2019-05-03 12:10 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Introduction and First reading, Parliamentary precinct, Parliamentary Protective Service, Safety,

Cité parlementaire, Dépôt et première lecture, Projets de loi émanant des députés, Sécurité publique, Service de protection parlementaire

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (management and direction of the Parliamentary Protective Service).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that would change subsection 79.55(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act relating to the Parliamentary Protective Service. The act reads, in essence, that the director “must be a member of the [RCMP].” This bill would add the word “not” and mandate that the two Speakers, without outside intervention, would jointly select the director of our integrated security force.

While we appreciate the RCMP's efforts to integrate the security forces, this bill would give the Crown three years to complete the transition back to the House. Nothing in this act would prevent the RCMP from continuing to protect the Prime Minister in the House, nor from calling on the RCMP for backup should the need arise. However, all decisions going forward would belong to the House and Senate rather than to the executive. While it is not a matter for legislation, I hope that this would also allow the designated airspace known as CYR537 to be handed over to the Parliamentary Protective Service.

As I consider this to be, first and foremost, a matter of protecting parliamentary privilege, I ask that this bill be ultimately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for seconding this bill, demonstrating the cross-party support it will need to move forward.

demande à présenter le projet de loi C-445, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada (gestion et direction du Service de protection parlementaire).

— Monsieur le Président, je prends la parole aujourd'hui pour présenter un projet de loi visant à modifier le paragraphe 79.55(2) de la Loi sur le Parlement du Canada relativement au Service de protection parlementaire. Essentiellement, la Loi stipule que le directeur « doit être un membre [...] de la [GRC] ». Le projet de loi ajouterait les mots « ne » et « pas » pour préciser que le directeur ne doit pas être un membre de la GRC. Il prévoit également que le Président du Sénat et le Président de la Chambre des communes nomment conjointement, sans intervention extérieure, la personne devant occuper le poste de directeur du Service de protection parlementaire.

Nous remercions la GRC de tout ce qu'elle a fait pour assurer la coordination des services de sécurité. Toutefois, ce projet de loi accorderait trois ans à la Couronne pour remettre les rênes entre les mains des deux Chambres. Il n'y a rien dans ce projet de loi qui empêcherait la GRC de continuer à protéger le premier ministre à la Chambre, ou qui empêcherait la Chambre de réclamer des renforts auprès de la GRC si le besoin se présentait. Cela dit, à l'avenir, il appartiendrait à la Chambre des communes et au Sénat, plutôt qu'à l'organe exécutif, de prendre toutes les décisions. J'espère que cela permettrait également de confier l'espace aérien désigné correspondant au code CYR537 au Service de protection parlementaire, même si cette question n'est pas visée par le projet de loi.

Comme je considère que cette question vise d'abord et avant tout à protéger le privilège parlementaire, je demande que ce projet de loi soit finalement renvoyé au Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre.

Je remercie le député d'Hamilton-Centre d'avoir appuyé le projet de loi. L'appui de tous les partis sera nécessaire pour le faire aller de l'avant.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr tv 608 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 04:42 on May 03, 2019

2019-05-03 11:10 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Public transit, Rural communities, Statements by Members

Communautés rurales, Déclarations de députés, Transport en commun

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Mont-Tremblant, Luc Brisebois, just announced that, as of June 21, the local bus service will be free for everyone all the time. This measure benefits everyone: workers, employers, students, families, seniors, and even tourists.

This will help cut greenhouse gas emissions. It is a measure that shows that economic development and environmental protection can and must go hand in hand. Everything we do, individually as well as collectively, has a significant impact on the fight against climate change. Public transit is one of the best ways to help the environment.

The town of Mont-Tremblant is at the leading edge of rural public transit. By offering it for free, they are sending an even stronger message about what we can do for the future when we are bold enough to fight for it.

To the leaders of Mont-Tremblant and all the current and future bus riders, I say bravo and thank you.

Monsieur le Président, le maire de la Ville de Mont-Tremblant, Luc Brisebois, vient d’annoncer qu’à compter du 21 juin le service d’autobus sera accessible gratuitement pour tous et en tout temps. C’est une mesure qui rejoint tout le monde: les travailleurs, les employeurs, les étudiants, les familles, les personnes âgées et même les touristes.

Cette mesure permettra la réduction des gaz à effet de serre. C’est une mesure qui démontre qu’on peut et qu’on doit combiner le développement économique et la protection environnementale. Chaque geste que nous posons, seuls ou collectivement, a une incidence capitale dans la lutte contre les changements climatiques. Le transport en commun est l’une des meilleures manières d’agir pour l’environnement.

La Ville de Mont-Tremblant est à l’avant-garde des services de transport en commun en milieu rural. En l’offrant gratuitement, on lance un message encore plus fort sur ce qu’on est capable de faire pour l'avenir, quand on ose agir pour l'avenir.

Aux dirigeants de Mont-Tremblant et à tous les usagers d’autobus actuels et futurs, je dis bravo et merci!

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 350 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on May 03, 2019

2019-05-02 14:00 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Emergency response and emergency responders, Floods, Statements by Members

Crues, Déclarations de députés,

Mr. Speaker, people across the country are dealing with the impact of climate change. As we know, thousands of people have been hit hard by the flooding in Quebec. For the past two weeks, the riding of Laurentides—Labelles has also been dealing with floods.

We absolutely have to address the issue of cellular communication in rural areas such as Amherst, which had to declare a state of emergency along with other municipalities. Just imagine the flood victims who were isolated, the emergency services that tried to reach them and the worried families, and let us quickly take action before an even more serious crisis occurs.

I also want to tell the people and thousands of volunteers in Montcalm, Piedmont, Ferme-Neuve, Kiamika, Lac-Saguay, Rivière-Rouge, Huberdeau, Val-David, Nominingue and every one of the 43 municipalities in my riding, which have practically all been affected, that the way they have come together and the strength of our communities is remarkable. They deserve our respect, gratitude and support.

Monsieur le Président, partout au pays, les citoyens sont aux prises avec les conséquences des dérèglements climatiques. Au Québec, on le sait, les inondations ont causé des milliers de drames humains. Laurentides—Labelle n'y a pas échappé depuis deux semaines.

Nous devons impérativement régler la question de l'accès aux communications cellulaires dans les régions rurales, comme c'est le cas à Amherst, qui a dû, comme beaucoup d'autres municipalités, déclarer l'état d'urgence. Songeons aux sinistrés qui étaient isolés, aux services d'urgence qui essayaient de les joindre et aux familles inquiètes et agissons rapidement avant que ne survienne un drame encore plus grand.

Je souhaite aussi dire aux citoyens et aux milliers de bénévoles de Montcalm, de Piedmont, de Ferme-Neuve, de Kiamika, de Lac-Saguay, de Rivière-Rouge, d'Huberdeau, de Val-David, de Nominingue et de chacune des 43 municipalités de ma circonscription, qui sont pratiquement toutes affectées, qu'elles font preuve d'une entraide exceptionnelle et démontrent la force de nos communautés. Elles méritent tout notre respect, toute notre gratitude et tout notre appui.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 353 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on May 02, 2019

2019-05-02 PROC 152

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1125)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning.

Welcome to the 152nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.[English]

We had discussions with all parties, and if it's okay with everyone, we will proceed with 45 minutes for each set of witnesses because we have two sets and a half hour less.

Is that okay with everyone?[Translation]

Very well.

This morning, we are continuing our study on the main estimates for 2019-20, vote 1 under Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The witnesses are from Elections Canada. We have Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer; Michel Roussel, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Electoral Events and Innovation; and Hughes St-Pierre, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Internal Services.

Thank you for being here today.

I will now hand the floor over to you, Mr. Perrault. You may go ahead with your presentation.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to be before the committee today to present Elections Canada's main estimates and plans for 2019-20. This appearance also provides the opportunity to update committee members on the implementation of Bill C-76 and, above all, our final preparations for the general election.

Today, the committee is voting on Election Canada's annual appropriation, which is $39.2 million and represents the salaries of some 440 indeterminate positions. This is an increase of $8.4 million over last year's appropriation. As I indicated when I last appeared before this committee, the increase is essentially a rebalancing of the agency's budgets, moving expenses for terms and contract resources out of the statutory authority and into the annual appropriation in order to fund indeterminate resources. It does not represent any spending increase overall. In fact, it results in a slight spending reduction.

Combined with our statutory authority, which funds all other expenditures under the Canada Elections Act, our 2019-20 main estimates total $493.2 million. This includes $398 million for the October 21 election, which represents the direct election delivery costs that will be incurred in this fiscal year.

Our most recent estimates indicate that total expenditures for the 43rd general election will be some $500 million. The expenditures may vary due to various factors such as the duration of the campaign.

I note that, while preparing our budgets last fall, we had estimated the cost of the election at some $470 million. The difference is mainly due to Bill C-76—$21 million—which had not been passed at the time of preparing our estimates and therefore had not been taken into account.

Elections Canada continues to implement Bill C-76 and bring into force its provisions as preparations are completed.

Following my last appearance, the new privacy policy requirements for political parties, the administrative reintegration of the Commissioner of Canada Elections within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, as well as the establishment of the new register of future electors, came into force on April 1.

On May 11, the changes brought by Bill C-76 for electors residing outside Canada will also come into force. The balance of other provisions will come into force in June. From an electoral operation perspective, Elections Canada will then be ready to conduct the election with the required Bill C-76 changes. Our applications, training and instructions will have been updated, tested and ready for use.

In terms of regulatory activities, all guidance on political financing will be finalized and published prior to the beginning of the pre-writ period on June 30. Leading up to that date, we will continue consulting parties on various products through the opinions, guidelines and interpretation notes process.

