moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.
I am pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.
Bill C-32 contains key proposals to ensure that sufficient protection is in place to address new and emerging forms of threat. The bill proposes a small number of clarification amendments to ensure an efficient and proper application of our criminal law.
The first proposal would establish a more serious offence, with significant penalities, to address the use of deadly traps in places used by criminals to protect their illegal activities, such as drug production operations.
The second set of key amendments are needed to ensure that the public and private sectors can use reasonable measures to protect their computer systems, and the valuable information they contain, from hackers and malicious electronic communications that may contain viruses.
The bill also contains a small number of proposals to address some pressing matters that the government feels should be dealt with at this time. Although the majority of the proposals consist of clarification amendments they are important to ensure our criminal laws apply effectively.
First, I would like to describe the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code offence of placing traps that are likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person.
The placing of traps is already considered an offence under the Criminal Code. However, the current maximum sentence is five years. The government considers this sentence too lenient, considering the seriousness of the danger posed by the traps, particularly when they are placed in areas where criminals want to protect their illegal activities, such as drug production operations.
Lately, enforcement agencies and other organizations, such as fire fighters associations, have raised concerns about the presence of deadly traps that are often hidden in residences. Police, firefighters and other front line workers are indeed reporting a significant increase in the use of traps by criminals in order to protect their drug production activities whether against their rivals or against law enforcement officers.
We have heard of boards being cut near doors and windows, of weapons such as crossbows or shotguns being triggered by the opening of a door, and of incendiary devices designed to destroy the evidence of a drug production operation.
Since such activities are often hidden in residences, front line workers are particularly at risk when responding to emergency calls. These traps are an unacceptable additional risk for front line workers.
The placing of traps has become a serious problem associated with criminal activities, particularly those of organized crime, and we must create a specific offence for this type of criminal activity and impose a commensurate sentence in order to adequately punish those who use these lethal traps to protect their criminal activities.
Thus, we propose to reformulate in several respects the provision on traps. First, we propose to create an offence with a stiffer sentence, of up to 10 years of imprisonment, for a person placing a trap in an area that is used for the purpose of committing a criminal act. If the placing of a trap causes bodily harm to a person, the maximum term of imprisonment will be 10 years, but when a trap is placed in an area that is used for criminal activities, the maximum possible term will be 14 years of imprisonment. In cases where a trap causes someone's death, the maximum term will be imprisonment for life.
In other cases, the term of imprisonment for anyone who places traps will remain five years.
The purpose of these Criminal Code amendments is to ensure that those who place traps, who kill or who cause injuries, will face stiff sentences reflecting the seriousness of the offence.
Emergency services workers, such as police officers and firefighters, who must go to places that are apparently safe will benefit from protection that is commensurate with the danger created by the placing of traps.
The second set of key amendments in Bill C-32 seek to answer the protection of computer networks from cyber attacks. On a personal level most of us have been victims of some form of cyber attack. A virus, a worm attack, could wipe out important data and cripple vital networks while intrusion by a hacker could result in the theft of private or classified information.
The bill proposes amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act to permit the use of systems capable of detecting intrusions that could harm computers or the valuable and often sensitive data they contain.
Intrusion detection is an essential part of information technology management intended to protect computers, networks and data. These defensive monitoring activities are necessary to safeguard the integrity of systems operations and ensure continuity of service.
The proposed amendments are needed to bring legal clarity to the use of intrusion detection so that persons who employ intrusion detection measures for the purpose of protecting or managing a computer system are not wilfully intercepting private communications.
These amendments are particularly important for the government because they would ensure that the government would be able to protect its property and more important, safeguard the information it is entrusted with as this information impacts upon the privacy of all Canadians.
Bill C-32 therefore proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create an exception to the offence of intercepting a private communication similar to exceptions that already exist to ensure quality control in the communication industry. The exception will only be applicable to persons using protective technologies for the purpose of managing computer systems for quality of service or for protecting the computer system against computer related offences.
An amendment is also proposed to the Financial Administration Act to ensure that federal departments and agencies may take reasonable measures to manage and protect their computer systems which may include the interception of private communications.
The Treasury Board Secretariat will, through the promulgation of standards, ensure consistent application of intrusion detection technology across the Government of Canada in compliance with the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To protect the privacy of Canadians, limits will also be imposed on the use and retention of private communications obtained for the use of information technology management practices.
I would like to emphasize that this bill also includes clarification amendments to the Criminal Code and related legislation. An example of such an amendment clarifying our criminal law is the amendment permitting the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary onboard an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that wouldbe likely to cause injury to the aircraft or toany person in the aircraft.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks led to a review of our legislation. We realized that we had to clarify the grounds for the use of force aboard a Canadian aircraft outside Canadian airspace. The amendment will include in the Criminal Code the Tokyo convention principles, which permit the use of reasonable force to prevent certain offences.
The rules on the use of force will not be changed by the proposed amendment, because the use of force to prevent the commission of an offence is not a new concept in Canadian law. The proposed provision builds on existing legal principles. The main goal of this new provision is to allow the use of the existing grounds in the case of offences committed outside Canadian airspace.
This is also a ground of defence. In civil or criminal proceedings, the accused could use this ground of defence, but he or she would still have to prove that the use of force was reasonable and proportionate. The same test applies to other grounds for the use of force in Canadian law.
Another clarification amendment included in the bill is needed to ensure that the one provision in the Criminal Code to search for and seize weapons, ammunition and explosives explicitly sets out the appropriate constitutional requirements. The courts should not have to read in the grounds for obtaining such a warrant. The government is proposing an amendment to provide in the legislation that information given by the police has to be made under oath. The bill improves and clarifies the criminal law.
Other changes to clarify the bill seek to eliminate ambiguity or language discrepancies in our criminal law. The government proposes such changes on a regular basis to maintain the quality and clarity of the legislation for which it is responsible and to ensure the effectiveness and the proper functioning of our criminal law system.
