SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-370

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 07, 2023
Bringing Home Justice for Victims of Serious Crimes Act
  • This bill, called the Bringing Home Justice for Victims of Serious Crimes Act, aims to amend the Criminal Code in Canada. The amendment would allow a judge to order a person to unlock an electronic device if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the device contains evidence related to a crime. The order must be executed in a reasonable manner, and failure to comply with the order can result in criminal charges. However, evidence of unlocking the device cannot be used to prove ownership or knowledge of its contents in any legal proceedings.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • A steelman argument in favor of Bill C-370, the Bringing Home Justice for Victims of Serious Crimes Act, which amends the Criminal Code to provide for the unlocking of electronic devices, could be as follows: 1. Protecting public safety: The ability to unlock electronic devices can be crucial in preventing and investigating serious crimes, such as terrorism, sexual exploitation, and trafficking. By allowing judges to make orders compelling individuals to unlock their devices, law enforcement agencies can access potential evidence that may help identify and apprehend criminals, potentially preventing further harm to the public. 2. Balancing privacy and security: While privacy is an important right, it is not absolute. In cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed and that evidence may be found on an electronic device, the interests of justice and public safety should be prioritized. The proposed legislation includes safeguards, such as requiring a judge's authorization and the exhaustion of other investigative procedures, to ensure that the power to unlock devices is used judiciously and only when necessary. 3. Keeping up with technological advancements: As technology evolves, criminals are finding new ways to hide their activities and communicate through encrypted platforms. Law enforcement agencies need the ability to access these devices to effectively investigate and prevent crimes. By providing a legal framework for unlocking electronic devices, the legislation ensures that law enforcement can keep pace with technological advancements and adapt their investigative techniques accordingly. 4. Providing closure for victims and their families: Unlocking electronic devices can provide crucial evidence in cases involving serious crimes, offering closure to victims and their families. Access to information stored on devices, such as messages, photos, or location data, can help establish timelines, identify accomplices, or prove intent. This can be particularly important in cases where traditional investigative methods may not yield sufficient evidence. 5. Deterrence and accountability: The knowledge that law enforcement has the ability to unlock electronic devices can act as a deterrent for potential criminals. Knowing that their activities can be traced and evidence can be obtained from their devices may discourage individuals from engaging in illegal activities. Additionally, the legislation holds individuals accountable for failing to comply with an order to unlock their devices, ensuring that there are consequences for obstructing investigations. It is important to note that this steelman argument presents a perspective in favor of the legislation, but it does not consider potential counterarguments or concerns related to privacy, civil liberties, or the potential for abuse of power.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • Steelman Argument Opposing Bill C-370: While the intention behind Bill C-370 may be to enhance law enforcement capabilities and aid in the investigation of serious crimes, there are several concerns that arise from this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. This bill grants judges the power to compel individuals to unlock their electronic devices, which raises significant issues related to privacy, individual rights, and the potential for government overreach. One of the main concerns is the violation of privacy rights. The right to privacy is a fundamental aspect of individual freedom and is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Granting judges the authority to compel individuals to unlock their electronic devices undermines this right and opens the door to potential abuses. It allows for unwarranted intrusion into personal information, communications, and private data, which can have far-reaching consequences for individuals' personal and professional lives. Furthermore, this amendment gives the government excessive power and control over its citizens. It expands the scope of government surveillance and undermines the principle of limited government. By allowing judges to order the unlocking of electronic devices, the state gains access to a vast amount of personal information without the need for a warrant or probable cause. This goes against the principles of individual liberty and limited government that are often championed by right-wing ideologies. Another concern is the potential for misuse and abuse of this power. Granting judges the authority to compel individuals to unlock their electronic devices creates the risk of government overreach and abuse of power. There is a possibility that this power could be used to target individuals based on their political beliefs, religious affiliations, or other personal characteristics. This could lead to a chilling effect on free speech and expression, as individuals may fear that their private information could be used against them. Additionally, this amendment may have unintended consequences for cybersecurity. By compelling individuals to unlock their electronic devices, there is a risk of exposing sensitive information to potential hackers or unauthorized access. This could compromise the security of individuals, businesses, and even national security. In conclusion, while the intention behind Bill C-370 may be to enhance law enforcement capabilities, it raises significant concerns related to privacy, individual rights, and the potential for government overreach. Granting judges the power to compel individuals to unlock their electronic devices undermines privacy rights, expands government surveillance, and opens the door to potential abuses. It is important to carefully consider the potential consequences and implications of such a measure before enacting it into law.
House Second Reading
  • Dec. 7, 2023, 10 a.m.
  • In Progress
  • Read
House First Reading
  • Dec. 7, 2023, 10 a.m.
  • Passed