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.
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
Yes, I agree. I appreciate Mr. Hatfield's comment about subsequent...or the question, rather, with respect to—
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
Exactly. That's because legislation, if not repealed or amended, does tend to take on a life of its own after a time. Maybe the original purpose is forgotten or muddled over time, and that's a concern.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
That's wonderful. Thank you.
This is the conclusion I'm coming to and I would like to see if you would agree with me. With Bill C-22, the Liberal government is selling Canadians a privacy promise that the actual legislation doesn't deliver as it is written today.
Executive Director, OpenMedia
Yes, I agree. If anything, I'd be stronger than that.
Chair, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Associaton
I wouldn't phrase it that way, but we have serious concerns in terms of privacy.
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
I'm sorry. Can the question be asked again?
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes, no problem. Maybe I should go to you first the next time.
It feels like we're being sold a privacy promise that the actual legislation doesn't deliver. Would you agree?
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
I don't know about the word “promise”. I just have an issue with the legislation as it currently exists, because I think, as I've said repeatedly, that it's too broad and there are too many entry points.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
I think you've all said you agree that things are too rushed. We've barely had time to absorb pieces of this bill, let alone all of it. I have significant concerns about that, and I've said that many times. Rushing a bill is not doing it justice and could cause a great deal of harm.
Mr. Surgenor, you talked about metadata being “information about information” that is preserved for review. I appreciate that because I don't know if Canadians really understand what metadata is. Can you clarify what it is—information about information—and why storing metadata could be harmful if it's for every Canadian?
Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
That is the position that we have: Metadata is information about information. It took some time to wrap my head around that, because you're quite right that it's not exactly clear.
The language of the bill is kind of a thin veneer. As I read it, it's not a great leap to learn, for instance, that device X was communicating with device Y, even if the content of the communication isn't clear, especially given the fact that all sorts of related information is also up for grabs. Presumably, the point of the investigative powers is to gather as much as necessary to positively identify an individual, particularly, to echo Ms. Saad's comment, when we talk about the definition of subscriber information.
Taken together, you have a constellation of information, and that's what the metadata is: device X talking to device Y. If that's being held onto for up to a year, it's actually difficult to grasp and comprehend how much communication is caught by that. It's an important point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you. I'm sorry but your time is up.
Mr. Housefather for five minutes.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
May I raise a point of order at this point, please, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
I didn't know when the rounds were going to be cut off, so I said I would do it when Ms. Kirkland was done. If Mr. Housefather wants his time afterwards, go ahead.
We have not yet received a ruling from the chair on Mr. Lloyd's point of privilege. I know that you did circulate an email, which was not from the chair, so we haven't had that yet. Given what we are dealing with now.... Somebody has contacted my office and said their brief also hasn't been translated. It was submitted eight days ago if we take them at their word, which I'm obviously prepared to do, and Mr. Lloyd raised a point of privilege.
I wonder if, at the end of Mr. Housefather's round, you could please advise us on that point, because we do need a ruling on that. If there is no ruling, I would be prepared to revive that point of privilege and add my voice to it, given what we've heard today.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Ramsay.
I want to try to find a solution to the problem raised by Mr. Caputo.
Ms. Saad, you submitted your brief in French and English, did you not?
Chair, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Associaton
Yes, that's correct.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I would like unanimous consent for the brief from the Canadian Bar Association and all the other briefs that were sent in both official languages, even if they aren't perfect and were not revised by translators, to be sent to the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Indeed, this decision requires the unanimous consent of the committee. The rules we passed at the start of the session are very clear. That said, this kind of motion is possible. Let's quickly check whether there is unanimous consent for this.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I admit that I'm afraid this request will set a precedent, but I understand what Mr. Housefather is trying to do.
Since the brief has already been sent in both official languages, you could forward it to each member of the committee so that we can review it individually.
However, I would not want to set a precedent by accepting a version that hasn't been certified by the translation bureau. If the idea is to send an email to everyone who submitted a brief to explain that the briefs have not been translated and that they should send us a version in both official languages to distribute to committee members, you will understand that I cannot accept that, because it would truly set a significant precedent. Furthermore, I wouldn't be able to assess whether the copy I have in front of me has been translated correctly. If everyone here were English-speaking, it would be easy, because we could have the documents in a single language.
I know what Mr. Housefather is trying to do. In the case of the Canadian Bar Association, I am less concerned that the copy might be of poor quality. As I often tell witnesses, given the limitations of the translation services—which are, in my view, completely unacceptable—we sometimes have to work with highly credible witnesses to have them send us their briefs in both official languages.
Mr. Housefather, I hope you understand that I cannot grant your request, as it would set a precedent that I would prefer to avoid.