Justice committee  This recommendation was made after input from our privacy law section regarding the role of online service providers such as search engines and social media websites, which may not have any monitoring of material that is posted or retrieved through their services. So where there

Justice committee  It's probably still not culpable—

Justice committee  —according to the wording that we've provided. Criminal mens rea is a high standard.

Justice committee  The intent to commit a criminal offence is a high standard. The wording of the offence section is not going to solve all the problems that exist with the Internet.

Justice committee  Good luck with that.

Justice committee  Yes, but we have proposed a number of refinements, the first being that it should be used only in exigent circumstances. We accept that when data is to be deleted, automatically or otherwise, that it may be in exigent circumstances.

Justice committee  In this context, we've made a specific recommendation that it would be in circumstances where the data would otherwise be deleted in the time required to obtain a judicial authorization.

Justice committee  Well, they're making a demand of a particular service provider or website that may have automatic deletion of data, so there may be a known time parameter, or there may be a suspicion that the perpetrator will delete it. I don't think that reasonable suspicion is the same as spid

Justice committee  That's for sure. Because we are mere lawyers, we are dependent on people with expertise in education. There have been some excellent presentations from previous witnesses on how youth are being educated about the effects of cyberbullying and how they can be better educated about

Justice committee  That recommendation was arrived at some months ago. We appreciate that the legislative process takes its own course, but our intent in making that recommendation is simply to enable full consideration of both parts of the bill. Cyberbullying is a very sensitive topic, and lawful

Justice committee  Yes, I was just going to speak to that.

Justice committee  It's a difficult point, because we accept that metadata is more revealing of private conduct, of browsing history. But transmission data, information on the mere originator and recipient of a communication, can be revealing if it's repeated. The example we gave in our written sub

Justice committee  We addressed that exact issue in our written submission. It's quite true that there isn't a specific provision for eventual destruction of copied electronic data. The older provisions of the code cover return or destruction of physical objects that are seized. But copies of data,

Justice committee  I did turn my mind to this briefly in preparation. As you likely know, those definitions of peace officer and public officer appear in section 2 of the Criminal Code. You have to be cautious because they apply throughout the code in hundreds of sections. When you look at the eig

Justice committee  Well that issue is squarely before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Spencer case. So I'm waiting to hear what they say. It's been very well argued both ways that subscriber information is either like name and address information, or that it's the crucial link that enables deter