Justice Committee on May 29th, 2014

Evidence of meeting #27 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was metadata.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

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

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lianna McDonald Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection

Signy Arnason Associate Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection

Monique St. Germain General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection

Sue O'Sullivan Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime

Michael Geist Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

James L. Turk Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers

12:55 p.m.

Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

The issue that I think a lot of people have raised is both in the context of the bill and also in the context of the revelation of there being over a million requests for this information. So while Mr. Turk has asked whether people are phishing and stuff like that, I'm not accusing people of phishing, but I know there are requests for 750,000 user accounts to be disclosed on an annual basis. That's a whole lot of people's information that's being disclosed—

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

And it's not unreasonable—

12:55 p.m.

Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Dr. Michael Geist

—and all the providers, every single one, said that they did not notify those disclosures to the underlying customer.

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

And it wouldn't be unreasonable to notify these people, “Listen, your information has been provided”. That's one question I had.

The other one that we didn't have time to touch on with you guys and I think is important is the

definition of the terms “peace officer” and “public officer”. The definition of “public officer” is provided a few paragraphs above the proposed clause 487.012. As for the term “peace officer”, it is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, but the fact that the definition is very long worries me a little.

Do you think legislators should narrow the definition that determines who has the power to do what is set out in these provisions?

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Mr. Geist, my suggestion is that you provide through the clerk your answer to that particular question on the definition of a peace officer. Thank you very much.

I want to thank our panellists for coming.

Just so you know, we have one more week, next Tuesday and Thursday, of witnesses on this particular topic, on this bill. Then for the week after, the Tuesday and Thursday, the plan is to be going clause by clause, with any anticipated amendments. If you have any suggestions for our colleagues on either side of the House for amendments you'd like to see, please pass those along and we'll be dealing with them.

Thank you very much for this excellent panel, and I do apologize for the disruption with the vote.

With that, we are adjourned.