Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hang on a second. Let me just try to bring this back.

The first amendment you've proposed, based on what I've seen, is having the dates between January 8 and January 29. Just so we're clear, the original motion had “That, as of January 29”. What you're proposing is “That, between January 8 and January 29, 2024”. Everything else stays the same after that, right up to “process”, and then, for the next part of the amendment you're proposing, which is the same amendment, you're saying that the committee devote at least four meetings to the study.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's instead of six.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. You want to reduce it from six to four meetings. I have that clear.

Then, on the rest of it, all of the agencies that have been identified in the original motion and the two that we added by consensus would remain the same. Is that correct?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

The clerk has received the amendment, and I think it's a fairly simple one, so I don't think we're going to need to deliberate on this. It's to change the date again, for the benefit of the committee members, so it's from January 8 to January 29, 2024, and then to reduce the number of meetings from six to four. That's what I understand the amendment to be. I will give a second for the clerk to share that with the committee.

It's done, so you should have it on your computers or phones.

It's in both official languages.

There are two people who want to speak to the amendment proposed by Ms. Kusie. We'll start with Mr. Green.

Ms. Kusie, would you like to speak to the amendment?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I think there's something to be said about the dates that are mentioned in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll start with Mr. Green, then it will be Mr. Villemure's turn. I'll come back to you after they've spoken, Ms. Kusie.

Mr. Green, on the amendment proposed by Mrs. Kusie, please go ahead, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd like to welcome Mrs. Kusie back to committee.

Certainly, there's a keen interest in this, and I think that's been expressed already around the table. What I would share with you is that I will not be supporting this amendment, based on, particularly, the timelines of the commitments that I'm sure many of us already have within our constituencies in that very brief period of time that we have back in our communities, including caucus retreats and other things that are typically held within this time period.

Furthermore, the notion that Mrs. Kusie's amendment is going to direct our line of questioning and reasoning is a pretty big presupposition. I think we all have the ability as members of this committee to take our own lines of questioning and to focus on the things that matter to us.

On the motion that was presented by Mr. Villemure, I accept it as a Standing Order 106(4), conditional to its being held during an existing meeting, because what I'm not interested in doing to my staff and to my community is adding all this extra stuff.

I'm just going to say this: This feels very familiar to the 10,000 amendments that are sitting on Bill C-50 and all the other shenanigans that are happening. In this committee, I'd prefer to be straight up. I'd prefer to work within the framework and the mandate of our committee. For that reason, I will not be supporting any additional meetings in those very few weeks that we have in our ridings to reconnect with our community after the holidays.

I would just ask that we have that consideration to stay on track within this committee and to work within a work plan, whether it's through a subcommittee process, as we typically do...and I still support the six meetings.

Also, I'll say this on the record: If we get to a point where we've exhausted our witnesses and there's nothing left to be had after four meetings, then at that point I would be open to entertaining a motion that completes the study and allows us to report back.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a bit of a paradox. We're adding witnesses, but reducing the time allotted for their appearance. The spirit of the motion was to receive the people in question for one hour each. Mathematically speaking, it doesn't work.

On the other hand, I agree with my colleague Mr. Green about the time we need to get the job done in our respective ridings. We also want to give our staff a break.

We also don't want to encroach on our work schedule. I was very careful when drafting the motion to make sure that wouldn't be the case. I spoke to all the parties to be sure. We shouldn't break our word.

I'm all for adding the people mentioned. However, if we do that and reduce the number of meetings, we'll have to schedule them on a date when we can't hold them.

I will also vote against the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Kurek.

Go ahead, please, sir.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I would note that I think an issue of this gravity...and I know we'll be addressing a number of important issues prior to Christmas. As I discussed in another committee meeting yesterday, we can do multiple important things as time requires.

Having a young family, I would note specifically the need to balance time in that regard, but I think it's quite valid if we meet during break weeks, which is something I hear often from constituents. They don't have an issue with our working, including, quite often, travelling back and forth. I'm a western MP, so it's not always easy, especially when I have to deal with Pearson airport, to get here. Constituents expect us to do the good work.