The agency is also gearing up to complete the audits of political entity returns following the election. We are expecting increases in the audit work stemming from the new requirements introduced by Bill C-76, notably for third parties, as well as the removal of the $1,000 deposit for candidates.

Despite this increase, we aim to reduce the time required to complete the audit of candidate returns by 30% in order to improve transparency and ensure more timely reimbursements. To achieve this, we are implementing a streamlined risk-based audit plan.

(1130)

[English]

A key priority as part of our final preparations is to further improve the quality of the list of electors. Every year some three million Canadians move, 300,000 pass away, more than 100,000 become citizens, and 400,000 turn 18. This translates roughly into 70,000 changes in any given week.

To ensure the accuracy of the register, Elections Canada regularly draws on multiple data sources from more than 40 provincial and federal bodies as well as from information provided directly by Canadians, mostly online. This will be facilitated by recent improvements made to our online registration systems to capture non-standard addresses and upload identification documents.

With the enactment of Bill C-76, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is now able to share information about permanent residents and foreign nationals. This provides Elections Canada with a much-needed tool to address the long-recognized issue of non-citizens appearing on the register of electors. This spring, we expect to remove approximately 100,000 records as a result.

We have also recently written to 250,000 households for which we believe we have records that need correction. Efforts to improve the accuracy of the list of electors will continue and will be supported by a new pre-writ campaign to encourage Canadians to verify and update their information over the spring and the summer.

On April 18 the agency concluded an extensive three-week election simulation exercise in five electoral districts. The simulation allowed us to test our business processes, handbooks and IT systems in a setting that closely resembles that of an actual election. Election workers were hired and trained, and they participated in simulated voting exercises that factored in changes introduced by Bill C-76. This exercise also gave some of our new returning officers the opportunity to observe local office operations and exchange with more experienced colleagues.

Overall, the simulation exercise confirmed our readiness level while identifying a few areas in which we need to refine some of our procedures, instructions and applications. The final adjustments will be made this spring.

With the assurance provided by our simulation and most recent by-elections, I have a high level of confidence in our state of readiness and our tools to deliver this election.

From an electoral security perspective, the agency is engaged this spring in a number of scenario exercises with the Commissioner of Canada Elections and Canada's lead security agencies to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear and that proper governance is established to coordinate our actions. As indicated in the Communications Security Establishment's most recent report, Canada is not immune to cyber-threats and disinformation.

Since the last general election, a wide range of organizations, including Elections Canada, have worked to adapt to the new context and strengthen Canada's democratic resilience in the face of these evolving threats. Elections Canada and its security partners approach the next general election with a new level of vigilance and awareness and unprecedented level of co-operation.

General elections are one of Canada's largest civic events. Our role is to provide a trusted and accessible voting service to 27 million electors in some 338 electoral districts. lt involves hiring and training more than 300,000 poll workers deployed in more than 70,000 polls across the country. Our returning officers have been continually engaged in improvements planned for the next election. I had the opportunity to meet with our field personnel across Canada. I can assure you that they are engaged, ready and resolved in their commitment to provide electors and candidates with outstanding service.

(1135)

[Translation]

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have. [English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much. It's great to have you back again. We have a great working relationship.

We'll go to Mr. Simms for seven minutes.

Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.):

I'm going to be sharing my time with Mr. Graham.

First of all, welcome back, as always. I want to talk about some of the good things you've done over the past little while: the new policy requirements for political parties, the register of future electors and of course the administrative reintegration of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, which I think was something very important for them to do their jobs.

In the meantime, one new element of Bill C-76 that many people had questions about was the ramifications, both financial and administrative, for what we now know as the pre-writ period.

Can you comment on that, please?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault:

We have new rules that will be in place for June 30. They're not in force right now; that period starts at that point in time. At that point there are now extensive rules for third parties on the one hand to cover all of their partisan expenditures and rules for parties to limit their partisan advertising expenses, which covers only the direct advertising. This is a new feature that we did not have in previous elections.

Mr. Scott Simms:

Okay.

Let me return to the future electors list, which is also a new process. Can you describe how it's going? I know, as of April 1, it's now in force. However, what do you have left to do to make sure this is ready for the coming fall election?

committee hansard proc 30244 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on May 02, 2019

2019-05-01 SECU 159

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

Ladies and gentlemen, it's 3:30, we have quorum, and I want to respect witnesses' and members' time, so we are now in session. This is the 159th meeting. My goodness, this is a hard-working committee if I've ever seen one.

We have two witnesses for the first hour, the first from the Canadian Police Association, and the second from Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty.

At the end of the first hour, I'm going to ask someone to move acceptance of the subcommittee report. I'm going to ask Mr. Eglinski to be ready, since he's been so friendly.

With that, we'll simply ask the witnesses to speak in the order in which they're listed.

From the Canadian Police Association, we have Mr. Stamatakis.

Mr. Tom Stamatakis (President, Canadian Police Association):

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you this afternoon as part of your committee's ongoing study of Bill C-93.

I'm appearing this afternoon on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, which, as many of you know, is the largest policing advocacy organization in the country, representing over 60,000 front-line civilian and sworn law enforcement professionals from coast to coast to coast. Our members are the proverbial “boots on the ground” when it comes to issues of public safety and are the first to feel the effects of decisions made by elected officials at all levels of government.

As is my usual habit, I want to keep my opening remarks relatively brief to allow for as much time as possible for your questions and comments, particularly given that the subject matter in Bill C-93 is relatively straightforward.

At the outset, let me say that the Canadian Police Association is generally supportive of the goal of Bill C-93. While obviously we have seen a significant change in the legal status of cannabis within the last year, there is no doubt that social attitudes towards marijuana have been changing for quite some time. We certainly see it with the policing level and with the general public as well. While we often hear the popular term “war on drugs” with respect to policing attitudes around these substances, which aren't just limited to cannabis, most police services in Canada, in my experience, if not all, have long since de-emphasized enforcement for simple possession.

Now that the legal framework has caught up to the social attitudes, there isn't any good reason, in my opinion, to deny people who have otherwise been law-abiding members of society being given a clean record and a chance to fully participate in areas that might otherwise have been denied to them on the basis of a past mistake. On that basis alone, our association is generally supportive of this legislation.

That said, we would like to take this opportunity to express some concern about the automatic nature of record suspensions being proposed by this bill. There's absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of applications that will be made under these amendments will be from individuals who pose no ongoing risk to public safety, and they should certainly be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

However, I would note that there will also be some applications made by offenders where simple possession may have been a charge that was arrived at based on a plea agreement with the Crown and down from a more serious charge. In those circumstances, it is possible that both the Crown and the court may have accepted the plea agreement based on the assumption that the conviction would be a permanent record of the offence and would not have accepted the lesser charge if they knew this would be cleared without any possibility of review at a future date.

While I understand that it would be both impossible and entirely unfair to hold unproven charges against someone, even in the case of a plea bargain, I do believe that this legislation could be quite easily amended to ensure that the proposed changes to the Criminal Records Act— specifically, the addition to section 4.1, which bars the Parole Board from conducting any evaluation of the applicant's history—don't allow habitual offenders to slip through the cracks.

An amendment that would allow the Parole Board to retain at least a slight amount of discretion to consider an applicant's conduct since conviction, or certainly any subsequent convictions, would alleviate any concerns police might have about ensuring community safety isn't compromised by the small number of repeat offenders who might take advantage of this legislation, and it will maintain the reputable administration of justice.

As I mentioned, I do want to keep these opening remarks brief. The legalization of cannabis has certainly been a significant change for front-line law enforcement, and I should note that it is a testament to the professionalism of our members that the transition to this new regime has been remarkably seamless over the eight months since the changes were enacted.

This legislation on the whole seems like a common-sense approach toward ensuring that criminal records reflect the new consensus around cannabis in Canada. We appreciate that the government has been very forthright in consulting with law enforcement experts as they've proceeded with this policy change, and we look forward to continuing that consultation.

We believe that Bill C-93, with a few small amendments to ensure that the Parole Board retains some amount of discretion to ensure long-term and habitual offenders are held accountable, will allow people to avoid the stigma of a criminal conviction and give those who deserve it a much-deserved second chance.

Thank you very much for inviting me appear before you today.

(1535)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Stamatakis.

For Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty, we have Annamaria Enenajor. You have 10 minutes.

Ms. Annamaria Enenajor (Founder and Director, Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty):

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, and members. My name is Annamaria Enenajor. I am a criminal defence lawyer and the founder and campaign director for the Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty.

The Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty is a not-for-profit advocacy group focused on righting the historical wrongs caused by decades of cannabis prohibition. It was founded in April 2018, not too long ago, in response to the absence of federal legislation addressing the stigma of previous convictions for offences that would not longer be illegal under the Cannabis Act. Since then, the campaign has been calling on the government to enact legislation to delete criminal records relating to the simple possession of cannabis. We believe that no Canadian should be burdened with a criminal record for minor, non-violent acts that are no longer a crime.

It is an honour to appear before you today, and I offer you some observations and modest recommendations with respect to Bill C-93. The campaign supports the implementation of measures to remove the stigma of past cannabis convictions that disproportionately impact marginalized Canadians. As it is currently drafted, however, Bill C-93 does not go far enough.

The story of enforcement of cannabis possession offences in Canada is one of historical injustice and inequality. Canadians of different backgrounds consume and possess cannabis at comparable rates. In fact, Canada has one of the highest rates of cannabis consumption in the world. In 2017, 46.6% of Canadians—almost half of Canadians—admitted to using cannabis at some point in their lives.

