Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2016

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do you have any comments?

[Michael Karanicolas]

Just to disagree with you slightly, I don't think the incoming administration's view is that torture should be used in a highly limited and specific way; in the statements I've heard, he seemed to be endorsing it extremely broadly. Certainly I agree with everything that my colleague said in terms of repealing those ministerial directives.

I also want to add more broadly that I think that now is potentially a time when Canada can and should be exercising strong moral leadership on this issue when questions of international human rights law are being threatened in this kind of way. I think that Canada should take a very strong stand on that.

I'm glad you brought up the recent election with regard to this issue, because I think we can talk about the Arar commission and people being transferred to Syria, but when our closest intelligence partner is taking a stance like this, I think it does force some very significant questions on Canadians about what our moral duty is in terms of the way we conduct ourselves.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do I have any time remaining, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You have several minutes.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just to close up on this question, the one thing I want to ask about is that within SCISA there is no civil liability requirement. Do you think there should be some judicial recourse for those people who are unfairly or improperly targeted or under scrutiny, who may have had some harm caused to them?

[Micheal Vonn]

May I say that when I did education on what was actually in Bill C-51, there were often audible gasps in the audience when people found out that those who might be rendered to torture, Canadians, would have no civil recourse under SCISA because of the liability waiver that is part of it—and this is, of course, something that has happened.

Citizens of Canada who know this about this portion of the act are appalled.

[Prof. Lisa Austin]

I would agree with that. I would just go back to my general point that when you create a law for information sharing around national security, you need to maintain the trust of Canadians. A provision that there is no recourse for those who are abused undermines the trust of Canadians.

I think it also connects not just with privacy concerns but with equality concerns, because who is going to feel most targeted potentially by that? I think it causes a lot of ill will unnecessarily. Is there really such a risk of abuse? I hope it's not the position of the government that it would require that provision.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Karanicolas, do you have a comment?

[Michael Karanicolas]

I would generally support those kinds of provisions as well. I do think there needs to be accountability, and while we've seen certain provisions in there for good faith, those don't necessarily apply to this kind of a case, so I would concur with my colleagues.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We'll now move to our five-minute round, colleagues, starting with Mr. Kelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that I have the floor, I would like at this moment to move the motion that was put on notice last Friday.

That the Committee invite the Minister of Democratic Institutions to testify before the Committee, at the earliest opportunity, regarding what steps she and her ministry have taken to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected, according to the provisions of the Privacy Act, when they enter demographic information into the survey at my democracy.ca.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Your motion is in order, Mr. Kelly.

Do you wish to speak to it at this time?

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

Yes, I would.

I believe we need to hear from this minister regarding the MyDemocracy.ca program that she has. Changing or retaining Canada's electoral system has been an important topic over the past year. A special committee was formed to study the issue, and it reported earlier this month. I myself travelled with the committee during part of its tour through the western provinces and territories.

However, the minister was somewhat dismissive of the committee's report. She conducted her own parallel consultations on the topic and has now has launched a third party survey on democratic values, ostensibly to consult Canadians indirectly instead of through a referendum, as recommended by the special committee.

We've heard much about the survey at MyDemocracy.ca of late. It asks a series of oddly drafted questions with many conditionals or what-if statements. It doesn't actually ask what system a responder would prefer and does not give the option to call for a referendum. It allows responses from out-of-country IP addresses, which is interesting too, if a responder provides a Canadian postal code.

Most interestingly for this committee, it asks for significant demographic information, which may be used to identify individuals. This last point has attracted the attention of the Privacy Commissioner, who is now investigating the survey due to his concerns about Canadians' privacy.

While he's conducting the investigation, we can't call the commissioner. We certainly can't question the commissioner while an investigation is in process. We will wait until he has completed his investigation before we can hear from him.

In the meantime, I think we should provide the Minister of Democratic Institutions a chance to tell the committee more about this survey. The survey has been met with widespread and, I would say perhaps, universal ridicule, which discredits the process itself. The fact that the process is under investigation by the Privacy Commissioner also means that perhaps the most important thing we can ask this Parliament about is what our democracy will look like in the future.

She stated in question period last week that the survey protects respondents' privacy pursuant to the act. That's what she said. Time certainly did not allow for her to discuss specifics. In contrast, by appearing before the committee, she would have the time for a detailed discussion of an important concern for privacy in light of an important national discussion.

There are many questions we could ask her, and there's substantial expertise now around this table on privacy matters from the numerous witnesses we've heard from and the study we have completed. Many of these questions have in fact been asked in the House and have not really been answered. For instance, what will the government do with all of this information that it is collecting as part of the study? Will the information be destroyed at the conclusion of the study? If not, what further use would be made of people's demographic information, together with their answers to these value questions about opinions on democratic reform?

This is a timely issue. It's an important one for Canadians. I think this is the place where it should happen.

In terms of scheduling, we won't be meeting again until late January. There should be ample time for the clerk to find an agreeable time for the minister.

I would move that we have the Minister of Democratic Institutions appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I have a speaking list, colleagues.

I'll just let our witnesses know that we should be through this little bit of business shortly. Please just bear with us.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much. I just wanted to take a moment to speak in favour of the motion.

