Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It is 5:27. We have Mr. Généreux next. We'll give him five minutes, if everyone is in agreement.
October 4th, 2016 / 5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you as well to the witnesses.
Mr. Wark, you said earlier the Green Paper focused a great deal on terrorism and very little on information technology, which today is a constant feature in the lives of all Canadians. We have it in our hands. We're a threat to ourselves, if we want to look at things that way.
Let's talk a little about what you would have liked to see in the Green Paper with regard to the balance between terrorism and new technologies.
5:25 p.m.
Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
My desire would have been—and perhaps it was a little unrealistic in the political circumstances of the green paper and recognizing the fact that this is an unprecedented experiment—to have seen a broader opening statement about the kinds of national security threats that Canadians face now and are likely to face in the future. In part it would be to provide that sense of scope to Canadians, so that they could provide proper feedback about the instruments they might want to see deployed against this variety of threats.
It's one thing to ask Canadians what they think the best responses to terrorism might be. It gets more complex but perhaps more important to ask them what they think is the best mix of tools to deal with this range of national security threats. It does require education, and it does require people to understand that terrorism is just one of a number of national security threats, and it may not be the most important one that we face.
My concern is that if we focus too much on policy, regulation, and legislative changes, which are simply focused on the terrorism problem, we're going to leave ourselves with capability gaps, legal gaps, and policy gaps that are going to hinder our ability to deal with other kinds of threats.
The green paper was designed in large part to respond to election campaign promises and Bill C-51 issues, but I think it would have been helpful if they'd taken a fresh start on the whole question of what are the threats to Canadians that we need appropriate response tools for, and how do we build that balance that the government is so interested in. It's not just about technology. It's about the implication of other changes in our universe, including climate change. This is on the agenda of many of our allies. It's regarded as the number one national security threat for the United Kingdom in their annual threat assessments. It's high on the list of the director of national intelligence's annual statement on global threats that he presents to Congress. We haven't even started to have a conversation about what is the nature of climate change security impacts for Canada as an actor in the world and for Canada at home. The sooner we do that, and the sooner we broaden that discussion, the better off we'll be.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Unfortunately, we didn't receive the text of the presentation—at least I didn't. I don't know whether it was distributed. I'd like to receive it, Mr. Chair. I have only the text of Mr. Therrien's presentation.
Should the committee so desire, I would like you to provide a one pager on the balance the committee should take into account between the different elements. We can ask people questions.
As the chair said, we're currently in the early stages. Mr. Therrien, you gave a very good presentation. What you said was very interesting. It helped us determine what important aspects should be taken into account. We must shed as much light as possible on the issue. We'll cast the widest net possible to try to understand all the aspects. If it were possible to give us a document like that, I would appreciate it.
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Therrien, I really liked your presentation. If I understand correctly, Bill C-51 was adopted, but you have doubts about the balance in terms of freedom of expression, or, in other words, people's fundamental freedoms.
Do you think it constitutes a threat to Canadians, in that case?
5:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I may answer the previous question on the link between the standards of evidence and the risk for ordinary Canadians.
Take people who travel abroad, for example.
In that case, does all the information on every traveller need to be sent to CSIS so that it can identify threats to national security—this involves a standard of relevance—or should we instead provide only the information required by CSIS to carry out its work?
Is there a threat?
We're currently looking at how Bill C-51 was implemented. We've noted that it was used about 50 times last year. We're continuing our review.
Does that mean it has been overused?
Probably not, but it's too early to say. I think the standards of evidence, which allow for information sharing, create a significant potential risk for innocent people, for ordinary citizens who shouldn't be studied by CSIS.
How can we try to find legal tools that would enable the government to protect the population without compromising the freedoms and privacy of ordinary citizens?
I think that's a very important issue for you.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
The meeting has ended. Thank you for your presentations. Thank you as well to all the participants. We'll continue our work on Thursday afternoon.
The meeting is adjourned.
