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
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Easter finds it necessary to be rather preachy about the motivations of what's happening with the government. We have never, on this side of the table, impugned the motivation of that member and I don't intend to do so.
He says there's a mistrust out there. I think it's the reverse. People have an expectation of this government to keep their safety in mind and to make sure that the evolving threat is adddressed. The threat's evolving. It's not static. The bad guys are constantly trying to find ways around how this country works and trying to use our freedoms against us. I believe that this act is a good balance for that. We need to be prepared and that's what this act does.
The officials time and time again, over the sharing of information, have said there's nothing in this act.... As a matter of fact the act is specific. It says right in there that we have to obey the current rules as far as information sharing goes. Every time we try to say this is just adding another layer, somebody accuses us of some clandestine motivation. All we want to do is put forward a simple change in the way we do things because there is a change in the way the bad guys are trying to get at us. That's what this bill does.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much. We will now call for a vote on NDP-3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go BQ-2.
Mr. Patry.
Bloc
Claude Patry Bloc Jonquière—Alma, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our amendment pertains to the exchange of specific information. We are proposing that the information sharing agreements between organizations be concluded with the written approval of the Privacy Commissioner and that “any information shared in contravention of the provisions of this Act is to be deleted.”
We want there to be a written agreement that is approved by the Privacy Commissioner when information is requested on a certain subject. We are asking for oversight.
Thank you.
Conservative
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank Mr. Patry for his amendment, which I support. I think it is extremely important to respect what the Privacy Commissioner told the the Standing Committee on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in writing about Bill C-51. It is all the more important because he is an officer of Parliament with a lot of credibility, particularly when it comes to the bill before us.
I really like the idea of the Privacy Commissioner giving his written approval. Paragraph (b) of the amendment is also important for protecting privacy, particularly when it comes to unnecessary information. The protection of Canadians' privacy in general is extremely important.
I am therefore going to vote in favour of Mr. Patry's amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you.
Is there further discussion?
Oh, excuse me: Mr. Payne, again.
How could I ever keep on missing you, sir?
Conservative
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you. I'm not invisible
Mr. Chair, from what I see, this amendment would expand the powers of the Privacy Commissioner. We've also heard from officials on this whole issue that everyone has to follow the current laws that are in place, including the Privacy Act.
As well, I believe it was the parliamentary secretary who talked about the importance of speed, particularly when we know that the bad guys, as my colleague Mr. Norlock mentioned, are evolving quickly.
So I can't support this amendment. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would note, colleagues, that we've done page one of 15. Thank you for your cooperation.
Moving forward, we will now go to Green Party amendment PV-3.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is another attempt to clarify and protect Canadians' rights to privacy. It would add a new paragraph, on page 4 of the bill, under the principles of information sharing under the act. It would become a principle of information sharing under the act that:
Canadians have a right to privacy that should only be breached when strictly necessary in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
Madame Doré Lefebvre, you have a comment.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand Ms. May's good intentions in proposing this amendment. However, in my opinion, the words used in that amendment are extremely dangerous. It reads: “Canadians have a right to privacy that should only be breached when strictly necessary...”. I think the choice of words here is serious. As a result, I cannot support this amendment.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
I thought I had my hand up earlier, but it might have been invisible.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Chair.
We've talked about this issue in terms of the Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Act, and the current laws. I believe this change would make some very different amendments and tests using the existing laws, and obviously it would cause some confusion. We've already amended the act under legal requirements.
In my view, I don't think this amendment is necessary, so I can't support it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived)
Okay, colleagues, we will now go to amendment NDP-4.
The chair will advise you as well that once amendment NDP-4 is moved, amendment BQ-3 then could not be moved, as it is identical. If amendment NDP-4 is adopted, amendment PV-4 could not then be moved as there would be a line conflict.
I will repeat that if anybody needs clarification, but we will now go to amendment NDP-4.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start by reassuring Ms. Ablonczy that our friendship is not endangered by this. I'm one of those people who believes our political differences need to be left at the table and that all of us here are trying to do the best we can for Canadians. I have pointed this out several times when we have strayed into more personal remarks about people's positions.
When the Privacy Commissioner was appointed, the NDP expressed some reservations about Mr. Therrien because of his close connections with the government. The irony here is that his recommendations are being so thoroughly ignored by the government.
One of the things he made very clear in his letter was that a change needs to be made in information sharing. It's again one of those one-word changes that is quite significant. The test for sharing information in Bill C-51 is whether information is relevant to the recipient institution's responsibilities. Mr. Therrien says very clearly that's too low a standard and that information exchanges should take place only if that information is necessary to carry out the recipient institution's responsibility. Again, he sees that as a significant lowering of the standard by which personal information on all Canadians might potentially be shared under Bill C-51.
The simple reason is to substitute the necessary standard for sharing for the relevant standard that's contained in the bill.
Conservative
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I will not be supporting this amendment, which is changing the threshold. When we get into other sections of this bill with regard to Criminal Code amendments, we're lowering the threshold. It's been very clear that when the threshold is too high, it simply will not be utilized. You can't meet that criteria.
Within the proposed information sharing act there are robust safeguards already. Among the individuals who came to testify, we had someone with, I think it was, 35 years of experience in law enforcement and intelligence gathering, who said that the aspects of this bill are absolutely crucial for information sharing among agencies to ensure national security. He also went on to say that there were safeguards. In the same meeting we heard from someone who said this bill had nothing to do with terrorism and that we were only targeting a specific group.
This amendment to the bill would make it way too high, would go against its purpose and the ability to share information that is relevant—and “relevant” is the key word here. Obviously, when you say something is necessary, it almost has to be to the point where it's too late.
For those reasons and many others, I will not be supporting this amendment.