Debates of April 28th, 2014

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for the amazing work he has done regarding the everyday pressures on Canadian families as they struggle to make ends meet. Whether it is rising gas prices or credit card fees, he knows how to handle that file and does a great job.

Members do not have to take my word or one group's word for the fact that the government has cobbled together legislation in a way that was totally unnecessary. The essential piece of it could have been passed just like that, but it was not.

Let me quote David Fraser, a Halifax-based lawyer, who said something about this piece of legislation which I think is cynical and disappointing. He stated:

There's a whole bunch of irrelevant or other stuff in here that's going to distract from the legitimate discussion on how to fine-tune this to get this absolutely right.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard discussion, a few times, about splitting the bill. I am the chair of the justice committee, and it has done a very good job, in my view, of listening to witnesses, and suggestions and amendments by the opposition, on a number of items. There were amendments accepted from the opposition. A Liberal member sat in the last time the committee did a review and accepted amendments from the other side and was in a bit of shock that this was the kind of co-operation that happens at committee.

What I do not understand is why opposition members would want to split the bill up. Do you not have confidence in the committee system and your own members being able to bring forward amendments at the time they are discussed and debated at committee? Based on those who have requested to appear at committee, I think there is going to be a fairly long and extensive review of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair. I have confidence in the committee process.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta can answer the question.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no confidence in the government doing anything right when it comes to dealing with young people's safety.

Michael Geist, a Canadian research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, compared a number of provisions included in Bill C-13 to the controversial Internet snooping legislation. We know how divisive that was. Bill C-30 was killed by the former justice minister in the face of widespread criticism.

You had this mountain of opposition and you withdrew the bill. Now you bring it forward, and in it you bury something that is so important. It is all about protecting our young people from cyberbullying. That is playing politics.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we continue, I would just remind this hon. member, as well as the previous member, to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

It is also my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Rail Transportation; and the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Employment and Social Development.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-13.

This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act in order to bring them up to date with 21st century technologies.

These updates to the law would respond to new challenges posed by modern technology in the context of bullying, often referred to as cyberbullying, in a number of ways, including by creating a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

Bill C-13 would also revise investigative powers to make sure they respond to modern technologies so that police have the tools they need to investigate offences arising in the context of current communication technology, including offences that can occur in the context of cyberbullying behaviours, such as the proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

I would like to take this opportunity to expand on some particularly important and innovative aspects of the Criminal Code amendments, and in particular the new concept of transmission data. I think the proposals in Bill C-13 for changes in this area are going to have a really positive impact on how investigations are conducted here in Canada.

First I would like to tell the House about the new transmission data warrant.

For the past 20 years, the police have been able to ask a justice for a warrant that would permit the police to find out phone numbers dialed by a suspect or by someone phoning that suspect. Such warrants could be issued by the justice when there were reasonable grounds to suspect that this information could assist in the investigation of a crime.

However, these days this sort of information, sometimes referred to as call identifying information, encompasses not just telephone numbers but also the Internet equivalents of telephone numbers and includes some technical data that all kinds of more advanced calling features can generate on a network.

It is unfortunately the reality for police today that investigators face challenges when working with the existing dialed number recorder warrant. It is sadly out of date, as it was not designed for the kinds of things that can be part of call identifying information today. The provision was created in 1993 for traditional telephones.

Another change in the way people communicate that has had significant impact on investigations is the increased use of the Internet since 1993, which means that voice telephony is far from being the only way that people regularly communicate.

An additional impact on investigations comes from the convergence of different communication technologies. Nowadays the lines between traditional telephones and the Internet are certainly blurred.

Many cellphones today can be used to access the Internet if, for example, people want to see something on the Internet or send a message. Phones can also rely on the technology of the Internet to make a traditional call. Millions of subscribers use VoIP, or voice over IP, which enables the phone to make use of the Internet to make a traditional voice telephone call.

The result is that the technology uses IP, or Internet protocol, addresses in addition to telephone numbers. It is a sort of hybrid. This kind of hybridization creates problems for investigators. It was also never envisaged 20 years ago, when communication was done through the traditional phone lines for which the current warrant was designed.

This is important. These changes in communication technology have led to the proposal in Bill C-13 to update the existing dialed number recorder warrant in section 492.2 of the Criminal Code and replace it with a transmission data warrant. The proposal in Bill C-13 to create an updated warrant, called a transmission data warrant, makes sense. This new warrant will reflect the new realities for communication technology and investigative techniques.

