Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 27th, 2012

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

First of all, let's be clear: I take no issue with criticism of a minister. Whether they choose to criticize my professional position, my political position, or indeed my personal life, that is fair game. I know it's a difficulty even for members to accept that your personal life is fair game. That's the world we live in, and I'm not going to try in any way to suggest that somehow aspects of my life are off limits. My life is literally an open book. That is, I think, the sacrifice that many of us make when we come into public life: all anonymity is gone. We answer for our lives, both our public positions and our private lives. I just want to make that clear. I'm not concerned about criticism. I'll deal with criticism as it comes. I am answerable, ultimately, to my constituents in that respect.

I think you've raised a very good point. You wondered whether Speaker Lamoureux could have anticipated the world we live in back in 1973; I don't think most of us could have anticipated this world back in 1999. I use that date, which is the date I learned to use a computer. Prior to that time I had been in the elected office in Manitoba, and before that time I was in the private sector for a few years. The world in 1999, when I left the provincial office, had changed; I began to use a computer and realized the full potential of what might follow with the use of the computer. I think it's been a real blessing in that respect.

What we haven't explored, and I think what this committee may seriously want to look at, is how the computer and Internet impact on the institutional integrity of Parliament. I think we have not really examined how MPs can protect themselves in these kinds of situations. We all know about intimidation, blackmail, and extortion, and all those types of things, but the use of the Internet in committing old crimes in new forums is something that is new to us. For the benefit of all MPs, we have to examine how MPs can protect themselves from these types of Internet threats and how the House of Commons can better protect members.

I'm not an expert on the computer and the Internet, but I certainly think there are steps that can be taken, which I don't want to presume to suggest to the committee. I think there are steps that can be taken to better protect members against criminal acts of this nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Hawn, you have a four-minute round.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Toews, for being here.

In talking about technology, you said it's a blessing. It can also be a curse, obviously, depending on who is manipulating it.

I want to go back to the advisability or practicality of trying to track these guys down. Will this type of criminal ever go away? Will this kind of Internet thuggery ever go away? Like other nefarious groups, these guys are many and shadowy, and we'll never run out of them.

You talk about wanting to make an example of them; I would fully support that, but does it really hurt them, or does it give them some kind of pathetic martyrdom if one of them gets apprehended and punished? Do you still think that's worth pursuing, or should we basically suck it up and try to encourage a more honest dialogue, a more open dialogue? The natural human reaction is to catch them and punish them, and I couldn't agree more, but are we going to give them more of a platform by doing that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You know, it's a little like whacking a mole. They keep on popping out of another hole, and that's the nature of their game.

What concerns me is that there are good people out there who look at politics and being in elected office as a way of doing good in society, doing good for our country. I think for the House of Commons to throw up its hands and simply say that this is always going to happen, that these criminals will always find another way of doing it.... If the House is not supportive of individual members in trying to find ways to lessen the impact of or the opportunities for that type of criminal activity, we are a poorer country for it.

On the whole issue of who Anonymous is, I don't think it's a particularly well-organized group. These are individuals, as far as I understand it, who can choose to belong to Anonymous whether other members of Anonymous want them to be there or not. In many respects these are individuals acting on their own. The fact that an individual can eventually be held accountable, whether it's through this type of process, a committee process, or through the criminal process, is an effort that is very necessary.

People like me and people like you have developed a thick skin. This is something we've been through and we probably will be through it many more times yet, but we owe something to younger parliamentarians or those who are looking at entering Parliament. What type of protection do we offer colleagues who choose to serve the public in this way? That's something that the House cannot give up on and needs to address, even though the challenge does appear to be overwhelming from time to time.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I agree.

While we're talking about actual criminal activity, they hold themselves out as defenders of democracy and so on, but back on March 13 they reportedly took credit for a cyber attack on some servers that gave them access to 9,600 non-expired credit cards. According to this one report, they charged at least $700,000 worth of false credit charges for personal gain, so it's beyond intimidation and the personal stuff; it's purely criminal. It's theft and fraud. It's not just the kind of thing that we're talking about; they appear to have gone well beyond that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd be careful not to attribute the non-criminal activity of some of these individuals to the criminal. It's not an association that we can necessarily make. Even when somebody is talking on behalf of Anonymous, who are they really talking on behalf of? Perhaps it's themselves and one or two others, and not on behalf of others who may exploit the Internet for other criminal activities.

