Debates of Nov. 29th, 2013

(Return tabled)

Question No. 23

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

With regard to Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans who have exhausted all their redress options at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and pursue their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review of the decision: (a) how many veterans pursued their right to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (b) what is the total amount of money spent by all departments and agencies, including all costs associated with the work of the Department of Justice, for judicial reviews of VRAB decisions from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; (c) what is the average cost to the Crown and government for a judicial review case, including a breakdown of average costs including salaries, court transcription services, courier fees, witnesses, and other items; (d) what was the cost for each judicial review from 2006 to 2013 inclusive; and (e) what is the average amount of time it takes for a judicial review decision from start to finish?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 25

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

With regard to the Department of National Defence: between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012, how many investigations were initiated by the National Investigation Service (NIS), which the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) or the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS) ordered, directed, requested, enjoined, required, instructed, commanded charged, told or requisitioned the Provost Marshal or the Commanding Officer of the NIS to (i) conduct such an investigation and (ii) to report back or keep the Office of the CDS or the VCDS generally appraised of the conduct or outcome of the said investigation, and for each investigation, what was the date the NIS investigation was initiated, the rank of the Canadian Forces member being investigated, the general nature of the investigation and the date upon which the NIS investigation was concluded?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 26

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

With regard to Canadian Forces (CF) health issues: (a) how many CF members reported suffering from symptoms of Lyme disease for each of 2006-2012 inclusive; and (b) for each reported case, what is (i) the date of the suspected occurrence, (ii) the location of each occurrence, (iii) the rank of the injured CF member, (iv) whether the member was treated and returned to full duty?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 30

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

With regard to the 23,000 liters of highly enriched uranium (HEU) waste that will be transported from Chalk River to the United States: (a) will the government subject this plan to outside scrutiny to discuss the environmental and safety concerns; (b) how much highly enriched uranium waste is currently being stored at Chalk River; (c) how has the safety of the HEU waste been evaluated, including current and proposed waste management approaches; (d) what are the containers and transportation aspects; and (e) what is the government’s plan for the remainder of this HEU and the waste in the future?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 31

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

With regard to the government’s pledge to end the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to produce medical isotopes by 2016: (a) what is the progress of producing medical isotopes without HEU; (b) what is the cost and plan for decommissioning the National Research University reactor at Chalk River and what is the management plan for decommissioning wastes; (c) how much money will the government save through the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL); (d) does the government have a plan if it does not meet its 2016 pledge to stop using HEU to produce medical isotopes; (e) how will the government handle cost runs related to the short, medium and long term management of nuclear wastes?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 36

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

With regard to the closure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) library in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (N.L.): (a) what are the anticipated costs, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, of closing the library; (b) does the space that housed the library belong to the government, (i) if so, what are the plans for the space, (ii) if not, how long does the government plan to continue to rent the space and for what purpose; (c) how many total items were housed in the library, and of these (i) how many are digitized, (ii) how many are not digitized, (iii) how many will be transferred to the DFO library in Nova Scotia, (iv) how many will be given away, (v) how many are going to be destroyed; (d) what criteria were used in selecting which DFO libraries to close; (e) was there a consultation period preceding the decision to close, and if so, what were the results of the consultation; (f) how many people were employed at the library in each calendar year from fiscal year 2005 until the present, broken down by (i) part-time workers, (ii) full-time workers, (iii) contract workers; (g) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the library closure; (h) will employees be given the option to relocate to the Nova Scotia library; (i) what is the plan to ensure that all resources, physical and digital, remain available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, (i) how much does the government expect this process to cost, (ii) will any of these costs be downloaded to the library user, (iii) how will library users return physical items, (iv) who will pay for the return of items mentioned in sub-question (iii), (v) what is the expected individual cost per each physical item borrowed by people located in N.L., (vi) how is the individual cost calculated; (j) what is the plan to digitize items in cases of copyright conflict, and how much does the government expect this plan to cost; (k) what is the anticipated cost, both (i) broken down by individual expense, (ii) in total, to maintain the online portal “WAVES” system annually; (l) how many items are included in DFO’s collection of “grey material”, (i) how many of these will be digitized, (ii) what will happen to the balance of these materials; (m) what is the average elapsed time between the moment a request to make departmental publications available on WAVES is received, and the moment when the departmental publication is received; and (n) what is the anticipated time it will take for a physical item to be received in N.L. after being requested?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 37

