Evidence of meeting #40 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 c-22.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Amandeep Sodhi Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you.
The CBA's membership includes a wide variety of people such as Crown prosecutors, police legal advisers and counsel who represent lots of different sectors. Do you believe it's fair to say that the CBA might be divided on the question and topic of lawful access? How was the association's position on Bill C-22 developed?
Chair, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Associaton
The CBA represents over 40,000 lawyers from all different practice areas from the public and private sectors. All of our submissions are also reviewed by policy committees at the CBA.
For this submission, we worked with the criminal justice section and the privacy and access section. We are not that divided on part 1. We reached a consensus.
Chair, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Associaton
No.
As I said earlier, what you will see in our submission is that we are not divided. This is the opinion of all the sections that worked on the submission, and the CBA approved it as well. We are speaking with one voice.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Sodhi.
I will now give Mrs. DeBellefeuille the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Saad, we note that your concerns are virtually identical to those of the Barreau du Québec. It's a shame we did not receive your brief to review your proposed amendments, because we had until last night—or until May 27—to submit them. Of course, we can always propose them on the spot, but that's always more complicated. So, it's unfortunate.
Mr. Surgenor, I'd like you to tell us about other countries. We've been hearing nothing but positive things; however, in recent weeks, some witnesses have told us that we shouldn't compare ourselves too closely to them, because we aren't really that similar. Essentially, in Canada, we have a culture in this regard—or a deep commitment to the protection of privacy.
In your opinion, are there things that other countries do that we shouldn't replicate and that shouldn't be included in the bill?
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
Madam, regrettably, I have to inform you that I'm not up to speed on the precise contours of what the other.... I'll use the phrase “Five Eyes”, because that's what it is. It seems that we've heard this from those who have spearheaded this bill: that, really, we're talking about the Five Eyes.
I'm afraid that I just don't have the knowledge about what other countries are doing, but with respect to the culture of privacy, I would suspect that's something that's shared across the Five Eyes. I'm drawing that inference because there's been a robust history of co-operation for many years at this point, but I can't give you a more fulsome answer.
I know that from the Canadian perspective—and I'd like to again highlight the non-partisan character of our organization—our concern is a general one. It's a concern about the sheer overbreadth of this proposed legislation. If criminals are the ones that need to be targeted, there's a way to do that in a more targeted way. That doesn't appear to be the case with this bill. It seems that far too many people who have absolutely no connection to criminal activity would be caught up in this.
I can't speak for our Kiwi, Australian, British or American friends, but I would hope that they're not interested in investigating innocent people. What they're doing precisely, I can't say.
Liberal
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the time.
I have a few questions that I'd like to ask all three witnesses. More than likely, they will just require yes-or-no answers. If there's something very important that you feel you need to add, do let me know.
Throughout the study, we've heard department officials and even the Minister of Public Safety repeatedly say that Bill C-22 is encryption-neutral—that was the word used—and does not create back doors.
Having reviewed the legislation, do you believe those assurances are fully reflected in the text of the bill itself, Mr. Hatfield?
Executive Director, OpenMedia
There's no such thing as encryption-neutral, and this would damage encryption's purpose very severely.
Chair, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Associaton
We think they're not.
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
I'm sorry. Could you pose the question again?
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Having reviewed the legislation, do you believe the assurances that Bill C-22 is encryption-neutral are fully reflected in the text of the bill?
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
It's hard not to be cynical. As a lawyer, I don't really believe many assurances from anyone, because I can't even trust myself most of the time.
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
I think it's quite clear that what's outlined is a not so—
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
No, let me clarify—my apologies.
The answer to the question is no. It seems like the aim here is to create a path to access.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
That answers my question. Thank you.
Again, for all three of you, do you believe there's a clear difference between what the minister says the bill is intended to do and what the bill would legally allow or permit a future government to do?
Executive Director, OpenMedia
Yes, very much so. Intentions don't matter. What the text does here is well beyond what the minister has said the purpose is.