Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think it's important, again, to take a look at the framework around this.

The Privacy Commissioner's job is to raise any and all concerns that he can see to protect the privacy of Canadians. He's done that in this letter. He's ranged far afield and enumerated every possible objection he can think of, and that's his job.

But, Mr. Chair, the Privacy Commissioner is not responsible for national security. He's not responsible to look at the big picture. He's not responsible to look at all of the pieces that have to be in place in order to respond to an emerging, growing, and evolving threat. That's not his job. He's doing his job, which is a narrow segment of what the government has to look at, and I commend him for that. However, to base the whole of government's response to terrorism on the mandate and viewpoint of one officer of Parliament makes no sense whatsoever. It can't be done.

It's certainly legitimate. I think we should take concerns for privacy seriously, and we do, but the scope of this bill is much broader. The issues at stake that the government has to deal with are much broader in order to protect the security and the safety of Canadians, and that was what we did.

My friends on the opposite side love what the Privacy Commissioner says because privacy is one of their favourite themes. It is a very important theme for the government and for all Canadians, but it's not the only theme. We have to look at the broader framework when we're dealing with this whole issue of terrorism.

I urge all committee members to look at the big picture and the focus on protecting the security of our country because that's what we're trying to do with this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.

We will now vote on amendment PV-9.

(Amendment negatived)

Okay. We will now go to Green Party number 10.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is adding to the powers of the Governor in Council, as found on page 6 under the heading of that name. It clarifies proposed section 10 by adding a paragraph (d) immediately after the words, “respecting the manner in which those records are kept and retained”. My amendment is that the Governor in Council would also establish “responsibility within each...institution for review of the necessity, proportionality and reliability of information and for reporting at prescribed intervals to the Privacy Commissioner”.

Since other efforts have been defeated, this is one that is quite straight forward. Every institution in the Government of Canada should be able to review the information. It's already made the determination to share it. This would be to review whether it was maintaining the proper principles involved, of “necessity, proportionality and reliability”, and also ensure it is reporting at regular intervals to the Privacy Commissioner.

I submit this for the committee's consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Falk, go ahead.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As much as I can appreciate Ms. May's burden and desire to protect Canadians' right to privacy, I believe that this act in proposed section 5 already addresses that issue, as all information shared between government departments has to pass the relevancy standard. The information that is not necessary to pass along would obviously contravene the privacy of Canadians and wouldn't be allowed to be passed along under the provisions of this act.

I think Ms. Ablonczy articulated very clearly in her previous remarks our position on information sharing and the big picture of the security of Canadians and how that's the issue that we are looking at. At the same time, we are also considering the whole aspect of Canadians' privacy and have built that safeguard into the bill.

I would oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We will call for a vote on Green Party amendment 10.

(Amendment negatived)

We will now go to NPD amendment 7.

The Chair advises that if this is adopted, Bloc amendment 5 and the Green Party amendment 11 could not be moved. I am just bringing that to your attention.

We will now go to NPD amendment 7.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sure that not many people are holding their breath on whether this will be adopted or not.

However, we will come to this concept several times as we come to the amendments, as the bill has four major parts.

This amendment proposes that what we need to do here is a review of the impacts of this information sharing legislation, and then a recommendation from a committee of the House on whether this should be renewed. We are proposing to sunset these clauses in three years.

The government has been arguing consistently this morning that the threats we face are changing and evolving, and no one disagrees with that, but that is actually one of the very strong arguments for having a sunset clause and a review to see if in three years this legislation is in fact doing what it needs to do to protect us against the terrorist threats the country faces.

It is a common concept you'll find coming up again in these amendments that, as elected representatives, we take the time to do a thorough study of the impacts of this bill. Then, that committee could make a recommendation to the House, which by a motion could then extend these provisions, if we find they are effective, or allow them to lapse.

As I said, the government has been emphasizing here this morning the changing nature of the threat of terrorism, and I find it hard to see why the government would not find it a good idea to have this review and a sunset provision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Now, it's Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Sunsetting this act would return Canada to where we are today and, obviously, the difficulty we now have in sharing information. It seems to me that when we think about what is happening in the world while terrorists plan their activities and evolve, leaving Canadians vulnerable, if we had a sunset clause here it wouldn't be in the best interests of Canada.

I also might add that the parliamentary committees always have the ability to review government activities and statutes. In that regard, I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, please go ahead.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of sunset provisions in the amendments coming forward in this bill, but specifically on this one there have been a lot of concerns expressed by Canadians about information sharing, and we have the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner.