There's this unique opportunity. To speak to the change in the number of meetings, it makes perfect sense, because if we were to meet over the course of break week, resources would not be as big an issue. We could have possibly longer meetings—they could be three-hour meetings—that could be scheduled in a way to maximize the efficiency of travel. We could ensure that we are dealing with this important issue in the manner that...especially for our public servants who could be affected by this.

I think there is the fact that we have a lot of unanswered questions. I won't speak beyond that. I'll reserve a few comments for the larger debate on the motion. I think I'm on that speaking list.

I think it makes perfect sense. I know public servants will be working during the weeks in January when we're back in our constituencies. Being able to plan around that is entirely reasonable. Canadians expect us to be doing this good work. While public servants are at work during those weeks in January, I think it would be entirely reasonable for us to get answers on their behalf and to stand up for those people who may have had their privacy breached.

I won't get into the substance of why this is important, but I think our not moving expeditiously is not serving well those who work diligently to provide the services that we, as parliamentarians, all depend on and, greater than that, that Canadians depend on. The fact that those unanswered questions remain is deeply problematic.

We could have a couple fewer meetings and they could be longer in duration. We could get this done efficiently and ensure that we do the work that is required to get the answers that Canadians—and, in this case, those people who work for these 13 departments—deserve.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Mrs. Kusie, I have you on the list on the amendment. Do you still want to speak to it?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Not seeing anyone else wanting to speak on the amendment, do we have consensus on the amendment?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to ask the clerk to take a vote on the amendment to change the dates to January 8 to January 29, and to then reduce the number of meetings from six to four.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

We're back on the main motion. I have Mr. Kurek, and then I have Ms. Hepfner right after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek, on the main motion. I remind everyone that we did add two witnesses to the main motion as well.

Go ahead, sir.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It's disappointing that Ms. Kusie's amendment didn't pass, because I think—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

It's Mrs. Kusie.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I'm sorry. It's Mrs. Kusie or Madame Kusie, I guess you could say.

Look, this is an issue where we have.... It's quite shocking, really. We've had a number of issues brought before this committee that speak to something that Mrs. Kusie indicated. It's is very telling. It's the normalization of surveillance. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, we learned through the work of this committee, after it was initially reported in the media, and we then endeavoured to get answers, about millions of Canadians' cellphone records. The data, location data and incredibly detailed records are terrifying, quite frankly.

Those are not just my words. I heard from many, not just the witnesses who appeared before this committee but also constituents and Canadians who reached out. They shared with me and my colleagues their feedback that the government didn't see a concern with that massive amount of data being used to pursue a public policy agenda.

Now, we've had discussions before this committee that there is a place and time for extreme measures to be used. We've heard that in the context of criminal investigations. We've heard that in the context of ensuring that children are not exploited. We're in the process of a social media study that is addressing some of those things where there have to be those tensions kept, but what has been revealed is quite shocking.

Let me just share a little bit of what I think is a culture shift as we see the evolution of technology take place at a rapid rate. I was part of the debate in the House the other day that happened to involve some concerns around artificial intelligence. Some don't know what AI and chat-based AI are. It's quite shocking, because over the last 12 or 13 months since specifically ChatGPT and a host of others...some of which are available in Canada, some of which are not, some of which are available to the public and some of which are in the process of being researched.

We see a radical shift taking place in technology, yet the legislation governing many of the aspects of this in our country is decades old. In fact, much of the legislation predates the existence of these things that we all depend on and that much of our lives depend on. I know that in modern workplaces, for employers, sometimes for maximum efficiency and worker productivity, there's the “bring your own device”. A lot of workplaces have policies related to that.

