants for over 20 years, which permit them to track the whereabouts of a person in real time. As one can imagine, technology has changed a lot in that time. Where police were once able to track people with limited accuracy, there are now technologies that can track objects much more precisely and closely.

Bill C-13 proposes to split the existing tracking warrant provisions into two types of warrants: one for tracking people, and one for tracking the location of a transaction or the movement of such things as a car.

The warrant for tracking things would continue to be available on the standard of reasonable grounds to suspect, like the existing tracking warrant provision. However, this legislation proposes to increase the threshold necessary to get a tracking warrant in the situation where people would be tracked. This would mean that when police officers apply to the judge or justice for a warrant to do this more continuous and accurate type of tracking, the officer would have to meet a higher test to convince the judge that the tracking warrant is needed.

This is a dual approach, which would allow the police to retain the efficiency of the lower threshold warrant while increasing the privacy protections in situations where the greater privacy interests are at play.

Another warrant provision which Bill C-13 is proposing to update is currently known as the number recorder warrant. This permits the police to monitor the phone numbers dialed from a particular telephone and the numbers which call a particular telephone.

Although it is true that some of us still use traditional telephones to communicate, few old-fashioned dialing mechanisms are still in use. An increasing number of Canadians are using smart phones, text messaging, email, and other high-tech methods to communicate. Police need to be able to capture the routing information that these new technologies produce, the same way that we can currently capture the phone numbers under existing warrants. The proposed transmission data recorder warrant and the new production order for transmission data would allow police to do just that.

Where police could previously only get the phone number of someone who was dialing, they would now be able to get parallel updated forms of communication destination information like email addresses as well. This would provide for much-needed modernization in this area, since technology has moved well beyond telephone dialing.

I think it is important to emphasize that this warrant would retain the Criminal Code's existing privacy protections. Neither the warrant nor the production order would allow police to obtain the content of people's emails, text messages, or phone calls. They would not even get the subject line of emails using this warrant. In essence, Bill C-13 would permit police to get information about where a communication is coming from or where it is going to. That is the only kind of information they are going to get with this warrant and production order.

Besides these new and improved investigative tools, Bill C-13 also proposes to clarify and safeguard the common law powers of police. Section 487.014 would be amended to remove the requirement for police to be administering or enforcing an act of Parliament before they can ask for information. The current wording has been creating problems for the police in performing everyday duties, such as getting information for the purpose of notifying a next of kin.

There has been some concern about this amendment removing the limits on what police can ask of persons who voluntarily provide information. Let me be clear. The common law powers of the police are rooted in legitimate police business, which is one limit. Further, the existing restrictions on the provider of the information would remain. They can only provide information that they are not otherwise prohibited by law from disclosing. Indeed, providers of information will be governed by federal or provincial privacy legislation that will restrict the disclosure of personal information. To be clear, the primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that police do not need a production order every time they want to ask a question.

These amendments are the result of extensive consultations, both on the elements relating to the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and on the modernization of investigative tools.

The proposals in Bill C-13 were recommended in recent federal, provincial, territorial reports on the issue on cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which was released in July 2013 and supported by the federal, provincial, territorial ministers in November 2013.

The report strongly recommends both the proposed new offences and the reintroduction of the elements related to the modernization of investigative tools. The report also recommends that the enactment of new offences be supported by updated investigative tools.

Bill C-13 would provide police with a set of tools which would allow them to be effective and efficient in conducting a complex investigation in the modern world. This would apply to serious forms of cyberbullying, including the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well, or other offences that occurred in cases of cyberbullying, such as criminal harassment or extortion.

Our government is committed to combatting cybercrime in all forms. This bill is a necessary addition to the legislative tool kit.

When we look at the legislation, it is important that we really highlight the fact of what is going on. The reality is technology has changed, the environment in which our police services work in has changed, and they need modernization of the tools so they can go about doing the job they have been asked to do for many years.

We need to ensure they have access to the tools and the information, so we can still protect our families and our loved ones when they are victims of cyberbullying or cyber crime. When we see situations where someone is trying to entice someone to do something wrong, or when we see situations where people are being bullied or harassed, we will have the tools to prevent that from leading to something more serious.

It is important that we see proper legislation move forward. It is very important that we balance the privacy rights of the individuals with the rights of the police and the rights of the victim. The way this legislation is drafted, we have done just that. We will allow the data to be retained, but at the same time the police officers involved will have to receive the warrant before they can use the data. That is relevant and it makes a lot of common sense. I think a lot of Canadians would understand that.

I just hope that all members appreciate the importance of this bill. It is very important that we modernize our laws and our abilities to take advantage of new technologies as they become available, and to take on new criminal activities that are using the new technologies, ensuring we have the tools for our police officers to ensure these new technologies are not abused but are used for what they were originally intended, for public good.

I hope all members of the House will support the need for modern tools for modern times. Bill C-13 would provide just that. I look forward to questions.

The House resumed from November 29, 2013 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not surprised to see the Conservatives stooping so low, as they typically do, on an issue as serious as cyberbullying.

This bill has been before the House for months now. Canadians want transparency on how their personal information is being handled. They do not want political games or troubling provisions on electronic surveillance brought in through the back door in a bill on cyberbullying.

Why are the Conservatives afraid of debating their own provisions on surveillance in Bill C-13?

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that if it means saving lives, yes.

Bill C-13 combines a proposed new offence, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, to address cyberbullying, along with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but also other, existing offences.

The member is right; we are committed to policing the Internet via judicially authorized authority that involves electronic evidence.

The elements of this bill are intricately connected. Why would we pass a law and then go about bringing in other legislation to allow enforcement? This bill is in concert with the same theme of helping to protect people from abuse on the Internet.

We are proceeding in this fashion to give police the tools to do their important work.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points to raise.

First, the minister is saying that this is an urgent matter, that it is time for action and not debate. In 2012, the Conservative government defeated my bill that sought to implement a national bullying prevention strategy. Apparently, the matter was not so urgent then. However, it seems that in 2014, it is urgent. I find that the minister is being quite inconsistent.

Recently, this same government took a month off by proroguing the House. If it had not taken a month off at the taxpayers' expense, then we might have had more time to pass this bill and debate it with more experts.

I have been working on this issue for two and a half years, and I have not yet been able to speak to Bill C-13. There are so many of us in the NDP who wish to speak to this that there is a good chance that I will not be able to as a result of this time allocation motion.

Does the minister not want to hear what I, as an expert on the matter, have to say about this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether, during the course of his consultations across the country on justice issues, he had the opportunity to speak to family members of loved ones who have been affected by cyberbullying. I wonder if he would take a moment to tell us about some of the things he heard about during those consultations and since the introduction of Bill C-13 and tell us why it is imperative that we get the bill to committee as soon as possible.

[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.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

In order to support an empirical assessment of this bill on online crime, my speech will focus on identifying how the notions we are examining apply to the work of a criminal defence lawyer.

I want to emphasize the concept of empiricism, because the practice of criminal law is primarily something you learn on the job. Although there is theory associated with it, criminal law is primarily something that you learn on the job. In fact, that is one of the first things you learn, that criminal lawyers learn on the job. These are the principles that I applied and that were taught to me when I trained as a legal aid lawyer in Sept-Îles.

My speech will focus on those notions that pertain to common practice and the considerable latitude that judges and crown prosecutors have when it comes to judgments and sentencing. We will see that this has an effect and that this bill encompasses notions pertaining to the practice of criminal law.

I will also talk about the gradual rise in computer crime.

Cyberbullying already existed in 2005 or 2006, if I am not mistaken, when I started working as a legal aid lawyer. I think it was even called cyberbullying at the time. The term was already starting to be used and the phenomenon was growing.

It was highly specialized at one time. In one specific case, a young woman told me that her photo had been taken by a webcam and ended up on other computers and that people were blackmailing her. When I was defending this case before the crown attorneys, they told me that the people best equipped to investigate and act on this were in the RCMP computer crime unit. I would say that in 2006, this type of thing was systematically handed over to the RCMP, who were best equipped to deal with it.

Over the years, I noticed that many incidents were called cyberbullying. Incidents included complaints made in cyberspace and in chat rooms or in the media about people who were making threats on the Internet. Some cases had to do with child prostitution. These things happened more frequently over the years.

I also noted that the judge had the discretion to impose conditions of release, which made reference to the use of means of communication or, at least, means of connecting to the Internet.

In some cases, I even saw judges impose conditions of release on individuals charged with cybercrime or transmitting pornographic photographs involving minors. The conditions of release imposed on these individuals might include banning them from being in possession of a cellphone that could give them access to the Internet.

I mention this experience and practice on the ground to point out that the courts, the judges and the crown attorneys were already introducing ways to limit the use of the Internet for unsavoury purposes.

This specific bill codifies practices that were already being used, depending on the judicial district, since practices can differ from one district to another. These practices were already being used by a number of legal practitioners and judges provincially and nationally too, I am sure.

New offences are being created because we have been seeing new types of crimes against the person as a result of the rise of social media. As I said, those crimes have gradually become more frequent with the increasing popularity of Facebook and other social media.

Legislation is adaptable and that, in combination with public opinion, has allowed for the development of a wide variety of sanctions and limitations designed to reduce the range of virtual threats to an individual's moral integrity.

When I say virtual threats, I am talking about online threats, or cyberbullying, not hypothetical threats.

It is important to understand that cyberbullying is a crime against the person. If you physically hurt someone by breaking his nose, you can be charged with assault and bodily harm. It is a crime against the person. In my opinion, cyberbullying also fits into that category because it is a question of a person's moral and psychological integrity. That is my point.

The media has paid close attention to certain issues in recent years. That is why we are here in the House today, to talk about cybercrime and how it is getting worse, and about cyberbullying.

I want to talk about adjusting orders in order to respond to new illegal practices such as cyberbullying. We have seen people use the Internet for good and for evil.

The issues I used to work on were usually related to death threats targeting specific ethnic groups. Orders and parole conditions have been developed over the years.

Given that practising criminal law requires ongoing exchanges with crown prosecutors, quite often, judges and crown prosecutors develop their own code of practice. That is how relatively flexible sanctions and measures have come to be imposed.

I will repeat an example from earlier. When it comes to conditions of release at the bail hearing stage, when a client decides to exercise his right to a bail hearing and wants to be released, the judge can always issue personalized conditions of release that do not appear in other cases.

These conditions can limit an individual's access to cyberspace if he has shown certain kinds of deviant behaviour, even if it is a question of charges only and the individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Any time there are allegations of inappropriate use of cyberspace, the judge usually limits the person's ability to use the Internet. I believe that is entirely commendable, although that is another debate. If we were to look at the advantages and disadvantages, one could raise arguments related to human rights and individual freedoms set out in the Canadian charter.

However, based on my rather informed opinion as a lawyer regarding the advantages and disadvantages, there is a very good chance that a court would stipulate that the rights and integrity of the victim are much more important than an individual's access to cyberspace. This will be debated by lawyers in due course.

Based on the evolving nature of measures aimed at restricting access to cyberspace, special attention must be paid to the clauses of the bill before us that have to do with preservation or production orders, in order to ensure respect for charter principles regarding privacy. That is what I was saying.

There are even some groups advocating for unrestricted Internet access who will challenge the measures proposed in the bill. However, I believe that if you weigh the pros and cons, there is a good chance that a court would conclude that it is reasonable for our society to limit Internet access for individuals who demonstrate a lack of good judgment in their comments or use cyberspace for dubious or criminal purposes.

I will also argue for the need to divide and reread Bill C-13 to conduct separate reviews of its stated objectives. It should be noted in passing that most of this bill has nothing to do with the protection of psychological integrity and should be placed in a separate bill.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to make this a catch-all bill, if I may say so, and to sneak highly contentious issues into a bill whose stated purpose and title would have unanimous support. This is a reprehensible practice and I want to make sure everyone knows that.

The New Democratic Party feels that—

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, Mr. Speaker.

There are several points I would like her to expand on. I am the father of three preteens. Understandably, cyberbullying is of great concern to me. Like all kids their age, my children are very comfortable with technology. Unlike us at their age, kids today can be bullied even in their bedrooms. They have computers and access to the Internet. They can therefore be bullied at home as well as in school.

It is of the utmost importance that we take measures to address cyberbullying. Like my colleague said, not many provisions in the bill actually deal with cyberbullying. When the government introduced Bill C-13, it said it wanted to address the issue of cyberbullying. However, few of the bill's provisions actually do so.

I would like my colleague to comment on the attitude of the government—I am really trying to use parliamentary language here—that often puts on a dog and pony show about bills that, ultimately, are pretty hollow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13 today, November 29.

There are various reasons why it is important that we sit here today and discuss Bill C-13. The most important reason is the respect that we all have for the fight against bullying, especially bullying directed at our youth.

No one in the House is against virtue or the idea that we must identify all the means and tools that could be used in the fight against cyberbullying.

I will be using my 20 minutes to talk about cyberbullying specifically. That is what the title of the bill makes us think it is about. However, Bill C-13 unfortunately covers more than just cyberbullying. It talks about numerous other ways and means to address a number of aspects of online crime, in addition to other things that have nothing to do with cyberbullying.

Allow me to explain. If members take the time to really read what is in Bill C-13, they will see that the section on bullying is only two pages long. This bill is more than 50 pages long, and it is clear upon reading it that it is yet another Conservative omnibus bill.

I will not hide my disappointment today at having to rise to speak once again to an omnibus bill. This is unfortunately not the first time one has been introduced in the House. We have had several omnibus bills in the past two parliaments—indeed, since this government won a majority. This is a sorry state of affairs, for many reasons.

The latest budget bills introduced by the Conservatives are examples of such omnibus legislation. We had bills comprising hundreds of pages that affected thousands of our laws totally unrelated to the budget. We had to deal with those. They were shoved down our throats. We tried to divide the bills into different parts, so they could be studied in the appropriate committees, but we did not succeed.

As an example, one of the budget bills contained a measure, introduced by the Conservatives, providing for the removal of protections for lakes and rivers in Canada.

Someone on the other side of the House will have to explain to me how removing the protections for our lakes and rivers relates to the budget. We tried to divide this section of the bill to send it to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where it should have been studied. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused.

Every time we have tried to introduce amendments to omnibus bills or divide them by seeking the unanimous consent of the House, the Conservatives have flatly refused.

I am extremely disappointed that Bill C-13 does not go deeper into cyberbullying, which is a sensitive issue that requires so much attention. It does not just affect young people, as we have seen in the high-profile media stories in recent years. Cyberbullying affects a large segment of the population. I will come back to this later in my speech.

It is extremely disappointing to see the Conservatives playing cheap political games in the House with legislation that should be passed unanimously. They are trying to add items and make us say yes to things that are in no way related to cyberbullying. It is incredibly disappointing to see the other side of the House engaging in petty politics.

In Bill C-13, the part on cyberbullying is a pretty close copy of what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced last June. That was a private member's bill, and everyone agreed with the principle of the bill. However, instead of examining it together and passing it quickly, the Conservatives decided to take part of what my colleague was proposing in Bill C-540 and add it to Bill C-13, along with some other elements.

Instead of concentrating on a bill on cyberbullying that was properly divided, the Conservatives opened up the floodgates and added some other things. They have made Bill C-13 into quite the concoction.