The sorts of address data police now need to conduct investigations cannot be obtained using telephone records or standard equipment for older technology such as a dialed number recorder. The updates to the law would ensure that a criminal would not be able to avoid police investigative techniques because he uses modern technology, such as VoIP, to make his calls instead of a traditional telephone.

A new legal concept was needed for this update to the existing number recorder warrant to encompass the greater complexity of call identifying information in the modern telecommunications context. Bill C-13 proposes a way to create this new concept, a new category of information called transmission data, which would apply to Internet routing information as well as traditional telephone numbers.

Transmission data would be specifically restricted to certain parts of what is called the header data, which includes things like the email address and information about the mail servers that transmitted the email, but the concept is carefully designed to explicitly exclude the content of any message so that invasions of privacy are minimized. This means police would not be able to use the transmission data warrant to find out what a person has typed in as the subject field. More importantly, police will not be able to use this type of warrant to find out what was typed into the body of the email.

In addition to updating the dialed number recorder warrant provision by replacing it with a new transmission data warrant, Bill C-13 also proposes a new judicial production order aimed at obtaining transmission data when it is stored. This is a change to the structure of the existing number recorder warrant, which included a production order within the warrant provision. Bill C-13 proposes a separate production order to obtain transmission data located in the same place in the Criminal Code with the other production orders.

This proposal is part of the overall approach of Bill C-13 of creating a slate of specific production orders that provide specific tools for police to use to obtain particular types of information. The bill proposes specific and tailored new production orders for transmission data, for tracking data, and for tracing a communication, along with the existing specific and tailored production order for financial data and the existing general production order, all of which together compose a new scheme of production orders proposed by Bill C-13.

The threshold for the specific and tailored production orders is “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been or will be committed”, as these orders are narrower in scope and less invasive.

In contrast, the threshold for the broader general production order is “reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be committed” to reflect its greater intrusive potential. These thresholds are consistent with the current approach to thresholds for production orders in the Criminal Code.

This approach is designed to provide tailoring to particular privacy interests through giving police specific tools designed for specific access, which allows a judge to assess each type of request to the appropriate standard.

Given the discussions currently occurring both domestically and internationally around access to metadata, it may be useful at this point to speak briefly to the distinction between metadata and transmission data as proposed in Bill C-13.

“Metadata” is a term that can be used to describe any data about data. It can encompass a fairly broad range of information, including information that would not be part of the definition of transmission data.

“Transmission data”, as set out in Bill C-13, is carefully and more narrowly defined. It is information relating only to the dialing, routing, addressing, or signalling of telecommunications. As I mentioned earlier, it is explicit in the definition of transmission data that it cannot reveal the substance, the meaning, or the purpose of the communication.

It is important to understand the limited, specific, and focused ambit of what is being proposed in Bill C-13 in relation to transmission data, as these limits address some concerns that some people have expressed about broad abilities to access all kinds of information with ease. Bill C-13 proposes a clear framework for particular types of access to data, in particular transmission data, if granted by a judge or justice.

The transmission data warrant and production order will provide police with some of the investigative tools they need to fight crime in a world of changing technology. It has been precisely designed to do so with appropriate privacy safeguards.

I therefore encourage all members to give Bill C-13 their full support.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us here in this House would agree that protecting our children is paramount, and it does give one pause, on the one hand, that the provisions in the bill that actually go toward protecting children from cyberbullying were first introduced 10 months ago by my hon. colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Leave it to the current government to take 10 months to play politics with what I think all of us can agree is a very serious issue.

Then, on the other side, I spoke with many of the residents in my riding of Davenport in Toronto about the proposed online spying bill, and I did not meet a single person who could support that bill.

We have seen the government throw a lot of additional measures into its bills. Why, in this particular one, if the government wants to protect young people from cyberbullying, does it also have a measure in there to add a two-year sentence for someone who is stealing cable?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a point in claiming this is an omnibus bill. The opposition seems to see omnibus bills at every turn.

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill. It combines a proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to address cyberbullying with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but other existing offences that are committed via the Internet.

I would urge the member, if he is serious about combatting Internet crime and giving the police new tools to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, to support Bill C-13.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-13. I would remind my colleague that the New Democratic justice critic, the member for Gatineau, in her opening speech, wanted the bill to get to committee for a complete examination. I would like to quote from that member's speech:

I think the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill. I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect carefully. We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill.