What I'm hoping the committee can look at is how we, as parliamentarians, react when one of our colleagues is being intimidated in this fashion. What type of support do we offer them, in terms of ensuring that they can continue to carry out their responsibilities to the people who elected them from their riding?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madam Charlton is next.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I want to follow up on the line of questioning we started with last week. I know that you indicated you'd followed the story both in the media and through Hansard, so let me go directly to that point.

Most of us here in this room would agree there was a indeed breach of privilege. All of us would also share your concerns about the seriousness of such a breach. I have a more difficult time with the second two of our responsibilities: to find who the culprit is, and then to determine the remedies or penalties that ought to be applied for such behaviour.

You suggested that you have some concern about the perception that House wouldn't be supportive of pursuing this. I don't think that is an impression anybody had hoped to leave.

On the other hand, there is a reality that we have to confront. It's true that we have to protect ourselves from intimidation, but I heard you say—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—that we need to pursue this so that we can restore the integrity of our systems, except from my perspective, this wasn't a hacking job. There was no breach of computer security here on the Hill and there was no concern about the security of our BlackBerrys, our desktops, or anything of that nature, so it's not really a matter of defining a remedy in terms of enhancing computer security here on the Hill.

Anybody can post a YouTube video from anywhere, and that's quite different from somebody who is hacking into our systems. For the kinds of issues we are looking at here, remedies probably lie within the Criminal Code, perhaps in our defamation laws.

I wonder if you could clarify the remedy you are seeking, and where you feel that the House may be letting you down if it doesn't pursue this as you envision it ought to be pursued.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In many ways, I'm a novice at this. Many of us who have been parliamentarians, whether in provincial legislatures or federally here in Parliament, have been intimidated before in one way or another. This intimidation may or may not amount to blackmail or extortion under the Criminal Code. What this situation brings to light is the use of the Internet to intimidate members in an anonymous manner. Are there any steps that can be taken?

I don't presume to know what the experts may tell you in their testimony. The experts may all come here and say there is nothing you can do and you're just going to have to suck it up and be intimidated. I hope there are those who have thought about these situations, who have the expertise, and who can give you some better solution than to tell us that this is the way of the world and that's what you bear when you become a member of Parliament. I would hate to think this committee would simply decide that this task is so overwhelming that you have to just call it a day because nothing can be done.

Let's hear from the experts. I think the committee will call certain experts. At the end of the day, if all of the experts say there is nothing that can be done, perhaps then we'll have our answer. I think it would be premature for me to provide you with that kind of conclusion at this time.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Minister, I look at this as the 21st-century version of an anonymous letter. If someone in the 1970s or 1980s sent an anonymous letter with the exact same message, what would have happened?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Certainly, there would have been a criminal investigation, but there may well have been certain steps that the House might have taken. The actual mechanism by which the threat is being conveyed is a new phenomenon for members of Parliament. How do we respond to something like this? Is it acceptable because we don't have the technological tools to ferret out those who are responsible? Is there nothing we can do? Maybe that will be the conclusion of the committee, but I don't think that an investigation by this committee is a waste of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, you're up.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks. I think one of my colleagues also has questions.

Quickly, Minister, what I'm concerned about in situations like this is the consequential effect of, for lack of a better term, piling on. In other words, as we've seen before, once a level of criticism starts against any member or minister, it seems that it goes on and on.

I'm not sure whether you want to respond to this question or not, but beyond the anonymous threats that were posted on YouTube, do you consider that you have received any other credible threats against either the performance of your job or your physical security?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd rather you asked the police that question. I don't want to talk about any threats that have been made. I can indicate that they are broader than the issue of the threats on YouTube.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I think my colleague Mr. Lukiwski mentioned earlier that all parties are involved in this thing. The NDP saw an example on the weekend from whoever was trying to subvert their process in their leadership selection, so I'd like to frame it in broader terms than just parliamentarians. I'd like to frame it, basically, in terms of freedoms of all Canadians.

