Ms. Kane.
Evidence of meeting #30 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pornography.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #30 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pornography.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Catherine Kane Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
To respond to Mr. Lee's concern, we have, as Mr. Dechert said, looked at the proposed wording and would suggest that perhaps the intent can be accomplished in a slightly different way.
The proposed motion adds the word “service” at the end, which would seem to just modify the term “electronic mail”. And if we were to propose wording that said “'Internet service' means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail”, it would cover all three as services. “A service means a service”--it seems a bit redundant, but it is clear, and it is consistent with the French.
We would suggest that would be an appropriate way to meet your objective in a manner that is appropriate drafting.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Chairman, I would accept that proposal coming from the Department of Justice if the wording is clear on the record.
Is there a draft of that?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unfortunately I don't have it in writing, but I can read it slowly, with your permission.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Okay.
So the proposed wording for the motion would be that Bill C-22, in clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following:
“Internet service” means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail.
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes.
“Internet service” means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right, Mr. Lee, I'll just repeat that once more, and you'd be withdrawing yours and replacing it with this one. I believe that's a proper process.
It would read, again, that Bill C-22, in clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 1 and 2 on page 2 with the following:
“Internet service” means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail.
Is that acceptable to you?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Do we have to put the words “Internet service” in quotation marks?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Oui.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
To be certain we are talking about the same definition.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Just for the record, the words “Internet service” would be in quotation marks.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Parfait.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5—Preservation of computer data)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Moving on to clause 5, we have an amendment, Liberal-3.
Mr. Murphy, you would like to introduce that amendment?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Very simply, it changes or moves forward the number of days that computer data shall be preserved from 21 to 30 days. And in making that I'll say this: the longer the better was my thought.
The answer from the officials—and I'll give them an opportunity to flesh out their answer to the committee—was that it was consistent with other timelines elsewhere. This is a way of maybe tweaking a further response from the government or the Department of Justice as to why 21 days was picked and why isn't 30 days better, which is what we believe.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I will begin the response, and my colleagues may provide additional information.
With respect to the motion, as you know, the 21-day period was also the period of time that was reflected in former Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, introduced in the last Parliament. As our minister has indicated, the intention of the government would be to reintroduce, dealing with investigatory powers for police and so on. The consistency with the 21-day period was with respect to that period as well.
The other thing that we would note is that your motion proposes to change the 21-day period in subclause 5(1), but there is no similar proposal to change that 21-day period in subclause 5(2). That would need to be--
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If there is going to be any change in the date, that would need to be looked at, but in our opinion, the 21-day period is an appropriate length of time. Mr. Wong can comment on what needs to be done or not done in that 21-day period.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I'd like to do the 21 days in subclause 5(2) as well, but there's not much meat on that, so I hope there's more.