My point is this. I think this is our third or fourth day of debate and I think there may be one more day of debate on this item. Then we need to get it to committee, because my understanding is that a tremendous number of people want to come to speak to it.

Would the member tell us why it is important for us to get the bill to committee to be studied as soon as possible?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington raises some very important and compelling points. I have to tell members it is very important that the bill expeditiously make its way through House and get to committee. The bill seeks to address a very serious problem in our society. The first piece of legislation in 1993, as we are trying to address here, does not give the police the right investigative tools to address this problem that we have in our society.

I have to say that our government is not alone in proposing this kind of legislation and in supporting this kind of legislation.

As examples, Carol Todd on Canada AM; Lianna McDonald, of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection; David Butt, counsel to the Kids Internet Safety Alliance; Dalhousie University law professor Wayne MacKay; Allan Hubley, Ottawa city councillor; and Jeff McGuire, Niagara Regional Police Service chief have all said categorically that this is the kind of legislation we need to give police the investigative tools and the kind of legislation that we need to protect our most vulnerable in society, our children.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their welcome this evening. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13. This bill is close to my heart, and it deals with a sensitive issue that can also be emotional for some of my colleagues.

I commend the government for introducing this bill to create a national strategy on cyberbullying and cybercrime, which could also be included. The NDP will support any measures that combat cyberbullying, as such measures are in line with our principles on the right to privacy.

Such measures are almost exactly what we need, in response to rapidly developing technologies that are changing the way young people interact with each other every day. I said that the measures were almost perfect because this bill contains one measure that is in line with a measure that we presented in the House. The rest of the bill still has several flaws, which I will talk about in my speech today.

We also regret the fact that it took a number of high-profile cases, such as the ones in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, before our government finally decided to take action to combat cyberbullying and bullying in general. Bullying is not restricted to the Internet. It can happen in person every day, especially at school.

We also regret that the Conservatives refused to support the sensible, direct and simple Bill C-540, introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. It is odd that the content of the government's Bill C-13 is nearly identical to the bill we introduced that was not supported by the Conservatives. One has to wonder whether the Conservatives were playing politics. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. It is up to them to answer that question.

Two years ago, in the 41st Parliament, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved Motion No. 385, which suggested that the government create a national bullying prevention strategy to address the issue of bullying in general—not just cyberbullying—but the motion was not supported by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives, who today are saying that they are the great protectors of our youth and that they want to fix the situation, actually had the opportunity to help us do that in the past. Unfortunately, they did not support us.

It is sad that the government sometimes seems to wait for tragic events to happen before taking action. We have also seen that with other files. We could prevent rather than react to these very tragic situations that often result in loss of life.

Therefore, we need legislation to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We support this part of the bill that will prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images because we had proposed this same measure in 2013, about 10 months ago. The Conservatives did not support this measure then, but it is being reintroduced and we will support it. Had this been the only focus of the bill, we could have supported it right away. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

A number of things have also been included in Bill C-13, such as parts of Bill C-30. Members will recall that, in the first session of the 41st Parliament, if my memory serves me well, the minister of public safety—who is no longer an MP—introduced the now-defunct Bill C-30. This bill raised the ire of Canadians across the country. The minister was eventually forced to back down and withdraw the bill, dubbed the electronic surveillance bill. It was not well received by the public. As I was saying, the Conservatives eventually withdrew the bill.

Unfortunately, a number of the measures in Bill C-30, for which there was no consensus, are found today in Bill C-13. That is one of the reasons why we cannot support this bill in its current form. We will support the bill at second reading in order to try to fix the bill in committee. However, as we told the government, we would have been open to splitting the bill in order to study only the part that members seem to agree on and to pass it quickly. We could then have focused on the somewhat more contentious parts.

Bullying is a very important issue that particularly affects youth aged 12 to 14. According to research, they are the most likely age group to be victims of cyberbullying. This scourge has a serious impact on the mental health and well-being of young victims. Studies are painting a negative and troubling portrait of the impact that cyberbullying is having on our youth. It results in anxiety, poor school performance, hopelessness and helplessness. It can also lead to very tragic situations, such as those we have recently witnessed.

According to the 2012 impact report by Kids Help Phone, cyberbullying victims and offenders are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide, unfortunately. That is a very worrisome finding.

