House of Commons Hansard #127 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cyberbullying.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if revised responses to Questions Nos. 642, 643 and 644, originally tabled on September 15, 2014, could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Yukon, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
(Return tabled)
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in Nunavut, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
(Return tabled)
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the Northwest Territories, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?
(Return tabled)
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
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 third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Malpeque had seventeen and a half minutes remaining in the time for his remarks.
The hon. member for Malpeque.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I have about seventeen minutes left. I expect I will not use that, just to warn the next speaker who may be on the list, as I have spoken to this bill before.
Before question period, I was outlining that I was pleased but also troubled to speak to Bill C-13. I outlined that the Liberal Party is very supportive of the cyberbullying aspects of the bill, but troubled over the parts that are measures in the old Bill C-30 on lawful access, which so many Canadians spoke out against.
Efforts were made, and I am disappointed that the government did not accept those efforts by both opposition parties, to split the bill. It was not only the opposition members who wanted to split the bill; it was the new Privacy Commissioner and many others, including Carol Todd, who knows very well about the difficult and troubling aspect of cyberbullying.
The bill was not split. However, regardless, we do feel within the Liberal Party that cyberbullying is such a scourge on society that we are going to have to put not only a little water in our wine, but a fair bit, in fact, because we are very seriously troubled over aspects of the bill. This tends to be what the current government does. The Conservatives will put a couple of good points in the bill and add a whole lot of other material that should not be in that particular bill.
The Liberals believe that a balance must be struck between civil liberties and public safety, particularly when it comes to warrants that may be intrusive and overboard. We do not support the measures that were in Bill C-30, which the government had to withdraw because of Canadians' outrage. The problem is that some of those points are back in this bill. Some of this bill duplicates the rejected Bill C-30, such as word-for-word reproductions of the changes to subsection 487(c.1) of the Criminal Code; and all but one-word changes to subsection 492.1 and section 492 regarding warrants.
We are very concerned about efforts to reintroduce “lawful access”, which the Conservatives promised was dead.
Though the title is the “protecting Canadians from online crime act”, nobody would be protected under this act. In typical government fashion, this is all about punishment rather than prevention. Complex problems like cyberbullying require more than blunt additions to the Criminal Code. This omnibus bill touches everything from terrorism to telemarketing, and cable stealing to hate speech. It is an affront to both democracy and the legislative process in the way it was handled.
If it had been split, what could have been a bill on cyberbullying, which probably would have had the unanimous support of the House, is no longer possible. What is seen from us is reluctant support because we have to, regardless of the consequences, deal with the cyberbullying side. That is certainly why I am troubled.
I want to turn to a couple of quotes that outline the extent of the problem in terms of the way that the government has dealt with this bill.
There was an editorial in The Globe and Mail, on November 22, entitled “Not Without a Warrant”, from which I will quote:
Under current law, a wiretapping authorization will only be issued by a judge if police can show a “reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been or will be committed.” But under Bill C-13, wireless wiretaps can be authorized on the looser standards of “reasonable ground to suspect.”
The editorial goes on:
Why not make police applications for a wireless wiretap clear the same, high legal hurdle as a traditional wiretap? And why is the government burying all of this inside an unrelated piece of legislation covering the highly emotional topic of cyberbullying? Parliament should be debating and voting on each measure separately, on its merits. Once again, the Conservative government is engaging in unnecessary legislative acrobatics. Time to cease and desist.
I will read one more. This is an editorial, also on November 22, from the Ottawa Citizen, entitled “More than 'cyberbullying'”. I will just read a piece of it:
If the government wants to make cable theft a criminal offence, or increase police powers to track online communication, it is perfectly within its rights to propose those things. There is no reason to bundle it in with a bill that has an entirely different purpose. The announcement about the bill calls it “legislation to crack down on cyberbullying.” This suggests the Conservatives never learned the main lesson from the Toews' debacle, and are still trying to bundle and brand their legislation instead of simply defending it on its merits.
