Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We will now vote on government amendment 1.
(Amendment agreed to)
Colleagues, as a result of amendment G-1 being adopted, I draw your attention to my previous statement regarding the admissibility of the other motions that are related to this. As a result, the following amendments will now not be moved: Green Party-2, NDP-6, Green Party-7, and LIB-2.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, did you intend to say Green Party-2 because I don't see how that's affected by the lines we just passed in G-1?
I understand PV-7, but I—
Conservative
Green
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No, excuse me. I will get clarification from the legislative clerk and we'll see where we're at.
Ms. May, there was an error and thank you for bringing it to the clerk's attention. As a result now, PV-2 is in order, and not only that, you now have the floor to introduce your amendment.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that it was completely inadvertent and I appreciate the assistance of the clerks.
This amendment would flow at the end of the definition section that's found in part 1 under security threats in the information sharing section. As we heard from numerous witnesses, as well as important experts who were not witnesses, such as the Privacy Commissioner to the Government of Canada, Monsieur Therrien, there were concerns about the implications of information-sharing to privacy rights in Canada.
I'll read my amendment:
In the event of an inconsistency between this Act and any provision of the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.
This is clarifying. I really do hope that the government members might consider allowing it to pass to ensure that privacy rights are not inadvertently destroyed in this country.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, again, we keep seeing these misinterpretations of the act coming forward, but just for clarity, Canadians should be assured that information sharing must always take place in accordance with the Privacy Act.
It's a law of Canada and nothing in this bill is in any way contravening the Privacy Act. If information is going to be shared, there is a clear and explicit authority that has been set up to share that information, a legal framework including oversight by the judiciary.
We need to come back to a realization of why these measures are so important. If there is a risk to national security and someone in one branch of government, say a passport officer or a visa officer, for example, becomes aware of it, that person needs to be able to share that information with the appropriate security agencies to keep us safe.
That's all this act is designed to do. It's in accordance with the law and these conspiracy theories to the contrary are simply not the case.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Once again, mischaracterization of the positions of other members of Parliament as conspiracy theories are not helpful to the debate, particularly in view of the submission that this committee received from the Privacy Commissioner—unless the members on the other side are implying that the Privacy Commissioner is somehow a conspiracy theorist. He expressed real concerns about the impact of this bill on the privacy of Canadians who are not involved in violent or terrorist activities.
All that the amendment proposed by Ms. May would do—to address some of the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner—is to make explicit that this bill does in no way remove privacy rights from those others who are law-abiding citizens. That is the concern here.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a question for the officials on this one, Mr. Chair.
If this—I think you have it before you—subclause were added, would it have any implications for the bill as a whole? I ask because the bill itself says “for greater certainty” in a number of places. Although it is not using the words “for greater certainty”, this is in fact doing that to assure the public that the Privacy Act does prevail in times of inconsistency.
So can Justice officials add anything on that? Will there be a problem if this subclause were added?
Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Actually, I think the act was developed in the study of the Privacy Act, and both work together. Clause 5 already explicitly states that, “Subject to any provision of any other Act of Parliament, or of any regulation made under such an Act, that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information, a Government of Canada institution may” share information.
Therefore, it's already stated that other acts prevail. We would say that adding something is redundant.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes, I'm reluctant to get into debate about this. I think it needs to be pointed out that the NDP keep invoking a letter by the Privacy Commissioner, but they didn't call him to explain what he meant by this. It's the job of the Privacy Commissioner to be vigilant on behalf of Canadians to protect Canadians' privacy. That's his job. He's doing that. He's expressing any and all concerns that he might have. But he never in his letter said that this act is going to contravene the Privacy Act, that it's going to be outside the law, because that's not the case.
I just think Canadians need to be assured of that despite some of the efforts by the opposition to somehow bring forward suggestions to the contrary. The scope of the act is within the law and within the ambit of the Privacy, Act as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We'll go back and forth here a little bit.
Yes, Mr. Garrison.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are two things here. The government always likes to ask why didn't we call the Privacy Commissioner as one of our witnesses. To that I respond, why didn't you call him as one of your witnesses?
The point of the amendment we introduced here was that he's an officer of Parliament, not a witness like anyone else who is called before the committee. We did present that amendment to this committee, and asked for him to be called. The government denied unanimous consent to have him here as a witness. Further, in his letter he says very clearly that “Bill C-51 sets the threshold for sharing Canadians’ personal information far too low, and broadens the scope of information sharing far too much.”
The second quote is: “Bill C-51 is far too permissive with respect to how shared information is handled. It sets no clear limits on how long information is to be kept.”
I could read the whole letter to you, but he does have serious concerns about the impact of Bill C-51, and he made some suggestions and recommendations about how we deal with those in this committee, but these are being systematically ignored by the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We will now go to a vote on Green Party number 2.
(Amendment negatived)
We will now go to NDP-3.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thanks very much, Chair.
Luckily these come in order, which allows us to pick up the same topic.
Conservative
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
No, it's the luck of the drafting, I guess you would have to say, in how amendments come forward in terms of sections of the bill.
The amendment that we're proposing, again, only implements what's already contemplated in Bill C-51 by asking that there be an entry into written information sharing agreements.
Again, that's a recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner. The amendment asks that the Privacy Commissioner be consulted on those information sharing agreements. Again, we have the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, and this is something that he contemplates. I would ask all members of the committee to take very seriously its aim of protecting the privacy of those who are not involved in anything to do with terrorism or violence, but who run the risk, with the broad definition that the government has adopted in this bill, of having information about them shared between 17 government departments.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Garrison and I are going to have to re-cement our friendship after this. We've been over this ground before. The officials have also mentioned that if we get overly bureaucratic about this, the intent of the act will be lost. The intent of the act is that there should be a nimble and effective information sharing regime put into place so that as information comes to the attention of different parts of government, it can be shared with other parts of government for our safety and protection.
To say that there have to be extra consultations and extra layers of written paperwork will simply slow down the process that the act is trying to free up. We're trying to free this up, Mr. Chair and colleagues, because there's a real and present danger to our country that we're trying to address. Adding all of this red tape and these extra layers of bureaucracy makes no sense. It contravenes what we're trying to do and adds nothing to the fact that all of this still has to be done within existing Canadian law, including the Privacy Act.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Most of it has already been said, but I'm going to express support for this amendment.
There's a tremendous mistrust of this government out there. That's the reality. You can shake your heads, but there is, and rightly so in my view.
What the Privacy Commissioner said in his letter of recommendations to this committee would quell some of that mistrust. There would be an understanding on their part that there are written agreements for information sharing arrangements between departments and agencies. That does give, I think, greater certainty to the public.
It also gives greater certainty down the road should there be an investigation. The record will be there for the Privacy Commissioner when looking at what Parliament, CSIS, or others may or may not have done, and it will be easier to find where the truth of the matter is.
I'm supportive of this. I find it rather strange that the government is so resistant to officers of Parliament when they provide committees with advice, and they don't want to take it.