When talking about bullying, we do not always mention the negative impact it can have on the victims who often find themselves in a very difficult situation. They clearly need help right now. That is why we support the first part of the bill, which would give those responsible for enforcing the law another tool to crack down on this scourge. We could bring those who hurt others to justice.

In addition, we realize that this issue affects far too many children in Canada. We also need to work on prevention. Punishing those at fault is not the only answer. We need to be proactive about preventing bullying before it happens. That is a foreign concept for the Conservatives. Often, they present measures that punish those in the wrong. That is fine, but we also need to put plenty of effort into preventing cyberbullying to simply avoid having victims. If we successfully prevent it, we can reduce the number of victims because some crimes will not happen in the first place. It is more important to prevent it before it happens, especially given the negative impact it can have on the victims. That is all the more true today, in 2014. Young people are increasingly exposed to new technology through the Internet. This means that, in some cases, they are now being bullied not just when they are in the schoolyard but also 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I am ready to answer questions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that prevention is an issue we need to continue to look at in all aspects of our justice legislation. It is easier to prevent something from happening than waiting until it happens. I have no qualms with that approach.

I do not understand why the New Democrats want to split the bill. They are okay with making cyberbullying a criminal offence. It seems fair to them and something they can support. However, they do not seem to want to support the aspects to enforce a criminal offence. We cannot have a criminal offence and attack the issue that makes it an offence, that allows that criminal activity to occur.

I do not understand why the New Democrats want to split up that part. Do they just want cyberbullying to be an offence on paper with no real effect?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague. As I explained, we clearly would have liked to have been able to quickly pass the first part of the bill.

Once this becomes an offence under the Criminal Code, the police and other law enforcement officials will be able to crack down on offenders and make sure that anyone who violates the Criminal Code is brought to justice.

As I was saying, we cannot accept the bill at this time because the rest of it contains far too many other measures.

We will support the bill at second reading. I would like to remind my colleague of that because he does not seem to have understood. We will support the bill at second reading so that work can be done in committee to try to improve the parts that are inadequate.

We would have preferred to quickly pass the part of the bill on which there was consensus, but sadly the Conservatives did not want to do that. That is unfortunate for those who are currently being bullied and who will continue to be bullied until this bill is passed.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his eloquent speech.

I would like to come back to something he mentioned in the answer he just gave to the member opposite. The member opposite is criticizing the NDP for not wanting to pass certain aspects of the bill we are discussing today, which have been controversial since Bill C-30 was introduced. My colleague already addressed this issue in his speech.

The Conservatives' attitude toward today's debate is the same attitude they adopt every time we try to make amendments to a bill.

My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord proposed a national bullying prevention strategy that was defeated by the Conservatives, who wanted nothing to do with it. What is more, my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced Bill C-540, which received broad support. However, the Conservatives decided not to do anything about it and to instead develop a much more complicated bill to try to pass measures that Canadians do not agree with.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on how the NDP's approach is a much better way of finding a real solution than the Conservatives' divisive approach. I would like him to explain a bit more about the advantages of working together in the House, rather than trying to divide people, as we unfortunately see with all of the bills that the Conservatives introduce.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Indeed, the Conservatives tend to use more partisan tactics to try to achieve their ends. I do not wish to impugn their motives when it comes to this bill; perhaps they are in a better position to answer this question themselves.

All too often we have seen the Conservatives use sensitive, topical issues that evoke a reaction when drafting their legislation. Then they sometimes send emails to their supporters just a few minutes later to try to raise money. All too often we have seen the Conservatives use sensitive, important issues to play politics. I do not wish to attribute them such intentions in the case of this bill. I think they are acting in good faith when it comes to bullying.

However, this is not a common sense approach for legislators. They should be doing things better than that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to stand here speaking to Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. The legislation would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It would empower a court to order the removal of intimate images from the Internet, and it would permit the court to forfeit a computer, cellphone, or other device used in an offence outlined in this legislation.

Amendments to the Criminal Code would include creating a new offence to prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, with a maximum sentence of five years' incarceration or six months' imprisonment on summary conviction. It would also direct the sentencing judge to consider upon conviction whether that person should be restricted from use of the Internet for a specified period of time.

It would also authorize the judge to order the removal of an intimate image from websites if the person depicted did not consent to the image being posted. It would allow the judge to order restitution, following conviction, to the victim. It would empower the court to seize and order the forfeiture of property related to the offence, such as computers and mobile devices.

