Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 9th, 2022

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

Mr. Chair, I'll just say that based upon the testimony that we have heard and based upon conversations that Mr. Green had with the RCMP, I think there is value in having some in camera meetings to get more detail. I also think that based upon yesterday's testimony, there's the potential that CSIS and other policing agencies across this country, the CSE and National Defence, may be employing this technology as well, and we may want to hear from them.

Rather than function under a time constraint, and I'll leave it to Monsieur Villemure who brought forward the motion, potentially we should look at extending this study rather than getting in a rush to table the report. I think this is something that we need to delve into in more detail, especially as we start talking about privacy impact statements, updating the Criminal Code to make sure the warrants are sufficient or need to be improved to deal with ODIT.

We also need to be talking to the commercial application of this technology and whether or not, based upon the various vendors that are out there, perhaps we should be hearing from some of them as well, and who is making use of their technology and if it is being downloaded by nefarious actors, whether they be at the state level, or whether they be in the private sector, and how that could potentially impact our privacy as Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

That may be where we're heading.

For everyone to be aware, the more meetings we add, the longer this will take to get to the draft.

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

That's understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

As long as that's understood, because this is the conflict that is within the existing motion that this study exists under.

Go ahead, René.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think we've learned a great deal in these two days of testimony. We have a lot of material to include in an eventual report. However, the goodwill of the RCMP people and their readiness to come back after conducting a privacy impact assessment are essential. We can't conclude our work if we don't see that.

I'm not sure we need to go into all the ramifications that Mr. Bezan mentioned. I think our work would definitely be incomplete if we didn't accept the hand that, for once, the RCMP has extended to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

If I may, I would take from this discussion that there is consensus to have additional meetings, particularly an in camera meeting, and to not rush to prepare the report and table it in the House. If there's consensus around that, then I'll consider that settled and the next meeting will be at the call of the chair, when appropriate.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, with that, I'd like to retable my motion from yesterday. I'll read it into the record:

That, pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on July 26, 2022, the committee re-affirm its request for all the documents outlined in its original motion; that any documents received from the RCMP that include warrants, lists of warrants, the scope of warrants and the affidavits submitted in support of the warrant applications be considered by the committee in camera only, and following the parameters outlined below: that all documents issued pursuant to this motion be provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within 15 days of the adoption of this order; that all relevant documents be vetted for matters of personal privacy information, ongoing police operations, and national security by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within seven days of the receipt of the documents; and that all documents be circulated to committee members, at the earliest opportunity, once vetted.

Again, to reaffirm to my colleagues, this isn't about a witch hunt. This is trying to understand the mechanics behind and circumstances in which warrants are used for the on-device investigative tools, and that this technology needs to be further looked at. We can do this through the document process, but I don't want to violate people's privacy rights. I don't want to undermine the ongoing investigations that the RCMP are currently involved in, as well as raise any information that is considered a national security risk. We're trying to ensure that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has the capability to go in there, redact and vet those documents and give us only the information that we need for this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

While I understand the importance of this motion, I would like to move an amendment. The amendment has been emailed to all the P9s of members. I'll read into the record:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “original motion” the following: “with the exception of sealed warrants”.

The reason for that, Mr. Chair, is that the seal order is made by a judge. If a judge made a decision to seal a warrant, the RCMP won't have the ability to contradict that or to provide us with that information. Therefore, it just doesn't make sense for us to try to hold the RCMP to account for something that they just are not able to do.

It's a practical motion. Obviously, all of the documents as listed out by Mr. Bezan still apply. I just think that this amendment is a technicality to ensure that we're not asking the RCMP to do something they're not able to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Bezan.

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

I'll just say, I believe that section 187 of the Criminal Code mandates that all documents that are related to a warrant under part VI of the Criminal Code, which includes video surveillance and wiretapping, be automatically sealed, so this is a backhanded move to ensure that all the warrants will never be released to our committee. It's a cover-up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Ms. Khalid.

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

Chair, I take exception to everything that we do to try to balance out the work of this committee getting called a cover-up. That is absolutely not the case. What we're trying to do is to ensure that the RCMP, as they have been so forthcoming, are able to continue to be forthcoming with the documents that they provide in a manner that they can actually provide them. It's very unfair for Mr. Bezan to accuse us of cover-ups for a very small amendment like this, which only limits the scope of it so that we don't have to call commissioners in front of Parliament and hold them in contempt, or whatever other game the opposition may want to play.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I see no further debate on the amendment, so I will begin again in hybrid. We'll do this in reverse, and I'll ask if there's anyone opposed to the amendment.

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

I'm opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I see opposition to the amendment. We'll ask the clerk to conduct a vote on the amendment.

There's a tie. I vote opposed.

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

Now we're back to the original motion.

Is there any further debate on the motion? Seeing none, is there anybody opposed to the motion?

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

I'm opposed, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay, then, I will ask the clerk to conduct a vote on the motion.

There is a tie. I vote in favour of the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have a couple of minutes, but I think, or I hope, we're done for now. We will be back this afternoon.

Actually, let me be clear about this afternoon. We have three witnesses who will be run together in a single panel. Depending on our timing and whether or not we exhaust members' desire to ask questions, we may have a bit of time at the end. I will put a hard stop on this at five o'clock, if I may, in case anybody has travel arrangements and whatnot and needs to be on their way by five.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.