Despite this widespread consumption, a growing body of social science evidence has shown that not all Canadians face the same consequences for these actions. Racial profiling and suspicion of specific groups on the basis of stereotypes means that some Canadians are more likely to be closely scrutinized by law enforcement than others. Black Canadians, indigenous people of Canada and low-income Canadians are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated for cannabis possession offences than white Canadians. This is not a tragic and accidental phenomenon. This is a historical injustice and a systemic charter violation that cries out for redress.

The equality provision of the charter was intended to ensure a measure of substantive, and not merely formal, equality. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held, beginning with the case of Eldridge, 1997, that a discriminatory purpose or intention is not a necessary condition to finding a violation of the equality provision of the charter. It is sufficient if the effect of the legislation, while neutral on its face, is to deny someone equal protection and benefit of the law. To the extent that the government seeks to draw distinction between laws that are discriminatory on their face and laws that are discriminatory in their effects, a distinction is illegitimate for the purpose of our constitutional protections.

While historical cannabis protection laws were not discriminatory on their face, they most certainly produced discriminatory effects in their enforcement. They perpetuated disadvantage on the basis of race, ethnic origin and colour, all of which are prohibited grounds under the charter.

The unequal and disproportionate enforcement of cannabis-related offences on this scale and of this magnitude encourages distrust and resentment of law enforcement, cynicism towards the administration of justice and an understandable sentiment that the promise of substantive equality under the charter is a myth for many Canadians. An appropriately powerful response to this shameful history is therefore also necessary to maintain the integrity of our justice system.

While the campaign applauds the government's willingness to recognize the disproportionate stigma and burden that results from the retention of conviction records for historical simple cannabis possession, we believe the bill does not go far enough.

Given the serious consequences of a cannabis possession conviction on the lives of Canadians and the legacy of inequality through disproportionate and discriminatory enforcement, the federal government must respond to this historical injustice with a measure sufficiently powerful to denounce a shameful history. People with simple cannabis possession records should be put in the same position as those millions of Canadians who did and who continue to do the exact same thing.

(1540)

While it was criminal, they did not face any consequences because of factors that have no bearing on their moral culpability or criminality—factors such as their race, income, family connections and their neighbourhood of residence. As a result of that, they were never arrested and never convicted and were able to proceed through their lives with opportunities that were not available to other Canadians. As a result, Bill C-93 should be amended to provide for free, automatic, simple and permanent records deletions for simple cannabis possession offences.

If the government is not willing to go that far, then we suggest that there are other aspects of that kind of regime that the government could tap into that would still be satisfactory. For example, the government could incorporate aspects of an expungement scheme that could improve the bill's utility and allow for the implementation in a way that would benefit as many people as possible.

For example, on Monday when this committee met last, we heard that because of our decentralized and often archaic record-keeping practices, attempting to find and then destroy all relevant records would simply be too arduous. Just because we can't do this for all records doesn't mean we can't do it for some, and in fact, for the most important. As the honourable Ralph Goodale mentioned on Monday, while records relating to criminal offences do not exist in a single national database, records for convictions that have the greatest impact on jobs, volunteering and travel, in fact do.

The Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, is a national database maintained by the RCMP. If someone is arrested, charged and convicted of a crime, this record exists in the CPIC database. When an employer asks for a background check, for example, and requests it from the RCMP, the RCMP doesn't dispatch agents to rummage through courthouses to get all these disparate court records and information about an individual. They scan CPIC. When Canada discloses conviction information about its citizens to the United States, it also doesn't send photocopies of papers in boxes that are all across the country in disparate jurisdictions. It shares one database: CPIC.

Whereas we can't delete all records, what we can do is target one extraordinarily important database. Automatically removing all simple cannabis possession offences from CPIC would go a long way to alleviate the impact of a conviction from the lives of Canadians, even though this would not constitute a full expungement.

The automatic deletion of CPIC entries in relation to simple cannabis offences is also a cost-effective way to provide immediate relief to Canadians. An application process involving the collection of records from provincial, territorial and local police databases involves delays and hidden costs. Even if Bill C-93 eliminates the $631 application fee ordinarily required for record suspension applications, applicants may still need to pay for fingerprinting, court information and local police record checks, which can add up to hundreds of dollars.

There has been some discussion in this committee about whether record suspensions assist Canadians when crossing the border to the United States. I'd like to speak very briefly about that, and I could be asked more questions about that later. Record suspensions do not assist Canadians seeking to cross the border to the United States. The United States does not recognize any foreign pardon, irrespective of the effect of conviction. In fact, neither foreign pardons nor foreign expungement are effective in preventing inadmissibility to the United States. They are essentially equally useless.

I have provided to this committee fulsome submissions in writing that outline further recommendations, points and observations about this law. However, I wish to conclude with our primary recommendation, which is this: Bill C-93 should provide for the permanent and automatic deletion of all conviction entries for cannabis simple possession in the CPIC database.

Our subsidiary recommendations are outlined in our written briefs.

(1545)

We hope that the recommendations that we proposed would increase the bill's utility, assist in achieving its stated goals and allow for implementation that would benefit as many people as possible.

Thank you for your time.

committee hansard secu 37087 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on May 01, 2019

2019-04-30 PROC 151

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1900)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good evening, and welcome to the 151st meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I should also say good morning to our witness, who is in Canberra, where it's 9 a.m. on Wednesday.

As we continue our study of parallel debating chambers, we are pleased to be joined by Claressa Surtees, the Acting Clerk of the Australian House of Representatives, who is appearing via video conference. Before we get to your opening statement, the clerk and analysts, at my request, pulled together a few short clips from both Westminster Hall and the Federation Chamber, so we can have a better sense of what these second chambers actually look like. There are two videos from each chamber, the first being the opening of the sitting and the second showing the lead-up to a suspension for division bells in the main chamber.

[Video presentation]

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Andrew Lauzon):

That was Westminster Hall.

Next, you'll see the Federation Chamber in Australia.

An hon. member: Can the witness see this video?

The Chair:

She's there every day.

[Video presentation]

That was fascinating. Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. That was great. It really gives us a sense of what they do there.

We have before us, Claressa Surtees, the Acting Clerk of the Australian House of Representatives. Hello, can you hear us now?

(1905)

Ms. Claressa Surtees (Acting Clerk of the House, House of Representatives of Australia):

Yes, I can hear you.

The Chair:

Perfect.

Thank you very much for being here for us.

We will give you some time to give us introductory remarks, and then some of the committee members will probably have questions for you.

Ms. Claressa Surtees:

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good evening, members.

My name is Claressa Surtees. I appear before the committee in my official capacity as Acting Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia.

I'm pleased to be able to speak with you in relation to your committee's study of parallel debating chambers. In 1994 the House of Representatives amended the Standing Orders to establish the Main Committee, as it was then called, as a parallel debating chamber. This establishment gave effect to recommendations of the House procedure committee in a 1993 report. The Main Committee met for the first time on June 8, 1994, so as you see, it's coming up for it's 25th birthday next month.

The Main Committee was renamed the Federation Chamber in 2012. Over time its role has expanded, as have its hours of meeting. The parallel chamber allows extended time to debate mostly non-contentious bills, as well as committee and delegation reports and government papers. The agenda also permits private members, other than the Speaker and the ministers, opportunities to raise and debate matters of concern to them. Overall it assists the House with not only its legislative function but also government accountability, ventilation of grievances and matters of interest or concern.

The Standing Orders provide that the Deputy Speaker has principal authority in relation to the Federation Chamber in the same manner as the Speaker does in the House. With the establishment of the Main Committee, the office of Second Deputy Speaker was created to assist the Deputy Speaker in this regard. This office is filled through an election process and is held by a non-government member.

Through practice, the Deputy Clerk is the clerk of the Federation Chamber and has responsibilities for the minutes of proceedings.

The establishment of this second debating chamber has had an enduring impact on the work of the House of Representatives. Aside from the additional opportunities it has provided to members to speak on proposed legislation and matters of their own choosing, it has had an impact on resourcing. Just like the chamber, the Federation Chamber must be supported by chairs and clerks and broadcasting and Hansard services.

Of course, the other aspect of this is that those requirements have contributed to building capability. The Federation Chamber has been a valued initial venue for the professional development of chairs and of clerks.

The venue itself must be suitable for the purpose. For us, this meant the adaptation of a committee room, but that means that room is alienated for most other purposes for which it had previously been used.

The Federation Chamber meets every day the House sits, for 21.5 hours each sitting week.

It meant a fundamental change to the legislative process. Prior to the establishment of the Main Committee, detailed consideration of bills was taken by a committee of the whole membership of the House in the chamber. However, with the establishment of the Main Committee, the name of this stage of the legislative process was changed to consideration in detail. The key motivating factor for the establishment of the Main Committee was to provide a second legislative stream to ease pressure on the legislative business of the House, because the guillotine had been increasingly used and, therefore, debate often was limited.

In particular, the parallel debating chamber may consider bills referred to it for the second reading stage and the consideration-in-detail stage. An immediate improvement was noted by the reduction of the use of the guillotine in 1994. Only 14 bills were guillotined in that year, compared to 132 in the previous year.

Originally only bills where there was no disagreement were to be considered in the Main Committee. However, before long, more controversial bills were referred, as long as there was agreement to this end. The role of the Main Committee has expanded over the years.

(1910)

The enduring feature of the Federation Chamber is that it operates on the principle of consensus, and from the beginning, procedures were designed to strongly encourage co-operative debate. In particular, the quorum requirements—the Deputy Speaker or the chair, one government member and one non-government member—mean that quorum can be lost easily. The requirement for unanimous decisions provides any member with the ability to have a question considered unresolved and the matter then reported to the House for a decision.

Although it is formally the government's decision which bills and other matters are referred to the Federation Chamber, the co-operative nature of operations in this second chamber makes referral of government business items also contingent on agreement with the opposition.