We are certainly not the only ones who are troubled about how the government approaches these bills, rams stuff through committee, and fails to give proper legitimate debate to each item on its own merits, so that at the end of the day this place can be proud, on all sides, of what we have passed.
However, as I said, the cyberbullying issue is of such an urgency that we cannot deep-six, if I could put it that way, that aspect of the bill that we do not like. We are forced to vote on a bill that we are troubled over, and, reluctantly, we will.
However, we will put a red flag on all areas infringing upon privacy that we are concerned about, and hopefully in a future Parliament we will see democracy break out in this place, where committees can do their job, as the founders of this country envisioned it would be done.
Let me close by saying that on the cyberbullying aspect, the Criminal Code is not the only instrument that needs to be embellished, if I could put it that way, in order to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. We believe that these legislative measures alone are insufficient to combat cyberbullying, and we urge the government to commit to a broader, more holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying.
It would also include public awareness resources for parents and kids. In other words, there has to be an education campaign, a publicity campaign, whether it is police forces, or community leaders, or whatever, who go into our school system to talk about the problem of cyberbullying and how this new technological world that we live in can haunt us, and, in fact, is used to haunt certain individuals in society.
In order to save time, I will close my remarks. I appreciate having had the opportunity to speak at third reading of this bill.
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a broader and more holistic approach to dealing with online crime and cyberbullying, and I would not disagree.
However, the member speaks as though that is not occurring. Our government has made significant investments at the community and local level as well as at the provincial and territorial level in support of victims of crime.
I would remind the member that every time we do that, in all the budgets we have put forward that bring important programs through that holistic and broad approach he is talking about, the Liberal members vote against those measures.
Is the member able to look at this bill as though it is not in a vacuum but is one more measure in a broad suite of things that our government is doing to protect victims of crime, to stop online bullying, to stop bullying generally, to stop assaults, and to stop victimization?
Will the member commit that when our government brings the monetary measures forward, the legislative measures forward, and the policy measures forward, he will finally support those measures?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I get such a kick out of backbench members in the governing party. They are always on their feet saying “Well, my golly, you voted against that and you voted against this.” What foolishness.
In what happens at committee and in this place, there are always certain aspects that members may or may not like. Just because a member votes against a particular piece of legislation does not mean they dislike the whole of it.
The strategy of the government is such that their members and others can get up and say, “Oh, my goodness; you voted against that”, trying to use it politically.
Political business takes place during election times. Between elections, we should be doing good debate in here and respecting each other, instead of getting that kind of malarkey from the government side all the time.
Let me get to the member's point.
There are measures that the government has undertaken in terms of other aspects of dealing with cyberbullying beyond the Criminal Code, but a lot more needs to be done. That is what I am expressing in terms of this bill.
I would say to the member in conclusion that if the government had split the bill, as we asked it to do, then I think there would have been great support in this place on the cyberbullying side. The government could have then said that all parties supported what it was doing.
However, the strategy of the government is that it really does not want the opposition parties to support it. It likes to use the excuse that they voted the other way.
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for his speech, but his reluctant support of this bill, which is riddled with highly questionable—or even dangerous—provisions, required such an intellectual contortion that I must admit that I am a bit worried about his back and other parts of his body.
For example, the bill opens the door to arbitrary, extrajudicial decisions that would put personal information into all kinds of hands.
How can the member justify this reluctant support, in light of these excessive provisions?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to justify. We cannot wait around. If the legislation had been split, it would have been easy, but the reality out there is that people are falling prey to cyberbullying every day. The risk is there.
The member is right that there are some terrible aspects to this bill, and hopefully a future Parliament can deal with them, but cyberbullying, in and of itself, is an urgent concern. Therefore, we feel obligated to support that particular part of the bill, knowing full well that we really do not support other aspects of it. However, we need to deal with that serious issue in Canadian society.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a good speech. I know he made it low key.
With his experience, I want to give him a chance to explain. Since the current government has been in place, has he seen other examples of bills, whether we call them omnibus, Trojan horses, or any of the other words we have used, that have been totally unacceptable and have only succeeded in dividing the House instead of trying to work for Canadians?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member is suggesting that a low key for me is unusual. I do not know.
