Evidence of meeting #28 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 information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
No, we didn't. Read the platform, page 55. I'm happy to send you a copy.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'm going to move on here.
We all know, and in fact you even said, that organizations have used the new power. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the CBSA, CSIS, and a fourth unnamed agency have used these.
It's obvious, Mr. Minister, that the changes have been used, and I'm sure they wouldn't have been used unless they were a valuable tool, so—
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
You've segued from one power to another. You've segued from threat reduction activities, which was the subject of your first question, to information sharing, which is the subject of your second question.
The two are quite different subjects.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay, that's fine. I wasn't getting much of a response to the other, so I moved on.
On that, are you going to change the information-sharing process? Obviously these organizations are saying that they're using it, and it seems to be working.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
In respect of that new piece of legislation which was introduced as a part of Bill C-51, in my remarks today I said that the Privacy Commissioner has indicated his view that there are some defects in the process, including whether privacy impact statements have been properly prepared and so forth.
What I've undertaken today, further to my conversation with the Privacy Commissioner a few days ago, is that I will be in touch with every minister in the cabinet to make sure they have the systems in place that will properly respect and protect privacy.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Just to carry this out, a number of people, and I'll even go to my own personal.... I'm a private person. I want my rights protected, and I want all Canadians' rights protected. However, we live in a different world today, Mr. Minister, than we did even 10 years ago. What I mean by that is the threats that are out there. Mr. Spengemann talked about domestic terrorism. There is no doubt it's more prominent today than ever.
It comes back to this. I like my privacy and I think most Canadians do. At the end of the day, I find it a small sacrifice...if our agencies that protect us all have tools to actually do the job.
Also, if I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about. I've had that said to me. I'm sure you've had some of your constituents tell you that. How do you respond to that?
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister.
I want to talk about your election platform. Before me, I have a passage that lists the changes that will be made. After the list of those measures, we read the following: “As this legislation is tabled in Parliament, we will launch broad public consultations, to engage and seek the input of Canadians and subject-matter experts.” We had understood that the bill was going to be introduced and that Canadians would then be consulted. But no, they are being consulted beforehand. Meanwhile, very serious breaches are being raised, including by the Privacy Commissioner, and the problems are not being solved. Those powers continue to be used with no adequate oversight.
What will happen next? Are you going to introduce a bill to make changes to the provisions in Bill C-51 and then consult again?
Why not stand by the commitment in your platform, to introduce a bill with the measures you are proposing, and consult afterwards?
Clearly, your mind is already made up. You have just listed the measures that correspond exactly with your election platform.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Dubé, the fundamental cornerstone commitment that we made in the platform was to create the new committee of parliamentarians. That piece of legislation is now before Parliament, and it will undoubtedly be thoroughly analyzed by this committee and by the public in the process.
There are several other commitments in the platform. It may well take two or three different pieces of legislation to work our way through all of them, but we are moving in a very measured and logical way to deal with the defects that we found in Bill C-51 , to bring this whole new architecture, including the committee of parliamentarians, and in the process, to give Canadians the chance to be heard which they were denied—
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Minister, you understand that my time is limited. There are seven bullet points on the Liberal Party website where you have committed to fixing Bill C-51 . In the paragraph at the end of those bullets—and only one of those bullets mentions the oversight committee—there's a specific mention that you'll consult Canadians after presenting legislation, which has not been done.
The concern I am raising, which I think is very serious especially in light of the Privacy Commissioner's report, is that these powers continue to be used. The problems have not been fixed. This committee has not been put in place over a year into your government's mandate, and I understand the bill is moving through the House. That's fine, and there are problems with that, and we'll get to those. But why is there no legislation, and how can we trust these consultations when, beyond the criticisms that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner and others we've heard from, there's already a list that was committed to in the election and that you yourself just enumerated in your presentation?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
As I said, the cornerstone piece of legislation is in the public domain. There are also two others that I would point to that deal with cross-border issues with the United States. That legislation has been prepared and published. We are now conducting the necessary consultation in addition to having the list of specific things that I mentioned to ask Canadians the key question of whether there is something else they want included or they think is valuable to be included in the reform package to accomplish two objectives: keeping Canadians safe and making sure that our rights and freedoms are safeguarded.