I also wanted to talk about another bill today. A few months ago, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved a very interesting motion on cyberbullying. I cannot elaborate on it too much, because the motion had to do with more than just cyberbullying. However, I know my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord worked very hard on that motion. Almost all experts and public interest groups agreed that it was a very important motion. Unfortunately, the only party that voted against the motion was the Conservative Party. It is so sad that the Conservatives are refusing to discuss the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which focused solely on cyberbullying, and that they so easily dismissed the idea of debating and adopting the motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

Cyberbullying boggles my mind. Honestly, it is so sad. No one can claim they have never encountered bullying. It is impossible. When I was attending Horizon Jeunesse secondary school in Laval, we had pagers. Cellphones did not exist yet. I am lucky because I was never bullied in high school. I was more of a social butterfly. I had all sorts of friends. I was never directly affected by bullying at school. However, I have friends who were bullied at school. It is serious. My brother was bullied. He would often have his lunch stolen. He was embarrassed and did not want to talk about it with my parents. Today, my brother is six feet tall and as strong as an ox, but, unfortunately for him, that was not the case when he was in high school. He was very cute and very nice. Perhaps he was bullied because he was too cute and too nice.

Those were the early days of the Internet. We did not have a computer at home. We had to do our research on the computers at the library. We could not afford a computer. We did not have to deal with cyberbullying, but bullying was all around me and part of my daily life. I saw what an impact bullying could have. Unfortunately, some students who were bullied at Horizon Jeunesse committed suicide.

Bullying at school is one thing, but when we are at home, we are protected. We are in a bubble. However, cyberbullying follows us 24 hours a day. We go home and use social media. Almost everyone has an iPhone or a BlackBerry in their pockets. We have access to Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. We can access a host of social media very quickly. The impact is immediate and it follows us day and night. There is no break from it. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a victim of cyberbullying when there is no getting away from it. It is very serious.

My colleague from Gatineau raised an extremely important point this week. She asked for the unanimous consent of the House to split the bill. I think this would be a way to show respect for people who are victims of bullying and cyberbullying. As far as cyberbullying is concerned, the consent is practically unanimous. As parliamentarians, we have to be respectful of the people we represent. We must split the bill. I sincerely believe that all members of the House want what is best.

The best thing to do in this case would be to split the bill, since there is unanimous consent on one part of the bill and because this is an omnibus bill with several parts that have nothing to do with each other. Let us focus on cyberbullying and fix that problem. Let us make sure that the authorities have the tools they need to address this problem. We can then come back to the rest of the bill the government has handed us—a rehash of the former Bill C-30—which addresses the completely different topic of privacy.

Let us focus on the two pages on cyberbullying out of the 50-some pages in Bill C-13. Let us pass these measures so that the authorities can make use of them as quickly as possible. That is how we can combat cyberbullying together.

Before I talk about privacy in more detail, I want to say that Laval does a lot of good things and I like to brag about them. A Laval organization called Volteface has found a unique way to address bullying and especially cyberbullying in Quebec. I cannot speak for the other provinces, regions or territories in Canada, but this is the only program of its kind in Quebec. Volteface is an alternative justice organization that finds ways to help build harmonious relationships by offering preventive activities and alternative conflict resolution mechanisms. It works with teenagers, victims, the general public, parents, schools and the community.

Volteface created an innovative tool as part of its “Ultimatum < Échap > LA CYBER INTIMIDATION” project. The organization is actually based in Shawinigan, but it operates in Laval. It has developed a partnership and focuses on high schools. The guide is intended for high school students, their parents and school staff. It offers information on how to prevent cyberbullying and talks about what kind of action is appropriate. This project focuses especially on youth and has been operating in Laval since Volteface created it. It is a very worthwhile program.

They are targeting young people because a number of studies indicate that, although people of all ages can be affected by cyberbullying, youth 12 to 14 are at greater risk. My daughter is seven months old, and I am already worried about the tween years. I do not know what social media will be like then, but I say to myself every day that time is flying by, and it seems as though she will be 12 or 14 so soon. The research also shows that girls are at greater risk of cyberbullying than boys, as proven by some studies. I can name them: there was Sengupta and Chaudhuri in 2011 and Tokunaga in 2010. Unlike traditional bullying, boys are more likely than girls to be involved in acts of bullying. We have the facts. This is extremely important.

I applaud a Quebec organization that is finding tools to fight cyberbullying and that is trying to engage groups most at risk of being bullied or bullying. We must educate both sides, those who are bullied and those who bully. It is extremely important.

With respect to the protection of privacy, which we have to talk about, this bill deals almost exclusively with that issue. Many experts believe that Bill C-30 is being brought back to Parliament disguised as Bill C-13. I will quickly talk about that.

Bill C-30 contained measures that were considered extremely serious infringements of privacy.

I remember that the public safety minister at the time, Vic Toews, who is no longer in the House, said that if we did not side with him, then we were siding with pedophiles. That was absolutely ridiculous because Bill C-30 was another omnibus bill. Come on. At some point, we must call a spade a spade. We are therefore concerned about the protection of privacy.

Oddly enough, the Privacy Commissioner was not consulted on any of the privacy-related measures contained in Bill C-13. There was no consultation. Moreover, the commissioner is saying that she is very concerned about the measures in Bill C-13.

The commissioner is most concerned about the new powers that will make it possible to obtain information about people's private lives and the high number of government employees who will have access to that information. This is a direct attack on privacy. However, I think we all agree that privacy is a fundamental right.

I would also like to take some time to speak about OpenMedia.ca, a digital media lobby, which:

...welcomed the measures on cyberbullying but expressed concern that the new legislation makes it easier for the government to spy on the activities of law-abiding Canadians. After reviewing the bill, OpenMedia.ca indicated that the bill contains only 2.5 pages about cyberbullying and 65 pages about online spying.

It is unbelievable, particularly since, yesterday, extremely serious allegations were made in the House against the Canadian government. Let me explain.

Yesterday, we learned that, while on Canadian soil, the Americans allegedly spied on all the heads of state who attended the G20 summit in Toronto, with the consent of the Prime Minister and this Conservative government. The Conservatives were therefore aware that this espionage was taking place and they approved of it. However, now they are saying that these are allegations and that they were not aware that this was happening.

Espionage is already being carried out with the Conservative government's approval, and now this bill will give the government even more ways to spy on law-abiding Canadians.

I know that many of my colleagues opposite really like to say that we have to respect Canadians' privacy, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The right to privacy is a fundamental right.

Why are these measures reappearing in Bill C-13? Why is the government looking to put them back in when every group said that they were a terrible part of Bill C-30?

We also spoke about Bill C-13 yesterday. The Conservatives told us that they deleted the worst parts of Bill C-30 and put the least objectionable parts into Bill C-13. It is frightening to hear such things.

These measures are yet another attack on peoples' privacy. What has the government done? As usual, no one was consulted. The worst part is that the Privacy Commissioner is raising some extremely important points and some were already raised in relation to Bill C-30. The Conservatives wanted to stop talking about it. They said that it was over, that things had gone too far. However, those measures are resurfacing in Bill C-13. I am extremely disappointed.

I do not have much time left, so I will wrap up.

I am disappointed that the government did not decide to split this bill in two and focus specifically on cyberbullying. If the government insists on bringing back measures from Bill C-30, it should create another bill that does not address cyberbullying. Then we would have two separate bills.

The government has come up with another omnibus bill. This demonstrates a lack of respect for victims of cyberbullying.

I believe that our work as parliamentarians is extremely important. The committee study must be non-partisan. I look forward to seeing what will happen when this bill is studied in committee, but I am not overly confident.

I want the government to take the time to think about all those who have been affected by cyberbullying, reverse its decision and split this bill in two.

The House resumed from November 28 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as usual it is a deep honour to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Davenport in the great city of Toronto on a piece of legislation that strikes to the heart of families right across the country.

As many of my colleagues have already said here today, witnessing the profound courage and commitment of both the Parsons and Todd families through this incredibly difficult chapter in their lives has been something that I think all Canadians have noticed and learned from.

I think when Canadians are faced with something of this magnitude that touches all of us in the way that this does, they rightly expect that we here park some of our partisan instincts and deal with the situation at hand.

One of the ways a majority Parliament can sometimes work is when members on the opposite side and the opposition present bills that really do connect with an important issue right across the country and that pretty much everyone here in this place agrees with. Sure enough, from time to time, the government adopts those ideas. I think it is fair to say that while we work toward being on that side of the aisle and having that party on this side of the aisle, in the meantime, we find ways once in a while to advance issues that we can all agree on, and I think this was one of those issues.

My colleague for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour tabled a piece of legislation in which we sought all-party unanimous consent, but we did not get it. That is one thing, but to have the government come back with a very similar bill is something altogether different. We can support that, but as usual with the Conservative government, it cannot resist its inclination to play politics with every issue. Every issue for the current government becomes a wedge issue and an opportunity to fundraise and hector the opposition.

We saw this with Bill C-30, the widely discredited online spying bill that the government presented. The minister in charge of it at the time badgered the opposition, and in fact, all Canadians who happened to disagree with his perspective and the wide breadth of the bill by saying that if one did not support Bill C-30, one stood with the child pornographers, which was an absolutely outrageous comment and effectively killed the bill.

The government also eventually declared that Bill C-30 was not going to come back. There were too many questions, not the least of which were the outrageous comments from the lead minister. There were also too many questions around privacy and civil liberties. We need to be clear that the foundation of a liberal democracy is the protection of civil liberties.

We see that in the bill we could have just dealt with the cyberbullying. I am sure members opposite on the government side would probably prefer to do that too. Canadians watching this would also be wondering why we do not just do that. The issues of cyberbullying are complex and critical, and they are happening right now as I speak.

This issue is far too important, too pressing, and too complex, quite frankly, to dump it into a boilerplate piece of legislation that contains all sorts of other issues. Maybe the government can explain to Canadians the link between cyberbullying and the inclusion in this law of a two-year sentence for the theft of cable television. That is in the bill.

We are trying to get to the nub of an issue that is affecting many of our young people and many of our families, and for some families it is affecting them in the most tragic of ways.

I am trying to contain my sense of outrage that we even have to discuss pulling this part of the bill out and having it as a stand-alone piece and voting on it immediately. However, the government did have that opportunity when my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour presented his cyberbullying bill in the first place.

When faced with such pressing issues around protecting our young people, it is tempting to consider lowering the bar in our pursuit of protecting people's privacy and protecting civil liberties. It is tempting to do that. I think that one of the reasons the government has thrown in all these other things that it would like to do is that, again, it is trying to play politics with this issue.

However, it is not just the opposition that has serious concerns about some of the other issues that are in the bill. The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Madam Cavoukian, also has serious concerns about this, as she did with Bill C-30. It is the same with Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who had raised serious concerns about Bill C-30 and is going to carefully look at this bill as well.

I would sum up by saying that sometimes it is better for all of us that we park the partisanship in this place and deal with a pressing issue that affects Canadians and some of our more vulnerable young people from coast to coast to coast. By separating this part out of Bill C-13, we would be doing that. We would also be signalling to Canadians that we do take this seriously and that we want to act quickly to protect the young people of this country.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my remarks on Bill C-13 by congratulating my many colleagues who work tirelessly for justice, the protection of all Canadians and respect for their rights and for individuals. It is truly high time for us to better protect ourselves from the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

We are all shocked and saddened, and were truly heart-broken at the highly publicized suicides of teenagers who were victims of cyberbullying, including Rehtaeh Parsons, in Nova Scotia, Amanda Todd, in British Columbia, and so many others. We must prevent such tragedies from happening again, because these young girls are not the only ones to have been bullied.

Youth between 12 and 14 are most likely to be victims of cyberbullying, which can seriously affect their mental health and well-being.

According to recent studies, cyberbullying has an adverse effect on the social and emotional aspects of a young person's life and on their ability to learn. These young people suffer from anxiety, shorter attention spans, lower marks at school, feelings of despair and isolation, depression and even suicidal tendencies, as in these well-known cases, unfortunately.

I want to acknowledge that my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, brought attention to the issue of bullying in the House with his motion to create a national bullying prevention strategy. I want to thank him for taking that initiative. His hard work to fight any form of bullying is truly admirable.

Earlier this year, the NDP member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a bill to make the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images an offence.

Unfortunately, instead of setting partisanship aside and expediting passage of these measures, the Conservatives refused to act on the motion and bill brought forward by my colleagues and waited until it suited them to introduce Bill C-13, a bill that contains a number of provisions that have nothing to do with cyberbullying and provides nothing meaningful for its prevention.

I would like to thank the NDP justice critic, my colleague from Gatineau, for the hard work she has done on this issue. She moved that Bill C-13 be divided in order to remove the parts of the bill that do not pertain to cyberbullying and address them in another debate. She moved for the bill to be split so that the provisions related to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images could be passed quickly since everyone in the House agrees on them. This would have allowed the other provisions, which were previously set out in the now-defunct Bill C-30, to be carefully examined separately in committee.

This would have allowed us to deal with the provisions of the bill that are not related to this very sensitive issue separately. That is what we must do in order to have a healthy debate on this subject, since the Conservatives are trying to include provisions on telemarketing and other things in a bill on cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is a very important issue, and we need to deal with it.

For example, I would like to share with the House what Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, had to say on this subject. She said:

We can all agree that cyberbullying is an issue that needs immediate attention but it is very troubling to see the government once again trying to enact new surveillance powers under the guise of protecting children. Regrettably, the federal government is using this pressing social issue as an opportunity to resurrect much of its former surveillance legislation, Bill C-30.

It is important to remember the work of my colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who fought hard against Bill C-30, which was a direct attack on the freedoms of Canadians and their right to privacy.

I am certain that she will ensure that the Conservatives are held accountable when the committee examines this bill, which unfortunately contains provisions that have nothing to do with cyberbullying and are of concern to many people in the digital community.

Bill C-13 covers much more ground than Bill C-540, which was introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Along the way, it addresses many other issues, such as the financial data of banks, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, telemarketing and the theft of a communication service. It also includes some of the provisions of Bill C-30.

The New Democrats, privacy advocates and the public rejected Bill C-30, forcing the Conservatives to abandon it earlier this year and to promise that the Criminal Code would be modernized and would not include the measures contained in Bill C-30.

Now, privacy advocates are criticizing the provisions in Bill C-13 on lawful access to personal information and stressing the need to implement measures to protect Canadians' right to privacy against abuse. They say that certain specific provisions must be examined more closely, especially clause 20, which deals with the new procedures for obtaining a warrant.

The NDP proposes that the two very different parts of the bill be separated. It is clear that the Conservative government is just playing politics to pass its controversial provisions, under the guise of doing something for our youth. At the very least, we should carefully study this bill in committee, to ensure that it will provide police with the tools they need to protect our youth and to answer important questions about the other provisions included in the bill.

I will take this opportunity to talk about what the youth centre workers in my riding know well. They know this issue very well because they too often come face to face with problems that many people would rather not see. These workers are role models and friends to the young people who so desperately need them. They are on the front lines in their work with young people. I think we have to take their views into consideration. Here is what one worker at the youth centre in Saint-Canut, in my riding, had to say about cyberbullying.

She told me that a number of young people were victims and that very few resources were available to fight against cyberbullying. She finds it hard to control this type of bullying because everything happens so fast on social networks, bullies can remain anonymous and it is everywhere.

At her youth centre there is zero tolerance. If the computers at the youth centre are used inappropriately, there are consequences. She said that it was important for them to make their teenagers aware of the repercussions that this could have and to educate them in order to prevent cyberbullying. This is about confidentiality on the Internet and being careful about the comments and photos we post.

They encourage young people to file a complaint if there are abuses, but often, unfortunately, the police do not have the resources or the time to deal with this type of problem. According to her, it would be better if the complaints were taken seriously and processed as quickly as possible. Young people who commit this type of bullying have to know that there will be consequences for their actions even from behind their computer screen. She thinks it would be important to give police officers what they need to be quick and effective. The sense of anonymity and of not being able to get caught makes young people believe that they can do whatever they want on the Internet. That is what she told me.

