Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2016

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Kelly is next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You have about a minute and a half left, Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a quick question—well, maybe it's quick, but I don't know—for Mr. Karanicolas. In an earlier answer you gave, you made reference to the long history of terrorism as a threat, and you cited some historical examples.

I completely agree that terrorism has been around for a very long time, but what is different now, really, is the nature of the collection and transmission of information. This is much different from when earlier terror threats were addressed by various countries. In light of that, would you not say that older methods and older attitudes toward data collection and sharing do in fact require more contemporary solutions?

[Michael Karanicolas]

Yes, methods should certainly evolve, but I'm not sure that our values necessarily should.

Obviously, nobody is suggesting that law enforcement agencies and security agencies should be existing in the 20th century. They should be using the Internet. They should be monitoring electronic communications as appropriate. Certainly there is a need to have up-to-date investigative techniques, but at the same time, my point in framing the idea that terrorism has been around for quite a while is to counter the idea of the narrative that's come out, which is to almost present this as an unprecedented kind of threat, as if the gravity of what western countries face today is vastly beyond anything we've seen before.

You can look to parallel examples again. You can look to the U.K. in the 1980s and to what Spain faced with the Basque separatists, and you can see that time and again western democracies have faced threats that were far more serious, you could argue, than are being faced today, and have managed to persevere. I think that level of historical context is important in terms of maintaining our values and our respect for privacy, in terms of keeping that balance, as opposed to saying that law enforcement shouldn't adapt and improve their technology to make use of new technologies that are available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We'll now go to Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm going to take you all back to October 22, 2014. I was the mayor of Hamilton. It was a beautiful, sunny morning. As I got to the office shortly before 10, we heard about the shooting on the Hill. Within about half an hour, we learned that it was one of ours, a Hamilton Argyll. Before noon, we understood that Corporal Cirillo had died. Early that afternoon, the police chief and I visited the family. On Friday, I rode in the motorcade—there was an unbelievable turnout of people along the Highway of Heroes—and the subsequent funeral was one of the major military funerals in Canada in recent history.

The events and the response by the people cried out for a response from the government. The government did respond, whether or not the response has been perfect.

Can I to start with you, Ms. Vonn? If you put yourself in that mind frame, at the time how did you see what would become of this, and then, how did you see the way the government subsequently took the matter into its hands?

[Micheal Vonn]

I think that certainly, along with many Canadians, we saw the initial polling on what was then Bill C-51 as something with great emotional sympathy for the crisis, the tragedy that had occurred. Overwhelming numbers of people said yes, we must have a response. Then you will recall that very shortly afterward—I can't remember if it was weeks or some very short months—when people had had an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the bill, the majority of people who did so and were polled said that they did not support it and that the point was not that we must do something but that we must do the right thing. It must be proportionate, necessary, and effective, and this was not found to meet the measure.

We certainly understand the need for responsiveness, and we don't slight that in the least. The question is whether, with sober hindsight now, when we apply our rationality to this, we have effected an improvement.

As Professor Austin was indicating, we have no indication of efficacy. As the community of privacy commissioners of Canada has said, we have actually achieved no reasonable justification for these extraordinary powers. Do we know that they are making us any safer? We do not. Instead, as I hope I made clear in my submission, we actually serve to harm some of the federal institutions that are part of the architecture of our government by imposing this information-sharing scheme on them.

We should consider very carefully not whether we have tools but whether they are the right ones.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Karanicolas, could you comment?

[Michael Karanicolas]

I would echo what my colleague said regarding the need to look back in hindsight. A tragedy can give rise to particular kinds of legislation, which can be reactionary or can overstep or can fail to achieve a sober balance. We've seen that time and again.

We saw that in the U.S. after the September 11 attacks. There was a huge increase in the security establishment and in surveillance. People look back on that, and there have been increasing concerns over time.

Certainly I do understand that when we have a highly emotional and tragic event, there can be a drive to push legislation in a particular direction, but reflecting in hindsight is indeed the best thing we can do.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Ms. Austin, why do you suppose the government went in the direction it did in terms of creating the controversial legislation we're now discussing?

[Prof. Lisa Austin]

I don't have any insight into why the government chose to do as many things as it did within Bill C-51, but I would say there's a very delicate balancing act in which there are legitimate needs, as Mr. Kelly has been pointing out in his questions too, for the national security agencies to have the right powers to do the job we all want them to do. When these tragedies happen, that's the emphasis in the mind of Canadians.

