JUST Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 11:02 a.m. this day, in Room 253-D, Centre Block, the Chair, Mike Wallace, presiding.

The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 20 of the Bill.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

“grounds to believe that”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing line 36 on page 14 with the following:

“make the demand only in exigent circumstances if they have reasonable”

(b) by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

“an offence that is also an offence in Canada has been committed under a law of a foreign”

(c) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 15 with the following:

“(b) in the case of an offence committed under a law of a foreign state that is also an offence in Canada, an investigation is”

(d) by adding after line 12 on page 15 the following:

“(c.1) the computer data may be lost or destroyed before a preservation order, production order or warrant can be obtained.

(2.1) A peace officer or public officer who makes a demand under subsection (1) must keep a written record that sets out the grounds on which the demand was made.”

(e) by replacing line 25 on page 15 with the following:

“a law of a foreign state that is also an offence in Canada, 90 days after the day”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 33 on page 15.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing line 7 on page 16 with the following:

“Parliament or that an offence that is also an offence in Canada has been committed under a”

(b) by replacing line 17 on page 16 with the following:

“(3) If an offence that is also an offence in Canada has been committed under a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

“possession or control and will assist in the investigation of the offence.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

“appropriate, including conditions to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.

“(1.1) A justice or a judge shall not include in the order any condition under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

(a) by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 21 with the following:

“487.0191 (1) The Attorney General of the province in which an application for an order is made under any of sections 487.013 to 487.018 or a preservation demand is made under section 487.012 or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if the application for such an order or demand is made by or on behalf of that Minister shall, within 90 days after the period for which the order or demand is granted,

(a) notify in writing any person whose information was produced or preserved pursuant to that order or demand; and

(b) certify to the court that granted the order or demand, in a manner prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, that the person has been so notified.

(2) On ex parte application made by a peace officer or public officer, a justice or judge may grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period referred to in subsection (1) for notifying a person or make an order prohibiting a person”

(b) by replacing lines 14 to 21 on page 21 with the following:

“(2.1) The justice or judge to whom an application referred to in subsection (2) is made, shall grant an extension or a subsequent extension of the 90-day period, if he or she is satisfied

(a) that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application; and

(b) on the basis of an affidavit submitted by the Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in support of the application, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that notification would be injurious to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs, or to an investigation relating to a violation of any law of Canada or of a province or of any law of a foreign state that would be a violation of a law of Canada or a province had it occurred in Canada.

(2.11) The extension or subsequent extension referred to in subsection (2.1) shall not exceed three years.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-13, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 24 on page 24.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“a document in those circumstances or who aids, in good faith, a person who he or she believes on reasonable grounds is acting under the same circumstances does not incur any criminal or civil liability for anything reasonably done further to doing so.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(3) A person engaged in providing a telecommunication service to the public shall, respecting the requests made by peace officers or public officers to voluntarily preserve data or provide documents, submit an annual report to the Minister that specifies the number of requests made, as well as the volume of data preserved and the number of documents provided.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“487.021 (1) Within three years after the coming into force of this section, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of sections 487.011 to 487.02 shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.”

Bob Dechert moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “three” with the word “seven”

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Bob Dechert and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

The question was put on the amendment of Sean Casey, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 20, as amended, carried on division.

Clause 21 carried on division.

Clause 22 carried on division.

On Clause 23,

““tracking device” means a device that may be used to obtain”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

(a) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 29 with the following:

“configure a device in”

(b) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 29 with the following:

““transmission data recorder” means a device that may be used to”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ève Péclet and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 24 to 47 inclusive carried on division severally.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill, as amended, carried on division.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-13, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 12:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:54 p.m., the sitting resumed in camera.

It was agreed, — That the Committee meet on Monday, July 7, 2014, Tuesday, July 8, 2014, Wednesday, July 9, 2014 and Thursday, July 10, 2014 to hear witnesses in relation to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; and that the daily meeting schedule will be from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.; from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

At 1:05 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.