Prevention, raising awareness among young people and giving police forces and youth case workers the necessary resources are key to fighting cyberbullying, in addition to the provisions contained in the first part of Bill C-13, the part that truly deals with cyberbullying.

This would help reinforce the legal framework. Nonetheless, it is a national strategy, like the one proposed by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which might have an impact on the other aspects.

I gather from this debate and the information from young people and stakeholders in my riding that some of the pages of this bill will help in the fight against cyberbullying. However, prevention and awareness raising are even more pressing.

This bill incorporates a patchwork of measures on telemarketing, theft of telecommunication services, and terrorist activities. These are direct descendants of measures in Bill C-30, the infamous bill the Conservatives had to go back on.

In closing, it is important to move forward in the fight against cyberbullying. As my two colleagues who spoke before me said, the NDP will be very active and very vigilant on this file.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. Like him, I agree that the bill really should have stuck to the issue of cyberbullying instead of becoming a kitchen sink that we are throwing all kinds of other issues into.

Of huge concern to me is the issue I thought was dead under Bill C-30. The justice minister at the time promised Canadians that Bill C-30 and the Internet snooping provisions that were critical to that bill would be dead and gone, once and for all.

I have risen in question period quite a bit lately challenging the government, and I do not know how I can say this within the rules of this House, on its veracity, its “truthiness”, perhaps. Now those same issues come into play with respect to the government's commitment that Bill C-30 was dead, because we see those same provisions resurfacing in the context of Bill C-13, which should be a bill that deals only with cyberbullying and deals only with the distribution of intimate images. Instead, much like with the wireless option, we see Internet snooping provisions snuck in.

I wonder whether the member would agree that those provisions have no place in the bill and that we need to pull the bill apart and deal--

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with that. I mentioned in my remarks that splitting the bill would make sense. I think there would be agreement among parliamentarians to fast-track this as quickly as possibly. However, it would, as the member has mentioned, require the government to make the decision, which we proposed, to split the bill and focus specifically on cyberbullying.

It is unfortunate that when the New Democrats proposed that option, the government did not listen and voted that down. That is very unfortunate. It could have been a way forward. We would have had agreement.

The rest of the legislation is substantive. There are quite a few acts, and there are quite a few pages of study that justice will have to look at to deal with that portion, which I think would make sense as Bill C-13. A new bill, focused on just cyberbullying, would make a lot of sense.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I rise today 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 thank the Minister of Justice for introducing this long-awaited bill, which was tabled just last week.

I followed yesterday's debate in the House closely, as there are many aspects of the bill to study. The bill primarily seeks to address the issue of cyberbullying.

As we all know, cyberbullying is having devastating effects, particularly on young people. It is something we all agree must be addressed and eliminated. The tragic stories of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, Todd Loik and others have spurred a national discussion on how society must do a better job of working together to address bullying, harassment and other heinous acts. These acts can take place in public places like schools or the workplace, but they can also take place online through social media sites, apps, et cetera.

Regardless of where bullying and harassment takes place, proper tools are needed to address these very serious acts. Eliminating cyberbullying is a complex task, requiring a multi-faceted approach. It means giving police the tools they need to properly investigate cases and bring forward charges as needed. It means having resources and education tools available and accessible to youth, as well as their parents.

Yesterday I participated in a Twitter town hall meeting in Coquitlam to talk about crime. We talked about cyberbullying and the need for a holistic approach. It is clear to me we need a collaborative and well thought out strategy to address how bullying happens, how it affects people, how we can deal with it and how we can try to eliminate it.

Parliament has debated this before. Last year, the NDP put forward a proposal to strike an all-party committee to study and craft a national anti-bullying strategy. Unfortunately, the government voted down the motion. However, I believe the motion generated a lot of debate, which is healthy and crucial for a democracy. I have no doubt that part of the solution of cyberbullying lies in modernizing the Criminal Code to ensure it reflects the realities of crimes and how they are committed today.

The same was required for child luring laws. I proposed two private member's bills to close loopholes in the Criminal Code. The bills would have ensured prosecution of child predators was not hindered by whether a child was lured online instead of in person, or if the luring was inside or outside of Canada's borders. My work on the bills has shown me that as legislators we must look at how the Criminal Code is working in today's digital era and make improvements as needed.

Earlier this year, I seconded legislation put forward by my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which, like the legislation before us today, would criminalize the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Bill C-540 was introduced in Parliament earlier this year. It is quite a simple, straightforward, one-page bill. With consent from the government, the bill could have moved forward before the House rose in June. When I first looked at Bill C-13, the government's legislation before us today, I was pleased to see that the contents of Bill C-540 were included in the bill.

However, there is much more in Bill C-13 that must be looked at. It contains dozens of clauses, of which only a handful directly relate to cyberbullying. Many clauses were adopted from the failed Bill C-30, known as the protecting children from Internet predators act. Bill C-30 was also widely associated with comments made by the former Conservative public safety minister, who had the gall to accuse opposition members of supporting child pornographers when they raised questions about the bill's scope. The bill was not just rejected by the opposition, it was widely rejected by privacy advocates and the public, forcing the Conservatives to back away from the bill earlier this year. I cannot recall another time when the government received such scathing criticism of a bill that it realized the error of its ways and was forced to abandon the bill.

Needless to say, when I learned that a number of clauses from failed Bill C-30 would be included in the cyberbullying bill before us today, I was very concerned. While Bill C-13 targets cyberbullying, it also goes after other issues, such as banks' financial data, the terrorist financing act, telemarketing, and the theft of telecommunication services.

The minister has assured us that prior judicial authorization is required in every single clause of the bill and that there is no ability for police to act without warrants here. However, lawful access provisions require close scrutiny. This is a complex, lengthy bill that requires careful study at committee.

As I mentioned before, only a few pages of this 70-page omnibus-style bill are directly related to cyberbullying. Yesterday the NDP proposed what I think is a very smart legislative solution. Our justice critic proposed splitting this bill in two. The cyberbullying provisions would be removed from Bill C-13 and put into a separate bill that could be expedited through the legislative process. In this way, the justice committee could take the appropriate amount of time to study other provisions contained in Bill C-13. I am disappointed that the Conservatives rejected this very logical proposal.

I intend to support Bill C-13 at second reading. I believe it deserves to be carefully studied at committee.

As I have outlined in my remarks today, cyberbullying is a very distressing problem. By making it illegal to distribute intimate images of people without their consent, we give police and the courts another tool to go after those who attack and victimize others online.

The other provisions in this bill require careful scrutiny. I am hopeful that members of the justice committee will be given adequate time to study this bill thoroughly.

In closing, I would like to say a few words on a more personal note. I want to acknowledge the courage and perseverance of the parents of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons, and others. In the wake of the tragedy of losing a child, they have spoken out publicly and have asked hard questions of us as a society. They are driving a national debate on how we must do a better job protecting young people from online crime. I believe that their work will spare other young people and their families from enduring pain, suffering, and tragedy resulting from such terrible unchecked acts as cyberbullying.

In my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and in Port Moody, the story of Amanda Todd has resonated with parents, children, educators, policy-makers, city officials, the police, and so many others. In fact, it has resonated not only across the country but around the world. Although Amanda will never know the legacy she left, her heartbreaking final words will forever haunt us and remind us that we must do a better job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in this debate today.

As all members of this House will agree, cyberbullying is an extremely disturbing phenomenon. When I heard the stories of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons in the media, I was truly saddened to learn what they had to go through and the pain they had to suffer, which unfortunately led them to suicide.

We have talked at length about Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, of course, but I want to emphasize that many young people whom we will never hear about have also been victims of cyberbullying and have unfortunately decided to commit suicide as result of this scourge. It is extremely important that we work together as parliamentarians and do everything we can to find solutions to this absolutely appalling phenomenon.

Bullying is obviously nothing new. People have been talking about it for a long time, particularly in the schools, and I myself was bullied when I was young. However, bullying has changed with new technologies.

New technologies afford excellent opportunities. They enable people to learn quickly, to share stories and to socialize without even knowing the other person. Unfortunately, they also make it possible, for example, to distribute pictures of a person against that person's wishes, especially pictures that can harm the person, as in the cases of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons.

Another aspect of cyberbullying underscores how important it is to take action. Bullying used to occur more in school environments, among a group of friends, but young people were safe when they got home to a no-bullying zone. In the case of cyberbullying, that no-bullying zone unfortunately no longer exists now that there are social media.

Now, when young people get home from school, they open Facebook, Twitter or whatever social medium they may use, and they can see negative comments or photographs published without their consent. Amanda Todd changed schools several times in an attempt to start over. Unfortunately, when photographs are posted on the Internet, they stay there forever. You can never completely delete what is posted there.

That is why one part of this bill is important, and I do mean one part. Only four pages of this 53-page bill address cyberbullying.

I am going to take the time to congratulate my colleagues from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for raising these issues in the House of Commons. I know that much of what my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour proposed wound up in this bill. I am really proud of that because this is an extremely important issue.

The bill will create a provision on cyberbullying stating that:

Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty…

This provision is extremely important. I am convinced that every member of the House of Commons would vote now to pass it at all three readings in order to bring it into force.

The problem is that this issue has unfortunately been used. There are four pages on cyberbullying. What did the government do? It included about 50 pages on lawful access in a bill about cyberbullying. There is no connection.

The police admittedly need certain powers to act in such cases, but lawful access could have been treated as a separate issue, particularly when the bill talks about, for example, terrorism and software that has no bearing on the provision. Thus, everyone who distributes, transmits, sells or makes available an intimate image of a person is guilty of an offence. That has no bearing.

I am extremely concerned about the fact that cyberbullying has been used in order to propose provisions that, as everyone knows, have been highly controversial.

I have to say, all the same, that I am happy that the Conservatives did listen a little. This happened thanks to the work of the whole community of people concerned about protecting privacy and all those who stood up to combat measures that were going to make it possible to disseminate personal data without a warrant and require Internet service providers to set up an entire infrastructure for online snooping.

I am happy that these measures are not contained in Bill C-13. However, there are other measures that are very worrying. What is most disturbing is that tragic stories about cyberbullying, like the cases of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and all the other young victims of cyberbullying, have been used in order to introduce measures respecting lawful access. It has no connection and merits a separate debate.

I would prefer that we speak today strictly about cyberbullying, because it is so important.

I would like to use the 20 minutes of speaking time allowed me to talk exclusively about cyberbullying. I am obliged, however, to talk about all the other controversial and disturbing measures relating to lawful access.

A motion was moved to divide the bill, so that we could talk strictly about cyberbullying and thus expedite consideration of that portion of the bill.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused. They wanted to use cyberbullying to push through a range of provisions respecting online access that threaten the protection of privacy. The victims deserve a separate debate. They really do deserve it, and so do the families. We should debate cyberbullying alone, and not lawful access.

For lack of co-operation from the Conservatives, however, I will talk about lawful access. As the NDP critic on digital issues, I have done a great deal of work on this one. I have consulted people all across Canada concerning the protection of privacy and lawful access. I asked them where the limit lay as far as they were concerned, and what they found disturbing.

Four aspects are particularly troubling and they are of great concern to those who are worried about protecting privacy. I, too, am concerned about them. I believe that they deserve the full attention of the committee that studies this bill.

First of all, this bill, which is supposed to deal solely with cyberbulling, lowers the threshold for obtaining personal information. I am talking about metadata, transmission data and tracking data. I have often heard people say that metadata do not really provide any information.

I want to explain what metadata include. They include information provided by an email or telephone call: location, time, person contacted and search history. Metadata can provide plenty of information.

It seems to me that the whole debate around metadata and all of the information that can be gleaned from them really began in the United States, particularly with all of Mr. Snowden's revelations.

There is a new threshold. We have moved from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”. The threshold is being lowered, which creates a very disturbing precedent. When that threshold is lowered, we leave the door open to potential abuses of privacy.

This bill, which is supposed to deal solely with cyberbulling, goes on to include a provision encouraging Internet service providers to hand over personal information to authorities. In return, they cannot be criminally prosecuted.

I am not naive; I know that this is already happening. I know that there are Internet service providers who are sometimes handing over data that could be useful in criminal investigations. It is already happening, but right now Internet service providers are supposed to consider what might happen to them if they hand over that information. It may not be a good idea to provide it. They need to ask themselves those questions; they need to think about it before they hand over personal information, and that is what they do.

By removing the need for this sober thought prior to the sharing of data, the government is essentially opening the door to the sharing of personal information. It is creating and promoting a system that works completely outside any judicial oversight, a system that sidesteps all parliamentary oversight, and a system that excludes nearly every authority that should have the right to look into these activities.

Obviously, Internet service providers are not supposed to be spies. They are supposed to be people who give us access to the Internet, period. However, more and more, Internet service providers are being used to obtain information without judicial or parliamentary oversight. I find this extremely problematic, especially as we know, from a story published in the Globe and Mail, that spectrum licences require Internet service providers to build infrastructure specifically designed to store the personal data of the company's users or customers.

When such a provision is added to this infrastructure, we basically have an online spying system free of any oversight. I find this very problematic, and I think most Canadians will find it problematic as well, especially after hearing about the U.S. scandal and the American people's surprise at learning what was going on with Verizon, the NSA and PRISM. The government is recreating a very similar system in a bill that is supposed to address only cyberbullying.

I have a big problem with this provision, and I hope the government will seriously consider it before sending the bill to the next stage. I would ask all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study this provision and fully understand what they are opening the door to. Indeed, this is very serious and creates an ominous precedent.

This bill also criminalizes software that can be used to access telecommunications infrastructure such as Internet services or television. That is good. Canadians must not be encouraged to steal cable programming.

However, not everything is black and white. Many software packages permit access to another computer, but for legitimate reasons. For example, there is software that permits access to another computer to verify its security or to repair it. Other software allows a person to create an internal network with two or three friends. Basically, this provides access to another computer, but not for criminal reasons or to steal from the Internet or from cable. It is for legitimate reasons.

I think that this requires a lot of study to identify the possible negative repercussions of this sort of clause, because as I was saying, it is not black and white. We cannot say that all software allowing access to another computer should be criminalized. We cannot think like that. We have to think of all the possible repercussions of this sort of clause.

There is another point deserving of more in-depth study that might raise some concerns. That is prohibiting certain people from using the Internet. I can understand the logic. However, is it really possible to ban someone from using a computer? Computers and the Internet are everywhere. I think that this may cause problems of compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is really important to establish whether this clause is realistic and what its charter repercussions would be.

I have spoken about the importance of the Internet in our lives. Its possibilities are endless. We can communicate, participate in democracy, buy things online and take part in a whole digital economy. However, when we start opening the door to provisions that allow potential abuses of privacy, we are jeopardizing everything that the Internet is supposed to be.

We are putting at risk people who might want to use the Internet to challenge the government or its choices and policies. We are putting the Internet at risk as a free and open medium. With regard to Internet surveillance and online spying—no matter what we call it—we cannot allow our Internet to be destroyed by these sorts of provisions. It is extremely important that privacy remain paramount in Canada. This is entrenched in section 8 of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is paramount that this right always be respected.

I hope that everyone on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will assess all of the provisions I spoke about so that they truly understand the repercussions of this bill before moving forward. That said, I want to reiterate that cyberbullying is an extremely important issue, and we should really be dealing with it specifically. That is what the victims deserve.

Everyone here agrees that that part of the bill should be fast-tracked. I think it is really unfortunate that the government has taken a cyberbullying bill and included 50 pages on lawful access, which has nothing to do with protecting our youth.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for participating in the debate on Bill C-13.