In any event, no, this is not the only bill. In fact, most of the government's bills are that way. The budget bill was a particular example. In it there were endless pieces of legislation that had no relation to the budget.
I expect we are going to see that the next budget has copyright in it. The real strategy of the government is to find a TV clip of someone to use as an attack ad. That is why it is going to be in the next budget bill. It is not going to be debated in its own right; it is likely going to be thrown into the budget bill.
The government is always up to those kinds of tricks. This is a government that believes in creating division and in wedge politics, and that is kind of sad to see in this country, because it is importing the kind of debate that we see south of the border, which is really divisive and often unproductive.
I know it would take a lot, but I would encourage the government to come to its senses and put legislation forward on the specifics of what the bill is supposed to deal with.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that we have the Liberal opposition saying that it is reluctant to support the bill. If Liberals are reluctant, then they should know that they should not be supporting this bill.
The member knows full well that there was a court decision on language similar to what is in this bill. The court decision was made in light of the Spencer case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, the day after the adoption of the bill by the Conservatives at committee, that Canadians have a right to be anonymous on the Internet and that police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities. This bill would actually prevent that from occurring.
The Liberals attempted to do something similar when they were in power. They tried to pass a bill that would have amended the Criminal Code to allow police services to carry out lawful access on their networks.
My question to my colleague is this: why are Liberals supporting a bill that they say they are reluctantly supporting? Do they actually firmly believe that it is proper for people's privacy to be infringed on, as this law would do, knowing full well that the government continues to put bills forward that are very controversial in nature?
The government knows that people are supportive of addressing and fixing the cyberbullying situation, but in the meantime it keeps putting in a poison pill by throwing the whole kitchen sink into the bill. The government knows Canadians will not be in favour of these other measures, but by making the opposition look like they are against a situation such as cyberbullying, which is not the truth, it can gain points.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I guess the simple answer to that question is that Liberals are hopeful that within a year's time we will be able to get rid of the people who are putting those poison pills in the bottle. In that way, there will not be poison pills in the future, and there will be a government in this place that would be able to correct some of the concerns that I know the member has, as we do.
The fact of the matter is that those who are impacted by cyberbullying right now cannot wait a year. It is a difficult call, but it is a judgment call that we in the Liberal Party believe has to be made. We tried and fought hard to split the bill so that we could vote against those aspects, but we see the need for the cyberbullying part. It is a judgment call, and it is all about taking the right kind of leadership position.
I can assure everyone that the Liberal Party is up for providing leadership to Canada and Canadians, and we are going to vote in support of the cyberbullying side.
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
It is great to follow on the heels of the member for Malpeque. We certainly appreciate his reluctant support, far more than we appreciate their responsible neutrality on other issues in this place.
It is a great opportunity to stand and be part of a government that understands the needs and challenges of Canadians. That government gives us lowly backbenchers an opportunity to speak in the House, which I know the member for Malpeque also has a tremendous amount of disdain for.
I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, which proposes key amendments to the Criminal Code, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in order to bring them up to date with 21st century technologies.
The bill is both timely and vitally important. We so frequently remark that the world is getting smaller and smaller by the day that it is just a cliché. The barriers that distance used to create between people are becoming less and less relevant as technology advances.
The advent of the Internet, e-mail, web addresses, and all this technology has meant that we can stay connected from almost anywhere in the world. These technologies have obviously brought about incredible opportunities for Canadians. It is increasingly possible for Canadians to conduct business easily and efficiently on a global scale. We can keep in touch with our loved ones while pursuing opportunities in distant lands. We can learn about the world we live in by using the vast resources available on the Internet today.
It is not an understatement to say that these new technologies have changed the way we live. Unfortunately, some of them have also changed the way crimes are being committed and the kinds of evidence that are left behind. These technologies have made it possible to commit crimes that transcend geographical borders. Existing methods of investigating just will not work in this environment, and no country can conduct these kinds of cross-border investigations without co-operation from other countries.
