Evidence of meeting #10 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. I think there's some consensus that this is a good bill, but that there are improvements to be made, especially to clause 15. It may be necessary to tighten up or better regulate the ministerial powers. There are reports and accountability, but they don't match the ministers' powers. That's what I'm noticing and retaining today. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lefebvre, I'd like to ask you a question so that the committee can better understand something. You talked about encryption. We don't have any knowledge of that, but I think it's an important aspect for you, because you point out that it's completely missing from the bill.
Can you explain why you think it's important for the bill to state that it's prohibited to change encryption standards?
Chairman and Co-founder, Crypto Québec
In fact, the bill doesn't specifically talk about encryption. At the moment, western democracies have a tendency to want to reduce encryption. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are insisting on a decrease in encryption for messaging apps and anything that can be related to communications. We're talking about telecommunications and that sort of thing. There's a very big trend at the moment, whether in the United Kingdom or the United States, to want to reduce that encryption.
Basically, our main recommendation is to get ahead of the curve. Does Canada want to be a leader with the implementation of Bill C‑8? If it wants to become a leader, it has to take the lead and specify that those powers, which are quite extraordinary, won't be used to reduce encryption, which could infringe on Canadians' privacy and personal information.
For all those reasons, I think it should be clarified.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I think encryption is what prevents companies or the government from having access to our personal conversations. If the standards are lowered, companies and governments could have access without us knowing. That means that encryption is a protection, a measure that has to be retained so that authorities aren't allowed to easily intrude into our exchanges by email or on WhatsApp, Messenger, Facebook and so on. That's what I've understood.
At the previous meeting, there was a lot of talk about overlap with Quebec, and department officials told us that they were aware of those overlaps and duplications, but they said that everything would be settled in the regulatory part with the aim of reducing those overlaps as much as possible.
As a Bloc Québécois member, I know that when Canada wants to do this with the provinces, the result is always that it wants to impose its views and that the provinces have to obey and comply. The proof is that there are currently still a few billion dollars in the federal government's coffers, while the municipalities are in need. However, in the absence of an agreement with Quebec because Ottawa wants to impose its standards, the money isn't currently being disbursed, even though that would enable municipalities in particular to build infrastructure.
Could you tell me your biggest fear about this overlap and duplication? What's the main problem?
Chairman and Co-founder, Crypto Québec
Of course, in reality, there are fundamental differences between Bill 25 on the protection of Quebec citizens' personal information and Bill C‑8. Bill C‑8 doesn't particularly cover the risks of privacy breaches. It probably isn't clear enough, especially when it comes to the proportionality we talked about, for example. On the other hand, Quebec's Bill 25 places a great deal of importance on it.
In fact, Quebec's approach to information security, privacy and infrastructure protection is very much oriented toward privacy. That protection is really central to Quebec's approach, whereas the approach proposed in Bill C‑8 is very technical. It's basically very focused on protecting the operations of critical infrastructure, but it pays little attention to privacy. There was discussion earlier about all the little details that could allow individuals to be targeted. The protection of freedom of expression and that sort of thing isn't as well defined in Bill C‑8, so that's certainly a challenge.
As for overlaps, it's clear that Bill C‑8 would encroach on a lot of jurisdictions, particularly those of Quebec's ministry of cybersecurity and digital technology, or MCN, which is responsible for ensuring the security of all of Quebec's critical infrastructure, ministries and paragovernmental organizations. That means that there would be a clear overlap. It would remain to be seen whether the MCN could ultimately retain certain rights, certain powers, when it already has little, in a way. Would it retain its powers with respect to Bill C‑8 or the federal government? There's a sense that Bill C‑8 would prevail in that regard.
There's one place where there isn't any overlap. The MCN doesn't have that much power when it comes to imposing certain security requirements on private companies, such as telecoms. That means that Bill C‑8 would have an advantage in that regard because there isn't an overlap, but really, it would be important to do some matching, or what's called mapping, when it comes to oversight. That's a matter of—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Mr. Lefebvre, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but that's all the time we have.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you to the witnesses for being here and for the time you spent preparing for this meeting today. That's all the time we have for you.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Since the time is up, I will adjourn the meeting. We'll meet again next Tuesday.
