House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I served in the RCMP for the better part of 18 years and was stationed throughout Saskatchewan. As technology evolves, so do policing techniques and investigations.

When I first started in the RCMP, we did not have the technology of computers as we do today. As technology has evolved, I have seen a different type of bullying coming across policemen's desks. At first, we would get a phone call from a mother or father who would be upset over bullying. They would call because their child had been assaulted or bullied on the school grounds.

The unfortunate part is that what I have had to investigate today is cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is basically text messaging or other forms of verbal abuse toward another student or individual. It could be by a group of people bullying one child. Many times that one child has no avenue. I have seen action being taken by the schools, and they are helpless without having this bill passed, to battle cyberbullying. This legislation is needed and we need to get it through to help protect the future generations of Canadians.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Vancouver Island North B.C.

Conservative

John Duncan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I know that was the first 20-minute speech that he has made in the House of Commons, and he made it a memorable one for multiple reasons. I think it was one of the longest 20-minute speeches in the history of the House because of technical difficulties.

Given the member's police background, I would like to ask him a question that I think the public would be vitally interested in. If this bill were to become law, would the police be able to monitor everyone's Internet activity, email content or cell phone use? It is a very simple question.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, how will my privacy be protected? The Government of Canada is strongly committed to maintaining the rule of law in all of the legislation.

None of the lawful access tools, production orders, preservation orders, interception orders and search warrants can be obtained in the absence of lawful authority. A person's reasonable expectation of privacy will continue to guide how the federal legislation will be updated.

In addition, the government will ensure that such authority will continue to be exercised, bearing in mind that privacy and human rights laws such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act must be adhered to.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also applaud my colleague for his first 20-minute speech and for doing so well under those circumstances.

My question comes out of the experience I have had on the privacy and ethics committee. My understanding of this is that there is a careful balance we have to take between having lawful access to communications and protecting one's privacy.

I heard something in the speech about a lawful access initiative, and I was wondering if the member could just expound on that a little more and give us comfort that this act gives the appropriate powers for monitoring, but at the same time protects our privacy.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, what is proposed in this new legislation?

The proposed legislation will update certain existing Criminal Code offences and investigative powers, as well as create new powers to meet the demands of today's computer and telecommunications environment.

The proposed legislation will, among other things, update current Criminal Code provisions to allow police to obtain transmission data, also referred to as traffic data, that is received and sent via the telephone or the Internet and will require the telecommunications service providers to preserve, for a certain period of time, data related to those communications or to a subscriber if that information is needed in the investigation of an offence.

Under the legislation, it would also be an offence for two or more persons to agree to arrange or commit an offence against a child by means of telecommunications.

One thing I saw in my policing career was Internet luring, and this is totally unacceptable. During my police tenure, I at times saw how a family was divided and torn apart because their child who had been playing on the computer had formed a conversation with an unknown offender. That offender tried to lure that child out of his or her home to meet in a neighbouring community, or in that community itself. That is why this legislation is very important to help protect our young children and also to protect our communities.

Our mandate was for safer homes and safer communities, and I feel that this legislation will come forward and will protect all Canadians as a whole.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by this discussion because all Canadians are implicated in it in some sense because we are all living in a digital realm. All our kids are on the Internet. We recognize the need to make sure that police have the tools they need.

The member says that provisions will be in place to ensure that the normal rule of law, in terms of warrants and privacy, will exist, and yet there is a provision for telewarrants. In other words, if it is inconvenient to have a written warrant, it can be obtained verbally. I find that a very odd and possibly huge loophole to slide into the legislation.

I would ask the member to explain to me why it is that in this day and age, as hooked up as we are, we should have a provision so that if it is inconvenient to get a written warrant or to type anything or to send a fax, one simply needs to make a phone call and there will be access immediately. That seems to me to be a bit beyond what we would have under normal jurisprudence.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years getting search warrants manually. It takes days to do a proper and thorough investigation. I have been in circumstances where I requested a telewarrant through a normal phone line but it was declined because we could not get the necessary information. That becomes a Canadian problem. We cannot protect the community if we are declined a telewarrant.

I feel this legislation will come forward and will cover all the bases needed to address the safety of Canadians.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party to signal that we have done a fairly thorough review of Bill C-46 and will be supporting it at second reading to go to committee.

I do want to be clear, and I think it is obvious to anyone who peruses the bill, and it is a lengthy one, that it is a significant step forward in bringing a number of our procedures and much of our criminal law into the 21st century.

It has a number of short provisions in it. In the past we did not have technological terms that would allow us to lay charges or in some cases get warrants to pursue investigations simply because the term computer, for example, was not in the particular section of the code that was the subject of the investigation.

We have other changes, setting aside the technological ones, that are fairly short amendments, whereby we are again expanding the scope of a number of crimes to reflect the reality of cyber crime, crime that is based on the use of technological equipment.

It is very important that we make those changes and bring things up to date because we know of a number of investigations that have gone on and have failed and of a number of charges that have been laid and have failed simply because the terminology in the code was not up to modern-day standards.

From that perspective, it makes a lot of sense to have this. In fact this bill is quite overdue in terms of when it should have been on the law books of this country. Those amendments have been planned for some time.

I want to say that there are some other relatively short amendments, and I want to note one in particular that is to clause 6. This is the section of the code that deals with hate propaganda and hate literature, and we are including an additional group in the identifiable group that would be the subject of an attack based on certain criteria. Right now the wording mentions colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We are adding to that list “national or ethnic origin”, because there have been a couple of cases in which that was the motivation for the attack by the hate-mongers and we could not charge them because the group in question did not fit within the definition of identifiable group.