The government members continue to say, “No problem, this is covered in other areas.”

Mr. Payne said, yes, parliamentary committees can review legislation at any time, and that is true, but only if the government is willing to do so when there is a majority position.

What this amendment does is that it gives assurance to Canadians that in three years' time a parliament is going to review these clauses. It does not jeopardize security in any way, because Parliament can review the legislation prior to its being sunset. We'll have the experience of time and will know at that time whether some of the privacy concerns of the Privacy Commissioner are true and need to be addressed, or whether all these assurances the government members are giving us are adequate.

It only makes sense to be supportive of this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will not repeat what Mr. Easter said, but I will try to convince my government colleague, Mr. Payne, because he mentioned that it was just a sunset clause and that, after three years, we would be back at square one.

In reality, that is not at all the case with the amendment that is being proposed today. We are talking about a review by parliamentarians to ensure that we still need the provisions of Bill C-51. That would not take us back to square one.

However, I believe it is appropriate to have a sunset clause and for parliamentarians to review this bill. Things can change at any time, particularly when it comes to what is covered by Bill C-51. I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to review bills that are passed. It would therefore be reasonable for parliamentarians to review this legislation after three years.

I hope that I can convince my colleagues across the table to vote in favour of our amendment, since it involves reviewing Bill C-51, not simply putting an end to it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I guess one of the concerns I have is that this amendment would tie the hands of future parliamentarians and undermine the principle of the independence of committees.

I'm sorry, but I still can't support your amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This act is intended to address the threat of terrorism and to keep our communities and our country safe. As long as there's a terrorist threat, this act will have application.

If that ceases to exist in the future, then this act won't have implications because the sharing of information in this act is a provision that is specific to terrorist threats. I think this amendment is redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On NDP-7, all in favour? Opposed?.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to Liberal amendment number 3.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's a fairly sensible amendment, as most of ours are, Mr. Chair. I mean even the government, I think, would come on side on this one. Basically, it's asking the Privacy Commissioner to submit a report to Parliament on the sharing of information conducted under the act during the preceding fiscal year. It lays out the timeframe on how that would be done.

It gives greater assurance that some of the information sharing that is happening under this act is, in fact, being monitored by the Privacy Commissioner and the assurances to Canadians that a report has to be prepared and submitted to the Minister of Public Safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To be honest, I do not think that it is written as well as it could be. Basically, it says that the Privacy Commissioner will prepare an annual report on the sharing of information conducted under the Privacy Act and submit it to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. In my opinion, the report should not be given to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Privacy Commissioner should report directly to parliamentarians. For that reason, I am extremely uncomfortable with this proposal. We have spoken out about this sort of thing on numerous occasions. The Conservatives often want officers of Parliament to report directly to a minister. I do not agree with that because the Privacy Commissioner should submit his information and his annual report directly to parliamentarians without going through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Well, I somewhat agree with my friend across the table, Madame Lefebvre. However, this amendment is redundant, as the Privacy Commissioner already possesses the authority to carry out investigations of any complaint in relation to the Privacy Act. Moreover, section 38 of the Privacy Act authorizes the Privacy Commissioner to make a special report to Parliament on any matter that he or she has in relation to the Privacy Act, period.

Lastly, under section 72 of that act, all government institutions, including Public Safety Canada, must submit an annual report to Parliament on the administration of the Privacy Act. These authorities would cover the sharing of personal information pursuant to the security of Canada information sharing act.

I don't know why we have to keep repeating things. That officer in Parliament already can single out, if he or she wishes, any particular breach or any concern they have with regard to the Privacy Act.

So I repeat, this amendment is redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just to conclude, I think the key point in what Mr. Norlock said is “if he or she wishes”. This would be an obligation to do this report. I, in fact, agree with Madam Doré Lefebvre that it would be better if the report were to Parliament. That's the way I would like to see it. But in terms of making this amendment, if we put that in the bill—rather than through the minister—that there would at least be a report, it would be ruled out of order. That's why we've had to restrict this report to the Minister of Public Safety. But it would provide an obligation for the Privacy Commissioner to draft a report, then to go to the Minister of Public Safety with the report, and that way it would be available to us as Canadians.

It's the only way we could do it and meet the requirements, and not have the clerk or somebody toss it out, Mr. Chair. Even you might.