Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Conservative talking points on this bill are that there is no longer any provision for warrantless search.
Clause 20 of the bill, proposed section 487.0195, reads:
(1) For greater certainty, no preservation demand, preservation order or production order is necessary for a peace officer or public officer to ask a person to voluntarily preserve data...to voluntarily provide a document to the officer that the person is not prohibited by law from disclosing.
The next proposed subsection reads:
(2) A person who preserves data or provides a document in those circumstances does not incur any criminal or civil liability for doing so.
That is what we call the poison pill. It provides immunity for holders of electronic records to voluntarily hand them over to police. It is akin to a warrantless search anytime a co-operative organization or corporation keeps those records.
We all know that telecoms and Internet service providers routinely provide information to advertisers.
My question for the member is: Does he still stand by the Conservative talking points, given it is in black and white in the bill that there is not only permission but encouragement for record keepers to co-operate with authorities with immunity?