Evidence of meeting #36 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 metadata.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you very much for that.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister, you told Mr. Caputo the intent behind Bill C‑22 isn't to create back doors in encryption systems, now or in the future. You've confirmed that.
The possible weakening of encryption was also a concern for us when we studied Bill C‑8. At the time, Minister Joly told us that even if the bill expressed a certain intention, she would agree to add a clause clearly stating that encryption will not be weakened.
Honestly, the weakening of encryption is really a widespread fear. Perhaps you could reassure the public by making it clear in the bill that you will not undermine encryption systems.
Do you think there's room in the bill to further clarify your intention, since you told the previous speaker it wasn't your intention to weaken encryption?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
As I indicated, we will look at every amendment. There is an amendment-making process. Once you complete the work, there will be recommendations coming forward from the committee. The undertaking I can give you is that we will look at every single one of those proposals and give you feedback. As always, I will engage with you, Mr. Caputo and others who want to advance on this issue.
That's the commitment I can make to you today.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Minister, when Minister Joly appeared before the committee, she committed to having the government table an amendment to Bill C‑8 to add that there would be no weakening of encryption. She said so publicly during the study on Bill C‑8.
I'll ask you the same question, then. To reassure the public, are you prepared to ask your team to state in the bill that there will be no breaches of encryption systems?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
I have worked with you very closely now for almost a year, and I think you generally know the approach that I have taken in collaboration. I am certainly willing to meet with you and look at the proposal you have.
We would be more than glad to entertain anything to strengthen the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
Mr. Lloyd, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the ministers for being here.
Minister, you've refused to waive privilege on the report provided by Murray Rankin, on the consultative process in this report. I've been told that this report has been widely shared with people who have participated in the consultation. I'm assuming that those people who have not shared the report have done so because they signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Can you confirm if the members of the consultation had to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to get access to the report?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Lloyd, I'm not sure if they did or not.
The conversation today is not about Mr. Rankin's report; it is about the bill that is in front of the House. There is no precedent for governments to be sharing information that was gathered and discussions that took place with a committee. I think we're sidestepping the core issue we're here to discuss, which is the bill itself.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Thank you. I've given you enough time on that, Minister.
This report was critical in your government's coming up with the report. It would be very helpful for us, as members of Parliament, to have access to this report. I think it's critical that governments try to build trust with Canadians. I have to admit that what you're doing here, Minister, does not look accountable or transparent, especially when we're dealing with very contentious legislation that deals with the privacy rights of Canadians.
What are you hiding, Minister? Why are you refusing to share this report?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
You're welcome to call Mr. Rankin to the committee, and he will be able to provide information.
What is happening right now is a bit of a distraction from the core issue, which is discussion on the bill itself.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Minister, you're making it a distraction by refusing to reveal the report. The fact that we're talking about it today.... Even people who received the report—people who support Bill C-22 and people who are against it—are baffled as to why this report hasn't been revealed.
It's becoming a distraction because you're making it a distraction, Minister. Why not just reveal the report?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
The matter is not about the report, Mr. Lloyd. You know this. This is about the bill itself, as presented by me and Mr. Fraser. If you have specific questions about the bill, I will be more than willing to answer them, but I'm not willing to answer you on privileged information that I believe I sought from Mr. Rankin, which informed our decisions.
There are also a number of other individuals with whom Mr. Fraser and I met. We consult a range of people on developing a bill—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Minister, I've given you plenty of time to respond.
Why should the stakeholders who participated, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and other stakeholders, have more of a right to see what is in this report than members of Parliament, who are being asked to vote on this legislation?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
If you would like to invite Mr. Rankin to testify, you're more than welcome to do so.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
I'm going to move on, Minister.
I was talking to your officials before. There seems to be a contradiction. The legislation says it's not intended to weaken encryption or create systemic vulnerabilities, yet there are other parts of the legislation that say a ministerial order is intended to create the very technical capabilities needed to get through this encryption.
If one of the outcomes desired by this legislation, that being lawful access, cannot be accessed without creating systemic vulnerabilities, will your government still order telecoms and other ESPs to create these encryption capabilities?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
As I said initially, this bill is encryption-neutral. It does not envision or anticipate the breaking of encryption in any way. The ministerial orders, as contemplated, will require the intelligence commissioner to approve them, which is part of the safeguards that are in place right now.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
In response to my question during debate regarding compensation for providers, you were pretty blunt. You said that as a condition of CRTC licensing, you expect companies to comply without compensation.
Is that an accurate depiction of what you said in the House?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
I have commented on this, so I can—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
You're saying no to compensation. Is that correct? Just be clear.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON
What I will say is that this bill.... There is a world in which compensation is possible—