Furthermore, a justice could issue a peace bond where, on reasonable grounds, he or she believed that an individual would commit a new offence. Last, and quite importantly, a person could also ensure that the spouse of an accused person was eligible to testify against the accused in court.

As a former police officer, I am a little biased on this legislation, because I believe that it goes as far as it needs to go. I will explain to my colleagues why I believe it does.

A lot of the existing powers that assist police in investigations have not been modernized for some time. In fact, it is long overdue. For the most part, police are working with 1980s legislation in 2014. It is a bit of an advantage to the bad guy, as the police are always playing catch-up. As we have heard previously from other speakers, they want to hear why the police cannot react more quickly. The reality is that the laws are not there for them to act more quickly.

This legislation would provide for the preservation of volatile computer data. Found under proposed section 487.012, a police officer could make a demand, in form 5.001, requiring a person to preserve computer data in his or her possession. Unless the demand was revoked earlier, it would expire 21 days after it was made. This is probably the most valuable tool for police in this electronic age. It would allow the police the time needed to obtain a warrant to seize evidence. In this electronic age, data can be destroyed or quickly moved. This in itself would allow police to act in a more proactive manner.

I would like to speak to this a little more. The fact of the matter is that with computer data, when police identify a suspect, they do not have the ability to go to that person and say that they need to hold on to the information and cannot delete it, move it, or do anything with it. They would be able to do that through form 5.001. They have not been able to do that to this point in time. It would be a huge opportunity for the police to actively investigate something more proactively.

It would require judicial authority to acquire preserved computer data. As mentioned above, the police would be given the authority to preserve the evidence, but they would still have to obtain a warrant to seize the evidence. That has always been the case.

There is a misconception sometimes that police can just go and grab something and do not need a warrant. The fact of the matter is that there has always been a judicial requirement to seize evidence. Otherwise, once it gets to court, it is thrown out. This bill would give the police an added 21 days to preserve evidence and to be able to obtain a warrant.

The bill would modernize the Criminal Code to recognize all forms of communication. Until recently, the Criminal Code commonly identified communication as either oral or written. We have come a long way in the last 20 years. The Criminal Code identifies what can be received electronically by the police through oral or written means. As I said, we have come a long way, especially with the advent of Facebook, the Internet, Twitter, and Instagram. A lot of these things have really changed the way the police have had to do business.

Most communications today are made by electronic means. Today, to write a letter and put it in a post office box is foreign to most people. It just does not happen. Most of us in this place right now are looking at an electronic device. We are not looking at a piece of paper. We pay our bills online, and we communicate using mobile devices.

This legislation would give police better tools to better track and trace telecommunications. We live in a world where electronic messages and photographs can be distributed instantly anywhere around the world. Giving police the tools to react quickly is not only needed but well overdue.

I have heard from the other side that we should split the bill. Members like one part but not the other. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have one part without the other. It is not possible. We have to be able to give the police the authority and the ability to track electronic data, as is known today, that was not there 20 years ago.

Finally, this legislation would streamline the process for obtaining multiple warrants and orders relating to the execution of wiretap authorization. I was the author of two Part IV affidavits in my time as a police officer. I can tell the House that it is a long and arduous process that requires multiple layers of investigation, each of which must be verified and then reviewed and approved by a Supreme Court judge. To get to this level of investigation, all other forms of investigation must have been exhausted. This form of investigation is not taken lightly by any level of police or judicial department.

My good friend from York Centre in his speech mentioned DNRs, or dial number recorders. It brings me back to a few years ago, when we used those prior to getting to a full wiretap. Just to get a dial number recorder opportunity to place on a phone line goes through a huge amount of paperwork and justification for a Supreme Court justice.

With so many forms of electronic devices available to the public, police must have multiple tools available to them, including wiretap evidence, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and every Canadian, that it is used as a last resort.

It is far too easy in this day and age to do hurtful, irresponsible, and illegal activities that were not possible not so many years ago. With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other forms of social media, we have seen how it is used to humiliate, and in some cases, to have the worst of outcomes, because the victim has absolutely no control over an anonymous, faceless predator.

People who commit these cowardly acts need to be held to account as quickly as possible. This legislation is a good start. We must recognize, as legislators, that when it comes to the Criminal Code, we must provide the most up-to-date laws so that both the police and the courts can deal with this type of crime.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House agrees that this is a crucial issue. There have been some very serious tragedies across Canada, including what happened to Rehtaeh Parsons last year. We all want to work together.

