Information & Ethics Committee on July 26th, 2022

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon.

For all the reasons referred to by Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Bezan, I would like to propose the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting the words “The Minister of Public Safety”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Madam Brière.

The amendment is in order. I will now take debate on the amendment.

I see Monsieur Villemure, who had his hand up before. We're now debating the amendment.

Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the reasons cited by Mr. Bezan, precisely because the minister is ultimately responsible, I think he must know, or ought to know, that it is relevant for him to appear.

If, during the course of the examination, everything was made clear before he appeared, we could review the issue.

I said at the outset that, since I wanted to conduct a public interest examination and not be partisan on this subject, I called the members of all parties. I now have three responses from the side of my colleagues opposite expressing their desire to limit the scope of the examination.

I think that in the name of parliamentary friendship, we should not start reducing the scope of the examination before knowing the first thing, honestly.

I think we might need a bit more good faith co‑operation in this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We have Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, I just want to echo what Mr. Bezan said and what Mr. Villemure said as well, that this is definitely an important issue. If members are bringing this up, I'm sure it is important for us to find out exactly the kinds of operational challenges of the RCMP in endeavouring to ensure the protection of privacy of Canadians. That, to me, based on my reading of this motion, is what the ultimate intent is, although it's not very clear.

If we're going to try to receive as much information as possible, in my opinion, given all the points that the motion is asking for, I really think that these are decisions in the day-to-day operations of the RCMP, which the minister would just not be involved in. If we are going to go down the path of this motion, I would rather we spend that time dealing with the operational piece of it and getting the information that Monsieur Villemure really wants to get. I would rather spend the time in questioning and receiving that information from those who are relevant to the topic of this motion.

Obviously I'll support the amendment to remove the Minister of Public Safety from the list of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Now we have Mr. Naqvi, and after him, it will be Mr. Bezan.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I also want to build on what both Monsieur Villemure and Ms. Khalid are saying. This is a non-partisan issue, and I totally agree with Monsieur Villemure on that. This is an important issue. Canadians should know whether or not the police services are complying with all the legislation that exists as it relates to their privacy.

In order for this committee to do that work, it is important that we focus on the operational aspect of what the RCMP does or does not do. As soon as you inject bringing somebody like the Minister of Public Safety into that conversation, I think you're trying to make the issue a partisan issue. All of us have sat on many committees. We know the line of questioning that takes place, and especially when we know that the Minister of Public Safety will not have any information or knowledge as to the kind of software, if it's being used by the RCMP, for instance, in this particular matter, because it is an operational matter.

I have had the opportunity to serve as minister of public safety in the Province of Ontario, which Ontario Provincial Police reports to. I can tell you that is the kind of information a minister, even at the provincial level, will have no information on or will not be privy to at all, because it is so down to operational. Even if a minister asked the commissioner of a police service, whether it's the RCMP, OPP or Sûreté du Québec, the likelihood that the commissioner would tell the minister, “Sorry, sir or madam, you do not have the right to ask me those questions because these are operational matters”, is extremely high. That would be the response, because the minister would be out of place, out of bounds, in asking that type of operational question.

I do support Ms. Brière's amendment that we remove the Minister of Public Safety from this proceeding, given this is a highly operational matter. It's probably best that those who are aware of how those operations work, i.e., members of the RCMP, for example, be the ones who are asked to testify as opposed to bringing in the minister, who is more on the executive side or on the political side and is responsible for policies, not the actual operations of our national police service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Bezan, followed by Monsieur Villemure.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm opposed to this amendment, and mainly to the issue the Liberal members keep arguing, that this is an operational question. There is a policy backing here, and that is why we need to talk to the Minister of Public Safety. Ultimately, the RCMP reports to him, or whoever the Minister of Public Safety is at the time. This goes back over a number of years. We're not concerned about the current Minister of Public Safety; it's about the general policy direction that was given by the Government of Canada through the Minister of Public Safety's office to the RCMP about how to deal with privacy issues around this technology. This spyware, Pegasus in particular, has huge, sweeping impacts on the privacy of Canadians. We also want to make sure that charter rights have been protected.

This comes down to the responsibility of the minister to ensure that warrants have been issued or ministerial authorization is given in extreme circumstances if they are investigating an individual at a certain point in time who was a national security threat or someone who is a threat to the public safety of Canadians. Whether we're talking about transnational criminal organizations, drug gangs or terrorist organizations, the Minister of Public Safety has a huge role to play and has ministerial authority over all those things. If they had to do a wiretap, in a lot of cases they would have gone to the Minister of Public Safety for authorization, if a judge wasn't available, to make the warrants applicable.

There is a major role for the Minister of Public Safety to play in the policy and in the issuing of authorizations to wiretap, spy and use malware such as Pegasus. We need to hear from the Minister of Public Safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Now we'll go to Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of the arguments made are valid.

However, it must be noted that in the case of facial recognition, we have not asked to meet with the Member of Parliament. It is strictly operational.

However, while it is operational, the use of software like Pegasus is of concern because of the scope of this kind of tool, which goes beyond anything we have seen up to now. If the minister is aware of it, I would like to know. If he is not, I would like to make him aware, in any event.

The use of a tool called a “device investigation tool” is not something innocuous in operational terms or even in political terms. I don't think the RCMP can decide this by itself, without talking to anyone.

Above all, the minister should know about it, because it falls into another category. This isn't facial recognition or geolocating people. We're virtually in Minority Report territory.

For the purposes of public policy, accountability and the trust we need to have in government, I think we have to retain the option of calling the minister to appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Madam Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I would simply like to remind everyone that the commissioner of the RCMP has complete authority over that.

The commissioner is accountable to the minister, but she has operational independence. No elected official has any influence over her or directs her in any way. This is a line that we must not cross.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

René, do you have something you need to get in or can we proceed to the vote?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like to add a point to Ms. Brière's comment.

The minister is not supposed to be informed by the commissioner of the RCMP. I can be in partial agreement with you on that point, Ms. Brière. However, when it came to the convoy movement we saw earlier this year, the minister nonetheless admitted he had been informed.

I think that line is porous. I'm not accusing anyone, but it is porous and it exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

With that, I will go to the question on the amendment. We're voting on the amendment.

We're in hybrid, so I'm wondering about the easiest way to do this. I guess I'll just put it out. Is anyone opposed to the amendment?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I am opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Madam Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote on the amendment.

There is a tie. I will vote against the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is defeated, which returns us to the main motion.

I have Mr. Naqvi first, followed by Ms. Khalid.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I also want to move an amendment. I move that the main motion be amended by replacing “at least four meetings” with “no more than two meetings” in the first line of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

The amendment is in order.

Madam Clerk, do you have the amendment?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

It's “no more than two meetings” instead of “at least four meetings”. Is that correct?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Is there discussion?

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, maybe I'll let Mr. Bezan go first, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Yes, you may.

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.