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

With regard to the $65 million dollars provided to Veterans Affairs Canada’s funeral and burial program, managed by The Last Post Fund, over two years as indicated on page 254 of Budget 2013: (a) why did the government choose to provide $63 million in fiscal year 2013-2014 and only $2 million in fiscal year 2014-2015; (b) what happens to the balance of the $65 million if The Last Post Fund fails to spend the allotment corresponding to each fiscal year; (c) which organizations or stakeholders were consulted with regard to this specific funding measure; (d) how much was this program allotted in each year since 2005; (e) how much did this program spend in each year since 2005; and (f) how much does the government expect to spend in each of fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 43

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With respect to the Manolis L. shipwreck and subsequent oil leak in the Change Islands and all events and circumstances related to this incident, what are the details of all ministerial correspondence, letters, emails, internal recommendations, internal correspondence, internal action plans, briefing notes, or other written material pertaining to this incident?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

In order to support an empirical assessment of this bill on online crime, my speech will focus on identifying how the notions we are examining apply to the work of a criminal defence lawyer.

I want to emphasize the concept of empiricism, because the practice of criminal law is primarily something you learn on the job. Although there is theory associated with it, criminal law is primarily something that you learn on the job. In fact, that is one of the first things you learn, that criminal lawyers learn on the job. These are the principles that I applied and that were taught to me when I trained as a legal aid lawyer in Sept-Îles.

My speech will focus on those notions that pertain to common practice and the considerable latitude that judges and crown prosecutors have when it comes to judgments and sentencing. We will see that this has an effect and that this bill encompasses notions pertaining to the practice of criminal law.

I will also talk about the gradual rise in computer crime.

Cyberbullying already existed in 2005 or 2006, if I am not mistaken, when I started working as a legal aid lawyer. I think it was even called cyberbullying at the time. The term was already starting to be used and the phenomenon was growing.

It was highly specialized at one time. In one specific case, a young woman told me that her photo had been taken by a webcam and ended up on other computers and that people were blackmailing her. When I was defending this case before the crown attorneys, they told me that the people best equipped to investigate and act on this were in the RCMP computer crime unit. I would say that in 2006, this type of thing was systematically handed over to the RCMP, who were best equipped to deal with it.

Over the years, I noticed that many incidents were called cyberbullying. Incidents included complaints made in cyberspace and in chat rooms or in the media about people who were making threats on the Internet. Some cases had to do with child prostitution. These things happened more frequently over the years.

I also noted that the judge had the discretion to impose conditions of release, which made reference to the use of means of communication or, at least, means of connecting to the Internet.

In some cases, I even saw judges impose conditions of release on individuals charged with cybercrime or transmitting pornographic photographs involving minors. The conditions of release imposed on these individuals might include banning them from being in possession of a cellphone that could give them access to the Internet.

I mention this experience and practice on the ground to point out that the courts, the judges and the crown attorneys were already introducing ways to limit the use of the Internet for unsavoury purposes.

This specific bill codifies practices that were already being used, depending on the judicial district, since practices can differ from one district to another. These practices were already being used by a number of legal practitioners and judges provincially and nationally too, I am sure.

New offences are being created because we have been seeing new types of crimes against the person as a result of the rise of social media. As I said, those crimes have gradually become more frequent with the increasing popularity of Facebook and other social media.

Legislation is adaptable and that, in combination with public opinion, has allowed for the development of a wide variety of sanctions and limitations designed to reduce the range of virtual threats to an individual's moral integrity.