Why did my Conservative colleague not support Bill C-540, introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which would have achieved the consensus of the House and would have allowed us to tackle the bullying problem right away?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Bill C-13 is a bill that is all inclusive. It provides what we want to do with regard to cyberbullying, but it would also enhance the ability of police to do investigations through electronic means. We need to continue down this road. This is a great start, and I look forward to looking at Bill C-13 at committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia. He has so much credibility when he speaks to these issues, as he served our country as an RCMP officer for years. Listening to what he has to say really gives us, here in the House, some perspective on what the bill actually means on the ground.

That is going to be my question to him, if he could elaborate. He said that he has been listening to the speeches throughout the day and that people misunderstand what the reality is out there. He has heard people say that we should split the bill. He said that we cannot have one without the other. I was hopeful that he could use some of the time remaining to actually explain this in detail so that other members in the House would realize why it is so important that we move forward with this very important bill.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with electronic forms of communication, the police need to be able to obtain that information through those means. Because we are in a computer age, when someone in a far-reaching country can impact someone in Canada within seconds, the police have to be able to intercept, track, and monitor those types of things. The bill identifies specifically what the police can and cannot do with regard to the transmission of data and the electronic data they receive.

When police enter into an investigation, it is far-reaching, and it takes a long time to get to that electronic interception portion of the investigation. However, we also have to recognize that with regard to things we have seen recently, it can change very quickly. Giving the police the ability to have electronic data information is something that is essential to ensuring that this does not happen again.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that every member in the House wants to see action taken to ensure that with the use of the Internet for bullying, for intimidation, and for spreading pornographic images, we have all the tools law enforcement needs. However, the balance must be maintained to ensure that we do not open up warrantless access to the records of thousands of Canadians who are committing no crimes.

I recognize the hon. member's time with the RCMP, and I appreciate the work he did. It could be cumbersome to obtain a warrant, but in most cases, surely the RCMP are able to obtain warrants as they go through the business of proceeding in criminal trials and investigations. That has been the rule of law in our country, and we need to extend it to the Internet, not raise the flood gates on warrantless access.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question, because there is nothing in the bill with regard to warrantless searches. I would like to see the section that says warrantless search. There is nothing in there. There is a preservation order. A police officer must still go to a justice to get approval to get the information from the preservation order. There is absolutely nothing in the bill for a warrantless search and never will be.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill. In doing so, I wish to salute the leadership and thoughtful analysis that has been provided by my colleague, the member for Gatineau. As is so often the case in the House, I wish I could simply stand in this place and enthusiastically support this Conservative initiative, but once again the Conservatives cannot stop themselves from overreaching.

As others have noted in this debate thus far, the official opposition requested unanimous consent to have the bill divided into two parts and to allow the part that was initially introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Bill C-540, the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, dealt with in one fashion, and ask that it be adopted as quickly as possible in committee because of all-party support. Why could this not be about that? Because it is about more than that. Other provisions from the defunct Bill C-30 should be studied separately, in the NDP's view, and given the attention that they so desperately require.

I am going to speak first about some of the cyberbullying issues, then focus upon what are called the lawful access provisions and the critique that so many people have made about those provisions, and then return in the few minutes available to the issue of cyberbullying, which is so critical.

Even in this fractured and divided Parliament, I cannot imagine many colleagues who would disagree with the need to better protect people of all ages from the distribution of intimate images without their consent. We have clearly heard from families, educators and law enforcement officials that there is a need to update the Criminal Code to address this kind of malicious activity. There seems to be no doubt about that. In fact, a few months ago I attended a presentation on Parliament Hill that was hosted by ResearchImpact, Canada's knowledge mobilization network group, that is seeking to maximize the economic, social, health and environmental impacts of research.

Among the presentations I heard in the Centre Block was one by a University of Victoria professor on a program that Professor Bonnie Leadbeater, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Victoria, was involved in as a researcher. She is also the author and evaluator of WITS LEADS, an elementary school program, a program designed to bring together schools, families and communities to help elementary school children deal with bullying and peer victimization and to encourage adults to respond more effectively to children's requests for help.