Unfortunately, this government tends to use wedge issues to slip in some provisions or principles that may not necessarily be the best, even though it knows that Canadians may not want them. It has done this several times. Just look at all of the omnibus budget implementation bills we have had.

As for my colleague's question, I unfortunately do not think we can trust the government. However, there are some things to look at in this bill. That is exactly why he agrees that the bill should be divided, as my colleague from Gatineau suggested, so that we can pass the sections on cyberbullying as quickly as possible and then study the very worrisome provisions more carefully in committee.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-13.

Before I begin my argument, I think it essential to show the government how ready the NDP is to work with it. I will simply lay the foundation for my argument, so that it is not misinterpreted by some people in the House who unfortunately tend to turn our words around and throw them back at us.

I am very disappointed. I think of myself as still being young. I hope that I am still young. Not so long ago, I too was in school and was a victim of bullying. I think it is extremely important to demonstrate that a parliament wants to help people. As I have said many times, the role of a parliament and a government is to give a voice to people who are too weak to defend themselves or who unfortunately have not had the same opportunities as others to be able to feel equal and face difficult times in their life. All of us have gone through adolescence. Some adults are also sometimes victims of bullying.

First of all, we were all on the same wavelength when my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced his Bill C-540, because we had learned of a number of young teenagers who unfortunately had decided to take their own lives. Perhaps they were thinking they had no other way out. Today it is our role to reach out a hand to young people and to provide the resources needed by those who can help these young people see the light at the end of the tunnel, get through a difficult period and become accomplished and fulfilled adults, like all of us.

As some members have mentioned in their speeches, it is a great pity, because the government decided to vote against our bill, which had exactly the same purpose and objectives as the cyberbullying provisions in Bill C-13, which the government now wants to pass.

Why did they stand in opposition to our bill? We will probably never have an answer, but that is okay. The government has its prerogatives. What is more, this is a majority government. It wanted the privilege of introducing this sort of legislation. I understand. It has its prerogatives.

However, given the fact that this is such an important issue that affects so many people, it is regrettable that the Conservatives decided, as usual, to present us with a bill at least 50 pages in length, where only the first five talk about cyberbullying—and that is a considerably rounded figure so as to give them a little leeway—while the other 50 talk about totally different things that have no tangible connection to cyberbullying. That is why the government chose to move from a bill on cyberbullying to a bill whose title contains the words “from online crime”.

As I said, and this is precisely why I wanted to make the basis of my argument clear right from the beginning, cyberbullying is a problem, and we as legislators have a duty to pass laws to protect young Canadians.

Notwithstanding the respect I owe the government, my argument will unfortunately have to identify certain shortcomings and certain problems in this bill that the government says is intended to address cyberbullying. I would like the people watching today to know that we have asked the government to divide the bill so that the provisions on cyberbullying can be given expeditious examination. Indeed, as many of my colleagues have said, we are all in agreement. That way, we could demonstrate to Canadians that we are prepared, as parliamentarians, to work together to pass positive legislation that will have a tangible impact on the lives of young Canadians.

With the other 50 pages of this bill, which deal with subjects as broad as terrorism, banking services, telecommunications services and so on, we could make a second bill. We could study it in depth, with the experts and the institutions, to know exactly where we are going. In this way we could amend and modernize Canada’s criminal legislation, but—and I emphasize this—still respect our institutions, Parliament and, above all, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives always try to use wedge issues to force their bills down the opposition's throat. They use extremely sensitive issues in order to usher in by the back door bills that would require us to put on our legislator's hat and address these provisions in a logical and informed manner, in committee of course.

I would like to drawn the hon. members’ attention to three little points before beginning to address the government’s shortcomings and missteps in this matter. For example, on cyberbullying, the Criminal Code has to be modernized. We have to ensure that future victims will be protected. As my colleague from Gatineau was saying, the parents of certain victims have said that, yes, this bill might have helped or even saved their child. No one in the House will say otherwise. The cyberbullying provisions need to be passed as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that the government stated in its throne speech that it intended to invest in addressing bullying. Bill C-13 was probably part of the first step in that direction, but here we are talking about long-term prevention. However the government voted against our motion to have Parliament consider the issue of bullying in order to adopt a national strategy for helping the people on the ground who must be able to support young people going through a difficult period. Unfortunately, as I have said, the government voted against that motion.

Bill C-13 is a step in the right direction, and we thank the government for having taken the demands of Canadians and Canadian families seriously. However, why did the government vote against a motion that did not require it to do anything, not even to pass a bill? That motion called on Parliament to consider ways of preventing bullying.

I would really like to put the emphasis on prevention. I have a report that was produced by a youth round table. These are young people between the ages of 12 and 17 in Pointe-aux-Trembles, in east Montreal, in my riding.

This round table considered the issue of youth felt to be at risk of joining street gangs or criminal organizations.

The report says that 50% of youth at risk of joining a street gang or a criminal organization said they had been victims of violence. It also says that bullying is the form of violence most cited in the open question asked of the group of young people most at risk, followed by physical violence and verbal abuse. Bullying is therefore the main source of violence among these young people. The report also cites feelings of depression.

It is important to mention that the government's bill includes clauses on cyberbullying. However those clauses cover only offences of a sexual nature. They refer to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted. This is a good thing, except that certain cases, such as situations where people receive repeated hate messages, are not covered in the bill’s clauses on cyberbullying.

I understand that this is a step in the right direction, but if the government truly intends to prevent bullying and to help workers on the ground prevent bullying among young people, these things have to be considered here. A national anti-bullying strategy is extremely important. That is what the people on the ground are saying.

I have a report that concerns only my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île. However I am fairly certain that the situation is the same in every riding. The people on the ground need a strategy, money and assistance. Therefore, if the government truly intends to help victims of bullying, I hope that Bill C-13 is just a first step in the right direction. This is extremely important.

With regard to the example I was giving of a person receiving text messages, emails and so on, I hope that all of these elements will be considered by the government in the context of an even more general approach to the prevention of bullying.

The minister has rightly expressed his interest in this type of case. He is concerned about the problem of bullying. I sincerely hope that he is listening to my speech today and taking note of what I have said.

It is very important to mention that we really would have liked to see the minister decide to split the bill in two.

We always have to put on our legislator's hat in opposition because the Conservatives unfortunately decide to disregard their responsibilities and we have to point out to them certain deficiencies in their bills.

I really find that unfortunate because we know that several bills have been, or will be, challenged in the courts. It is important for the Conservatives to realize that we must listen to Canadians and to victims.

I want no one to misinterpret my comments, but at same time we have to tell ourselves that the legislation we pass here has an impact on everyone across Canada. It is important to debate here and to have experts testify in committee so that we can pass the best legislation for our fellow citizens.

I would like to mention that my colleague from British Columbia introduced Bill C-279. It is very important and I hope the minister will take note of it. That bill is currently before the Senate.

Clause 12 of Bill C-13 amends the list of groups in the Criminal Code section on hate crimes.

It is important to understand that gender identity is not included in Bill C-13. Consequently, there may be a contradiction between two acts. Bill C-279 has been passed by Parliament and is currently before the Senate. That is why the bill must be divided. Some problems absolutely must be examined in depth. It is unfortunate that the victims of bullying and their families have to wait longer than they should for us to legislate on cyberbullying. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have decided to use this problem as a way to pass an omnibus bill.

Now I will talk about the bad aspects of the bill. We must put on our legislator's hat and clearly assess the problems the committee will have to face. Clause 20 of the bill concerns new procedures for obtaining warrants. As the minister said, the provisions are subject to the judge's interpretation. A warrant is therefore needed. However, it targets metadata. Based on the language the minister uses in the bill, the threshold for obtaining warrants that target metadata is lower. We are talking here about “reasonable grounds to suspect”, not “reasonable and probable grounds”. This will have to be examined with the bar associations and with the experts to determine the language that should be used in the bill so that all warrants are subject to the same burden of proof in the courts.

The bill encourages telecommunications businesses and Internet service providers to respond, without a court order, to requests for information concerning their customers and grants them criminal and civil immunity should they decide to grant those requests. It is extremely important to say that most people agree that the first part of the bill, which concerns cyberbullying, is good. It is really unfortunate that the Conservatives decided to include all kinds of different provisions.

I spoke about terrorism in particular. Why does the bill concern terrorism when we are talking about cyberbullying? Several questions have been raised about companies and the provision of user data to police. I think we really need to ask the experts, such as the Privacy Commissioner, to write a report on the bill. We really must put the necessary tools in place so that authorities are able to enforce the law since the framework of the bill calls for that. It is very important to do that based on expertise specific to the various acts, such as the Competition Act, for example.

I am really pleased to have had a chance to speak to the bill. I can hardly wait for my colleagues' questions.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

The legislation would make Canada a safer place by closing the gaps in criminal law by providing police officers with the tools they need to properly investigate crimes in the age of Internet communications. If I may, I would like to spend my time today talking about the elements of Bill C-13, which deal with the new and updated investigative tools that the legislation would provide to the police.

I would like to emphasize that nothing in the bill creates authority for warrantless access to personal information. This is my first point because I want to make it clear that proposals for access to subscriber information from former Bill C-30 the protecting children from Internet predators act, which were so controversial and so very unpopular, are not included in this legislation.

Bill C-13 and its proposals to modernize investigative tools for police, represent a giant leap forward for Canadian police by giving them tools for modern technology and investigations. These are the same tools our international partners have been using for years. These new investigative powers not only provide police with the judicially authorized tools they need to collect evidence in a modern telecommunications environment, they also take into account advances in technology and the potential impacts they have on the privacy of Canadians. In other words, they give police the tools they need to effectively investigate today's crimes, while ensuring the privacy of Canadians is properly considered.

I do not think it is an overstatement to say that technology has fundamentally changed the way we communicate with each other. The possibilities and opportunities that new technologies open up for us are nothing short of incredible. However, with the great potential comes great risk. The Internet and other new technologies allow criminals to commit identity theft in Switzerland, while sitting in a cafe in Halifax. It has also facilitated the explosive growth of sexual exploitation offences, such as the distribution of child pornography. As we have recently seen, it can provide an online forum for criminal harassment and extortion two criminal forms of cyberbullying.

An important consideration for the legislation before us is that technology has changed the type of evidence left behind after a crime has been committed. Scotland Yard estimates that over 80% of all crimes, whether a fraud committed over the Internet or an assault in a bar, have some form of telecommunications evidence associated with them.

The legislative proposals in the bill will not only assist police in investigating online crime, but also all crimes that involve electronic devices.

The guiding principle for the bill was to ensure that the Internet and other new communications technologies did not create a safe haven for activities that were otherwise unlawful. To prevent this from happening, Bill C-13 proposes to amend a number of existing offences in the Criminal Code to ensure that the Internet and other modes of communications are covered. For example, proposed amendments to subsection 372.3 of the Criminal Code with respect to harassing telephone calls will not only modernize the language of that provision, but also make it applicable in some cyberbullying situations.

Because so many of today's crimes are being committed online and using Internet-based technologies, we must ensure that our investigative tools are designed with this technological environment in mind.

Another important element of Bill C-13 is the proposal to update the existing production order scheme. A production order is a judicially authorized order that requires a third party to provide police with documents containing information connected to an investigation. There are currently two types of production orders in the Criminal Code: those relating to financial information and those relating to any other type of data that might be needed to conduct an investigation.

Often the requirements of an investigation are quite targeted. In those cases it makes sense to create specific tools that are designed to obtain specific types of data that also reflects the expectation of privacy associated with that kind of data.

As such, the bill proposes to retain the two existing production orders already found in the Criminal Code, but it also proposes three more to deal with the specific types of data associated with modern technology. These would include judicially authorized production orders for the following: first, data related to the dialing, routing, addressing or signalling of telecommunications, which would be known as transmission data; two, data relating to the whereabouts of a person, transaction or thing, which would be called tracking data; and third, data relating to the tracing of specified communications.

This last type of production order is particularly important, as it would allow police, for example, to trace the origin of an email, which would be extremely useful for identifying someone who is engaging in cyberbullying, specifically criminally harassing an individual, but has used several IP addresses to conceal his or her identity.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the proposals reflect the impact on personal privacy that advances in technology have brought. Police have been able to get judicial warrants to track individuals or things for 20 years now. As we can imagine, technology has changed a lot in that time. Where we were once able to track people with only limited accuracy, there are now technologies, like GPS, that can track the location of a person with much greater precision.

To take account of this, the bill proposes to increase the threshold necessary to get a tracking warrant in order to track an individual. Specifically, the police would now need to demonstrate that they have reasonable grounds to believe, as opposed to reasonable grounds to suspect, that an individual has or will be committed and that tracking an individual's movement will assist in the investigation of that offence.

The existing lower threshold warrant will still be retained for tracking things such as vehicles. We believe the new amendment regarding individuals is a significant privacy enhancement. This dual approach will allow police to retain the efficiency of the lower threshold warrant for tracking things, while increasing the privacy protection in situations of tracking individuals where there are greater privacy interests at play. This is an example of what we call privacy with precision.

The bill proposes to create some new tools designed to respond to the special demands of the digital environment, the preservation demand and the preservation order. These new tools would provide for a quick freeze of data. They would ensure that a person or business preserves a specific set of data long enough for a police officer to get a judicial warrant or order to obtain that data. Let me be clear, that preservation would not be confused with the types of data retention schemes we see in other places around the globe.

The bill does not ask a company to collect everyone's information and keep it on hand indefinitely or for a certain length of time. That is data retention and the bill is not proposing data retention. Rather, this proposed amendment addresses the highly perishable nature of digital information.

For example, a company might be required to preserve data related to a specific transaction that it would normally keep in order to further an investigation of identity theft. This data would be preserved only for a limited amount of time in relation to a specific investigation.

This kind of tool is essential to our ability to conduct effective investigations in an era where crucial evidence can be deleted in the blink of an eye. The preservation demand and preservation order will give police enough time to go to a judge and get the warrants or orders they need to subsequently obtain this highly volatile evidence.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to point out that one of the common myths I have heard opposition members and media alike talk about is that Bill C-13 would make it illegal to steal a cable signal. The fact is, it is already illegal to steal cable signals. This behaviour is prohibited by sections 326 and 327 of the Criminal Code. It is a type of theft.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-13 to these long-standing offences will update the telecommunication language to expand the conduct that it covers making it consistent with other offences. For example, it will add imports or “makes available” to the prohibited content in section 327.

The bill would also make section 327 a hybrid dual procedure offence, which would give prosecutors more discretion in their charging practices depending on the seriousness of the offence.

Further, the amendments proposed to repeal the definition of telecommunications found in section 326 and the criminal law will rely instead on the statutory definition of telecommunications in the Interpretation Act. This is not a substantive change.

In conclusion, I would like to add that the government undertook extensive consultations with stakeholders from industry, police and privacy advocates across the country in developing these amendments. With their input, this bill achieves the right balance between promoting safety and security and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

I hope all members appreciate the importance of this bill. Our police need modern tools for modern times. Bill C-13 would provide them with just that.

I have heard encouraging words from all sides of the House on this important debate and I urge all hon. members to give the bill their full support.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Charlottetown's questions because they are very serious questions. The issues he raises are extremely serious, and they have been raised by a number of experts in this field over the days following the introduction of Bill C-13. Exactly those questions and the serious nature of those questions are really the basis of my concern. That is why I have urged the government to split Bill C-13.

It had originally introduced this legislation as being directed toward making it an offence to participate in the act of cyberbullying, which involved eight clauses: clauses 1 to 7, plus clause 26. Then the following 55 or so pages deal with matters that are not focused on the question of cyberbullying.