If you go too far in overbreadth of new powers, then you're going to hit the other end, which is undermining trust in government. I think Bill C-51 goes too far in that direction. Specifically, obviously my comments today are on the information-sharing act, and I do think there's a delicate balance, but I think this isn't the right balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Your time is up, unless you have a quick supplementary to follow up, Mr. Bratina.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

No, I have a long one, so go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Well, we'll get back. We'll have time.

Mr. Blaikie will finish us off with the official allocated time for questions.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Vonn, I would come back to a similar line of questioning that I had before.

I'm trying to understand the importance of having good privacy protections for public policy. It seems to me that it wasn't that long ago that we had a debate in Canada around whether or not we should have a gun registry. Critics of that policy at that time were very articulate about concerns over government having certain kinds of information and what it would mean if that were shared or if the government changed its policies and had that information on people.

Do you not think that the people who were critics of the gun registry should be the first to stand up for very strict rules around information sharing within government, because they understood so well what the risk to ordinary Canadians might be if government had lots of information and was able to share it without discrimination?

[Micheal Vonn]

I'm not sure that I can provide an answer on that.

I certainly know that for many people there are a patchwork of sensitivities where they are concerned about privacy and where they believe other people shouldn't be concerned about privacy because they themselves aren't. I think we need to take the most broadly democratic view and identify where we have concerns that actually reflect on the health of our democracy, and this would be one sphere in which we do.

Again, let me give you another very concrete personal example. People in British Columbia who work for environmental agencies will tell you that when they go door to door asking people if they would like to sign this petition, if they would like to make their democratic voice heard as a citizen of a democratic country, people will say, “Will this get me on a list?”

There is a grave concern about the dragnet of bulk information gathering and how it will prejudice people in the ordinary course of their participating in democratic governance.

When you look at a harm that is that profound, you have to say that information sharing on the scale envisioned in SCISA is having some fundamentally detrimental effects.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much for that answer.

Thank you to all our witnesses for participating here today.

As we are now pretty much at the end of the official round of questioning, I would like to move that we resume debate on my motion from meeting 36, and therefore the subsequent amendment by Mr. Kelly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

As it's a dilatory motion, we proceed directly to a vote.

All in favour of resuming debate on the previously adjourned debate on the motion previously tabled, please so indicate.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Will this be a recorded vote as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

It can be, as soon as we're all clear on what we're voting on.

We're voting on returning to the debate of the motion brought forward by Mr. Blaikie, subsequently amended by Mr. Kelly, on which the previous debate was adjourned at a previous meeting.

This is a dilatory motion. I've been asked for a recorded vote to return to that debate at this particular point in time.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion to return to a previous debate has been defeated.

Mr. Kelly, do you have something to say?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a question of clarification, if you may give me the floor just to ask you, Mr. Chair.

How do we get this motion back on to the floor? Is it necessary to move, as we just did, and immediately go to a recorded vote? Is that the only way to get this motion back on to the floor for debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

In my opinion, this is the only way to return to the debate of the motion that was previously adjourned.

However, there is nothing stopping a member of this committee from introducing another motion of the same content, as long as it's within the rules and the provisions that we govern ourselves by. The mover of the motion would present that motion after 48 hours' notice, much like your motion today, and then the individual who moved the motion would obviously be allowed to immediately speak to their motion.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you for clarifying that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Would it be possible to make time in our agenda for unfinished business when we come back? Can we have a meeting dedicated to discussing those items?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I appreciate your question, Mr. Blaikie. I somehow feel as if I have failed this committee. We have these two motions at loggerheads because apparently we do have other business that committee members would like to bring before the committee, and if that's the case, then the chair will always entertain if somebody wants to have 15 minutes of the committee's time at some particular point to discuss committee business. I would be more than happy to entertain that in that vein.

I'm trying to guide this committee as smoothly as possible. I also think it's particularly unhelpful to continue to adjourn debate on motions, thereby leaving the motions hanging before the committee. We now have two, and at any particular point any member of this committee can move a motion to resume debate on them. This takes time. We would eventually find ourselves in a situation with four, six, eight, 10, 20 of these motions before the committee, which anybody can move at any particular time.

My advice to you as your chair is that we should probably resolve these motions at some point. If any of you wish to discuss with me how we can do that in a manner that suits all parties, I will have some recommendations for you.