This is a process we began to work at immediately after the election. It's a huge, complex area. We're going at it in a thorough and logical way. I might also point out that the reason previous governments got into jackpots on these issues is that they tended to scribble down policy on the back of an envelope and didn't do the proper consultation in advance.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
You voted for that policy though. That's what I don't understand.
The commissioner’s report indicates that the definitions and the thresholds are problematic. Those are the points that have been raised. The commissioner could have made the same presentation that he made on Tuesday in the last Parliament and his comments would have been the same.
We are very concerned about the consultation process. You start the ball rolling and then you start it rolling again. This is serious; the rights and freedoms of Canadians are in danger. We can hear it and we can see it. Meanwhile, those powers continue to be used. We see the shortcomings and there is no solution.
How do you respond to the commissioner and to others who are saying that the process, the green paper, seems to focus only on law enforcement organizations and not at all on the protection of privacy? A lot of experts are saying that. If we read between the lines, it seems that we have already come to the end of this process.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
No, I beg to differ, Mr. Dubé. The process is not by any means being pre-empted. In a sense, your argument is a bit contradictory, because you're saying “introduce legislation and consult later”—
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'm just asking you to respect your election commitments. We want it to disappear. We want to repeal Bill C-51 .
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
—while I'm saying that the core piece of legislation has been introduced. It's Bill C-22. There will be perhaps two or three other bills that will come later on, obviously the ones dealing with the specific commitments in the platform, but it is useful to ask Canadians what else they want to see considered. Indeed, the Privacy Commissioner's items are not included in the list of the first seven, so the consultation has already yielded results by bringing forward his perspective on that particular issue.
Other people have said that we need to deal with the deficiencies in peace bonds. That is a critical deficiency as well, and we learned in the Strathroy case that the peace bonds that were described a couple of years ago as being a kind of panacea solution aren't, and they need to be fixed.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Many say part of the problem there is that police don't have resources, and that the reality is Bill C-51 wasn't even necessary because if law enforcement actually had the resources and if there actually were a counter-radicalization strategy, we wouldn't even be debating Bill C-51 now, and that those are the actual tools that would really make a difference.
Do you agree with that?
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
It seems like we're consulting a lot, but you have specific proposals. How can you convince Canadians that it's not already a foregone conclusion when, right on the Liberal website, it's there?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Those specific proposals are the minimum we will do in the changes to legislation. What we're asking Canadians in the consultation is what else they think needs to be added to that list.
Canadians have already added to the list. They've added issues around privacy. They've added issues around peace bonds. In the 8,000 submissions we've had, they've added a good many other ideas as well. It's useful to ask Canadians what they think, because they'll always give useful information.
Liberal
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Minister, thank you for your remarks, for the preliminary announcement you have made, and for taking the time to meet with us.
First of all, could you list the dangers that Canadians should be on guard against? You have talked of one danger in particular. I understand that it can vary by region. However, would it be possible just to indicate some of the other dangers that threaten Canadian society?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK
Mr. Di Iorio, I would refer you broadly to the threat assessment report. That goes through in detail where we feel the principal threats are located.
As I said, the key one is the inspired lone wolf. They are perhaps the most difficult to defend against, because they tend to act in isolation. If a terrorist organization is plotting some grand scheme, for example, the attack on Paris almost a year ago, an enterprise like that tends to involve a sufficient number of people and a significant amount of planning activity and tends to leave tracks. Evidence can accumulate. In the case of the lone wolf, there's not that kind of activity. They tend to be isolated. They're not using sophisticated weaponry. They're still dangerous, however, as we saw in Strathroy this summer, a prime example of that kind of problem. It can happen all across the country.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Minister, one major concern is the dilemma faced by Canadian society. On one side, we have people who want to do us harm, who want to commit acts of violence against Canadians. On the other side, we have the forces of law and order, which are in place to prevent that danger from occurring. The dilemma is that, by their very nature, the evildoers, who want to commit acts of violence, do not inform the public about the evil, the violence, that they are preparing to commit. So we cannot know what they are preparing to do. On the other hand, the forces of law and order do not want to disclose the nature of their investigations in order not to prejudice those same investigations.
Could you enlighten the committee on how we navigate through this dilemma when we have to properly inform Canadians about the dangers they face?