The motion by my colleague, the member for Gatineau, was that we would split the bill. We would deal with the issue of cyberbullying, a matter of sufficient consequence that it needs the full attention of the House. Then we would deal with the surveillance issues and the powers that the government would like to see expanded for authorities in a separate manner. These are two consequential issues, and it is incumbent upon us to stay focused on each of them.

However, my focus at the moment is on the offence of cyberbullying. That is what I want to see us deal with here today.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a bit about the overreaching to which he referred.

Prior to Bill C-13's coming into effect, the evidentiary standard for obtaining a warrant for electronic records in many cases was “reasonable and probable grounds to believe” the commission of an offence. That evidentiary standard is being lowered from “reasonable and probable grounds to believe” to “reasonable suspicion”. In order to be able to use the access to information laws to get records from a minister's office, the standard is “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe that the records are within the control of the office.

My question for the member is this: does he believe that ordinary Canadians who have electronic records in the possession of third parties should have those records more easily accessed than those that are in ministers' offices?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and finish my intervention on Bill C-13 which is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

I want to talk for a couple of moments about some of what I said yesterday.

Bill C-13 was introduced with some considerable fanfare. Provisions in it would close the gap in the Criminal Code to make the non-consensual distribution of intimate images an offence and would deal with the definition of malicious intent.

This is a topic that the official opposition tried to deal with when we brought in a private member's bill, Bill C-540, in the spring, and subsequently encouraged the government at every opportunity to recognize the tragedies that were taking place out there as people of all ages, mostly women, had acts of violence being committed upon them. Whether it is called revenge porn or otherwise, people—sometimes partners, sometimes others—with malicious intent and with violent intent were distributing intimate images of those individuals.

I spoke to a situation in my riding involving 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, who took her own life as a result of the situation she was involved in. She was allegedly raped, and the images of that were subsequently transmitted widely on the Internet.

I want to speak to that for a second. That young woman took her life because she believed that the worldwide distribution of those intimate images of her by her friends, by members of her community, and by others had sufficiently destroyed her reputation that she felt she had no way out.

Frankly, it is intolerable that the system was unable to support her. Her community, her schools, and the institutions and support services of the greater community of the Halifax regional municipality were unable to support her. As a result of that, the Province of Nova Scotia moved to make some changes, and I will speak to that in a moment.

Suffice it to say that the bill is extremely important for what it does in this regard. As I said yesterday, it is my belief and the belief of many on this side that had the government done what we tried to do with Bill C-540, which was to bring in a piece of legislation that was directly targeted toward the act of cyberbullying, then it would be unanimously approved by members of the House. We would move it to committee. We would hear from families, from people affected, and from experts, and we would deal with the matter and change the law. We would get it enacted and change it.

What the government has decided to do is to tie questions about the extension of its powers of surveillance to the bill. Many people, both in this country and beyond, have indicated that they have some concerns with that, and likely it will result in extensive discussion and conversation.

I want to add that dealing with bullying and cyberbullying means much more than just changing the law. We need to engage in national strategies. We need to provide supports. Whether through education or through health services, mental health and otherwise, we need to make sure that there is a plan, that there is a strategy for educating and supporting people to make sure not only that people realize that bullying and cyberbullying are wrong but that the supports are there for the victim.

We will be supporting this bill moving forward to second reading, but I urge the government to consider our motion to split the bill.

The House resumed from November 27 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader with regard to the difficulties and uncertainty of scheduling when we are not using the scheduling devices that are available to us under the Standing Orders. I am certain that he will find that he is able to cope with that, but perhaps I will take his advice and his concern about the lack of proper scheduling here under consideration and see if there is an opportunity to please him by once again returning to it.

Before I turn to the business of the House for the week ahead, let me congratulate those who won Monday's by-elections and will soon be joining us as members. Once returning officers have done their part of the job, which gives them the title upon the return of the writs of election, and after the new MPs have taken the oath, we will have their introductions here in this chamber, which will be a very special memory for them and for all of us.

Since this will probably be the last opportunity to use their names in the House, I will say that we on the Conservative benches are especially looking forward to welcoming Ted Falk and Larry Maguire. Larry proved to be an outstanding campaigner when it really counted. He overcame what expert pollsters said was a 29-point deficit in just 24 hours to win Brandon—Souris. This abrupt collapse of Liberal support must be troubling to the Liberal leader.

This afternoon, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and, again, tomorrow. If we have extra time, we will take up Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading.

Bill C-13 will, as we heard from the Attorney General yesterday, ensure children are better protected against bullying, including cyberbullying, by making the distribution of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted a criminal offence.

Following on this morning’s report from the chair of the hard-working, productive and orderly Standing Committee on Finance, we will consider Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, at report stage, and hopefully third reading, on Monday and Tuesday.

This bill would provide support for job creators, for example, by extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses; and it would also close tax loopholes, combat tax evasion and respect taxpayer dollars. Overall, it is an important part of our government's ongoing agenda to place, as our top priorities, economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity; indeed, they are priorities for most Canadians. I also will set aside Friday of next week for this important economic bill, if we need a third day to pass it.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, we will debate a bill to implement the devolution agreement reached with the Northwest Territories, for which the House adopted a ways and means motion this morning. If we can pass that bill at second reading before the end of Thursday, we would then return to the debates on Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act, and Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

To help with the committees' forward planning, Monday, December 9, shall be the fifth and final allotted day of the autumn.

[William F. Pentney]

First, Mr. Casey, I appreciate your public words of thanks to the department. We're always pleased to assist parliamentarians from all parties in understanding the important legislation that we support the government in advancing.

I'll ask Mr. Piragoff to speak briefly to the question you've asked. I have no doubt that we'll have further opportunities to discuss all of the elements of Bill C-13 in the coming days.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the officials, first, I want to publicly thank you and your department for being so helpful and cooperative in providing me with a departmental briefing during the prorogation period. I also want to thank your department for agreeing to a further briefing on Bill C-13. It greatly helps me in what I do. I thanked you privately, but I wanted to do that on the record as well.

I want to follow up on a conversation I had with the minister in the last couple of days. I'm back on Bill C-13 now, and I'm concerned about the immunity that's being afforded keepers of electronic records within the statute. What I heard in the House and in committee today is that this immunity is only applicable where the disclosure is lawful and it's under judicial oversight. If I understand what the minister said correctly, why do they need it?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madame Boivin. Thank you for your commentary yesterday, as well as Mr. Casey's.

As I said in the House, I do believe that this is an opportunity for parliamentarians to really come together and do what we do best in examining in a very rigorous way the provisions of Bill C-13. The other bill that you've referenced, the forthcoming victims bill of rights, will have very broad application, and I suspect, a transformative impact on our criminal justice system.

I've been around here and sat in opposition long enough to know that there are no blank cheques. No matter the enormity of the bill, there is always going to be a cost associated with its implementation, particularly something as broad and inclusive as the intended bill of rights for victims.

I want to come back to something that you said and referenced in the House yesterday, and that is the necessity to match this legislation and its intent with what police are going to be required to do. There will be an enormous burden placed on police and an enormous amount of new, sophisticated response required by police.

I suspect you're very familiar with the work of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection that works out of Winnipeg. They do a tremendous amount of the type of tracking that this bill envisages, and which the Privacy Commissioner is referencing. It's tantamount to that important balance that's required that you cannot allow police to be too invasive, and they can't do that under these provisions without judicial authorization. That is what I suspect many will be watching closely.

This is what differentiates this legislation from previous attempts. You're right that while the Privacy Commissioner endorses it generally, she still poses some very important questions. She recognizes that all of the aspects of privacy must be very much respected and that there is consequential legislation that also plays a role in the enforcement around cyber.... That is very much contemplated, and I know there will be further opportunity to hear from witnesses on this particular bill, but I appreciate your expression of cooperation on this.

The NDP, Mr. Chisholm from my province of Nova Scotia, brought forward a bill very much in line and in keeping with this intent. What was missing, and I say this respectfully, was the ability to empower the police to enforce the first part of this bill, which is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. You need to have both parts working in concert to truly get the effect that we're after.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to give notice of a motion, in light of what happened last week when, after the minister's presentation about the Supreme Court, we ended up sitting in camera to talk about the recommendations dealing with our part of Bill C-4. The notice of motion, which will be subsequently debated, reads as follows:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: a. wages, salaries and other employee benefits; b. contracts and contract negotiations; c. labour relations and personnel matters; d. a draft report; e. briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

I will now turn to the minister.

When you read the article in The Globe and Mail this morning, you must have been happy to see that the Privacy Commissioner seemed to support Bill C-13. Clearly, it is not enough to read the title only. At any rate, this is what she said in the article:

She said the latest version appears to be an improvement and she doesn’t fault the government for linking lawful access and cyberbullying.

I would like to say that no one is blaming the government for linking the two. Mr. Minister, the issue that was raised yesterday is that one of the parts brings parliamentarians together whereas the other part has not yet been seriously studied in committee. That is why I am telling you once again that it is important to spend the required time on studying that part. The term “lawful access“ used in this article has to do with the tools that police officers have.

Also, you must not put words in the mouth of the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, she is right in saying that a more in-depth study might reveal something else. You are not going to claim this morning that she gave you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

That said, I am very interested in the victims bill of rights, an issue you have been talking about for a long time. The same goes for your predecessors, the Prime Minister and almost everyone in the Conservative cabinet. You talked about it earlier.

Making big media announcements on some issues is one of your government’s strengths. Sometimes, I would prefer it if you gave that money to the victims.

Has your department already started to think about the funds you are going to spend on advertising? Are you going to come back and ask us for additional funding for your department to promote your victims bill of rights all over the place? By the way, I really look forward to reading it.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

To be very honest with you, we are still calculating those figures because, with the passage of Bill C-13, I will require greater financial support because the activity is exploding, as you know. Police are going to be increasingly under pressure.

That may be a question perhaps better posed to Minister Blaney when he appears on this bill. It's difficult to calculate at this point just how much more police resources will be needed once they're given the ability to do further investigations online. I suspect it will be significant.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

I must commend your community for being one of the more active ones when it comes to the outreach that goes on. You have an extraordinary police chief and department. As well, I consider the child advocacy work that is done in the community of Barrie to be among the best.

We'll come back to your question on cyberbullying. The way you've described it is quite accurate. There have been very sophisticated efforts to exploit the Internet. Particularly of concern is this issue of exploitation of children: cyberbullying and also child pornography. There was a recent bust, if you will, in Toronto that captured a number of people involved in a pornography ring. That came about because the police are becoming more adept at investigating online.

It's necessary to give the police greater tools, greater access, and greater ability to police the Internet, to fight online crime, to match this growing sophistication and proliferation of the Internet for nefarious means, for criminality, whether it be exploiting children, whether it be for financial gain, or whether it be blackmail. All of that is to say that, in my estimation, the Criminal Code has not evolved fast enough.

What we're attempting to do is to bring crime fighting into the 21st century in allowing police, with judicial oversight and authorization, to go where the crime is happening. To do that, we have to give assurances that we are respecting privacy, that we are affording police the ability, but at the same time putting in the oversights and the traditional necessity to seek a warrant. That is the fine balance we seek to achieve in Bill C-13.

You're right. I know, Mr. Brown, you are more proficient on the Internet than many. You're very active on social media.

I heard some statistics recently. In the 1990s there were 130 websites, total, in the world. Now they number in the billions. That is how quickly we have seen this expansion in the cyberworld.

Police are facing an uphill battle, quite frankly, in being able to track the activity. Giving them the necessary support with judicial authorization, in my view, is all about protecting people. It is a fundamental goal of Public Safety Canada. We're looking forward to your input and the input from experts to ensure we get that balance right.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for appearing this morning.

Last week you tabled legislation in the House of Commons that would make it illegal to distribute intimate images without consent and would empower the courts to remove those images from the Internet and also provide for reimbursement to victims and impose a maximum penalty of five years, among other measures.

You mentioned in your opening remarks the government's attempts to redress what has been perceived by many—by many in my constituency, I know—as an imbalance between the rights of victims and the rights of offenders.

How does that legislation, Bill C-13, fit into the government's legislative agenda with respect to standing up for victims? Perhaps you could tell us if you've consulted with victims and what they've told you about the bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to be with you this morning to answer questions regarding the items in supplementary estimates (B).

Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I'm tasked with helping to ensure that our justice system continues to meet the needs of Canadians and that it can remain relevant, fair, and accessible.

Our government has been moving forward on several priority areas in criminal justice, in particular, so that Canadians can continue to be proud of our justice system and have confidence in its operation. We have toughened penalties against offenders, such as drug dealers, criminals who use firearms, and sexual predators who prey on children, the most vulnerable of our society.

We have also implemented measures to keep dangerous and violent offenders behind bars rather than under house arrest, and eliminated the practice of double time reduction in the sentencing of criminals for time served before trials, so-called sentence discounts.

Mr. Chair, this summer I also embarked on a series of consultations across the country, during which time I listened to Canadians from every province and territory speak about how the justice system could better serve victims of crime and what they would like to see in a federal victims bill of rights, which will be introduced in the coming days.

As we have discovered, unfortunately, victims in the justice system very often feel that they are being re-victimized by the system itself. They feel that the system is failing them and doesn't meet their needs, and we need to reverse that trend. Since 2006, our government has allocated more than $120 million specifically to victims, to give them a more effective voice in both our justice and correctional systems, through program initiatives delivered by the Department of Justice. This includes funding for new or enhanced child advocacy centres. I encourage all colleagues, if you have an opportunity, to visit a child advocacy centre in your region. They're doing amazing, compassionate work to help ease the trauma of a child caught up in the justice system. The centres help coordinate investigation, prosecution, and the treatment of child abuse, while helping abused children in a very important way.

We also need to continue to address victims' needs in other areas. I believe we have learned a great deal and we could help inform the legislation that our government intends to introduce, as I mentioned, to entrench the rights of victims into federal law.

Mr. Chair, another issue we have to tackle is cyberbullying, and we've taken steps in that direction as recently as yesterday. We have, unfortunately, seen that cyberbullying in its worst form can be life-threatening. We need a range of education, awareness, prevention, and enforcement activities to combat this scourge, including a stronger justice system response, and we intend to provide one. Governments at all levels have expedited a review of federal, provincial, and territorial law surrounding this issue, and I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that Bill C-13 is an effective criminal justice response that we can all support and move forward in an expedited way.

Chairman, colleagues, Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, first and foremost. Our government understands this expectation and is committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. To that end, our government is introducing legislation to help protect Canadians from an accused who suffers from a mental disorder.

Our government has already introduced legislation to help protect Canadians from mentally disordered accused persons who have been found to be not criminally responsible and who pose a high risk to public safety. Our legislation will ensure that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process.

There have been a number of misconceptions surrounding the intent of our legislation. I can assuredly tell members of this committee that we have no intention of increasing the negative stigma attached to those who suffer from a mental illness.

In fact, Mr. Chair, if I could pause here for a moment, the intention is in fact to designate those who are deemed high risk and to separate them from the rest who would have been given the designation of not criminally responsible. I believe if this is done properly, it will in fact reduce the stigma.

So, Mr. Chair, the Bill C-14, the not criminally responsible reform act, will only touch upon a small percentage of accused deemed high risk. In fact, those deemed within the entire criminal justice system not criminally responsible amount to less than 1%.

This effort will limit access for those high-risk accused in terms of escorted passes from mental health institutions. Again, for emphasis, this is what we're talking about: secure mental health facilities, not our classic jail system. This will be done in a way that will provide flexibility to provincial and territorial review boards tasked with reviewing these cases by giving them the option to extend reviews from the current two years up to a maximum of three years.

