Evidence of meeting #30 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 c-51.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I would advise all the committee that we're here more to listen. However, you are asking us questions at times, so it is a little bit difficult. I don't want to say, “Trust us”. We are listening. That's our job tonight. When you do ask questions, we may come back to you with questions, but it will be for clarification. I think that's a point well taken.
Did you have a point or a question?
Liberal
As an Individual
Thank you. Anything you can do to ensure that all the consultations you have with the public are transparent and put forward for open criticism would be great.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Let me just mention, too, that there is an online way of commenting on our committee hearings for this particular study. We can also accept written briefs. I believe my office has been in touch with someone. Is that you?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Jake says I have another email from OpenMedia. We're happy to have them. A formal brief coming into the committee will be considered as well. It's very important for us to get them.
People tend to think that Parliament doesn't listen, but it's our bread and butter. That's what we're doing.
As an Individual
When people submit those written submissions through your consultation process, how can we the public see the other consultations that have been submitted to know that we're not alone? I think that is the question. How can I know that I'm not the one person who said this, and that you won't come back and say that everyone else said something else? How can we be guaranteed that we're able to interact with those findings and consultations as well?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
This is a very personal one. I just did three town halls on electoral reform, not this topic. The reason I do them sometimes is so that in a meeting of 100 people we can hear that there are about 110 opinions. Our job here is to make sure that we hear them all. You may not see yourselves completely reflected back in our report, but believe me, you will shape our report, as everybody will shape our report.
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I was just going to suggest that as this committee goes along you can also follow the other testimony that we receive. It's all public. The Hansard is printed.
As we're looking at presenting a report, all of our meetings are open to the public. You can follow them online. If you see us going in a certain direction and you think we're missing something, by all means send in further comment on it.
October 17th, 2016 / 6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I do not wish to worry you about being recorded, but you are being recorded.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Everything that is said in this room is part of the transcript. It is part of the Hansard, as we call it. It will be posted on our website, as will all the written briefs, and everything else we get. It will all be there.
Maria Pazmino As an Individual
Hi, I'm Maria, and I'm also here on behalf of OpenMedia. I manage OpenMedia's social media accounts, and in that position I am exposed to a lot of our community feedback and comments on a lot of our campaigning, including Bill C-51.
In my role every day I hear Canadians ask me, “Why hasn't the government repealed Bill C-51 yet?” I have a simple question for you. Why hasn't the government done so already?
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Joshua Paterson As an Individual
Thank you very much.
I wasn't expecting to speak tonight. You'll notice that I did write my submission on the back of an envelope, and I hope that won't be held against the BC Civil Liberties Association because generally that's a negative thing.
My name is Josh Paterson, and I am a member of the public. I'm also, in my day job, the executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association.
I have a very few quick remarks that I want to add this evening.
First of all, thank you so much for coming. As Ms. Tribe pointed out, we did ask the Parliament to consult on this, and we're happy that Parliament is consulting on this.
I fear that you may see fewer people in the room than are concerned about the issue. That could be a function of having only received notice the Friday before Thanksgiving, and people really had only four working days to even consider this. Groups like ours had four working days to try to let people know what's happening, in addition to Parliament's efforts. I don't make any comment on it other than to invite you to reflect that there may not be as many people in the room or across the country as have concerns about these issues.
The other thing, too, is that these are very complex issues, whether it's the government online consultation or this. When you say to a Canadian, “What do you think about the national security framework?”, people have feelings about it and people have concerns. It's quite a daunting thing for a parent, or a retiree, or someone who is working, or someone who is not working to put together a submission for a parliamentary committee.
I want to say quickly that our organization did call for the non-passsage of, and it now calls for the repeal of, Bill C-51. I'm going to focus my remarks very quickly on one thing that isn't, by the way, covered in the green paper—and I know that's not your process—and it is the mass warrantless online surveillance by the Communications Security Establishment.
Our organization is the one that has brought the constitutional challenge against the federal government for mass warrantless online surveillance. While it was in the ministerial mandate letter to do something about it, it's something we've heard very little about. The fact that it's not covered at all in the green paper, and that there is no mention of whether we should put warrants in place for mass online surveillance, is of great concern to us.
Ministerial authorizations right now, as many of you on the committee will know, give the CSE the ability to intercept private communications without any judicial oversight and without getting any authorization beyond the elected politicians. It was confirmed this summer as part of the evidence coming out in our case that, contrary to CSE's denials, or saying that they weren't doing it, they were and have been collecting a broad swath of information from Canadians on the Internet. They've been sharing that with foreign agencies, and they have had screw-ups sharing it with foreign agencies.
It's something that's of deep concern to us. We think it's really important for this committee to be thoughtful about that and to look, for example, to the example of the private member's bill from the last Parliament as to the need for a warrant.
At BCCLA, we don't say that there shouldn't be spying, and we don't say that there shouldn't be national security agencies doing this kind of work. What we're concerned about is how they do their work, and we're concerned about the legal requirements around that. Here it is legal requirement-free, and once the minister authorizes it, then it's a green light, and they can carry on doing that in perpetuity or for quite a long time.
Thank you for obliging me an extra 40 seconds. I appreciate that you've come, and I wish you luck in your deliberations.
Liberal
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Paterson, what do you say about ministerial warrants?
As an Individual
When you say “ministerial warrant”, I'm not sure what you mean.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Ministerial authorizations for the purposes of gathering information on the Internet.
As an Individual
We say that those are completely inadequate. That's the problem. In fact, there have been ministerial authorizations for the collection of data and metadata, and those are simply inadequate. That's one of the nubs of our legal challenge—