This cutting-edge research by Professor Leadbeater and her peers has made a real impact across the country. In fact, for her work, Professor Leadbeater was awarded the Partnership Award by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research this past year. I am happy to see such important and applied research on bullying from my community and that it has had such national impact.

Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are taking a straightforward issue that everyone supports and making it into something much more complicated than it needs to be. That is why the NDP has proposed the splitting of this bill, with all of its unanimous support, from those parts that are, frankly, much more controversial, as I will describe in a moment.

We all know that the initiative for Bill C-13 was the tragic events of the highly-publicized suicides of two adolescent victims of cyberbullying, Rehtaeh Parsons of Nova Scotia and Amanda Todd from my province of British Columbia. Frankly, the bill essentially repeats what my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, had already put in his bill, as I said earlier, so obviously there is no issue of support. However, the scope of the application of Bill C-13 is so much larger and targets a whole lot of other issues that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, issues like access to bank financial data, the Terrorist Financing Act, telemarketers and the theft of telecommunications services. These are all in the bill before us today.

It is the issue of access and warrantless disclosure of personal information from Internet service providers to “lawful authorities” that is at issue for this other part, the larger part of this initiative, and it is that I wish to address now.

Many experts on privacy law have expressed great concern over this initiative. A famous privacy lawyer in Halifax, David Fraser, has expressed it as “really cynical and disappointing”, to use his words. He says that there is a whole bunch of irrelevant and other stuff in here that is going to distract from the legitimate discussion of how to fine tune it and get it absolutely right. He is, of course, right.

I would like to focus on the very current critique of the bill by Professor Michael Geist who is perhaps one of our most famous academics and practitioners in this field.

Professor Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, is a professor at the University of Ottawa. To say he has written prolifically on this topic would be an understatement. As recently as two weeks ago, he wrote the following:

The debate over Bill C-13, the government's latest lawful access bill, is set to resume shortly. The government has argued that the bill should not raise concerns since new police powers involve court oversight and the mandatory warrantless disclosure provisions that raised widespread concern in the last bill have been removed. While that is the government's talking points, I've posted on how this bill now includes incentives for telecom companies and other intermediaries to disclose subscriber information without court oversight since it grants them full civil and criminal immunity for doing so. Moreover, newly released data suggests that the telecom companies don't seem to need much of an incentive as they are already disclosing subscriber data on thousands of Canadians every year without court oversight.

This is not an opposition politician speaking. This is probably the leading academic expert on this matter in the country who is bringing this to our attention. No wonder there continues to be great concern.

Professor Geist goes on to talk about the work that the Privacy Commissioner is doing, the recommendations she has released designed to enforce privacy protections in the age of cybersurveillance and a report that includes recommendations for reform to our private sector privacy law to:

—require public reporting on the use of various disclosure provisions under PIPEDA where private-sector entities such as telecommunications companies release personal information to national security entities without court oversight.

That is what is before us.

Civil liberties groups and academics sent a public letter to the various leading telecom companies asking them to shed new light on this policy of data retention and sharing policies. The claim is that our role in the whole surveillance activity remains a bit of a mystery, but there can be little doubt that Canadian telecom and Internet companies play an important role as intermediaries that access, retain and possibly disclose information about their subscribers' activities. These are the kinds of concerns that have so many Canadians continuing to be concerned.

I would like to read another quote into the record from Professor Geist. He says:

In fact, Bill C-13, the so-called “cyberbullying” bill, includes a provision that is likely to increase the number of voluntary disclosures without court oversight since it grants telecom companies and Internet providers complete immunity from any civil or criminal liability for those disclosures....The privacy implications of this secret disclosure system are enormous...

I wholeheartedly support the initiative on cyberbullying. However, once again, I wish the government did not overreach and go into this area of lawful access, which causes so much concern in the communities across the country.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to warrantless searches and telecommunication companies retaining data and potentially providing it to the police. Could the member give an example of that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is addressed in the bill is the so-called low threshold for what is called metadata. Professor Geist has been talking about the voluntary disclosure resulting from privacy threats of personal information and the lack of civil and criminal immunity granted to intermediaries like Internet service providers and telecom companies that provide disclosure. It is the definition in the bill of transmission data that is so concerning.

The bill would create a new warrant allowing judges to order the disclosure of transmission data when there would be reasonable grounds. However, there is also this continuing concern about metadata, which if we have learned nothing from the revelations in the last while concerning the national security agency and CSEC, we obviously have to address very carefully.