There's this tension that does in fact need to be found. Of course we want to ensure that there's the ability for things like criminal investigations and so on to take place, but we see that the government did not do its due diligence. This is the exact thing on this issue and the myriad of others. It's almost too long to list the number of times when we have seen the government not do its due diligence, which results in an erosion of trust in the institutions. Privacy impact assessments were not done. These are federal government employees who expect their employer—the federal government, and by essence the people of this country—to respect them in their workplace. That's a reasonable expectation.

As my colleague shared, that's something that deserves answers. I think the motion that Mr. Villemure has brought forward is a productive step in that direction to simply be able to start getting some answers so that we can find out exactly why these questions were not asked in the beginning.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I am very frustrated by and tired of hearing ministers and senior officials stand before this committee and many others and say one of a couple of things. One is “just trust us.” Well, I'm sorry. It's been proven time and time again that we can't do that. That trust has been broken, and trust is something that is earned. Certainly, these Liberals have not earned the trust of Canadians, as we see demonstrated very often. Further to that, we see that they're simply not willing to do that extra work to do the additional and required...what people think is required. Take the privacy impact assessment process as part of that.

We heard from the RCMP that, when it came to investigative tools, it was coming and that it hadn't been done yet. When the media reported on it, they started the process, and they simply shared with us, “Don't worry about it; it's coming.” Well, I'm sorry. That's simply not good enough.

We need to ensure.... If due diligence is not done, it calls into question not only the motives.... Look, it's within the realm of possibility that there are valid reasons. However, if there are valid reasons, then those valid reasons should stand up to scrutiny. That's where the government seems to be unwilling, at best, but I fear it's worse than that. It's causing the erosion of the trust that we should be able to have, in this case, in departments as employers but also in the host of concerns that are brought.

Certainly, the privacy of Canadians is a big issue. I hear that from constituents in a host of concerns. If the government is not leading by example, that's deeply problematic. I know that some of the press that we've seen on this is quite astounding. It really opens one's eyes, and when there is a host of other concerns surrounding this, we see that we have to get answers. That is the very least we can do, and then in the process of getting these answers, we can and—I hope, Mr. Chair—would be able to make some very positive recommendations that allow us to provide the framework, the suggestions and ultimately the accountability that is required to address the concerns that are being highlighted.

I will leave my comments there, Mr. Chair, but I'll just emphasize this: Let's get this done. I think that we could have at least started that process over the course of some of the upcoming break weeks. However, nonetheless, it's an important issue that we should be able to get to work on, and I hope that the talk about the Liberals' specifically wanting transparency, wanting to get answers—and I'm sure we'll hear that here at some point—translates into a yea vote for this motion so that we can actually get to work on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Hepfner, you have the floor on the main motion as amended.

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to start off by saying that I agree that it's concerning that departments aren't following the privacy impact assessments. It's a really important process, and the departments should be following that. Maybe that directive needs to be strengthened. I think there's value in this study when it comes to that. However, I think that we should be careful about our rhetoric and about not using our words correctly. For example, spyware is not something that the Government of Canada uses. Spyware is illegal. Technically, it's malware or a malicious code. The Government of Canada does not use any of that.

The software that we're talking about is specialized software, and it's used in digital forensics, so as part of incident response. This isn't something that applies to Canadians in general. It applies to public servants who work for the Government of Canada, and it's specialized software. For example, it's used in internal investigations—so, when employees are suspected of fraud or of workplace harassment—and it's always done in accordance with internal protocols that govern the collection and storage of personal information to ensure its protection.

I'm just cautioning the committee to not use so much hyperbole. We don't want to spread fear among Canadians. This is not a widespread program that's being used across the board. It's being used internally to monitor employees of the government. Yes, I agree that there should be a study done to look at why the privacy impact assessments haven't been done by the departments, because that's the key here. That is what we need to get to the bottom of, and that's what we need to impress upon our departments: that it's very important that we do this work.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I was just talking to the clerk about one of the issues you brought up, and I'll explain to the committee what I was talking about in a second.

Mr. Bains, you have the floor.