Essentially it becomes.... Parliament is an example of who our constituents wish to be here. We're an example of that. I would say this group typically claims to be part of their own democratic process and claims to be supportive of it, but they really are subverting the process as opposed to being part of it.

I think you said it as well. There are really two elements here. There are some that are more nefarious, but there are also more the innocent members, I would say, who have an innocent affiliation with the group. For whatever reason, it emboldens them to hide behind the name. I would challenge those groups that want to be part of the process to be part of the process.

I would like to know your opinion. If Anonymous was sitting right here, what would you say to them?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Aside from introducing them to a police officer, I would raise the entire issue.... Freedom of speech, I think, is one of the most precious freedoms that we have in this country. I defend freedom of speech very vigorously. That's why I take no issue with the fact that people choose to point at allegations about my private life. Because we are in the political realm, that is something that we have to learn to live with, whether the allegations are true or not.

Now if they are not true and it's worth your while, you can, of course, utilize defamation and other sections under the Criminal Code that relate to the intimidation of public officers, as Mr. Comartin mentioned. I see this kind of activity, the utilization of so-called free speech, to forward criminal activity as being a very dangerous and regrettable thing, because I think that then has certain repercussions in terms of the passing of laws or other restrictions on freedom of speech, which I would be very concerned about.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Right.

I would just add a little question. Do I have no more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Hold that thought.

Go ahead, Mr. Toone.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Toews, for having come to meet with us today.

I agree that your privileges have been breached. There is not a doubt in the world. I think that all the members of this committee share that opinion. Like several of the members who sit on this committee, I am concerned about what we and the committee can do to remedy this. In my opinion, the measures this committee should consider are not obvious. When dealing with matters of privilege, we normally turn to the Speaker of the House, or the chair of the committee, who guides us.

In this case, we want to find a solution regarding these threats, but I don't know if this committee is in a good position to solve the issue. Certain bills undeniably generate debate. You mentioned during your first statement that this was the case for bill C-279, on gender identity and gender expression. The purpose of that bill was to introduce solutions for dealing with certain threats. I don't think it generated threats against a member of Parliament. So I don't know if it is really a good example.

Of course, this is not the first time that a member of Parliament has been threatened. However, since this happened outside of this Parliament and since you are the Minister of Public Safety, it seems to me that you are in a very good position to tell us what solutions you think this committee should look at.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As I've indicated, I don't think the whole relationship of the responsibilities and duties of a member and the utilization of the Internet in this fashion has ever been explored or discussed. I think that you're getting certain experts who will talk about that relationship and then you will be in a position, after hearing the evidence, to make the determination of what steps, if any, you can take. At this point, I'm not in a position to be able to say this is what you should or should not do, but very generally, is there any way that MPs can be protected from these type of threats, and are there any steps that the House of Commons can take to better protect its members?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Maybe we could be more precise as to what threats we're talking about, because we did get expert testimony at the previous meeting of this committee regarding locking down the technology and attacks on the internal network within Parliament. There were also discussions over the lack of security in riding offices, but that's certainly very different from a YouTube video being posted freely on the Internet and certainly beyond the scope of the Chief Information Officer's capacity to be able to control.

Maybe you could explain what specific threats you want this committee to remedy and how you want those threats remedied.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The Speaker's decision stands and speaks for itself. There's been a breach of a member's privileges in terms of being able to carry out their responsibilities. Do the Internet and electronic communications add a new dimension to the world that Speaker Lamoureux saw in 1973? To what extent has the Internet changed the way we relate to our constituents and to the general public, and the privileges that have been developed in respect of the members here in the House? Are there any steps that can be taken in respect to even a general posting, as you have suggested? I'm not saying that there are. I think this is something that the committee ought to examine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht is next.