Evidence of meeting #42 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 information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Director General, Policy, Planning and Accountability, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I have nothing significant to add to that.
Director General, Policy, Planning and Accountability, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We've talked a bit about it today, but it isn't our job to advocate for a particular position. It's our job to give insights into our views on how to strike a balance between the things we've talked a lot about here, which are tools for security and law enforcement, as well as privacy considerations.
As I said before and would reiterate, it's in nobody's interest on this side to be stepping into more of an advocacy role that could potentially, for example, erode the social contract that we have as key agencies of the Government of Canada. We're here to give you our insights into the work we do and how we do it and where the challenges are, and then obviously to take the will of Parliament and implement it as best we can.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
That's fair, and I would agree with that.
I want more insight on a technical bill like this.
I don't know who was here at the table in 2013—I'm not sure of the exact time—when Bill C-13 was considered.
Mr. Wong, I think you indicated that you've been here and working on this for some time.
Was anyone else here for Bill C-13?
Mr. Wong, were you here for Bill C-13? Do you recall who was here on behalf of the government during clause-by-clause for Bill C-13?
Normand Wong Acting General Counsel, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
I don't have a recollection. I think there was probably someone from the RCMP with me.
Liberal
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Could the honourable member get back to the topic at hand, specifically the subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Yes, we need to understand the point behind this line of questioning, which is starting to drag on.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I will be coming back to the subamendment shortly.
One of the points I wanted to make, building on the discussion about part 1 and part 2 and who has been made available to the committee, is about the departure from previous practice when Parliament considered Bill C-13 in the past.
This wasn't my review. Dr. Geist made this point earlier today. I'll read one small paragraph of his article, which caused me some concern.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
The past practice of the committee on a bill from 2013 does not relate to the question of whether we should have an inclusive list or a non-inclusive list. It doesn't relate to the subamendment.
If we follow the practice of the House, he needs to speak to the subamendment that he's put forward, not to a general framework that could be used to talk to every single amendment and subamendment repeatedly throughout the entire clause-by-clause.
I do not believe he's being relevant. I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to bring him back to order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Part of my job is to try to help committee members achieve a balance. As we said earlier, there is limited time. We want conversations to focus on what the task is.
I invite MP Mantle to attempt to do that.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Sure.
Let me explain how this ties back to the subamendment. I think all of my comments thus far have been substantive. I just want to make it clear that I'm trying to get to a substantive discussion here.
I'm asking these questions because Madam DeBellefeuille's amendment and my subamendment are directly related to the recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner. That was a recommendation written to the public safety committee and discussed during the Privacy Commissioner's testimony here.
One of the problems I am pointing out is that we do not have the Privacy Commissioner here while we are discussing the subamendment and the amendment, which are directly from the recommendation. My point is that that's a problem and a departure. What we are engaging in here is a departure from past practice.
I want to put on the record that in the previous discussion of Bill C-13, officials from Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice were here—their attendance is routine—but the inclusion of the RCMP and CSIS during this clause-by-clause is different. I want to make that point, because if we are going to say that agencies that have a view on or are affected by part 1 or part 2 of Bill C-22 should be here to provide their input.... I don't disagree with that. I think it's helpful to have the RCMP and CSIS here to answer questions on this. At the same time, on this amendment and my subamendment, it would be helpful to have the Privacy Commissioner or a representative of the Privacy Commissioner here.
That is how this line of questioning relates.
Is that satisfactory, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That's a view you are entitled to have.
As you noted, these are the officials here now. They belong to the portfolios of Public Safety and Justice. Other organizations, stakeholders and witnesses—many of them—would be outside the portfolio of Public Safety, which explains why they're not here now.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I don't know why they're present now but weren't in the past. That's my point.
May I continue?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Again, my view doesn't matter that much, but I'll just mention that until now, I have observed the RCMP and CSIS providing helpful answers to a number of MPs around the room. My subjective assessment is that they've been helpful, which may justify the reasons they are here now.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I agree with that.
My only point is that in the discussion of the amendments that we are currently considering under part 1 and my subamendment, I believe it would be helpful to also have the Privacy Commissioner, which is part of the reason we asked.
I want to make the point that we have a departure from previous practice, one that I agree with. Under the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-13—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
This is repetition. Mr. Mantle has now made the same argument three times, which, again, doesn't relate to his subamendment.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I disagree.
I've laid out exactly how it relates to the subamendment. Having experts here to provide....
If Mr. Housefather can't follow that logic, I can't help him.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
MP Housefather is apparently attempting to remind me, as the chair, of my responsibility to invite everyone to be as coherent as possible and to focus on the subamendment and amendment under consideration. There will be other amendments and subamendments later. We may want to avoid repeating arguments in ways that are not helpful and not supportive of the work of this committee.
I'll remind you that we have limited time and we want to be as efficient as possible.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
I agree with that.
I will simply remind members opposite that this discussion and the back-and-forth we are having are because they chose to interrupt my line of questioning and—
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Everyone can laugh or not laugh if they want. I don't really care. I have a particular view that I'm trying to express on this bill, and I'm going to continue doing that until you tell me I can't. I'll leave it there.
I'm going to read the one paragraph I was trying to read from Mr. Geist's article, because it disagrees with Mr. Wong's memory of, frankly, more than 10 years ago. It's not fair, but....
Mr. Geist wrote the following this morning:
The departure on Bill C-22 is not the presence of departmental officials from Public Safety and Justice, whose attendance is routine, but the inclusion of the RCMP and CSIS, the operational agencies that sought the legislation in the first place. The contrast with how Parliament has handled comparable legislation is telling. When the Justice committee conducted clause-by-clause review of Bill C-13, the last lawful access bill to reach that stage, the officials at the table were from the Department of Justice, and the police and intelligence agencies that would use the powers were not there to advise members on the amendments.
Therefore, as I said, it would be helpful to have the Privacy Commissioner here to discuss my subamendment, which I'm now going to talk about.
Ms. Gibner and Mr. Wong, we had a discussion about how to interpret the meaning of the definition of “subscriber information”. In reviewing the transcript of our back-and-forth, I was left with two different opinions that seemed to be expressed to me.
Mr. Wong, in response to some of my questioning, you made the point that proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are supposed to cover types of information that the police will use, and they're described that way with examples to try to make them future-proof in terms of what other types of information, like that information, may be used to identify the subject. When you say future-proof, that means the information we have there could include other stuff in the future. That's the definition of trying to future-proof.
In contrast, Ms. Gibner, you described the inclusion of the word “means” in the chapeau, and then the inclusion of the word “including” in the subparagraphs.
I made the subamendment, and I was left a bit confused, so as any good lawyer would, I went to the source. Don't worry. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I will read a portion of it, because it's directly relevant to this.