Justice Committee on June 10th, 2014

[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).

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Ms. Boivin.

Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government does not support this amendment. In our view, there's no reason to unnecessarily limit the definition of peace officer to those listed in paragraph c.

In doing so, it would mean that military police, customs officers, fisheries officers, and a number of other peace officers, who currently enforce other acts, would no longer have these tools available to them. Part of our intention here is to update the Criminal Code to the digital age and to give all of our peace officers, who have to properly enforce the criminal laws of Canada, the same tools. It would be counterproductive to limit that definition. I would also point out that, although mayors are included in the definition of peace officer, it's always up to a judge to decide whether an application is appropriate, or whether he or she will issue the order in the circumstances.

On that basis, Mr. Chair, the government will not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I think Mr. Dechert just made my point on why we should have divided the bill. Honestly, it starts.... We haven't decided on the title of the bill, but when you see that its short title is actually the “protecting Canadians from online crime” act and it's mostly to create the infraction of distributing intimate images, the argument that I just heard is about fisheries and different aspects. I understand that we use the opportunity to modernize pretty much every tool under the sun, but that was the point. It's not necessarily how the bill was presented and what its objective was supposed to be. In the words of the mother of Amanda Todd, that's the danger of this whole bill, that it's distracting from the essential and central part of what we were supposed to do. Those are such good examples.

My amendment was to try to centre it a bit more toward what we were supposed to be doing, and honestly, if we want to change all the tools at the disposal of

of peace officers and public officers

for any type of legislation, that proves also the point of the Privacy Commissioner that we just heard.

We need to have a much more thorough and inclusive type of study, a study with the point of addressing cyberbullying, because it has been deemed the cyberbullying bill. Again, I'm hearing about fisheries and different types of things. That's what I find the biggest danger with this bill. I don't think we have, around the table, or even with the witnesses that we heard, any expertise on how things are done in all those other fields, because we were studying cyberbullying, which was in front of us. This is not what it's about. I find it's a bit sad that we don't at least focus, and if we want to do other modernizing, maybe we should send it to the right committee to do so and not through the justice committee on a cyberbullying bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Very briefly, Mr. Dechert....

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

Mr. Chair, I think Madam Boivin did point out in her comments that the title of the bill is “protecting Canadians from online crime”, not simply “cyberbullying”.

For example, with the military police, about Canadian Armed Forces personnel sending these kinds of images from their computers while on a mission overseas, the military police would need this power, not simply the Canadian domestic police forces. In a similar vein, customs officers investigating terrorism acts, which she also knows is part of the purpose of this bill, would limit them from having the same powers. As she can see, those are legitimate reasons for those officers to have these powers. In addition, we heard from many witnesses on this point and I think it has been thoroughly considered.

On that basis, again, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

I want to give notice to all committee members that we have about three minutes left in this time slot for today. Otherwise, I need a motion to extend, or we talk about something else, or we finish this on Thursday morning.

Madam Péclet.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Very briefly, then we can call it a day.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

To add to what Ms. Péclet just said, I would like to specify that, every time we asked that the bill be divided, the government—through the minister or committee members—responded that the cyberbullying issue could not be addressed without police officers being provided with the modern tools they needed. I do want to accept that reasoning, but the problem we are facing is more serious. By voting against our amendment, the government is showing that the rationale behind its refusal to split the bill does not hold water. The problem is not the provision of modern tools to police officers to enable them to fight cyberbullying, but rather the fact that all the powers of peace officers and public officers are being changed for the purpose of the legislation. That's important.

To my knowledge, this has not been considered in committee.

That's something that will hang over this government for years to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to take the vote on amendment NDP-5, and then we'll call it a day. We'll start on amendment NDP-6 on Thursday when we first get back at 11 o'clock.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It fails.

Thank you very much. It is now slightly after one o'clock—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Is there another word than “fail”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm sorry. It was defeated.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Defeated, I much prefer defeated.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Did not succeed...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll see you Thursday.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned for today.