Evidence of meeting #31 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was immunity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We'll now move to the new amendment that was submitted to us just this morning. We've numbered it 26.1. It's an NDP amendment.
Madame Péclet, good luck. The floor is yours.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Yes, it's quite an amendment.
This amendment speaks to the same issues I raised in our amendment NDP-21.1, where we asked for people to be notified about the sharing of their personal information.
At the risk of repeating myself, I believe it is extremely important to be clear on this subject. The Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code on electronic surveillance was unconstitutional. It was not the substance of the section that it found unconstitutional but rather the mechanism whereby wiretapping could be carried out without a warrant. There has to be a mechanism of oversight and notice for that to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No discretionary power may be granted without there being an oversight or accountability mechanism. That is all the more important since this is about accessing information as personal as that found in electronic or other communications on the Internet. The Supreme Court was clear: there must be an accountability system where discretionary authority is granted to intercept personal information without a warrant.
The government must ensure that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness reports to all parliamentarians and to Parliament on the use of this kind of order respecting the preservation of data. It must ensure that all requests are public so that we know how many there have been and which ones have been brought before the courts. We have to know what happens to our personal information.
I would note, incidentally, that the Supreme Court did not rule section 188 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional precisely because it provides for review by a judge. The Supreme Court held that that oversight mechanism was valid.
I would remind the government that this kind of power cannot be granted without accountability. The department must be compelled to report to all members on the use of this kind of order. The Supreme Court was clear on this matter, as were several witnesses, including the Privacy Commissioner. There must be an accountability mechanism so that officers of Parliament have access to that information and report on it to parliamentarians. The department must be accountable to Canadians.
The victims of cyberbullying should not be prevented from obtaining justice because the government has rejected all opposition amendments on ideological grounds. I hope it will acknowledge the guidelines the Supreme Court has put in place to ensure this kind of power is constitutional.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment.
I'll just point out that wiretap orders are much more invasive than any of the preservation demands or orders that we're discussing in this matter.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
One second, Mr. Dechert.
The bells are ringing. We have half an hour. One of the purposes of getting this room is that we would be fairly close to the House.
With the permission of the committee, I think we could go until 12:30. We have two amendments after this one, and we'll see how far we can get. We will return after the vote, if that's okay.
12:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
As mentioned, this provision is with respect to things that are much less invasive than wiretap orders. In addition, Mr. Chair, we believe the volume of orders for these sorts of preservation demands would make this administratively impractical.
On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to speak today simply in support of the amendment of my colleague Ms. Péclet. I think it is an extremely important amendment.
We asked a lot of question about this in the House. We need an oversight mechanism. There have never been so many requests to access personal information since the Conservatives have been in power. However, we have no oversight mechanism that we can use to report what goes on and see how our data are being used. That information is not being used solely in Canada. It is being shared with various police forces and international organizations. That is troubling from a privacy standpoint.
This is an excellent amendment. We need an oversight mechanism. The minister must provide parliamentarians with more information, even though he has a discretionary power. This is extremely important in view of the speed with which information circulates on the Internet and the ease with which it can be intercepted. We need to know where our personal information is being sent and with whom it is shared. Parliamentarians have a right of access to that information.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, Ms. Doré Lefebvre.
Madam Péclet, you have the last word.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I would simply like to respond to the parliamentary secretary's comment. I do not think it is up to him to judge whether the information in question here is less personal than any other. Some witnesses said this information was as sensitive and personal as electronic communications. So I simply want to remind the parliamentary secretary that it is not up to him to judge what is personal or not.
This amendment simply asks that the minister report to parliamentarians on the information of Canadians that the government is sharing. We are not asking for much here. We are only seeking transparency.
The Supreme Court was clear: Canadians have a right to know what the government does with their personal information. That information must not be shared completely in the dark, without guidelines. That is important. This amendment makes no change to the way the act is enforced. It simply adds an oversight mechanism. It in no way changes the powers the government wants to give to public officers or telecommunications companies. We are simply asking the government that the people who make these requests and the minister be accountable to Canadians.
It is not up to the parliamentary secretary to judge which information is more personal than any other. If he wants to rebut the experts' testimony, let him invite other experts to appear before the committee so that we can debate the matter.
Canadians are entitled to know that the government handles their personal information, whether shared or not, in a transparent and responsible manner. That is true for anything. That is what is done in the case of the budget and expenditures. We need to know what happens with the sharing of such data. It is not up to the parliamentary secretary to judge what data should or should not be made public.
Thank you very much.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
If there is nothing further on amendment 26.1, we'll vote on it?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to the end of the amendments on clause 20.
Shall clause 20 as amended carry?
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
On division.
(Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to on division)
(On clause 23)
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Amendment NDP-27 has been removed.
That brings us to amendment NDP-28.
Madam Péclet, the floor is yours.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
This responds to the testimony of several witnesses on the definition of a tracking device. A clear definition was obviously needed.
Our amendment is reasonable and changes neither the spirit or not the content of the act. It simply clarifies certain matters.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, briefly, the government does not support this amendment.
As discussed at committee and elsewhere, Canadian jurisprudence has already established that a device includes a computer program. The government's provision amends the previous definition of a tracking device to simply codify the common law and make clear that a tracking device could either be hardware or a computer program, i.e., software. Some tracking devices, as you will know, may be hardware, particularly those from many years ago, and some may be software, but most are a combination of the two. The exclusion of a computer program from the definition of “tracking device” does not, in our view, correspond to existing technology in this area.
On that basis we will not be supporting the amendment.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We'll vote on amendment NDP-28.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP-29 has been removed as it's consequential to other amendments that have failed. Amendment PV-16 is the same.
We're on amendment NDP-30, the last amendment.
The floor is yours, Madam Péclet.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
This is along the same lines as our last amendment. Some witnesses and experts told us about problems with the definition of "tracking device". This amendment reflects their testimony and concerns.
Once again, I would like to note that this amendment is reasonable. It does not have the effect of completely changing the spirit of the act.
I would like to ask the government to support this amendment.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, the government's position is that this amendment should not be supported. It's essentially the same point we were making on the last amendment, which is that excluding “computer program” from the definition of “transmission data” does not make sense, because computer programs are used within commercial telecommunications infrastructure to permit all devices such as phones, computers, laptops, and modems to be identified, activated and configured.
Canadian jurisprudence has already established that a device includes a computer program, and the government's provision simply codifies the common law and makes clear that a transmission data recorder could be either hardware or a computer program. Some transmission data recorders may be hardware, and some may be software, but, as I hope the member knows, most actually combine the two.
The exclusion of “computer program” from the definition of “transmission data recorder” does not, in our view, correspond to existing technology. Therefore, we will not be supporting this amendment.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
We'll vote on amendment NDP-30.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There are no more amendments on clause 23.
(Clause 23 agreed to on division)
To move things along a little bit, there are no more amendments between clauses 24 and 47.
Shall clauses 24 to 47 carry on division?
12:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative