Good morning, Madam Chair; thank you very much.
Thank you all for being here this afternoon.
You will be glad to hear that that's the end of my French. My kids will be glad to hear it anyway. They're bilingual and obviously I'm not.
I've provided some speaking notes, which I hope all the committee members have. If they don't, I'll send another copy to the clerk.
It's a letter that I and Brenda McPhail of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote to the Prime Minister and first ministers on April 20. We've set out a set of principles that would apply not to private sector apps per se or private sector technology and contact tracing per se, but to any requirement under provincial or federal law that would mandate the use of some technology. Hopefully that may be a very narrow category, but that's where, as lawmakers, we feel there's a process and some principles that apply. We may discuss them, but it's listed there in that letter. It's a set of nine principles.
I want to start with jurisdiction and make a pitch for there being a national perspective on this. The point of Confederation in 1867 was that we would be able to do more together than we could apart. That is being tested during this emergency management for federalist reasons. I think, rightly, the provinces and territories are playing the role they ought to play; however, there is a role for parliamentarians. Exactly what that role is, other than the economic relief that is being promised, is something this committee ought to address. I believe that having some basic human rights standards and some very basic goals for technology-assisted efforts to tackle COVID would be an appropriate role for parliamentarians to play.
A practical consideration, and one that I think is going to end up being the sad truth—I wish it weren't so—is that I don't think these systems are going to work, in 2020 anyway. I think there's a very real chance that the technological systems we're talking about today will simply not prove practical in real-world conditions. Their accuracy rate may be just too low and the complexity of human interactions just too high, because it renders too many false alarms.
Second, I think it's very vital that we be able to take a step back and recognize that a contract-tracing application on its own does nothing to stem the spread of COVID. It's useful only if those who learn of a possible exposure to COVID are able to do something about it: get tested, get counselling, get treatment or take measures like self-isolation. But if those services aren't available, if that testing isn't available, if it's not possible for somebody to self-quarantine without going into bankruptcy, then these technological ideas are useless. The advice that encourages self-isolation isn't plausible if at a certain point people can't do it, and they won't do it, as was suggested previously.
Furthermore, the thinking through of what proportionality looks like after necessity is established is important. Proportionality means looking at other, less intrusive means of getting at what you're trying to get at. To start out with mandatory adoption of a contact-tracing app, with a serious fine attached to failure to download the app, would never be proportionate in 2020, because the efforts of undertaking this exercise with less intrusive means have to be established first.
Finally, the United Kingdom released their app just this week. They weren't prepared properly and it was a disaster. It was a complete disaster and an embarrassment to the country. I would encourage us to get everything lined up first, and the protections lined up first, before the app starts.
Thank you.