There have been several reviews into the operation of the second chamber. The procedure committee's 2015 inquiry labelled the Federation Chamber an unparalleled success and concluded that it had earned its permanent place in the functioning of the House, having met the aims first put forward and evolved with the needs of the House. Review and recommendations designed to increase effectiveness have continued, including in relation to providing for a more interactive debate.

Some of the measures that are trialled in the Federation Chamber are later confirmed in the standing orders and then introduced into the House itself.

Thank you, Chair. Those are my opening remarks.

The Chair:

Thank you very much. This is very interesting.

Before I go to questions, I'll ask a quick one.

In our system, when a bill is passed at second reading, it then goes to one of 30 different committees, depending on the subject. Are you saying that detailed study of your bills used to be in committee of the whole, but the bills now go to a main committee that sits in the Federation Chamber?

Ms. Claressa Surtees:

Our system is a little bit different, Chair. The stage you have of referral to the investigative committees doesn't happen in the House of Representatives as a matter of course. It is possible for individual bills to be referred to committees, but it isn't a common practice in our House.

The way the legislative process takes place is that the bill is presented in the House and read a first time. The sponsoring minister moves the second reading and makes the significant second reading speech, and after that, a bill may be referred to the Federation Chamber for the remainder of the second reading debate and then the consideration-in-detail stage, at the conclusion of which it must be referred back to the House for the final process.

(1915)

The Chair:

committee hansard proc 14753 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 30, 2019

2019-04-30 RNNR 134

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

(1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us. Our apologies for the last-minute room change. Apparently there are some technical difficulties upstairs which necessitated the move, but we're all here now. It all worked out thanks to our clerk and everybody else who made the change work out so quickly.

This afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we're considering the main estimates for 2019-20: vote 1 under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; vote 1 under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 under Department of Natural Resources; votes 1 and 5 under National Energy Board; and, vote 1 under Northern Pipeline Agency. These were referred to the committee on Thursday, April 11, 2019.

Minister, I want to start by thanking you for taking the time to join us today. We all know how incredibly busy you are. We're always grateful to you for making time in your schedule to be here with us. I'd like to also welcome your colleagues who are joining us as well.

You all know the process, so I don't need to give any explanation. I will turn the floor over to you. Following that, we will be going to a period of questions and answers.

Minister, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's great to be here again to talk about what important investments our government has made in forestry, mining and the energy sector since October 2015, and how we can continue to invest in the future of Canada's natural resource sectors. This is a critically important time for our resource sectors and, more importantly, for Canadian workers.

As we all know, the world's energy needs are changing. Countries are increasingly looking to import sustainably sourced products. There is a growing consensus on the need to take immediate and sustained action on climate change. Some may choose to ignore these changes, keep their heads in the sand and hope for the best, but that is not the Canadian way. We are innovators.

Let's not forget that it was Canadians who first discovered how to get oil out of the oil sands. It was Canadians who created the first all-electric, battery-powered gold mine. It was Canadians who first built the largest North American passive house.

So how do we prepare for the future while also responding to the needs of today?

It starts with listening. In 2015, Canadians made it clear that protecting the environment and growing the economy could no longer be treated by the government as opposing goals.

Through Generation Energy, over 380,000 workers and leaders from renewable energy and clean tech, from oil and gas, from municipalities, indigenous leaders and Canadians helped build the idea of what our energy future could look like and how we can get there. We listened, and we have taken action to deliver for middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class.

We have done this by attracting new investment, extending the mineral exploration tax credit for five years, which is the first ever multi-year extension, and unveiling a plan that will position Canada as the world's undisputed mining leader. It is creating tens of thousands of jobs by supplying the minerals that will drive the clean growth economy.

We are reimagining the forest sector so our vast forests continue to play an essential role in our economy, not just here in Canada but around the world.

Through our investment of over $1 billion in energy efficiency, we are helping Canadians save money on their energy bills while fighting climate change.

We are building our energy future with a clear focus on expanding our renewable sources of energy, gaining access to global markets and making our traditional resources, such as oil and gas, more sustainable than ever.

Continuing this work and building on our progress to date is the big picture behind our main estimates. It mirrors a lot of what you have studied in your work as a parliamentary committee and the valuable recommendations you have provided to our government. I want to thank you for your work on behalf of Canadians.

The funding contained in this year's main estimates would support our department as we address the challenges in front of us, but also the opportunities ahead. This funding includes: advancing the use of new, clean technologies in the resource sector; helping remote, northern indigenous communities reduce their reliance on diesel; combatting the spruce budworm outbreak through early intervention; and extending our support to the many communities impacted by the unjustified tariffs on softwood lumber.

It will also give us the funds needed to implement key pillars of budget 2019. This includes new investments to encourage more Canadians to buy zero-emission vehicles; engage indigenous communities in major resource projects; improve our energy data, a key study from your committee; and enhance our ability to prepare for and respond to disasters that increasingly require federal action.

(1540)

As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, this is a pivotal moment in our country's history and it is not without its challenges, whether they are building pipeline capacity in the west, fending off protectionist measures to our south or changes across our economy in all regions of our country.

Canada's unemployment rate may be at a 40-year low, but we need to be mindful of Canadians who are anxious about their future. ln my home province of Alberta, we have seen ongoing challenges for many workers because of fluctuating commodity prices. Our government sees all of these challenges, and we are taking them head-on.

That is why we announced a $1.6-billion action plan to support workers and enhance competitiveness in our oil and gas sector. That is why our government is providing up to $2 billion to respond to the U.S. tariffs that are threatening Canadian workers in our steel and aluminum sectors. lt is why we built on the $867 million through our softwood lumber action plan with continued support to the forest sector in budget 2019.

lt is why we are providing $150 million to ensure a just transition for workers and communities affected by the phasing out of coal-powered electricity. lt is why we are improving the way we make decisions on major projects, so that all Canadians have trust in their reviews, ensuring that we can advance nation-building projects that will grow our economy without putting our health, environment or communities in harm's way.

It is also why we have been doing the hard work necessary to follow the path set out in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision on the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. While that decision was a disappointment to many, it provided clear guidance on how the process could move forward in the right way, in a specific and focused way.

Some argue we should ignore that guidance, disregard the court and respond with lengthy appeals designed to avoid our obligations to the environment and to indigenous peoples. Our government took the responsible and more efficient path. We directed the National Energy Board to conduct a review of marine shipping and committed to getting phase three consultations right.

That important work is well under way. The NEB report was delivered on time on February 22. ln parallel, our consultation teams have been hard at work on phase three consultations. These teams, nearly double their original size, have been engaging in meaningful, two-way dialogue to discuss and understand priorities of indigenous communities and to offer responsive accommodations where appropriate. I have also personally met with many indigenous communities to help build a relationship based on trust.

Our work to date has put us in the strong position we are in today to deliver this process for all Canadians. Our work on TMX, our historic investments in solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of energy and our commitment to innovation and the development of new technologies are laying the foundation for a strong Canada both for today and for tomorrow.

Mr. Chair, our government sees our resource industries playing a key role in driving Canada's clean growth economy. We value the expertise and experience at Natural Resources and the drive of all Canadians to help make it happen.

These main estimates are a down payment on Canada's future, a future that our children will inherit with pride and build upon with confidence, a future that will continue to create well-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadians and future generations.

With that, I would be happy to take your questions.

Thank you for having us here.

(1545)

The Chair:

Minister, thank you for your remarks.

The honourable Kent Hehr is going to start us off.

Hon. Kent Hehr (Calgary Centre, Lib.):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you so much for coming. You have explained how Albertans figured out the oil sands. It was 1975 when Premier Peter Lougheed, Premier Bill Davis and our Liberal government invested in the modern oil sands. In 1997 it was Premier Klein and then prime minister Chrétien investing in the oil sands and expanding them once again.

You rightfully point out the purchase and the going ahead with Trans Mountain pipeline in the right way, but in my riding of Calgary Centre there are many oil companies and in fact energy workers from whom I continue to hear questions about the industry's competitiveness. They are concerned about a potential layering effect from the various environmental regulations and how they might make our oil and gas industry less competitive. We want to ensure that Canada is the supplier of choice for oil and gas around the world. How do we make sure that we are protecting our environment and yet ensuring that we remain competitive globally?

Hon. Amarjeet Sohi:

Through you, Mr. Chair, I thank the member so much for that question.

As you know, we were in Calgary last week announcing funding support for a very promising new technology that is investing in testing a prototype for geothermal. When you talk to companies like that, they know that if they are successful in commercializing that technology, it can create 40,000 jobs in western Canada, mainly for people who are currently working in the oil sector, people who are drilling and doing that work. We're investing in new technology and investing in our traditional oil and gas sector to make it more clean and green, with the provisions of the accelerated capital allowance announced in last Year's fall economic statement as well as the $100 million allocated in budget 2019 to foster collaboration and innovation amongst the oil and gas sector.

I can give you a number of examples that make our energy sector competitive. We will continue to keep an eye on it so that we remain competitive. We want to make sure our oil and gas sector, our renewable sector, remains a source of well-paying middle-class jobs for Canadians for decades to come. We will continue to make sure our support is there.

(1550)

Hon. Kent Hehr:

committee hansard rnnr 28664 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 30, 2019

2019-04-30 PROC 150

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning, everyone.

In spite of the fact that our witnesses aren't here yet, welcome to the 150th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Our first order of business is the main estimates for 2019-20. Today we'll be considering vote 1 under House of Commons and vote 1 under Parliamentary Protective Service.

We are pleased that we will shortly be joined by the Honourable Geoff Regan, Speaker of the House. He will be accompanied by the following officials from the House of Commons: Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons; Michel Patrice, Deputy Clerk, administration, House of Commons; and Daniel Paquette, Chief Financial Officer.

