Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, there is no debate left, Ms. May, but thank you very much.

I recognize, regretfully, that as you're not a member of the committee, you can't be involved in the discussion back and forth, but you certainly are permitted to make your point originally. Perhaps in your next opening statement, if you wish to somehow use that time accordingly, I'll leave that to your consideration.

We will now go to the vote on PV-5.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, Ms. May, amendment 6, please.

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

In trying to keep it brief, I just want to put on the record that I find it offensive to be accused of preferring the rights of terrorists to the rights of Canadians when I'm trying to amend a dreadful bill and protect the rights of Canadians—and the bill will not make us safer.

Let me just go to this amendment, which is also in response to the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. As he noted:

The Bill is largely silent on the subject of retention and disposal of information shared.... Bill C-51 should be amended to include as a statutory requirement that personal information that does not meet the recipient institution's legal collection standards should be discarded without delay. SCISA should also require that information, once collected, is retained only as long as necessary.

That is exactly what this amendment proposes to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Now for the discussion.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I disagree with the member from the Green Party saying that this bill will not do anything to keep us safer. We had very credible witnesses come from law enforcement, including from CSIS and the RCMP, and from Toronto, including someone with years of experience, decades, in security intelligence gathering. All of them said that the measures in this bill are needed. There were clearly legislative gaps that have been identified. All of those have been addressed in this bill and it's unfortunate that we keep hearing those same types of remarks from opposition parties.

With regard to this amendment, Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the act has regulation-making authority that will allow the Governor in Council to make regulations pertaining to record-keeping on information shared under the act. Additionally, this amendment proposed by the Green Party would put a significant burden on institutions to provide some sort of a review and analysis function after the fact.

For those reasons, I'm going to disagree with the intent of this amendment and will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, we will now go to Green Party amendment 8.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this amendment, it's a deletion, so I just remind committee members what would have been there. This deletes the clause that reads that “No civil proceedings lie against any person for their disclosure in good faith...”.

The testimony in a backgrounder that we received from Professors Roach and Forcese was the following:

The robust immunity from civil liability for good faith disclosures in s. 9 of the new Act, combined with its authorization in s. 6 for lawful disclosure of information (in accordance with the law) “to any person, for any purpose” runs the risk of repeating the Arar pattern of unfettered information sharing on a domestic stage and possibly internationally, minus the government's payment of compensation. .... Hence, s. 9, as presently drafted could preclude most civil recovery should someone in the future be harmed or even killed as a result of the sharing of information, as long as the subjective purpose behind the sharing was earnest, even if the conduct was negligent or ill-executed.

That's a quote from a backgrounder that we received, and this amendment to delete that line responds positively to the good advice that we received from Professors Roach and Forcese.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I would ask officials if they can assure us that this will not prohibit legal action against the government? Is that still possible with this clause?

[Sophie Beecher]

We can confirm that it is still possible. The section protects persons, so employees of the government, but not the crown. There could still be proceedings against the crown.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

I appreciate that clarification. The fact is that civil servants are employees of the government, so it's the crown's liability that remains in place. However, individual civil servants who are exercising their activities and their responsibilities under this bill would not be held liable, but their employer, the Government of Canada, would still be found liable.

I think, Ms. May, maybe that distinction wasn't clear. We don't want people to go after individual civil servants and have them frozen in place wondering if they're going to be personally liable; they're not. But the Government of Canada could still be liable if anything illegal is taking place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to the Green Party amendment number 9.

Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm attempting to put measures in place in response to the letter from the Privacy Commissioner.

My amendment number 9—which I have great hopes for despite the rapid defeat of the previous eight—is based on the Privacy Commissioner's advice that:

Bill C-51 should be amended to include an explicit requirement for written information agreements. More detailed elements of what should be in the agreements could be set out in Regulations. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner should be consulted in the development of these agreements.

This amendment adds to the powers of the Governor in Council under clause 10 that the Governor in Council could require information sharing agreements be developed with the Privacy Commissioner to follow current best practices for the sharing, retention, and disposal of information.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To my friend, I always act as if hope springs eternal, but I do have some issues here.

I believe the information sharing act is intended to foster information sharing by all government departments and agencies, including those with no traditional national security responsibilities, with designated recipients.

Requiring information sharing arrangements for all information sharing under the act would be impractical. It also has the potential to be contrary to the act's potential intent, as information sharing could be delayed while the arrangements are being negotiated.

I would think that Canadians would expect that if one branch of government were aware of a threat to their security, I repeat, this information would be shared with other branches to protect them.

As I mentioned before, Mr. Chair, this legislation has robust safeguards built in to protect Canadians' privacy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In contrast to Mr. Norlock, I'm going to dampen Ms. May's hopes on this one, as this essentially serves the same purpose as the subamendment, which we moved to government amendment number 1, in requiring what is already the law in Canada, according to the Privacy Commissioner.

What we keep getting from the government is that somehow protecting security is in conflict with protecting basic rights. We've always argued from the beginning of the debate about this bill that it's a necessity for the government to protect both rights and civil liberties, and we never doubted the capability of a Canadian government to do both of them at the same time.

We're not being asked to choose terrorists over other Canadians in these amendments, or terrorists over privacy rights. We're asking that the measures we adopt in this bill protect both the security of Canada and privacy rights. Again, the Privacy Commissioner has made very strong recommendations with that clearly in mind. I think no one here would argue that the Privacy Commissioner had any intention of supporting terrorism or the use of violence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

That is not what the government's been saying. What we've been saying all along—I remember doing panels on this—is that Canadians would expect that we take national security and privacy rights into consideration. We've done that through this bill. There are adequate safeguards in this bill. We've heard that from various witnesses.

The heart of this is that it ties back to, as Mr. Garrison mentioned, his subamendment to our government amendment. Time is of the essence. We need to ensure that if there is a one-off situation when agencies need to relay the information quickly, they will not be burdened by having to wait for some formal fancy agreement to take place.

We heard from witness after witness. These are the credible experts in law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and so forth, people who have been involved in studying terrorism. Every one of them agreed the threat is real, but it has evolved and is growing.

For those reasons I will not be supporting this amendment either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I do have to take issue with the government's stand, and the Green Party and opposition parties have been taking this stand from the very beginning, because we are putting some confidence in what the Privacy Commissioner said in his letter. He has certainly raised concerns.

As I said earlier, it's backed up by the privacy commissioners of all the provinces, with the exception of New Brunswick, and I don't even know if they had a privacy commissioner at the time. The parliamentary secretary said “some formal fancy arrangement to take place”.

We're not talking about fancy arrangements here; we're talking about agencies having a formal agreement for the sharing of information. Yes, in this day and age, it can still happen quickly with the technology we have available, but when there's a formal arrangement and officials within the department know they have to abide by it, you naturally give it a second thought: “Am I accurate in this information? Am I implicating somebody who shouldn't be implicated?”

It's a safeguard. It does not slow things down. It's a safeguard in terms of the protection of the privacy of Canadians, and it is a recommendation by people who understand these issues far better than we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go back to something I said earlier, and I believe Mr. Norlock referenced it as well, with respect to the guiding principles at the start of the information sharing act. One of them states specifically that “entry into information-sharing arrangements is appropriate when Government of Canada institutions share information regularly”. It is giving the guiding principle. The intent is there.

This information sharing act does not even mandate that agencies share information. It's encouraged. I just want to reiterate that as well.

Again, for all of these reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. Ablonczy, please.