Our government also wants to ensure that our children are better protected against sexual exploitation.

Mr. Chair, we'll be introducing legislation soon that deals with the range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while ensuring that offenders receive tougher sentences when convicted of such offences.

Our government has always been committed to ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system. We reiterated that commitment with the Speech from the Throne.

The items that the justice system has submitted to be tabled under supplementary estimates (B) for consideration today will further our work towards protecting Canadians and ensuring safer streets and communities, a goal we all share.

Chair, you will note that the Department of Justice's net increase is $10.94 million, including $996,000 in vote 1, and $9.8 million in vote 5.

One major area of expenditure is the renewal of the funding for the aboriginal justice strategy for fiscal year 2013-14. The aboriginal justice strategy is federally led and is an initiative that is cost-shared with the provinces and territories and supports community-based justice programs that help address the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system. It provides funding to approximately 275 communities. It's a community-based program that reaches more than 800 aboriginal communities in all jurisdictions.

Chair, this is also an adjustment of $320,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs after our Department of Justice eliminated a position in the Canadian embassy in Paris under the deficit reduction action plan.

In supplementary estimates (B) you should also note this is to indicate a reduction in vote 1 of approximately $374,000, which represents a reduction in travel costs by the department.

The estimates also include an overall reduction of $7,000, as a result of the creation of Shared Services Canada, which is in part related to eliminating the Justice position I mentioned in Paris.

To conclude, I want to thank all committee members for your diligence in examination of these figures and the estimates. I thank you for the important work that you do. I look forward to working with you on a number of very important initiatives that are making their way through this committee during the fall and into the new year.

The funding that the justice portfolio has received has brought results for Canadians. I assure you I'll do my utmost to ensure that these funds will continue to be spent wisely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise for what time I have to speak to Bill C-13.

Bill C-13 was introduced by the government to deal with the issue of cyberbullying. That is how it was lauded in the foyer of this chamber last week. That is primarily how it has been discussed by the minister and by the parliamentary secretary. They would suggest that it is focused entirely on dealing with the problem of cyberbullying.

My colleague, our justice critic, the member for Gatineau, has pointed out that the bill would deal with two very serious issues. It would deal with cyberbullying, but then it would also deal with the whole question of the invasive interception of signals and the power given to authorities, which it may in fact overreach. There have been concerns raised by privacy experts, by digital experts, that the government is being too cute by half, frankly, by trying to hide changes under the auspices of modernizing the Criminal Code and as changes to the Criminal Code simply to deal with the issue of cyberbullying.

We are very concerned about this. My colleague brought forward a very sensible motion, asking the government and other members of the House to split the bill. We have almost unanimous agreement in the House that the matter of cyberbullying needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed now. We all recognize the fact that there is a gap in the Criminal Code that needs to be closed. We need to focus on that. We need to target that. We can deal with it in a manner that is expeditious. We can have some debate in the House. We can send it to committee. We can hear from affected families and hear from experts, and undoubtedly come to some agreement to ensure that piece of legislation gets through and gets enacted into law. That can be done, as I said, very expeditiously.

However, the government has decided to be, I would say, less than transparent. It would not be a surprise for anyone to hear me accuse the government of being less than straightforward. It is introducing amendments that would simply complicate the matter and would create some problems.

I would suggest there is no question and it concerns me that the minister and the government have been extraordinarily disingenuous with this. It concerns me considerably, as a member of Parliament, as a politician, that the current government is frankly playing on the emotions of the families involved, of individuals in this country who want to see this matter addressed. Frankly, that is shameful. Even though I have been around the House for a while and this game for a while, nonetheless, it shocks me when I see acts of this kind.

Let me take members back to why it is that we are dealing with the question of cyberbullying and its problems.

It certainly came to my attention very quickly and very starkly last spring when 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons took her life. Her parents found her hanging in the bathroom of their house. This young woman was being bullied, was being harassed, was being cyberbullied as a result of an incident that had happened two years previously, where intimate images of her were being transmitted on the Internet without her consent and with malicious intent.

The evidence would suggest that those actions and the subsequent ganging up and piling on of individuals and the distribution of those images had the effect of that young woman feeling that she was completely without hope, and she took her own life.

The Government of Nova Scotia responded quickly, I would suggest. Back in 2011 there had been a cyberbullying task force chaired by Wayne MacKay. It had done some impressive work and made some important recommendations about cyberbullying. The task force had consulted with young people in all sectors throughout the province and had come up with a set of recommendations that were clearly there, at hand. The government immediately moved to put some of those into place and to develop a response to this tragedy. It was not just Rehtaeh and Amanda Todd. There was Jamie Hubley and there was Pam Murchison's young daughter in Nova Scotia who was bullied online and took her life.

This is far too often, and it is a situation that clearly has reached a stage where we finally recognize as a society that this is behaviour that has to stop. The government of this land has to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code, to the laws of the land, to ensure that people are held accountable, that people understand that there are consequences to these violent acts and that they will be held accountable.

Changing the laws is not all that needs to be done. There is much more that needs to be done and I will talk more about that later on or perhaps tomorrow, depending on how much time I have.

Last spring in late April or early May, Rehtaeh's mom came to Ottawa with her husband and met with the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to talk to them about the issue, about the fact that they wanted to see some action. Not only was the Minister of Justice there but the premier was also with her, supporting the family. They wanted to talk to the Prime Minister and government about what was being done and what they thought the Government of Canada could do to help in the response, because it has to be a collaborative response at all different levels.

The same day, Rehtaeh's mom came and visited with the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague, the member for Gatineau, and me. We listened to them and to their anguish and their cry for action on behalf of the government to try to ensure that the tragic circumstances that led to the death of their daughter did not continue, and the Government of Canada did what it could.

We asked the justice minister of Nova Scotia and the Parsons what they felt needed to be done. They talked about a gap in the Criminal Code. The minister of justice specifically referred to section 162 and some changes that needed to occur in order to ensure the gap was closed. They also told us that the government had given some commitment to act and to move forward on some of these things. We made a commitment. We said to Leah, “What can we do, as the official opposition?” She told us that we could help push the government and asked us to do what we could to get the government to move forward to act on this, as they indicated they would. We all made that commitment to them that we would hold the government's feet to the fire and move it forward.

From that, we came up with a private member's bill, which was later tabled and I was very proud to sponsor, but it was from the official opposition. It was from our leader, our justice critic and other members who are concerned about this issue, all members of our caucus.

I tabled Bill C-540 on our behalf, which was a piece of legislation specifically targeted toward the issue of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It laid out penalties. It was targeted. It was not 60 pages. It was one, maybe two pages.

The reason I raise that is that we introduced it in the spring before the session ended and said to the government, “Here you go. This is what we think. We have consulted with experts on this issue and this is the best advice that we have received to deal with this issue. This is our recommendation on how to close that gap. We can do it and we can do it quickly.” We asked the government to move. That was before the House adjourned. We hoped that we would see some action in early September.

It did not matter to me if the government passed Bill C-540, sponsored by Robert Chisholm. That did not matter. I wanted the government to move forward on this issue. I was excited, even though the government decided to prorogue the House and delay everything and not come back until the middle of October rather than the middle of September, further delaying dealing with this issue. Nonetheless, it indicated in the throne speech that it was going to move forward on the issue. Again, I was encouraged by that.

Here we are another month later and the government, while it has moved forward with changes to the Criminal Code to deal with cyberbullying, could not help itself. It had to shove some more stuff into it. It had to try to hide some other things in behind those important provisions. It had to muck it up by dealing with issues that were contentious, coming from a piece of legislation that got driven out of the House last year, Bill C-30. It brought those provisions in through the back door and tried to hide them behind the cyberbullying provisions, thinking nobody would notice.

I can tell members that I am focused like a laser on trying to get these changes to the Criminal Code on cyberbullying through on behalf of not only Rehtaeh's family, the Todds and other families across this country, but anybody, any adult who has had violence committed upon them as a result of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, sometimes known as revenge porn. I am focused like a laser to make sure that we get these changes through the House. However, I cannot tell members how much it sickens me that the government is bringing forward other changes that are making the bill extremely complicated. There will be people coming forward at committee who will be raising serious concerns about what else the bill does, other than with respect to cyberbullying.

If the government was serious it would have paid attention to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Gatineau, to split the bill, to separate sections 1 to 7 and section 26, I believe it was, into a bill on cyberbullying so we could deal with that and get it done. The remainder would be an issue the justice committee would deal with at some length.

It is an important and complicated issue. It is a matter that must be dealt with. It must be dealt with in a number of ways. I will talk about that tomorrow.

My time is almost up. I want to talk a bit about the whole question of bullying and how we need a national strategy like the one introduced by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. We need that kind of commitment to deal with bullying and cyberbullying.

I hope that we can deal with this once and for all on behalf of the government. I look forward to continuing my remarks tomorrow.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary. We have two excellent parliamentary secretaries, as was mentioned. As chair of the justice and human rights committee, we have worked very well with all parties in putting aside the appropriate time to deal with the issues that have come in front of the committee. I assume that will continue in the future.

At the end of the day, Bill C-13, which is related to other legislation that our government has done in the past, is to help protect victims. It is not about the perpetrators. It is about the victims and what we as a government can do to help the security and safety of all Canadians and those who have, unfortunately, become victims.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment on why this is important legislation for victims of cyberbullying?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Charlottetown.

Does this mean that the Liberals support clauses 1 to 7 of Bill C-13 regarding cyberbullying and the sharing of intimate images?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the events over the past year have impacted all Canadians. The emergence of cyberbullying in society is troubling.

We agree with the government and victims that measures are needed to prevent and address cyberbullying. We, on this side, agree that we need action to properly provide a strong and fair response to those who perpetrate such hurtful acts against others online. It really is a tragedy to hear media reports of young people with their whole lives ahead of them believing that they have no other option than to take their lives. That is how deep and cruel cyberbullying can be. We should tackle this issue in a firm and focused manner.

Just last week, we marked Bullying Awareness Week. Indeed, there was a large summit held in my riding, an international summit, with social media companies and with young people from both sides of the border, which was organized by a well-known expert in this field Parry Aftab. Anti-bullying week and the summit to which I just referred provide us with an opportunity to reflect upon how our words and actions can sometimes have such a devastating impact upon others. This, I submit, holds true, not only for our youth but also the not so young.

As I have said in the House on a number of occasions, bullying is the reality for many people. Words do matter. Often, those words inflict great devastation upon young people. We know that what was once the sole domain of the schoolyard has now moved to the online world. The traditional bully, who typically sought out a victim at school, is now able to extend his reach online. The victim of bullying at school could, at one time, get some relief when he or she would go home, perhaps finding some respite in the confines of his or her room, a place where it was safe and away from the bullies. Not any more. The bullies can now extend that reach into that bedroom, using the Internet as a virtual schoolyard.

We know that some young people say terrible things to each other online. We can only imagine how hurtful it would be to arrive home, perhaps having an already rough day, only to go online and read something about oneself that is likely untrue or perhaps embarrassing. We can only imagine how hurtful and distressing it would be to read an online post or comment calling someone a “fag” or a “dyke” or suggesting that an individual is “weird”, “fat”, “ugly” or any number of hurtful and devastating comments.

We can only imagine how this would pierce the soul of a young person, many of whom are already vulnerable with the all too common challenges of growing up. This is the reality of Canadian youth, day in and day out. This is the ruthless side of technology and the use of the Internet.

That is why we sought to address this issue through legislation last year with a cyberbullying bill from the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre, which I will address again later.

We know that school can be tough, but bullying is not the exclusive domain of young people. I submit to my colleagues that we find bullying here, in this chamber. We often attack one another. We often do so for having a different opinion on such and such a matter. We exaggerate that which is often not worth exaggerating. We do not do a very good job of listening to each other and engaging in real debate. We seem to ignore or exclude the possibility that someone else might have a helpful solution or a proposal worthy of at least a hearing. It is possible to learn from one another.

Instead, as I have experienced in my short time here, having a different opinion is sometimes tantamount to siding with the criminals, and then we use the pretext of democracy to legitimize such behaviour. This is, frankly, the poor example we sometimes give to the public and to young people.

Earlier in my remarks, I indicated that there was an international summit held in Charlottetown on bullying. The organizers of that summit were actually invited into the House of Commons last week on the day of the announcement of this introduction of this legislation. I can say that on that day we did not exactly do our best job. When these constituents, who were here at the invitation of the Prime Minister, had a chance to observe the antics on the floor of the House of Commons, it is safe to say that as advocates against bullying, they were not impressed.

Today we are debating a bill that was supposed to address bullying and the emergence of cyberbullying specifically. However, for some reason, much of this bill has little to do with cyberbullying. I was surprised by this. I actually assumed that the Conservatives would have played this one straight and up front.

Bill C-13, we were told, was to address cyberbullying. It would appear, however, that the Conservative government knowingly used this highly emotional issue as a cover to include legislative measures that have nothing to do with cyberbullying. Conflating, for example, terrorism with cyberbullying does not make any sense. Furthermore, using the scourge of cyberbullying in order to resurrect elements of the infamous Bill C-30, a piece of legislative work wholly rejected because it was in effect an e-snooping bill, is wrong.

Members will remember that bill. It was a bill proposed just last year by Vic Toews, the former Conservative public safety minister. We are also given to understand that the former minister of justice and the current Minister of Justice sought to meet with victims of cyberbullying and their families as they prepared to introduce cyberbully legislation. I commend them for reaching out.

However, much of this bill has little to do with cyberbullying, and that is why we agree with the motion that was put forward by my colleague from Gatineau to split the bill at committee. We do so because all of us on this side had genuinely hoped that it was to be a stand-alone issue; instead, we have a bill before us full of content unrelated to cyberbullying.

We know the minister consulted victims of bullying and their families. I suggest that there will not be one member of the Conservative caucus able to coherently tell Canadians why providing, for example, big telecom companies with immunity to share private information of any Canadian to the government without a warrant has much to do with cyberbullying. There will not be one Conservative MP who could say with any sense of reliability that allowing telecom companies free range to divulge to Canada's security services anything they want at any time without any exposure to civil litigation or criminal charges is in any way tackling cyberbullying. As we heard earlier in the debate, that, in my submission, is the poison pill in this legislation.

The government seems to be using victims of cyberbullying for political and partisan reasons. That is why we agree with the proposal to split this bill at committee and deal with the cyberbullying aspects of it as a stand-alone bill.

When Vic Toews introduced his odious and unconstitutional e-snooping bill last year, a bill that would have allowed widespread government invasion into the privacy of Canadians without a warrant, he did so, to his credit, up front. He did not try to hide it—well, not too much. Faced with fierce opposition to such a massive assault on the privacy of Canadians, he famously said of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

At least Vic Toews was up front in his effort to attack the privacy of Canadians.

Again the minister has a bill before the House, the vast majority of which has nothing to do with cyberbullying. I am not sure that I got an answer to my question, but I hope the Minister of Justice will do the right thing and allow the Conservative members of the justice committee the option to split this bill so that we can deal with cyberbullying as a stand-alone bill. Numerous measures from the old Vic Toews' e-snooping bill have no place in this bill.

I know that the minister will resist the temptation to suggest that we are on the side of the bullies when we seek to split the bill to deal with the cyberbullying as a stand-alone bill. To that point, let me be very clear: there is not one person in this House of Commons who does not want to combat cyberbullying.