Also here, from Parliamentary Protective Service, are Superintendent Marie-Claude Côté, Interim Director; and Mr. Robert Graham, Administration and Personnel Officer.

Before we start, I want to remind people that we have an official meeting at 7:00 p.m. tonight to hear from Australia. We have something very special for you, too, at the beginning of that meeting, which the clerk has organized. It's a 45-second video of each of the Australian and British Houses, of their second chambers. I think it will be very interesting to see that.

We've already introduced all our guests, and because the bells will be ringing in about 15 minutes, we want to get started.

Mr. Nater.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Very briefly, because we will be having bells, can the witnesses stay a bit past 12:00 today?

The Chair:

Can you stay?

Hon. Geoff Regan (Speaker of the House of Commons):

Yes.

The Chair:

When the bells start ringing, seeing that the chamber is right upstairs, is the committee okay to stay a bit longer, closer to the end of the bells?

Mr. John Nater:

If it's okay with the witnesses.... I know they have to....

Hon. Geoff Regan:

I have to be there, too, at a certain point.

The Chair:

How about 10 minutes before the vote?

Okay.

Mr. Speaker, it's great to have you back. You're on.

Hon. Geoff Regan:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here.[Translation]

As Speaker of the House of Commons, I will be presenting the main estimates for fiscal year 2019-2020 for the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Protective Service. I am joined by officials from both organizations.[English]

Representing the House of Commons administration we have Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons; Michel Patrice, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Daniel Paquette, Chief Financial Officer.

From the Parliamentary Protective Service, we are joined by Superintendent Marie-Claude Côté, the service's Acting Director; and Robert Graham, the service's Administration and Personnel Officer.

I'll begin, Mr. Chair, by presenting the key elements of the 2019-20 main estimates for the House. These estimates total $503.4 million. This represents a net decrease of $3.6 million compared with the 2018-19 main estimates.

I want to point out—I think members probably know—that the main estimates have been reviewed and approved by the Board of Internal Economy at a public meeting.[Translation]

The main estimates will be presented along five major themes, corresponding to the handout that you received. The financial impact associated with these themes represents the year-over-year changes from the 2018-2019 Main Estimates.[English]

The five themes are as follows: cost-of-living increases; major investments; conferences, associations and assemblies; MP retiring allowances and MP retirement compensation arrangements; and employee benefit plans.

I'll begin with the funding of $4.9 million that is required for cost-of-living increases. This covers requirements for the House administration, as well as for members' office budgets and House officers' budgets. Ensuring that members and house officers have the necessary resources to meet their evolving needs is essential. The increase to members' office budgets, the House officers' budgets, and the travel status expense account provides members and House officers with the necessary resources to carry out their parliamentary functions on behalf of their constituents. These annual budgetary adjustments are based on the consumer price index.

(1105)

[Translation]

Additionally, members' sessional allowance and additional salaries are statutory in nature and are adjusted every year, in accordance with the Parliament of Canada Act.

Cost-of-living increases are also essential to recruitment efforts for members, House officers and the House Administration as employers, and funding for these increases is accounted for in the estimates.[English]

I'll now move on to the funding for major investments that the board approved, a net increase of $600,000 in support of major House of Commons investments. In light of the renewal of many parliamentary spaces, investments are also needed to deliver support services to members. One notable example of this service delivery initiative has been the implementation of a standardized approach for computer and printing equipment in constituency offices across the country.

This initiative was launched as a pilot project this year and following the next general election will be implemented in all constituency offices. Its purpose is threefold: to ensure parity between the Hill and the constituencies' computing services, to enhance IT support and security, and to simplify purchasing and life cycling of equipment in constituency offices. [Translation]

As part of the long-term vision and plan, the Parliamentary Precinct continues to undergo extensive restoration and modernization to support the efficient operations of Parliament and to preserve Canada's heritage buildings.

The recent West Block rehabilitation project and the construction of the new Visitor Welcome Centre were milestone achievements and, in many ways, will serve as models for the upcoming rehabilitation of Centre Block.[English]

The lessons learned from this project's successes can help guide us in restoring our heritage buildings to their former glory while also incorporating the modern functionality required to support Parliament. For the Centre Block project, the House of Commons administration is committed to engaging members to ensure they're involved in discussions on the design and operational requirements for the building during every step of the project from its outset to its completion.

As the heart of our parliamentary democracy, Centre Block of our Parliament Buildings has great symbolic importance to all Canadians. However, it's also a workplace for members and their staff or will be again once the House returns there. Therefore, their continuous involvement will be crucial to the success of this historic undertaking. Along with the board and its working group, this committee will serve as a forum to consult with members about their views, expectations and needs on a regular basis. [Translation]

Let us now turn to parliamentary diplomacy. The sunsetting of the funds included in the 2018-2019 Main Estimates for conferences and assemblies resulted in a decrease of $1.4 million in the 2019-2020 Main Estimates.[English]

Whether welcoming visiting parliamentarians and dignitaries to the House of Commons or participating in delegations to foreign legislatures and international conferences, MPs play an active role in parliamentary diplomacy. Two important events will be hosted in 2020-21. The 29th annual session of the Parliamentary Assembly, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, will take place in Vancouver, British Columbia, in July 2020. The 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in January 2021. May I say that's an excellent choice. I'd love to take credit for it; I had nothing to do with it, but it's still an excellent choice. Both of them are, of course. [Translation]

I will now touch on the total funding reduction of $9.3 million for the members of Parliament retiring allowances and members of Parliament retirement compensation arrangements accounts.[English]

The MPs' pension plan serves more than 1,000 active and retired senators and members of the House of Commons. The plan was established in 1952 and is governed by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. In January 2017, the contribution rates for plan members increased to bring their share of the current service cost to 50%, thus reducing the cost that must be funded by the House of Commons.

(1110)

[Translation]

The final item included in the House of Commons main estimates is a funding requirement of $1.6 million for employee benefit plans.

committee hansard proc 17721 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 30, 2019

2019-04-29 SECU 158

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

I am calling this meeting to order.

I see that the minister has his coffee, so clearly he is ready to provide his testimony.

This is the 158th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

With that, I want to welcome the minister on behalf of the committee, and I would anticipate that he will introduce his colleagues.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, once again, to the committee.

I am glad for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-93 this afternoon, legislation that will make it much easier for people convicted of simple possession of cannabis to clear their records and move on with their lives.

I am pleased, Mr. Chair, to be joined by Angela Connidis, from the Department of Public Safety; Ian Broom, who is with the Parole Board of Canada; and Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, who deals with criminal records at the RCMP.[Translation]

In the old system, when cannabis was illegal, Canadians were among the biggest, and youngest, consumers of cannabis in the world, to the delight of criminal organizations. Last autumn, we fulfilled our commitment to put an end to that ineffective and counterproductive ban.

However, a number of Canadians still have a criminal record for simple possession of cannabis. With Bill C-93, they will be able to rid themselves of it expeditiously. [English]

For people convicted solely of possessing cannabis for personal use, this legislation will simplify the process of getting a pardon in several ways. Ordinarily, applicants would have to pay a fee to the Parole Board of $631. We are eliminating that fee entirely for these purposes. Applicants also face a waiting period of up to 10 years to become eligible under the usual system, and we are getting rid of that waiting period too.

As the law currently stands, the Parole Board can deny applications based on a variety of subjective factors, such as whether a pardon would provide the applicant with a “measurable benefit”. Under Bill C-93, such factors would not be considered in the context of this legislation. In addition to the measures in the bill, the Parole Board is taking further steps, such as simplifying the application form, creating a 1-800 number and an email address to help people with their applications, and developing a community outreach strategy to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of this new process.

We're doing all this in recognition of the fact that the criminalization of cannabis had a disproportionate impact on certain Canadians—notably, members of black and indigenous communities. We are doing it because we will all benefit when people with criminal records for nothing more than simple possession of cannabis can get an education and a job, find a place to live, volunteer at their kids' schools and generally contribute more fully to Canadian life. They are impeded in doing those things because of that criminal record.

There were several points raised about the bill during second reading debate and in public discussion that I would like to address. Let me say also that I certainly commend the committee for taking the initiative of holding these hearings with respect to Bill C-93 to do a prestudy and to deal with this matter in as expeditious a manner as possible.

First, there is the question of why we're proposing an application-based system instead of pardoning people's records generically and proactively as has been done, for example, in certain municipalities in California. Unfortunately, doing that same thing in Canada on a national scale is simply a practical impossibility.

For one thing, Canadian conviction records don't generally say “cannabis possession”. That's not the language that's used in the records. They say something like “possession of a schedule II substance,” and then you have to check police and court documents to find out what the particular substance was. The blanket, generic approach is not all that obvious, given the way that charges are entered and records are kept in the Canadian system. Doing this for every drug possession charge that potentially involves cannabis would be a considerable undertaking, even if all the documents were in one central computer database.

(1535)

In reality, that is not the case in Canada. Many of these paper records are kept in boxes in the basements of courthouses and police stations in cities and towns across the country. It's not as simple as just pushing a button on a computer. We could start the process today, but people would still be waiting for their records to be cleared years from now because of the way those records are retained. By contrast, when someone submits an application for a pardon under the provisions that we're proposing in Bill C-93, Parole Board officials can zero in on the relevant documents right away, and the person can get their pardon much faster.

Another question raised at second reading was about the appropriateness of waiving the fee. There was concern that taxpayers would be footing the bill for people who broke the law.

