Evidence of meeting #20 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Superintendent Gordon Sage  Director General, Sensitive and Specialized Investigative Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Colin Stairs  Chief Information Officer, Toronto Police Service
Roch Séguin  Director, Strategic Services Branch, Technical Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
André Boileau  Officer in Charge, National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Well, we're of course free to have as many meetings as we want. Our original motion on meetings spoke of minimums, not maximums. I don't believe we are under a maximum, but we certainly have agreed to have three more meetings. That to me would be—

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

[Inaudible—Editor]

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

I would consider it one of the three in terms of minimums, yes.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Sorry, Chair. I would like a little bit more clarification on that. As we prepare the report, I think the analysts need to know what the end date will be for witness testimony.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

There is no end date on this study now. We've dispensed with that with the plan that we currently follow.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Chair, we have no objections to inviting the commissioner.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Okay. Fair.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I too have no objection to inviting Ms. Lucki to this meeting. I think it's important to do so.

I don't know if my colleague across the way would be...or if maybe there could be a general understanding. I know there's no such thing as a “friendly”. I would just like the people who are really responsible for this to be invited to the committee. If that's even a retired officer, I wouldn't mind having that person back.

I'm glad that Mr. Green mentioned that this is not personal to Mr. Sage at all—not at all—but I just want some more answers. Like Mr. Green, I did a quick Internet search. Within two minutes, I found out the name of Madam Arsenault.

I just want to make sure we have the right people before us who can answer these questions. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to get the runaround again.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Indeed.

If no one else wishes to speak to Mr. Green's motion, I'll call the question.

All those in favour of inviting Commissioner Lucki to committee?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Are we ready to discuss Monsieur Garon's motion? The motion has been distributed. Everybody should have it in writing now.

Monsieur Garon, what you have distributed in writing is a clearer iteration of what you had dropped on the table. It is not precisely the same. I might ask you to withdraw what you had orally moved and allow the motion as distributed to be the text of your motion.

Can I have you do that, then?

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

I would have preferred that we proceed in reverse order, Mr. Chair, that is, that we pass the motion and withdraw what I asked for verbally afterwards, but I agree to withdraw my previous requests and that we debate my motion.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Okay. You are moving that motion, which has now been distributed to members in both official languages. Thank you.

Now, on debate, go ahead, Ms. Saks.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's clear among everyone in this committee that there is more information that we require. It's definitely needed, and we are well within our rights as a committee to request the presentation of documents, contracts and so on.

My concern is in the request for them to be “unredacted”. While I can appreciate that we really are pushing here to get the transparency we need, it's a precedent that we have to consider in terms of other committees. If it's tabled here, then it will have impacts elsewhere.

There are times when contracts and information do need to be redacted. I've had my own experience on the foreign affairs committee, where we had initial documents presented to us that were redacted. Once we reviewed them, we asked for additional clarifications.

We always have to be mindful of security concerns and of privacy concerns of corporations and so on, and also the precedent. If we always ask for unredacted documents, then witnesses will not necessarily co-operate.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

I had three quick hands here, Mr. Green, and I have you next, after Ms. Hepfner and Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

My point was essentially the same as that of my colleague Ms. Saks, so I will pass.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Chair, I'd like to cede to Mr. Green. Maybe you can come back to me.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Green.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you very much.

I think that if there is a precedent to be set, it is the deference that we show to our security apparatuses, including CSIS, our military and police. As parliamentarians, we have privileges. There is lots of jurisprudence on which we have done lock-ups and had access to unredacted documents for that purpose. I don't think it would prejudice any other committees in the work they do.

What we've seen here, in my opinion, time and time again, is a clear unwillingness to adhere to what I have called the “duty of candour”. Having accountability on this technology would, I imagine, be a part—a significant part, hopefully—of the legislative recommendations that would come out of this study.

What we heard today was an unwillingness to be frank and concise in answering very basic questions, so I would ask that they be—I would require that they be—unredacted. There shouldn't be anything overly sensitive, unless, of course, it's contrary to the testimony that has been provided to this committee through witnesses, in which case it would open up a whole other subset of challenges that we would face.

However, for the purposes of this, Mr. Chair, I would be willing, if it suits the government side, to have a lockdown requirement within this committee so that we would have direct access to the documents. They would not be made public, but we would retain our long-standing traditions in the Westminster system for parliamentary privilege to send for documents, people and any other evidence as required by committee.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON

Thanks, Chair.

I absolutely agree with the sentiments of this committee. I think it is important for us to have a clear, open, transparent process on how policing is conducted within our country, but I also take note of a number of things that Mr. Sage has said and done—and a number of other witnesses—with respect to public safety and the safety of witnesses and victims.

I am in agreement with the motion presented by Monsieur Garon. I think that we should make some concessions here, such that if matters of public or individual safety or matters of national security exist within the documents we are requesting, they should indeed be redacted.

The second point I'll make on the wording of the motion before us is that we're asking for any “ethics analysis”, which I find is pretty unclear language. I would prefer it if we could request any “charter analysis” that was done, or “constitutional analysis”. I think that makes it a little more clear.

I'd like to hear members' view on the two points I've just outlined.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

All right.

Ms. Saks, you're next.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Ms. Khalid. We are looking for a degree of transparency here and to understand what has transpired in terms of the contracts. We all want to be able to move forward with a clear set of recommendations.

This technology isn't going away, and I'm sure that the TPS, the RCMP and many other policing services in the country understand that FRT is out in the world, and we really need some clarity on how to wrangle it in, including on the contracts that are signed with our security services in order to know what safeguards and guardrails need to be in place in such contracting in the future.

That said, I would caution our colleagues here in terms of understanding the scope of privacy laws and security concerns when we do ask for these documents of what's at play. We should always proceed with caution, while at the same time getting the documents that we require to have a fulsome understanding of what is at hand.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Did I see your hand up, Monsieur Garon? Go ahead.

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Chair, the very existence of this motion stems from the fact that the RCMP witness, Mr. Sage, explicitly refused to be transparent, explicitly refused to answer our questions, and explicitly refused to give us any information. He even refused to admit that the contracts we are trying to obtain today exist. So, in the circumstances and in the context of this public contract, I think it is entirely appropriate to ask for the documents as they are. As parliamentarians, we will accept our responsibilities, including any obligation of confidentiality.

I'd like to come back to the question of co-operation. I understand that sometimes requesting such unredacted documents could be seen as potentially discouraging potential co-operation from witnesses. However, in this case we are dealing with a public official who refuses to co-operate with members of Parliament. I think it is important that the committee have access to the documents as they are, i.e., unredacted.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly

Do we have additional debate?

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.