That is why Bill C-13 is so important. It would provide police with the tools they need to investigate not only crimes committed here in Canada but also transnational crimes. Crucially, Bill C-13 would allow Canada to ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime.
This convention is the only international treaty that is specifically designed to provide a standard set of legal tools to help in the investigation and prosecution of computer and Internet-based crime as well as more general crimes involving electronic devices. It would also assist parties to the convention by providing them with a mechanism for international co-operation. Canadian police will be able to access the Criminal Code's new investigative tools in appropriate cases and coordinate with other countries for transnational investigations.
I would like to focus my remarks on the convention.
The convention facilitates national and transnational investigations by requiring three principal things. It will require a minimum standard of offences, it will require a minimum standard of investigative tools, and it will require a point of contact in each country that is available 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
The convention requires signatory states to adopt a minimum set of standard offences for computer-related crimes. For instance, the convention requires that countries criminalize certain illegal uses of computers, such as hacking. It also requires that all participating countries criminalize illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and, of course, child pornography. These measures will help to reduce the overall incidence of computer crime by deterring the use of the states parties to the convention as safe havens for criminal purposes.
It is important to note that Canada already has a great set of offences to combat cybercrime. However, Bill C-13 is designed to fill the gaps that remain, and I can assure members that those are very few.
Ensuring that all state parties have laws that are similar would allow for better co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of crimes that have connections to multiple jurisdictions. To this end, the Convention on Cybercrime would assist to ensure that convention partners would have compatible cybercrime-related offences.
However, the convention does not just deal with crimes themselves. The convention also deals with the investigation of crime. Computer crimes that transcend national boundaries often leave behind digital evidence in multiple locations. The nature of investigations is changing, both in technique and in scope. The convention would ensure that participating countries would have the tools they need to combat cybercrime at home, and equally important, that they would be able to assist each other in the investigation and prosecution of crime at a multi-jurisdictional level.
For instance, participating nations would be required to adopt tools that would facilitate the tracing of communications and would be able to order the production of data related to the routing of telecommunications.
The bill contains amendments that would provide for such things, including preservation orders and demands. These powers would require the computer data that would be vital to an investigation to be preserved from destruction so police would have the time to obtain the warrants or orders to obtain that data.
Importantly, the convention requires participating nations to have readily identifiable contacts to increase communication and co-operation on investigations. Specifically, it requires that each country designate a point of contact that would be available 24/7 to give immediate assistance to those kinds of investigations.
Knowing who to call in another country can make all the difference to an investigation involving electronic evidence where time is literally of the essence. For example, in the time it may take to identify the responsible foreign authority, information important to an investigation could be lost forever.
Becoming a real party to the convention on cybercrime is all about that. It is about ensuring that Canadian investigators have all the tools they need at their disposal to conduct efficient and effective investigations, both in Canada and in the context of investigations that reach beyond our borders. It is about ensuring that we are not in the fight against cybercrime alone. It is about taking responsibility for our role as a nation in transnational crime, supporting transnational investigation and benefiting from the assistance of our international partners in return.
I hope all members will support this bill so Canada can join its partners in making the world a safer place.
Finally, it should be noted that Canada is the only G7 country that has not has not yet ratified the Convention on Cybercrime. Further, all countries, including Canada, publicly endorsed the convention for its substantive and procedural framework. It is a model for international co-operation. All of Canada's main partners recognize the convention as a foundation on which international co-operation can be facilitated. Canada's ratification of the convention would extend the reach of Canadian law enforcement across the globe and enhance our ability to better protect Canadians.
We need to do our part and encourage other countries to join us in rising to these important challenges. Ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime is a necessary step in that direction, and Bill C-13 would enable that.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, the bill has been a long time coming. I just do not understand why the Conservative government was so slow in moving it forward. We proposed amendments during the process, but they were rejected. That could have moved the bill forward much more quickly.
In the past as well, our member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour presented Bill C-540. A number of the elements that are in the beginning of Bill C-13 were in fact in his private member's bill, but the government side rejected it.
Why did the member vote against Bill C-540?