The fact is that if we don't waive the fee, wealthy Canadians with cannabis possession convictions will be able to get their pardons quite easily, but lower-income people will remain saddled with the criminal record and the stigma. Many people with records for cannabis possession don't have that spare $631 lying about. They need the pardon to get a job and earn a paycheque. It's a bit of a vicious circle. Also, waiving the fee is a good investment. A person who gets a pardon is better able to get an education and a job, and contribute to their community in all sorts of ways, including by paying taxes.

Finally, there's the question of why we are proposing an expedited pardons process rather than expungement. I would remind the committee that expungement is a concept that did not exist in Canadian law until we created it last year to destroy the conviction records of people who were criminalized simply for being gay. In those cases, the law itself was a patently unconstitutional violation of fundamental rights and the convictions that flowed from it were never legitimate in the first place.

The prohibition of cannabis on the other hand was not unconstitutional. It was just bad public policy. There is no doubt though that the manner in which it was applied disproportionately impacted certain groups within our society, particularly black and indigenous Canadians among others. That's why we're proposing to waive the fee and the waiting period, and to take numerous other steps to make getting a pardon for cannabis possession much faster and much easier.

As for the practical effects of pardons as opposed to expungement, criminal record checks come up empty in both cases. The effect of a pardon is protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and pardons are almost always permanent. Since 1970, more than half a million pardons have been issued and 95% of them are still in force today.

It's important not to minimize the effect of a pardon. Some of the debate in the House has made it sound as though a pardon is an insignificant thing. It's worth remembering that when this committee studied the pardon system in the fall, it heard from witnesses who emphasized just how consequential a pardon can be.

Louise Lafond, from the Elizabeth Fry Society, testified that a pardon is “like being able to turn that page over” and allow people to “to pursue paths that were closed to them.”

Catherine Latimer, from the John Howard Society, testified that pardons “allow the person to be restored to the community, as a contributing member without the continuing penalization of the past wrong.”

Rodney Small testified that for years he wanted to apply to law school, but couldn't for want of a pardon.

In other words, making pardons more accessible, with no fee and no waiting period, will have life-changing impacts for people dealing with the burden and the stigma of a criminal record for cannabis possession. We will all reap the benefits of having those people contribute more fully to their communities and to Canada as a whole.

(1540)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention. I'd be happy, along with my colleagues from the various departments and agencies here, to try to answer your questions.

The Chair:

Thank you, Minister.

With that we go to Ms. Sahota for seven minutes, please.

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.):

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, everyone, for being here today.

My first question is going to be along the lines of what you just finished with: the productivity increase.

There has been a lot of argument or debate on the issue of whether taxpayers should be footing the bill for the cost of all of these pardons. I'd like to hear a little more about what you think the cost might be and what tax revenues or benefits we may see as a result of people receiving these pardons.

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

Obviously, on the cost side of the equation, Ms. Sahota, it will depend exactly on how many people come forward and apply. Based on the best calculations the department can do, cost estimates have been made. My understanding is that the department expects a cost factor of about $2.5 million over a period of time to process the paperwork that's involved to do the necessary investigation.

That would relieve the burden of a criminal record on several thousand individuals. If they're able to get a better job or get a job at all or find themselves in the position of paying taxes for the first time, if that has been their life experience up to then, obviously it wouldn't take society very long to recover the cost. It would end a discriminatory practice that is now really quite out of sync or out of whack because the whole legal regime around cannabis changed last fall. Last fall we stopped the process of criminalizing people for simple possession moving forward. This is an effort at simple fairness to try to rectify the situation as much as that is humanly possible with respect to those who have a record of simple possession that has been impeding their ability to be as productive in society as they would like to be.

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

As you know, and as you've referenced in your introductory remarks, there's been a lot of debate about providing pardons over expungement. Are there any benefits that you can see, other than the ones you've pointed to, of pardons over expungement?

I know that our parliamentary secretary mentioned some in the debate in the House regarding crossing the border into the U.S. and prior records the border services there might have on a person and any others you might see. Why is this the step you and your department have chosen to take?

Hon. Ralph Goodale:

We've thought this through extensively and had a very good internal discussion about the various alternatives for trying to deal with the issue we're advancing here. As a result of weighing all of the pros and cons of one technique versus another, I think there are six factors that argue in favour of the route that we've laid out in Bill C-93.

Number one, the pardon process is the most efficient process from the point of view of the Parole Board. It is the least expensive and can be done faster than the other alternatives. Therefore, efficiency is one of the arguments.

Number two, it's a very simple piece of legislation. Bill C-93 is not hundreds of pages. It's four or five pages. It's very simple, but we're able to accomplish two important objectives that recognize the unfairness of the situation that we're trying to correct: There's no fee and there is no wait time. That can be done in a very simple way by means of this legislation.

Number three, this approach deals with the reality of how records have been historically kept in this country in a very dispersed manner. They are not all contained in one comprehensive database where you can simply push a button and instantly alter the whole thing by one keystroke. By setting up the system that we're setting up—where people make an application—the system can deal with the reality of how records are kept.

committee hansard secu 33833 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 29, 2019

2019-04-11 PROC 149

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1105)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Members, all the committee members aren't here, because we normally don't meet when the bells are ringing. I will ask the permission of the committee to continue for the sole purpose of hearing the minister's opening statement. Nothing else will occur. If we could let her do that, then we would go to vote.

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

I'm good with that.

The Chair:

Are you guys good? Okay.

Thank you very much, Minister. We'll get right on with it, because we have to go vote. Then you will come back after the vote.

The Honourable Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions):

Yes.

Thank you very much for the invitation to address the committee today. I know all of you have a copy of my remarks. I will be giving a slightly shorter version, but you have all of that information.

It is my pleasure to appear and to use the opportunity to outline the government's plan to safeguard the 2019 federal election.[Translation]

I'm pleased to be joined by officials today who will speak about the technical aspects of our plan. These officials are Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions at the Privy Council; Daniel Rogers, Deputy Chief of SIGNIT at the Communications Security Establishment; and André Boucher, Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations at the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security.

Elections are an opportunity for Canadians to be heard. They can express concerns and opinions through one of the most fundamental rights, which is the right to vote. The next opportunity for Canadians to exercise this right is coming this fall, with Canada's 43rd general election in October.[English]

As we have seen over the past few years, democracies around the world have entered a new era, an era of heightened and dynamic threat that necessitates intensified vigilance by governments, but also by all members of society.[Translation]

Each election plays out in a unique context. This election will be no different. While evidence has confirmed that the 2015 federal election didn't involve any incidents of sophisticated or concerted interference, we can't predict what will happen this fall. However, we can prepare for any possibility.[English]

Earlier this week, along with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, I announced the release of the 2019 update to the Communications Security Establishment’s report entitled “Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process”. This updated report highlights that it is very likely Canadian voters will encounter some form of foreign cyber interference in the course of the 2019 federal election.

While CSE underlines that it is unlikely this interference will be on the scale of the Russian activity in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the report notes that in 2018, half of all the advanced democracies holding national elections, representing a threefold increase since 2015, had their democratic process targeted by cyber-threat activity and that Canada is also at risk. This upward trend is likely to continue in 2019.[Translation]

We've seen that certain tools used to strengthen civic engagement have been co-opted to undermine, disrupt and destabilize democracy. Social media has been misused to spread false or misleading information. In recent years, we've seen foreign actors try to undermine democratic societies and institutions, electoral processes, sovereignty and security.

The CSE's 2017 and 2019 assessments, along with ongoing Canadian intelligence and the experiences of our allies and like-minded countries, have informed and guided our efforts over the past year. This has led to the development of an action plan based on four pillars, engaging all aspects of Canadian society.[English]

Therefore, in addition to reinforcing and protecting government infrastructure, systems and practices, we are also focusing heavily on preparing Canadians and working with digital platforms that have an important role in fostering positive democratic debate and dialogue.

The four pillars of our plan are: enhancing citizen preparedness; improving organizational readiness; combatting foreign interference; and expecting social media platforms to act.

I will highlight some of the most significant initiatives of our plan.[Translation]

On January 30, I announced the digital citizen initiative and a $7 million investment towards improving the resilience of Canadians against online disinformation. In response to the increase in false, misleading and inflammatory information published online and through social media, the Government of Canada has made it a priority to help equip citizens with the tools and skills needed to critically assess online information.

We're also leveraging the “Get Cyber Safe” national public awareness campaign to educate Canadians about cyber security and the simple steps they can take to protect themselves online.

(1110)

[English]

We have established the critical election incident public protocol. This is a simple, clear and non-partisan process for informing Canadians if serious incidents during the writ period threaten the integrity of the 2019 general election. This protocol puts the decision to inform Canadians directly in the hands of five of Canada’s most experienced senior public servants, who have a responsibility to ensure the effective, peaceful transition of power and continuity of government through election periods. The public service has effectively played this role for generations and it will continue to fulfill this important role through the upcoming election and beyond.[Translation]

This protocol will be initiated only to respond to incidents that occur within the writ period and that don't fall within Elections Canada's area of responsibility for the administration of the election.

The threshold for the panel in charge of informing the public will be very high and will be limited to addressing exceptional circumstances that could impair our ability to hold a free and fair election. The panel is expected to come to a decision jointly, based on consensus. It won't be one person deciding what Canadians should know.