One of the things we've been discussing even in the context of our study of SCISA has been a necessity test. It was very interesting to hear that as part of the government's survey, Canadians have to submit information having to do with their level of income, for instance, and a bunch of other things that I don't think are obviously necessary to the government getting their opinion on what kind of voting system we would like to have.

I think there are some interesting questions that bear even on issues that we're discussing in the context of our study. It might be helpful to get the point of view of the minister to better understand why she believes this information is necessary.

Also, it would be good to get a better idea of what they are going to do with that information. When the minister has been asked questions about why the government would want that kind of demographic information on respondents, her answers, frankly, have been quite evasive in the House. She says, you know, it's not a requirement that you provide that information in order to complete the survey. Presumably Canadians are filling out that survey not because they care to know whether Vox Pop Labs thinks they are an innovator or a guardian but because they want their preference to be registered. Although she has refused to say, it does say on the website that if you don't provide that information, then your preferences and the information that's actually germane to democratic reform—if anything really is out of that survey—isn't counted.

I think having her come here with more time might allow us to get a better answer from her as to whether or not it serves any purpose at all, other than to get that opinion on whether you fit into whatever categories the company that designed the survey came up with. I think filling out that survey if you're not prepared to provide that information would be very useful.

In our last study that has been referred to today on the Privacy Act, we talked about government exploring ways to see the Privacy Act apply to minister's offices. I think this MyDemocracy.ca survey is a great example of why Canadians might want the Privacy Act to apply to ministers' offices, because one wonders really what the point of collecting that information is, if it isn't ultimately for some kind of profiling or outreach. I don't see that profiling people is useful to government with respect to their preferences about democratic reform. I can imagine how it would be useful to the Liberal Party of Canada. Therefore, I think getting some more precise answers from the Minister of Democratic Institutions as to why it's important to government to have that information would be very good.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, I do support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Go ahead, Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I would also like to speak in support of this motion. As Mr. Kelly indicates, it's incredibly timely, owing to a variety of concerns that our side of the House has with the survey, particularly the demographic information. We're asking Canadians to fill out this information in good faith without accurately telling them exactly where it's going.

If I were on the other side of the table, I would think this is a tremendous opportunity to have the minister come before us here and explain in more detail what exactly is happening with this information. Is it going to the Liberal Party of Canada? Is it going to the minister's database? These are questions that we would like her to clarify. She would have the opportunity, if she comes here before us, to take that time to clarify. In particular as it pertains to privacy, the Privacy Commissioner would also be someone pertinent, if he has an ongoing investigation on this. He might have some thoughts on this as well.

I think we should have the minister here before us to clarify what exactly it means when Canadians are being told that they are guardians. Where is that information going, and how exactly can we ensure that information is being protected? I would hate to think it was going to the Liberal Party of Canada for perhaps another fundraiser of some sort.

I think this would be a tremendous opportunity for the those on the other side to call the minister here and have her explain to us so that we can answer some of these questions and there's not the type of speculation that Canadians right now are curious about.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Mr. Lightbound is next.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate that my colleagues have a lot to say on this important issue, but considering that we have witnesses in different time zones—and I'm thinking of Ms. Austin, who flew in to testify before us—I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

This is a dilatory motion, and I must call for a vote immediately.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Can we record the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We can.

Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Thank you to everyone involved. The motion to adjourn the debate on the motion that was before us has been sustained.

We will now resume the agenda that we had previously, and we'll return to Mr. Kelly for his five-minute round of questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our witnesses, thank you for your patience.

I know we've heard concerns from many of our witnesses about the necessity versus “undermines the security of Canada”. If I understand the positions correctly from our witnesses, we have two who want to repeal the act completely and start over, or not start over, and Mr. Karanicolas, if I understand you correctly, you want to perhaps not necessarily abolish the act completely, but make numerous changes.

Many Canadians—and I think of the people in my own riding, when I knock on doors and when I meet people—if they thought that an intelligence-gathering agency or a security enforcement agency of some sort, a law enforcement agency, possessed information that undermined the security of Canada, they might feel that it may be appropriate to share information that undermined the security of Canada with a more appropriate agency to exercise its judgment and deal properly with that information.

Perhaps make the case again, or explain it in a way that would resonate with residents who have concerns about those who would undermine the security of Canada.

Perhaps we'll start with Ms. Austin.

[Prof. Lisa Austin]

Thanks for the question. I think it's a great question.

The one thing that strikes me in examples like this, and the one you're giving too, is that as I said before, there is much broader popular support for information sharing within agencies that have a national security mandate. Where I think the trust issue becomes much more problematic is when you say, “Oh, this isn't about an intelligence-gathering agency or an enforcement agency possessing information and then sharing it with some agency that they think is more appropriate. This is about any government department sharing with these recipient institutions.”

The sheer breadth of the information sharing contemplated here is part of the problem with the basic justification for this. The specific targeted improvements on how information is shared come out of the Arar commission and the Air India inquiry, and there's, I think, great support. It's always a case of the devil's in the details, right? I think specific information sharing within agencies with national security mandates, with appropriate protections and accountability, sounds all right. Broad information sharing that also contemplates bulk access in ways that haven't been disclosed publicly, with potential additional concerns around equality and profiling and association and expression, is part of the problem here.

Justifying this act based on examples around narrow information sharing is part of the issue. I think people accept the narrow information sharing. It's the breadth of what's contemplated here that's the problem.