Right. This is quite different from Bill C-2.
I'm going to talk about Bill C-2 because it was born of Bill C-12. I just saw something about the Liberal secretary of state for crime reduction, who asked why the Conservatives aren't voting in favour of parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2. She said the Toronto Police Association want this. I found that very interesting because the Toronto Police Association also asked for the swift passage of MP Khanna's bill, and the secretary voted against it. It never ceases to amaze me how short some people's memories are when it comes to what they voted against, and now they're saying, “Please vote for it.”
The reason I reference that is that Bill C-2, particularly in parts 14 and 15, grants substantial powers of search for something like intellectual property that's stored with Facebook or Meta, and things like that. This is often called the lawful access regime. I don't think we should make any mistake about it. Lawful access is something we can all look at.
The Bykovets decision, for instance, was a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that said there is an “expectation of privacy” in an IP address. I'm not an expert at all on IP addresses. If somebody tells me how to find an IP address, I might be able to find it. They would have to tell me or I'd have to look up how to do it. It would probably take me about as long as it would to figure out the serial number on my phone. I'm told that finding an IP address is similar to opening up a phone book. Anybody who knows what they're doing can look at it and figure out your IP address. It's very similar.
In the Bykovets case, the Supreme Court of Canada said you have an expectation of privacy in your IP address. That added another step to law enforcement's steps of investigation.
The way it typically works for Internet offences—let's take an Internet offence against a child—is the provider flags something as potentially breaching the Criminal Code. Let's say it's child sexual abuse material. It sends that to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in Washington, D.C. If it's Canadian, it sends that to the RCMP, identifying the IP address, and then the preliminary work is done to determine whose IP address it is. It can usually be done very quickly if it's just a matter of figuring that out, but this decision in Bykovets says you need a production order to obtain it. That means judicial authorization to say who owns this, even though it's super easy to find.
Once you get that, you would seek a warrant to determine whether you can enter the house and whether a crime has been committed and there's evidence of that crime to be found within that dwelling. It's interesting that this looks at ensuring that there is proper lawful access, if you will, by way of warrant, yet Bill C-2 was plagued by warrantless searches and the Liberals are still demanding that we pass Bill C-2.
When I look at an amendment like this, which seems fairly sensible to me, and I juxtapose it with lawful access—like in the Bykovets decision, which I think we need to address as a Parliament—and going much further than that in parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2, I have very real questions about whether parts 14 and 15 in Bill C-2 are constitutional. We've seen a number of commentators who have talked about parts 14 and 15.
Can I just clarify if I'm speaking too fast for the translators?