I'm thankful that the political parties consulted on the development of this protocol set aside partisanship in the interest of all Canadians. The incorporation of input from all parties has allowed for a fair process that Canadians can trust.[English]

Under the second pillar, improving organizational readiness, one key new initiative is to ensure that political parties are all aware of the nature of the threat, so that they can take the steps needed to enhance their internal security practices and behaviours. The CSE’s 2017 report, as well as its 2019 update, highlight that political parties continue to represent one of the greatest vulnerabilities in the Canadian system. Canada’s national security agencies will offer threat briefings to political party leadership, to ensure that they are able to play their part in securing our elections.[Translation]

Under the third pillar—combatting foreign interference—the government has established the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force to improve awareness of foreign threats and support incident assessment and response. The team brings together CSE, CSIS, the RCMP, and Global Affairs Canada to ensure a comprehensive understanding of and response to any threats to Canada. The task force has established a baseline of threat awareness, and has been meeting with international partners to make sure that Canada can effectively assess and mitigate any malicious interference activity.[English]

The fourth pillar is with respect to social media platforms.[Translation]

The transformation of Canada's media landscape affects the whole of society in tangible and pervasive ways. Social media and online platforms are the new arbiters of information and therefore have a responsibility to manage their communities.[English]

We know that they have also been manipulated to spread disinformation, create confusion and exploit societal tension. I have been meeting with social media and digital platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, to secure action to increase transparency, improve authenticity and ensure greater integrity on their platforms. Although discussions are progressing slowly, and have not yet yielded the results we expected at this stage, we remain steadfast in our commitment to secure change from them.[Translation]

Our government has prioritized the protection of Canada's democratic processes and institutions. As a result, we've committed significant new funding towards these efforts. Budget 2019 included an additional $48 million in support of the whole-of-government efforts.[English]

This comprehensive plan is also bolstered by recent legislative efforts. I’d like to also highlight the important advances we’ve made to modernize Canada’s electoral system, making it more accessible, transparent and secure.

(1115)

[Translation]

Bill C-76 takes important steps to counter foreign interference and the threats posed by emerging technologies. [English]

The provisions in this bill, which this committee obviously knows well, are: prohibiting foreign entities from spending any money to influence elections where previously they were able to spend up to $500 unregulated; requiring organizations selling advertising space to not knowingly accept election advertisements from foreign entities; and, adding a prohibition regarding the unauthorized use of computers where there is intent to obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the lawful use of computer data during an election period.[Translation]

Canada has a robust and world-renowned elections administration body in Elections Canada.[English]

While it is impossible to fully predict what kinds of threats we will see in the run-up to Canada's general election, I want to assure this committee that Canada has put in place a solid plan. We continue to test and probe our readiness, and we will continue to take whatever steps we can towards ensuring a free, fair and secure election in 2019.[Translation]

Thank you.

I'll be pleased to answer your questions either now or after the vote. [English]

The Chair:

We'll do that after the vote period.

Before people leave, I have a couple of things.

First, just for the minutes, this is the 149th meeting.

One thing I'll ask you, committee members, when you come back, will relate to future work, which I think we can do really quickly. It's with regard to the estimates on the debate commission and who you want as witnesses. Also, regarding the parallel debating chamber, when we hear from the Australian witness, it has to be in the evening of Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.

committee hansard proc 20324 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 11, 2019

2019-04-10 SECU 157

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

It's 3:30 and we have quorum.

We have two witnesses for our first panel, Mr. Ryland and Mr. Fadden.

Before I start, colleagues, we've had a couple of curves thrown at our agenda going forward and we need to give the clerks and the analyst some instructions. The meeting of the subcommittee was scheduled to start at 5:30. However, bells may ring at 5:30, in which case I would not be able to start the subcommittee meeting.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

Start at 5:29.

The Chair:

You're running a little tight at 5:29. I was thinking more like 5:20. We may end the current meeting at 5:20, or we can stretch it a bit to 5:25.

Unless there are other considerations, I'll call upon our witnesses to speak, in no particular order, although I take note that Mr. Fadden has spoken at this committee many times, and Mr. Ryland, I believe this is your first opportunity.

Mr. Mark Ryland (Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Amazon Web Services, Inc.):

That's correct, yes.

The Chair:

Maybe I should let the pro go first and then you'll see how an excellent witness can make a presentation.

Mr. Mark Ryland:

That sounds good.

The Chair:

Mr. Fadden, please.

Mr. Richard Fadden (As an Individual):

Thank you, Chairman. I'll hold you to that assessment when I'm finished.

The Chair:

Don't put it to a vote.

Mr. Richard Fadden:

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you.

As I start, I want to note that in discussions with the clerk and the staff of the committee, I told them that I wasn't an expert on the financial sector, and it was suggested to me that I could make some general comments on national security and cyber, so that's what I'm proposing to do. I hope that will be helpful to the committee.

I want to comment in an odd sort of way on your order of reference, which talks about national economic security. I'm sure that careful thought was given to that, but I'd like to suggest to you—and I'm doing a bit of marketing here—that the issues you're talking about are national security issues, period. They're not a subunit of national security.

This goes to the definition of national security. I hope and think that you use a fairly broad one, but to my mind, it's anything that materially affects a nation's sovereignty. The things that the committee is talking about now can potentially very much affect a nation's sovereignty, just like money laundering conducted by a foreign state, or a devastating national security issue. That's just a small marketing effort on my part.

While I'm not an expert in financial systems, I hope and think that I can offer you a couple of useful context points. One is that context in the environment in which cyber-attacks occur, be they against the financial institutions or anywhere else, is important. These things don't occur in isolation. I would argue that you cannot deal with cyber-threats in the financial sector without an understanding of cyber-threats generally, and you can't understand cyber-threats without understanding threats generally directed against Canada and the west. We all live in a globalized world, and that certainly applies to national security threats.

I say this for a couple of reasons. Some of you may be old enough to remember the Cold War where it was fairly simple: those who were causing trouble and those who were receiving trouble were basically states. I'm oversimplifying, but it was the Warsaw Pact against the west. Some companies were affected.

I think one of the contextual points that are important is that our adversaries or instigators today are states, terrorist groups, criminal organizations—and I'll come back to that—corporations, civil society groups and individuals. I think that any of these could be causing difficulties in the financial systems that you're concerned about.

The targets, on the other hand, used to be basically states. I'd argue that they're now states, corporations, civil society, political parties, non-profits and individuals. The world is fairly complicated, and if either the financial institutions themselves or the government is going to deal with cyber-attacks against them, my suggestion to you is that they have to know and understand the context in which all of that is occurring. They just can't build walls abstractly.

I think the question of who or what might initiate cyber-attacks against our financial sector is very relevant. I don't try very hard to do sound bites, but I have one: National security is not national. It's not national in the sense that no single state can deal with these issues— certainly not a relatively small middle power like Canada—and you need international co-operation.

Second, I would argue that no federal state or nation state can deal with these sorts of things without the help of provincial or regional governments, and corporations and society generally. I would argue with you that it is a significant mistake for financial institutions to argue that they can do it all themselves, just as it is a mistake for the government to accept that hypothesis.

I talked a little bit about context and environment, so I would just like to lay out very quickly the kinds of threats to national security that Canada's facing. I think of the revisionist states, Russia and China; extremisms and extremism generally, including terrorists; the issue of cyber; the dysfunctional west; and the rogue states and issues—Iran and North Korea, come to mind.

I'm emphasizing this a little bit because I think all of these are interrelated far more than they might have been 15 or 20 years ago. They leverage against each other, and they amplify their effects. For example, Russian and China use cyber systems and benefit from a dysfunctional west because we're not fighting them together. Terrorist groups benefit from the discord caused by revisionist states, and they use cyber systems. All of them interact with one another, and I think that we need to keep that in mind when we do that.

(1535)

One of the other issues I want to emphasize and suggest to you is that Canada is very much threatened by cyber-attacks generally and against our financial institutions. I say this, because when I used to be working, one of the things that used to drive me to distraction was the view of many Canadians that Canada wasn't threatened because we had three oceans and the United States. That view made it very difficult for governments and others to deal with a lot of national security threats. The average Canadian, absent an event, didn't think there was a great issue.

I think Canada is very much threatened by a variety of the institutions and entities that I just talked about, but why is this the case? We have an advanced economy, advanced science and technology; we're part of the Five Eyes and NATO, and we're next to the U.S.

To be honest, we're not thought internationally to have the strongest defences on the cyber side, and any institution will go to the weakest link in the chain. Sometimes we are thought to be that, although I don't think we're doing all that badly. Also, we're threatened, sometimes simply because we're hit at random.

I think it's especially important for the committee to make the point that our financial sector is indeed threatened by cyber-attacks, because I don't think a lot of people believe that.

One of the other things I'd like to talk about is who I think are the main instigators of potential attacks. I think they're nation states and international criminal groups.

What are they going to try to do? They're going to try to deny service, old-fashioned theft—and I'll come back to that—information and intelligence acquisition, intellectual property theft, and identification theft, for both the purposes of acquiring money and espionage.

Let me give you a couple of examples about states that play with countries' financial systems.

North Korea finances a lot of their operations, gets a lot of their hard currency by using their cyber-capabilities to access the financial systems of various and sundry countries. For example, they had a program some time ago that allowed them to steal money systematically from ATMs around the world. They also had a program that allowed them to claim ransoms using ransomware. More generally, they are the country that was thought to have frozen the United Kingdom's national health service a few years ago.

My point is that you can find out as much about this as I can just by Googling them. The United States has indicted a number of people from North Korea who have tried to do this, and this is just one example of a state that tries to get into western countries' financial systems.

Another one is Iran. You will have seen in the newspapers over the last five or ten years, a couple of examples of how Iran has tried to do this, in particular against the United States and banks. There are indictments against seven or eight Iranians.

I have a couple of words about Russia and China and how I don't think you cannot ignore them when you talk about this topic. I think their main objective is twofold: one is denial of service, and another is to simply reduce western confidence in our institutions. They do this systematically.

Criminal groups I think are becoming much more prominent in this area, and it's something we don't talk enough about. I hope you've had an opportunity to talk to the RCMP about this. If you look at either RCMP or Statistics Canada figures, the extent to which international criminal groups are playing with our financial institutions has gone through the roof over the last little while.