As mentioned earlier, my colleague from Vancouver Centre, a person of great distinction and someone who has worked with victims of bullying and their families over the years, proposed a bill just last year on the very issue of cyberbullying. When it came time to vote on her bill, the Conservatives voted against it.

Since there was no discernible reason for the Conservatives to vote against her cyberbullying bill, we are left to speculate that they did so because the bill emanated from an opposition party, in this case the Liberal Party of Canada. Now here we are today, dealing with a bill we hoped would not be politicized. Unfortunately, it contains just five pages on cyberbullying, with the remaining 50-plus pages containing unrelated measures.

I earlier commended the minister for reaching out to victims of bullying as he prepared this legislation. As the minister was consulting victims of bullying and their families this summer, I contend that not one of those Canadians would have asked the minister to give telecoms and Internet service providers the right to share online data with Canadians without a warrant and to make it a criminal offence to steal cable signals or WiFi. I would challenge the minister to produce evidence if he could suggest otherwise.

Why, then, did the minister not simply do the right thing and introduce a stand-alone bill that tackled cyberbullying and only cyberbullying? Why did the minister include matters so disconnected to the issue of cyberbullying?

There are measures in the bill that seek to address cyberbullying. That much is not in dispute. As my colleague from Gatineau pointed out, they are in clauses 1 through 7.

The relevant section is the one that deals with the non-consensual exchange of intimate images. It belongs there. It is an issue that needed to be addressed, and we do not take issue with it. In light of the recent tragedies involving cyberbullying, we should support the creation of an offence to deter the non-consensual transfer of intimate images. This new offence would criminalize this kind of malicious photo sharing that specifically contributed to the tragic circumstances in which Rehtaeh Parsons decided to take her own life.

We know that cyberbullying is all too common among children and teenagers. As we proceed with addressing this issue, we must acknowledge that, given the immaturity of children, we should support preventative and restorative measures and not just punitive measures. We do not wish to see the imprisonment of Canadian children and teenagers in large numbers, so while supporting the intention of the creation of this offence, we should be careful to emphasize the importance of including a summary conviction option to allow for sufficient prosecutorial discretion, as is currently the case. I believe and hope the government will be open to that.

We should also assess and be open to addressing cyberbullying through restorative justice and non-legislative methods, and we should do so in conjunction with the provinces.

I mentioned earlier that most of this bill has little to do with cyberbullying. The measures that actually relate to cyberbullying amount to about five pages out of a bill that is more than 50 pages in length.

The government wonders why Canadians do not trust it to be up front and transparent with respect to its real agenda. If those provisions I just outlined had been placed in a separate bill, we could have proceeded. We could have sent a stand-alone bill immediately to the justice committee for review and provided the much-needed opportunity for victims to lend voice to the merits of such a bill. We could have then agreed to pass the bill at all remaining stages, and I would suggest that we could have it passed by Christmas.

Instead we have a government bill that reintroduces odious and unconstitutional measures that Canadians rejected last year. Here are just some of the measures currently in the bill that have absolutely nothing to do with cyberbullying. These measures are recycled from the bill put forward by the former minister of public safety, Vic Toews. We were told this would not happen again in light of the reaction of Canadians. The former justice minister, now occupying the national defence portfolio, said:

We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30.

The new bill proposed today contradicts that promise in 37 of the 47 clauses contained in the bill. That is why we wish to have the bill separated and to place those provisions related to cyberbullying in a stand-alone bill.

Let me outline the elements contained in the old Vic Toews bill that we were promised would never rear its head again. These measures are now in the bill before us.

They include updates to technology-related offences such as theft of telecom signals and unauthorized use of computers, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying; the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying; new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals, or things, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying; a warrant that will extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to all means of communication, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying; warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals, and things that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake, including time extensions for warrants relating to organized crime and terrorism, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying; a so-called streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to authorizations to intercept private communications, which has nothing to do with cyberbullying.

We reject using victims of bullying as a way to bring back the ghost of Vic Toews and his e-snooping bill. This was supposed to be a good day for young people and others who have been the subject of bullying online. This was supposed to be a day when this whole House, all of us, could stand in solidarity with victims of cyberbullying and support legislation that would help address its prevalence in Canada. Instead, we have politics as usual.

It is unfortunate that members who have a sincere interest and desire to address cyberbullying are being used as cover for the introduction of multiple items that have little or nothing to do with cyberbullying. The bill capitalizes on the tragic passing of teens victimized by cyberbullying to reinstate elements of legislation the government had previously withdrawn and had sworn not to reintroduce.

The current bill deprives members of a chance to stand in solidarity in addressing one of the problems affecting Canada's young people, namely cyberbullying, as a distinct and stand-alone bill. It includes provisions unrelated to cyberbullying that may infringe on civil liberties. It raises privacy concerns that ought to be referred to the Privacy Commissioner and legal experts, or perhaps be dealt with at committee prior to deliberation and debate in the House. The bill encourages telecommunications companies and Internet service providers to co-operate with the government in surveillance matters in a way that Canadians would find objectionable.

That is why we wish to have the bill split at the justice committee so that those measures, and those measures alone, that seek to address cyberbullying could be captured in their own legislation, free from the politics and division that this issue should avoid.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, I would like to commend my colleague for his work on this issue, and for having made a promise to Rehtaeh Parsons' parents and keeping his word by introducing Bill C-540. I sincerely congratulate him.

There are many people who have concerns about Bill C-13. There are also others who have concerns about the part of the bill that deals with cyberbullying. We should keep in mind that not everyone is prepared to trust the Conservatives.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association represents 1,000 criminal lawyers in Ontario. That is quite a few. The association has concerns about the wording of the bill. It also has concerns about cyberbullying. Indeed, the association believes that the whole issue of cyberbullying in Bill C-13 is actually covered in clause 3. We are talking about a bill that has many more clauses.

What does that mean exactly? The association feels that there is a problem there. I will leave it up the association to clearly determine, in committee, what people thought they were doing, because the issue of mens rea, or criminal intent, has to be considered. This will be a refresher for those of us who are lawyers. This issue can apply, for example, in the case of a young person who receives an image from another youth concerning yet another young person.

In this bill, the Conservatives have done an incredible job of showing that there are situations where it may be difficult to prove that someone is guilty of a crime as such.

There are plenty of things like that to consider, but that will require a thorough study. By the way, we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee. However, I must say that we will have to work long and hard on this.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her intervention on Bill C-13 and commend her for the motion she presented to the House to try to split the bill into two very separate pieces, one dealing with what the government says it is truly focused on, which is closing the gap that has been identified in the Criminal Code on cyberbullying, and to end the malicious, hurtful and sometimes deadly practice of cyberbullying and the transfer of intimate images.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she has heard from other Canadian experts about the concerns she has raised. While the government should be applauded for bringing forward provisions to close the gap in the Criminal Code for cyberbullying, it has also gone a considerable distance in another direction, which is to add huge investigative powers to authorities under the guise of modernizing the Criminal Code.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the exchanges that took place after the speech given by the Minister of Justice, if people are worried about poison pills, perhaps it is because that is what the Conservatives so often have to offer. Thus, it is not surprising that people are worried about this long-awaited bill.

I think it is worth reiterating the fact that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had introduced Bill C-540, which addressed the issue of cyberbullying and, more specifically, the distribution of intimate images, following the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons. We even offered to fast-track this process.

All members of this House agreed on these provisions. The government replied that it was working on the issue, and I do acknowledge that some federal-provincial-territorial meetings took place. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Justice say that he believed in a more comprehensive approach than simply claiming that Bill C-13 would solve the problem of cyberbullying, as the bill's fancy title would suggest. Let us hope so, because the bill's title certainly promises more than it can deliver. In fact, I am sure the Conservatives have hired someone just to come up with fancy titles, such as the “protecting Canadians from online crime act”.

Still, I acknowledge that the provinces and territories were involved. There were meetings and discussions because they were the ones who raised the problems. We know we need a more holistic and comprehensive approach. The motion moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Motion No. 485, offers a comprehensive approach to bullying, but the Conservatives voted against it. There is no reason to believe that Bill C-13 will put an end to situations that have been around for a long time.

The Conservatives introduced a bill whose first seven clauses are exactly what everyone expected the Minister of Justice to introduce with respect to cyberbullying and the distribution of images. However, clauses eight and up must have come as a surprise to many. Forty-seven is a lot of clauses.

Experts on privacy and the Internet, as well as journalists, jumped at the chance to ask questions during the minister's press conference. No doubt the minister was expecting something other than those questions, all of them on the same subject, and for good reason. After what happened with the former public safety minister, people got worried about what was around the corner. I will be kind, but it was not funny when he introduced Bill C-30.

It was to be expected that people would think Bill C-30 had risen from the ashes when they saw clauses eight and up of Bill C-13. The former justice minister, the one immediately preceding our colleague opposite, promised that those clauses would not be seen again.

Journalists, who know a thing or two about the situation, did not wait one second to ask the questions that demanded to be asked of the minister, questions about cyberbullying. When he announced the introduction of his bill just last week, the minister said that everything related to cyberbullying and that there were no surprises in that regard.

Whether this is seen as a poison pill or not, the questions make it clear that this bill touches on some complicated concepts, especially from clause 8 on.

The Minister of Justice is right to say that the most serious irritants in Bill C-30 are not in the current bill. Yes, this will require warrants. However, we must still ask ourselves some serious questions about what kind of warrant will be needed and what evidence will be necessary to obtain it. Some are even saying that this lowers the threshold. Instead of talking about reasonable and probable grounds to believe something, the bill talks about suspicion. They are introducing different terms.

I think that the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill. I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect carefully. We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill. I hope that we will not be criticized or accused of supporting cyberbullies or anything like that, simply because we are doing our jobs. There are some serious questions and we do not have any definite answers to some of them today. For example, did the minister make sure that this bill is in line with the charter, since this is one of his duties?

I hope he will be referring to studies when he speaks about the bill before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope he will tell us that, indeed, he and the people in his department tested the constitutionality and compliance of his bill under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in terms of privacy and the interception of personal information.

I heard my colleague from Charlottetown ask a question about an issue that is worrying some experts, and that is the warrant for voluntary disclosure of information. In his reply, the minister stressed that this was on condition that no legal prohibition existed against preserving or communicating this information. This type of provision is greatly disturbing. This is not as simple as making a request and getting a positive answer on the spot. There are some rules, but they may not be sufficient in terms of protecting privacy.

Ultimately, we are all trying to create a safe environment for our children and youth. However, in doing so, we must be careful not to create legislative monsters that allow some to slip through our fingers while ensnaring others who should have nothing to fear in a free and democratic society. On this side of the House, we have always been concerned about that.

Obviously, my heart bleeds for the parents who have gone through such terrible situations. Is there anything worse than having a child commit suicide? I cannot imagine the hell that families must go through in those circumstances.

I will tell a story that I told my colleagues this morning, as I was discussing my recommendation on Bill C-13. On the day Bill C-13 was introduced, I ran into one of my colleagues opposite in the elevator in Parliament. He was with some people who had came to see this historic tabling. This was important to them because it had to do with something they had gone through. When I was introduced as the justice critic for the NDP, Mrs. Todd looked at me and said she hoped we would support the bill.

I am always happy to support good legislation. However, sometimes my heart bleeds when I have to tell my colleagues that I cannot, in good conscience, support a bill. I often give it a chance, because I always have hope.

This is the message I have for the Minister of Justice. We must be allowed to conduct a thorough study.

I presume that the minister truly believes in what he is doing today and that he wants to help victims, parents, children, young people and adults, because adults can also be caught up in this situation.

I hope that he truly believes in what he is doing today and that the other provisions are well-founded. I hope that he has had the opportunity to study them extensively. However, the other members of the House have not had the opportunity to do so, because we were told by his predecessor that he would not bring back these kinds of provisions. Consequently, I hope he will not be surprised if we have some minor questions about this. We definitely will have some.

A number of legal organizations are asking questions. In fact, we have to compare the provisions. We have to understand what they mean. The wording used with respect to obtaining a warrant has changed. The bill says “suspect” instead of “reasonable and probable grounds to believe”. The legislator does not talk for nothing and, therefore, this must mean something.

It is not unusual to want to carefully analyze these types of provisions. The bill is very important for Canadians of all ages and races who are interested in the serious problem of cyberbullying. It is definitely a priority for all parliamentarians in the House. We will definitely not reject it out of hand at the outset.

However, I would like to say something to the families, both the Todd family and Rehtaeh Parsons' family.

I read Mrs. Todd's blog, and I was extremely moved. She asked the following question:

“Could the Cyberbullying Bill Have Saved Amanda?” She says yes.

The fact that a parent said that and is investing so much hope in a bill should strike a chord with all members.

That being said, we cannot abdicate our duty as legislators to exercise due diligence.

Today, I am urging the Minister of Justice to tell his colleagues who belong to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to take as much time as they need to study this bill, which is about a very important, very human issue that affects too many people. We have to stop thinking that this is a race against time, because it is not.

Obviously, we need solid, unassailable provisions that will eliminate this scourge, and we need them soon. However, they have to come with other provisions that are equally solid from a legal standpoint, and they have to be in line with existing laws so that, in a year or two, they will not be swept aside.

Families believe in the work we are doing. They have so much hope. We have to take the time we need to do a good job. We have to hear from experts on cybercrime and cyberbullying, on the Internet and on privacy law. We have to hear from all of those people so that we can evaluate this bill.

There are much easier ways though. I took note of what my colleague from Charlottetown said earlier when he asked the Minister of Justice a question. He asked him whether there might be a way to study the bill from two perspectives. First of all, it would have to be evaluated more quickly. I think that members of the House already support the cyberbullying and distribution of intimate images provisions in the bill.

That is why there might be a way, if everyone in the House agrees, to split the bill in two without changing or amending any of the clauses. I am not even suggesting any amendments, simply because that work will be done in committee.

Of course we want to do this work in committee. However, we want to work both on cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images, and on the other aspect, which is the powers to be granted to police officers.

I was reading the submission of an association of criminal experts, which indicates that some provisions are cause for concern. One has to wonder what the government means by “some provisions”.

In light of this, I would like to remind the Conservatives that they have to take these concerns into account. It is important to remember what happened with Bill C-30. After an absolutely unbelievable campaign of a sort rarely seen in the House, the Conservative government backtracked, which is not something that happens very often. The Conservatives have a tendency to always push forward, even if they are hitting a brick wall. They do not often make a strategic retreat to show that they heard what the public had to say. However, that is what happened in the case of Bill C-30.

The Conservatives backtracked because Canadians felt that Bill C-30 violated their privacy and gave some people unrestricted tools. Those people may have good intentions, but once again, the devil is in the details. This made the minister backtrack, which is a good thing.

We do not want to go through all that again with Bill C-13. I will not say that Bill C-30 caused mass hysteria, because that is not true. However, people were extremely concerned, and it made us wonder exactly what the government was trying to achieve. We are asking ourselves the same thing in this case, where people expect a bill on cyberbullying and the distribution of images.

Yes, the ministers of justice and public safety from across the country examined these issues and talked about how this sort of evidence could be collected; however, they did not come up with a plan as detailed as the one set out in Bill C-13.

On one hand, there are the parents of victims who want something positive to come out of all this, and rightly so. On the other hand, there are also privacy guardians.

I do not think there is anyone in the House, including the Conservatives, who does not think this is important. They obviously talk about it less on their side, but I think that they also believe this is very important. I have never heard anyone on the Conservative side say that they do not believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the right to a personal life, to a private life, to their own image, to do what they want in their own home.

There is an extremely simple way to address all of these serious concerns about Bill C-13. We would simply have to divide Bill C-13, and I would like to move that we do so.

