Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Before we go to debate, I'll point out that, if NDP-72 is adopted, PV-32 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines.

Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, I do believe that the evidence from many witnesses, as Mr. Dubé said, was that the disclosure requirements with the low threshold of “will contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction” is far too low a threshold. For this kind of provision, the information sharing should be required to be necessary for the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction. The testimony is very clear on this point, and this was one of the worst sections—although it's hard to pick the worst section of Bill C-51, but this is one of the least improved in C-59. I would hope that this amendment would meet with approval at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Dubé and Ms. May is one that actually goes too far. We have one coming up that would add a necessity threshold, LIB-46, which we feel is better suited to what is needed for the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Because NDP-72 was not adopted, PV-32 is still in play.

Is there anything you wish to add, Ms. May?

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

No, I've spoken to this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

NDP-73 and PV-33 have been dealt with.

We are therefore on to LIB-46.

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. We're flying through these.

We heard testimony from, as just one example, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association about the need for a necessity component being helpful. This amendment establishes a necessity threshold to retain personal information disclosed under SCISA and imposes a destruction obligation for personal information that does meet the necessity threshold.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

If LIB-46 is adopted, so also is LIB-50.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is not an adequate amendment, compared to the amendments that Ms. May and I proposed, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, it's not placed in the same part of the bill, so with it placed farther down, the information can still be shared. The amendment that's before us calls on the government agency to destroy the information as soon as possible after it is deemed not necessary, which is very different from establishing a necessary threshold before the information is even shared in the first place. Moreover, it continues to use the definition “activities that undermine the security of Canada”, which as you know from previous amendments.... I don't want to speak for Ms. May, but both she and I—

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

You may.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I may speak for Ms. May, and I will say that we both attempted to change that definition, so for both those reasons, I believe this amendment is inadequate to achieve the objectives that witnesses asked us to achieve.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I agree with this, but I'm wondering whether there should be a retention period. Is that something that is—even if it's for a short period—plausible here or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're directing that question to...?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm directing it to the officials, please.

[Sophie Beecher]

Yes, as soon as the information is found not to be necessary for the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the recipient, they must destroy it. That is what preserves the privacy interest of the individual whose information is presumably being shared.

However, if the information is found to be necessary, that's when they may retain it and the information is then subject to normal retention periods in individual institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate? I see none.

If LIB-46 passes, so therefore does LIB-50.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on LIB-47.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We'll withdraw LIB-47, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

LIB-47 is withdrawn, unless Mr. Dubé wants to do something different.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It has the same problems as the previous one, so no.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Next is LIB-48.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment removes reference to “retention and disposal” from the clarification. The new requirement to “destroy or return” proposed under amendment LIB-46 affects the retention and/or disposal of personal information shared under SCISA; therefore, reference to “retention and disposal” must be removed from the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Could the officials provide us with some explanations about this? There are points that we find difficult to understand from a technical point of view.