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.