That is a significant update, a significant change. It will allow us to catch people who publish and disseminate that kind of literature and that kind of hatred. That is an improvement. We have several more like that.

I want to make a few comments about some of the reservations. We heard one of them in the last questions from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. There are provisions for amendments to the Competition Act more specifically than to the code, which will allow for telewarrants, so the police officer or the prosecutor would not actually physically stand in the presence of a judge. They would obtain a warrant through some form of telecommunication.

In terms of the design, it appears they would do that in the normal way. They would prepare written material, submit it to the proper judicial officer, and if so justified, they would receive the warrant. They could do it by fax, a combination of telephone and fax, or by computers, over the Internet.

There is a third way that is of concern, and it was raised by my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay. There are provisions in here whereby one will be able to seek a warrant through a telecommunication mechanism without putting anything in writing. I have to say that does cause me some concern. The test for that is that one can seek it where it is impractical to submit a request in writing.

I am concerned about that because it potentially could be open to abuse where people argue. As we heard from the last speaker, it sometimes takes a long time to get a warrant but that is the way our system works and it has worked quite well in terms of ensuring that the judicial officer has in his or her possession sufficient information to allow for the incursion into usually private residences, commercial establishments and now, more commonly, computers and that whole world.

We need to be very careful that we do give our judicial officers sufficient information. I must say that it is somewhat hard to imagine, on a consistent basis, being able to do that without submitting a reasonable amount of written text to the judicial officer. Again, it does not need to be by fax. It can be over the Internet. However, it can simply be speaking to a judicial officer over the phone and recounting the reasons why a warrant is needed and why it is impractical.

Another concern I have about the section is that it is not clear as to who determines the impracticality. We do not know whether it is the police officer or the prosecutor seeking it, and if it is the judicial officer, what do those officers need to do to establish that there is no criteria as to what impracticality means? I think that again is open to some potential abuse.

When I first started practising law, we did not have the provisions in the law to obtain warrants for wiretapping. It was just blank. In fact, I was involved early in my career with a couple of cases where we actually challenged the police forces who we believed were conducting illegal wiretaps. It was shortly after that that the legislation came into play.

However, I remember the debates that went on in this House at that time and, more generally, in legal circles, where we were debating what criteria had to be met for those kinds of warrants. When I look at the debate that went on at that time and the ultimate criteria that we put into play as to what we had to meet in order to get those kinds of warrants, I have not heard that debate today in the House, and I do not see the criteria in the legislation.

That is an area of concern for us and when it gets to committee we will be investigating that more thoroughly to see if there are ways we can, not only accommodate this type of amendment, but also provide some guidelines for our judiciary as to when they would allow for a warrant to be issued, in effect, over the telephone, without anything in writing in front of them.

It is really important, with the exchange that now goes on where the prosecutor and oftentimes the police officer appear in front of a judge or a justice of the peace to get a warrant, that the exchange that goes on of a personal nature is fairly crucial for the judge to make his or her decision, and that is much more difficult over a telephone.

The other major concern is the bill would, in two areas, place additional pressure on people who provide computer services, service providers, in that we would have two provisions for requirements to produce material and, coupled with that, requirements for the computer service operators to preserve material.

I have seen some commentary in the public media from service providers who are concerned about heir ability to do that. This would not be a problem for large service providers, the large companies, but it may very well be for the small ones. Are we going to allow for a relatively comfortable period of phase-in where they need to add additional technology if they do not already have it? That still remains a question mark. Will it be, in some cases, just too expensive? Would this put people out of business by simply asking for a preservation order from them, which comes only from the police and then they go get the warrant for production?

As I have said, I have heard those concerns expressed. One of the ways to deal with this may be to allow for a phase-in period when they can get their computers and the new technology up to snuff to meet the requirements of this.

The final point I would make is the point raised by one of my other colleagues in a question, which was about our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police officers and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying, which is an issue that has already been raised today, 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, which is another reason for supporting this.

With those two reservations that we have been able to identify, we will be supporting the bill but we will be looking at ways of perhaps improving it in committee. In committee, we may also identify additional problems with it but we believe overall that this bill certainly takes us in the right direction with regard to those additional tools that our police officers need.

Sitting resumedInvestigative Powers for the 21st Century ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

When the House returns to this matter the member will have eight minutes remaining.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-52.

Members will know that this afternoon we have had some technical challenges here with the translation system and the sound system. It is functioning now and we will proceed with the votes.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #117

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-42.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #118

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, in May 2009, I asked a question about the auto industry. As the House will recall, this Reform-Conservative government was unable to defend the interests of Canadians during the massive upheaval of the auto industry. What the crisis needed was a coordinated response and this government dragged its feet in communicating with American officials to come up with a joint plan.

When he appeared before the Subcommittee on the Automotive Industry in Canada, the president of General Motors Canada confirmed that GM had committed all of its available worldwide assets, including its assets in Canada, as collateral for U.S. loans.

That left General Motors with few assets to secure the amounts loaned by the Government of Canada. The Conservative government was not—

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. It would appear that the translation from French to English is not working. We have had ongoing difficulties with the system this afternoon. Is there currently translation from English to French? Yes.

Is there an English translation if I speak in French? There is no translation? There is no translation into English?

For the final time, is there French to English translation? No?

Colleagues, as I said, we have had problems with translation this afternoon. It appears that the translation from French into English is not functioning. It would be my suggestion that we finish for the day and reschedule these adjournment questions at a later date.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to not push tonight's late show to the end of the list. My suggestion would be to do tonight's late show at the next available opportunity, which could be tomorrow.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The hon. member's point is well made. We will make all efforts to reschedule these at the earliest opportunity, which may indeed be tomorrow.

It being 7:10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)