I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 2 to 7 and 27 related to cyberbullying, be removed from 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, and do compose Bill C-15; that Bill C-15 be entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (non-consensual making or distributing of intimate images)"; that Bill C-15 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-13 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this Order; that Bill C-13 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

This would make it possible to pass Bill C-15 quickly. Then, we could more carefully study Bill C-13 as amended.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I took careful note of his fervent hope that the House will unite to support his bill. I took careful note, but I have some concerns.

Three-quarters of his speech focused on the very serious problem of cyberbullying, particularly the distribution of intimate images, which led to Bill C-13. My colleague introduced this bill in the House previously as Bill C-540.

I am concerned because most of his speech focused on exactly seven provisions or only five pages of the bill, whereas pages 6 to 53, which include clauses 8 to 47, focus more on the tools given to police officers.

The minister must know that, since his bill was introduced, experts and knowledgeable people in the field, including the Privacy Commissioner, have expressed concerns about these aspects of the bill.

Why did he make things so complicated when he could have quickly obtained unanimous consent on the more specific part of the bill that he spoke so much about in his speech, the part about cyberbullying and the distribution of intimate images?

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

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the House, for time to discuss this important bill at second reading, Bill C-13, protecting Canadians from online crime.

This is very important legislation, but it is well-recognized that it will require a holistic approach when it comes to the subject of cyberbullying. It will require efforts within the education system. It will certainly require very direct and mature discussions with young people and others in the country when it comes to the awareness and understanding of the effects of bullying and cyberbullying.

I want to indicate immediately that all elements of this bill to assist police with investigations online require a warrant. I emphasize that judicial authorization is deeply entrenched in Bill C-13. The bill and the government's long-standing commitment to help keep our streets and communities safe is very much in keeping with efforts of judicial oversight and focusing on all programs and all instances of having young people come to understand the terrible phenomenon of online bullying and its far-reaching effects.

The bill is very timely and significant legislation. As all would know, it is aimed at improving the safety of Canadians, not only in their homes and neighbourhoods but also online, where so many spend an incredible amount of time. All of the sections of the bill deal with electronic communications. This is our generation's preferred mode of correspondence. We now have to bring some of the elements of investigation also into the 21st century when it comes to electronic communications.

The necessity for security with respect to online activities is becoming more apparent as our use of social media and other technologies continue to grow. Consider that, according to StatsCan, in 2010 roughly 80% of Canadian households had access to the Internet. Maclean's magazine reports that more than 19 million Canadians, more than half the population, are now users of Facebook.

In the 1990s, there were hundreds of websites. Now the numbers have swelled to billions. These numbers will only continue to increase and the technology involved will become more sophisticated, making it even more essential to develop a legal framework that will support the online safety of Canadians and will give our security forces commensurate tools to ensure safety

Bill C-13 is comprised of two related but distinct parts. The first addresses the particularly vile and invasive form of cyberbullying involving the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The second aims to ensure that the Criminal Code and other federal legislation is keeping pace with technological changes. Both involve electronic communications and improving public safety. I am delighted that I am joined by my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, for this debate.

The bill proposes updates to offences and to the powers of police to investigate crimes committed using electronic networks or that use electronic evidence.

I would like to address both of these parts in turn, beginning with the key elements of the bill that address cyberbullying.

We are all aware of the issues of bullying and cyberbullying and how they have become priorities for many governments around the world. Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet to perpetrate what is commonly known as bullying, but it is of particular interest and concern of late. This interest is due in no small part to the number of teen suicides over the past few years in which cyberbullying was alleged to have played a part.

We have heard of cases involving Rehtaeh Parsons in my province of Nova Scotia, Amanda Todd on the west coast, a young man named Todd Loik in Saskatchewan recently, and countless others. It is clearly a case of the worst form of harassment, intimidation and humiliation of young people, which resulted in a feeling of hopelessness, that there was no other way out, and they took their lives.

Having met with the parents of many of these young people and spoken to many young people within my own circle of friends and family, it becomes clear that there is a clarion call for Parliament and for our criminal justice system to respond. This is truly an issue in which I would hope the House would come together around our efforts to improve things. As I said, it goes well beyond this legislation and this Hill. It will require a very fulsome discussion of the implications and the understanding of what it means to post images and to use the Internet for the purposes of harassing another individual.

There appears to be a greater need and profound understanding of the impact that this form of bullying has on young people and its pervasiveness in the schools.

Online bullying increases the speed and the scope in which statements and images can be made and shared with many others, as we know. Once something is posted online, it is very difficult to control its further use or dissemination. Most times, it is from a cowardly, anonymous, malicious individual, whose identity is very hard to track.

Cyberbullying victims also report that is it very difficult to retreat or escape from the cyberbullying activity. It is pervasive in the way in which telecommunications play such an important part in young people's lives these days.

Canadians want to know what we can do to deal with cyberbullying. Questions have been raised about whether the Criminal Code deals adequately with this type of behaviour and recent technological advances.

Currently, the Criminal Code can in fact address most of the serious forms of cyberbullying through, for example, existing offences of criminal harassment per section 264, uttering threats per section 264.1 or identity fraud, found in section 403. However, there is no offence in the Criminal Code that specifically addresses the contemptible form of cyberbullying that has emerged, involving the distribution of sexual images without the consent of the person depicted in that image.

Addressing this gap in the Criminal Code is one of the goals of Bill C-13. The bill proposes a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Essentially, this offence would prohibit the sharing of sexual or nude images without the consent of the person depicted.

It may be useful to better understand how this behaviour typically comes about. It usually begins, in some sense, with a non-criminal context of perfectly lawful, consensual recording of intimate images in a private setting. I specifically set aside any images depicting an underage youth. These images may be subsequently transmitted electronically to a partner, a practice commonly known as “sexting”. Upon the breakdown of the relationship, however, one of the known partners may distribute these images to third parties without the consent of the person depicted in the image. It is now commonly known as “revenge porn”.

It is important to note that this offence is not intended to criminalize sexting when it is done with consent. Rather it is the unauthorized, non-consensual distribution of these images that is targeted in this new offence.

I would like to take a moment to fully describe the specific aspects of the proposed offence.

The proposed new offence will prohibit all manner of distributing, sharing or making available of an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted in that image. This is intended to capture all the ways in which intimate images are shared, including posting an image on a website, sharing via social media, email or in person, but will not capture the consensual recording or the private use of these images.

The main element of the offence is that the sharing of the distribution would be done without the consent of the person depicted. The accused would not have to know that the person depicted in the image did not consent to the distribution or be reckless as to whether or not the person depicted consented to the distribution.

Bill C-13 also contains a three part definition of intimate images to help guide the courts in determining whether or not a particular image would be subject to the offence. There is clarity there in the determination and specific wording of what classifies as an intimate image. The definition is similar to those found in existing voyeurism and child pornography offences.

Second, the image must be one which, at the time it was taken, was done in circumstances that gave rise to the reasonable expectation of privacy. This would ensure that the offence did not capture the distribution of images in which the person depicted could not have easily have asserted privacy interests. For example, it may be difficult for people to assert a privacy interest if, in fact, the photo were taken while they were publicly displaying nudity. If they walked down the street without clothes and someone took a picture, there would be no expectation of privacy.

Third, at the time of the offence, the image must be one in which respect the person depicted retains a privacy interest. In other words, if someone posted a nude picture on a website and someone else then subsequently shared the image, it would be unlikely that the person would retain an expectation of privacy.

In addition, the bill contains a number of amendments that would complement this proposed new offence. I stress again that judges must look at these facts and interpret how the law would apply in the collection of evidence and in determining whether a warrant was warranted.

As a means of prevention, the courts would be able to authorize and order a peace bond against a person who had intimate images in his or her possession, where there were reasonable grounds to fear that the person could then play into a new offence. That is, the person could post the offence or share those images.

As part of the sentence for the new offence, the court would be permitted to make a prohibition order, which would limit access by a convicted offender to the Internet or other digital networks unless the access was exercised in accordance with conditions set out by the court. There would be a very specific penalty that could attach with respect to limiting use to go back online.

The court would also be authorized to order non-consensual posted images removed from the Internet. The existing provision allows the court to order the removal of child pornography and voyeuristic recordings. That would be amended to include intimate images. I stress here that we have already made a number of Criminal Code amendments and have brought forward legislation requiring Internet service providers, for example, to report these images when they appear online.

Additionally, the court could be authorized to order any tools used in the commission of the proposed offence, such as cell phones or computers, to be forfeited to the Crown. This is in keeping with other criminal acts we have seen, where vehicles and tools used in the commission of an offence can be seized by the Crown.

At the end of the process, the court would also be authorized to order the convicted offender to pay restitution to permit the victim to recoup expenses incurred to secure the removal from the Internet of these non-consensually posted intimate images.

Finally, the Canada Evidence Act would also be amended to ensure that the spouse of a person accused of distributing intimate images could be eligible to testify for the Crown. That is, spousal immunity would be waived. We have done this, as well, in sections pertaining to protecting children.

The bill also proposes updating existing offences that are relevant to cyberbullying. For example, the offence of false messages and harassing phone calls, in section 372, refers to behaviour conducted by letter or telegram, among other methods, but does not include more modern methods, as though the Internet or smart phones do not exist.

I point out that many of the sections we are trying to update were enacted during the time of rotary dial phones and telegrams, well in advance of the arrival of the Internet. We are modernizing and bringing those sections into the 21st century. This offence is relevant and is an applicable offence in the cyberbullying context. However, as it is currently drafted, it would not apply to conduct committed via modern technology. The bill is all about updating offences to make sure that any prohibited conduct done through any form of telecommunication would be captured.

I also want to move on to the part of the bill that involves elements related to modernization of the Criminal Code and other federal legislation, some of which has caused some consternation. There has been some significant misinformation disseminated.

Specifically, the bill contains amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to ensure that our laws are suitable for the technologically advanced world in which we live. They are meant to modernize both offences and investigative powers to make the Criminal Code more responsive to current criminal behaviour, which, as we know, is becoming more and more sophisticated. Organized crime, in particular, and those who prey on children very often use the Internet as the means to carry out these nefarious acts.

There is a common thread in these amendments. They all have as their primary objective providing law enforcement agencies with the tools they need in the 21st century to continue to respect their roles as protectors of the public while at the same time respecting the civil liberties of Canadians. They all require judicial authorization to carry out their duties.

Let me begin by stressing that the purpose of the legislative and investigative power amendments is not to give extensive new authority to the state to intrude into the privacy of Canadians. On the contrary, the new powers in this bill are carefully and narrowly constructed to respond to the investigative challenges posed by the advances that have occurred in technology over the past few decades and also to maintain the privacy protections and expectations of Canadians.

Modernizing investigative tools is especially important in investigations into these proposed new offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images, which may be implicated in serious cases of cyberbullying. These updated tools would also, as they should, assist police in the investigation of all online crimes, and any crimes that involve digital evidence, such as fraud, the distribution of child pornography, and various forms of cyberattacks.

What are these amendments? First, Bill C-13 proposes to create a new data-preservation scheme. These tools would allow police to safeguard computer data while they apply to the court for a proper court order to acquire the data. Simply put, it is a do-not-delete order until such time as the police require the warrant.

Next, Bill C-13 proposes to update the existing judicially supervised production orders. These amendments would result in a comprehensive toolkit involving a general production order, which is comparable to a search warrant, and four specific production orders for information with little or no privacy impact. They would help police commence investigations.

The production orders could only be used to obtain historical information before the specific production orders contemplated by Bill C-13 would allow police to do the following: determine where individuals were or what they were doing at a specific moment in time, meaning tracking information; obtain transmission data, such as an email address the communication was sent to; trace the path of the telecommunication to determine the identity of a suspect; and, finally, collect basic financial information. It should be noted that police already have the ability to apply to the court for the same type of information in other areas.

This bill also proposes to modernize two existing judicial warrant powers: the tracking warrant and the number-recording warrant. These warrants are unique in that they allow police to collect this type of information in real time.

Finally, the bill also proposes some efficiencies with regard to wiretap applications. These amendments basically are a codification of the practices of many of our courts, but the amendments would ensure that Canadian courts, as in all jurisdictions, would use the same process. The proposed amendments would create a single application for all judicial warrants and orders related to the execution of the wiretap authorization. This new process would make it clear that the judge who issued the wiretap authorization could also issue all the other supporting warrants or orders without requiring a separate application. It is a streamlining process whereby the court would have a full picture of all the interventions.

I apologize for some of the minute detail, but it is important that we are again emphasizing here that judicial authorization would be required in all instances in aspects of this bill. Data preservation and the sophistication and proliferation of information are what we are trying to get at while, at the same time, balancing this with Canadians' reasonable expectations of privacy.

What is envisioned in this bill are not massive scoops of information, or mega-data, as it is sometimes called, as is the case in other jurisdictions in European countries. This bill would not ask Internet service providers to collect anyone's information and keep it indefinitely. Like other warrants, these would be for a set, specified period of time. As I mentioned, this could be done as of a do-not-delete order for a period of up to 21 days, or in cases of foreign preservation information, up to 90 days. However, again, judicial authorization would be required.

The power, I suggest, would facilitate the investigation of offences where much of the evidence is in an electronic form and would be used, as I said, to go after the non-consensual distribution of intimate images in an era when crucial evidence can be deleted, sometimes even inadvertently, in the blink of an eye.

As I mentioned earlier, in addition to proposing new investigative powers, the bill would modernize existing powers, bringing into the 21st century what the police are trying to do and protecting our communities.

I would note that this is a bill that has tremendous support from the provinces. We have had the Privacy Commissioner consulted on aspects of this bill. We look forward to further debate throughout this process as we move forward on what I believe is an important step to protect Canadians and protect information and at the same time respect the fact that this is the new way of communicating among Canadians and around the world.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I can attest that I and our government find it regrettable, to say the very least, that we hear comments such as this from the House leader of the official opposition when, in fact, the opposition members themselves are delaying important pieces of legislation through the continuance of filibustering and delaying tactics here in the House and at committee.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you and the opposition House leader that we will continue debating the NDP's regrettable amendment to block second reading of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. However, if the opposition members finally allow some progress on that critical file, we will turn to Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at second reading.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act.

Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act. After question period, we will return to Bill C-12.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

That debate will continue on Thursday, but if we cannot finish Bill C-2 today, we will make time for that debate on Thursday morning.

Tuesday, November 26, as the government House leader announced earlier in the week, will be the fourth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated.

During the constituency week, the member for Papineau certainly put forward a number of unusual ideas, some of which, or maybe one of which, may be put forward as a motion for the Liberals' allotted day. Some of those unusual ideas include the member for Papineau, the leader of the third party, saying that he admired the dictatorship in Communist China. He also advocated to minors the legalization of drugs. Finally, the leader seemed to suggest that he is putting the interests of criminals ahead of those of their victims by reducing sentences for serious crimes.

We find that reprehensible, but we have yet to see how the Liberals will approach those very important issues, in the eyes of the Liberals, come their allotted day next Tuesday.

Cyberbullying

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators. Yesterday we delivered on our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from cyberbullying by introducing the protecting Canadians from online crime act.

Cyberbullying goes far beyond average schoolyard bullying and, in many cases, crosses the line into criminal activity. Our legislation would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It would empower the courts to remove intimate images from the Internet and give them the power to order the seizure of computers, cellphones, and other devices used to commit the offence.

As we have seen far too often, cyberbullying destroys the lives of children. It clearly demands a stronger criminal justice response. That is what this legislation would provide. I ask all members of the House to stand up, protect the children of this nation, and support this legislation.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)