When I say virtual threats, I am talking about online threats, or cyberbullying, not hypothetical threats.

It is important to understand that cyberbullying is a crime against the person. If you physically hurt someone by breaking his nose, you can be charged with assault and bodily harm. It is a crime against the person. In my opinion, cyberbullying also fits into that category because it is a question of a person's moral and psychological integrity. That is my point.

The media has paid close attention to certain issues in recent years. That is why we are here in the House today, to talk about cybercrime and how it is getting worse, and about cyberbullying.

I want to talk about adjusting orders in order to respond to new illegal practices such as cyberbullying. We have seen people use the Internet for good and for evil.

The issues I used to work on were usually related to death threats targeting specific ethnic groups. Orders and parole conditions have been developed over the years.

Given that practising criminal law requires ongoing exchanges with crown prosecutors, quite often, judges and crown prosecutors develop their own code of practice. That is how relatively flexible sanctions and measures have come to be imposed.

I will repeat an example from earlier. When it comes to conditions of release at the bail hearing stage, when a client decides to exercise his right to a bail hearing and wants to be released, the judge can always issue personalized conditions of release that do not appear in other cases.

These conditions can limit an individual's access to cyberspace if he has shown certain kinds of deviant behaviour, even if it is a question of charges only and the individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Any time there are allegations of inappropriate use of cyberspace, the judge usually limits the person's ability to use the Internet. I believe that is entirely commendable, although that is another debate. If we were to look at the advantages and disadvantages, one could raise arguments related to human rights and individual freedoms set out in the Canadian charter.

However, based on my rather informed opinion as a lawyer regarding the advantages and disadvantages, there is a very good chance that a court would stipulate that the rights and integrity of the victim are much more important than an individual's access to cyberspace. This will be debated by lawyers in due course.

Based on the evolving nature of measures aimed at restricting access to cyberspace, special attention must be paid to the clauses of the bill before us that have to do with preservation or production orders, in order to ensure respect for charter principles regarding privacy. That is what I was saying.

There are even some groups advocating for unrestricted Internet access who will challenge the measures proposed in the bill. However, I believe that if you weigh the pros and cons, there is a good chance that a court would conclude that it is reasonable for our society to limit Internet access for individuals who demonstrate a lack of good judgment in their comments or use cyberspace for dubious or criminal purposes.

I will also argue for the need to divide and reread Bill C-13 to conduct separate reviews of its stated objectives. It should be noted in passing that most of this bill has nothing to do with the protection of psychological integrity and should be placed in a separate bill.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to make this a catch-all bill, if I may say so, and to sneak highly contentious issues into a bill whose stated purpose and title would have unanimous support. This is a reprehensible practice and I want to make sure everyone knows that.

The New Democratic Party feels that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech on this matter. I know that he has considerable experience in his constituency representing his constituents in the courts. I take very seriously the issues he raises, which are of concern to the bar associations across the country.

There have been concerns that by again bundling matters together inappropriately, the government has not really given appropriate opportunity for discussion and debate. We are supporting moving forward expeditiously to address cyberbullying and the distribution of any inappropriate information or information of a sexual nature, particularly about children. We would love to expedite those provisions, but we have waited long and hard for the government to act.

Could the member speak to the matters relating to the issuance of warrants and so forth that arose in the previous bill, and comment on whether he thinks they are appropriately addressed or if they merit considerably more debate?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As she said in her question, this is an omnibus bill, similar to what we have seen in the past; in other words, many items have been quietly slipped in.

The Conservatives are well aware that certain items that they sought public approval for simply did not pass that test. I am referring to specific measures aimed at limiting certain users' access to the Internet, and monitoring them as well. In short, some of these ideas now appear in this bill. From my admittedly brief study of the bill, I see that some rather unpopular and controversial ideas were rehashed and reintroduced in this very specific bill; that is highly objectionable.

Otherwise, in terms of the form and content of the bill, we will agree on the basic and key aspects of its wording. However, it would be advisable to review it carefully and split up certain components in committee.