In summary, cyber-attacks on our financial system are a national security issue in my view. These attacks must be viewed in broad context if we're going to deal with them effectively. There's no silver bullet to any of this. It will only work, and we will only reduce the risk, if governments, corporations and civil society co-operate.

I think government needs to share more information with the private sector. It's something that we do far less of than the United Kingdom and United States. You can't expect private corporations to be an effective partner if they're not aware of what's going on.

The financial sector needs to report these attacks and breaches far more systematically than they do.

committee hansard secu 38137 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 10, 2019

2019-04-09 PROC 148

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning. Welcome to the 148th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I want to welcome the Conservative whip, Mr. Strahl, and Don Rusnak and Karine Trudel from the NDP, to the most exciting committee on the Hill. I'm sure you'll all enjoy yourselves.

I want to let the committee members know that you'll soon be getting two pieces of information that I've asked for some more research on. One is the number of members who normally attend the dual chambers in Australia and Great Britain, and the second is on when the exact legislation was passed that gave the authority for the parliamentary precinct to Public Works, related to things we've been discussing.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), we are pleased to be joined by Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons, to brief us on progress on the initiative to modernize the Standing Orders. As you remember, on February 27, 2018, he mentioned that this process was starting. These aren't substantive changes, but an effort at reorganization so that the Standing Orders are clear. It's hard for people to find things. It's that kind of work. You got some documents yesterday from the committee clerk.

The bells will sound shortly, so hopefully we can get through his opening statement soon.

Maybe I should just mention while we're still here what I propose for the meetings when we come back after April. The estimates have to be tabled this week. There are three panels of estimates that we would normally have. On the first panel would be the Clerk, the Speaker and PPS for the House of Commons estimates and the PPS estimates. On the second panel would be the Chief Electoral Officer for the elections estimates, and on the third would be the minister and/or the commissioner of debates for the debates estimates.

Does anyone have any problem with that schedule of having those panels for the estimates?

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

I would like a little more specificity than “the minister and/or the commissioner of debates”—

The Chair:

That's up to the committee. Do you want the—

Mr. Scott Reid:

Can we get back to you on what we would prefer?

The Chair:

Yes. You can get back to me.

Mr. Scott Reid:

This shouldn't be a scheduling issue, unless one of the others has a scheduling issue of their own, but as to the actual breakdown, perhaps we can get back to you on what would be preferable from our perspective—

The Chair:

On that third one, everyone can get back to me as to who you would like for the witnesses.

Hopefully we can get your opening statement in before the bells.

Maybe I can ask for the permission of committee members. Is it okay for a few minutes after the bells have started—because it's just upstairs—to get his opening statement finished? Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's great. Thank you.

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC):

We'll stay for the statement.

The Chair:

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, you're on. Thank you very much for being here again.

Mr. Charles Robert (Clerk of the House of Commons):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I became the Clerk in 2017, one of my goals was to unify the administration as one entity serving the members. In terms of procedural services, one way to proactively support the needs of the members was to review the Standing Orders. From my reading, I found them overly complex and not really accessible to members and their staff.

As a consequence, I launched an internally driven project to improve the style and organization of the rules and to enhance their accessibility.

Specifically, my aim was to rewrite the Standing Orders in plain language, using consistent terminology and eliminating internal references, and to reorganize the Standing Orders to improve the navigation of the document by adding a comprehensive table of contents with matching marginal notes, and I proposed a new numbering scheme that acts as a memory device and organizes related procedures in discrete chapters. Finally, I wanted to do this without making any substantive changes to the rules. This was my commitment to you at this committee at my first appearance.

The project has involved two phases of activity.

Phase one was to rewrite and reorganize the Standing Orders with a view to improving the logical flow of the rules, disaggregating complex and lengthy rules into subsections to provide a step-by-step understanding of the procedure and, where possible, combining certain procedures to improve the conciseness of the document.

Phase two was to work with the legislative services to ensure that there are no discrepancies between the English and the French text. To do this, we have involved jurilinguists on the project; these are specialists who work in the Law Clerk's office. This will also improve the level of French in the Standing Orders.

(1105)

[Translation]

I know that you have all received a bundle of documents to prepare for the meeting. Three documents are part of it. There is a general information note describing the genesis of the project, the principles applied in the review and the approach adopted to improve the style and organization of the Standing Orders. There is a proposed table of contents and the first seven corresponding chapters, which provide a basis for the work done in the House. There is an appendix that draws members' attention to inconsistencies between rules, divergence between rules and outdated usages or rules.[English]

Where possible, we have suggested changes to improve the internal consistency of the rules and to improve the alignment of the rules with our practices.

There has been no attempt to introduce new concepts or to recommend substantive changes to the interpretation of any rule.

Let me take some time to walk you through some specific proposals that are designed to improve the accessibility of the document.

Let's begin with the table of contents. As compared with the existing version, the proposal of a comprehensive table of contents using marginal notes or subheadings will improve the ease of navigation of the document.

Another thing users will note is the writing style, using plain language and the active voice. We also placed a premium on concision, which improves the clarity of the text and the ease of comprehension.

The removal of internal references is a major improvement in understanding the operation of the rules. For expert proceduralists, this may not seem to be an obstacle, but for new members and new staff who possess limited procedural knowledge, internal references represent a barrier to understanding the rules and how they work together.

In this same vein, we have added notes and exceptions under rules to explain linkages to other rules, exceptions to the application of rules, and references to statutory and constitutional authorities.

By using consistent terminology, we hope to eliminate the use of redundant text where the application of a term is different.

These are examples of how we propose to improve the writing style of the Standing Orders. Now here are some examples of how we organized the document to improve its navigation.

We found that certain groupings in long chapters were not particularly helpful in finding what the reader is looking for. For example, we reorganized the chapter on financial procedures. We took the procedures dealing with the budget debate and put them in the special debates chapter. We took the ways and means procedures and grouped them with non-debatable motions in the chapter on motions. And we kept the remaining procedures dealing with the business of supply in the chapter named after business of supply.

In addition to adding an index to the document, we are also proposing to include a glossary of terms that we hope will improve the understanding of the Standing Orders.[Translation]

committee hansard proc 19054 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 09, 2019

2019-04-08 SECU 156

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1640)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

Ladies and gentlemen, I see we have quorum.

I apologize to the witnesses for all the difficulties with votes, but it is what it is and we're in the season that we are in.

Before I start, there has been some conversation about Mr. Dubé's motion. I'm going to allocate the princely amount of one minute to see whether there is an appetite to deal with Mr. Dubé's motion.

The first question I have is.... I shouldn't even ask this. I should say we're going to have this in open meeting as opposed to in camera; otherwise, we'll just waste more time.

Mr. Dubé, do you want to move your motion? We'll see whether we can get this done in one minute.

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP):

Hopefully I will need less than that. I've already presented it and explained why. It's on the record, so I'm happy to move to the vote.

The Chair:

Ms. Sahota.

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.):

I would just like to state that I'm supportive of the motion; however, I do feel that the time frame is very loose. It allows up until June 21. I do think there is some urgency to the matter, because there are a lot of people who feel uncomfortable about the way the report was put out initially in December. I would urge that we perhaps state that it should be done at the minister's earliest convenience.

That's just a friendly amendment, so that we don't give such a lengthy deadline but do it as soon as possible.

The Chair:

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Matthew Dubé:

Thank you. I appreciate that. Understanding that we have a busy committee, I would perhaps just amend it to say “at the minister's earliest convenience but no later than” the date that's in the motion, so we don't say that the earliest convenience is when some of us come back.

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

Yes, I think that's a good amendment.

The Chair:

Okay, do we have consensus on that?

Properly, I should have Ms. Sahota move an amendment and then we will vote on the amendment. Do you want to move your amendment?

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

Yes, my amendment is, after the words “the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear”, to say, “at his earliest convenience but no later than Friday, June 21, 2019.”

The rest of it is the same.

The Chair:

Okay. The vote is on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Excellent, thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to our witnesses. Notice the extraordinary level of co-operation among colleagues on the public safety committee, unfortunately not replicated anywhere else.

Our first witness is Ms. Terri O'Brien from the Interac Corporation, and the second witnesses are Mr. Ferrabee and Mr. Kyle from Payments Canada. I thank you for your patience.

I'm going to ask you for your opening statements.

I'll point out to colleagues that we are supposed to be voting again at 5:30. I assume that's when the bells go.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Naaman Sugrue):

There may be bells at 5:00.

The Chair:

Okay, so let's at least get the statements done. We started the meeting. Thank goodness for that.

Do I have unanimous consent to proceed until we can no longer proceed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair:

Okay, that is probably 20 minutes.

Please proceed. Again, I apologize for these procedures, but they are what they are.

Ms. O'Brien, go ahead.

Ms. Terri O'Brien (Chief Risk Officer, Interac Corp.):

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee.

My name is Terri O'Brien. I lead the risk management practice at Interac Corp.

For my opening remarks today, my goal is to provide insights and recommendations on cybersecurity from our unique position in the financial services landscape. Many of you know Interac already. Like millions of Canadians each day, you use our products and services to withdraw money and pay and transfer funds with security and convenience.

What you may not know is that Interac is 100% Canadian-owned and operated. What sets us apart is not only our Canadian roots, but the trust we have established with Canadians over our 35-year history. Last year, Canadians made 6.6 billion transactions, moving over $415 billion in value across our suite of products, including Interac debit and Interac e-Transfer.

Interac has been in the business of facilitating real-time payments between Canadians for decades, including our Interac e-Transfer product, which has been facilitating real-time payments since 2002. Of course, this includes real-time 24-7 fraud detection. With real-time payments comes the need for real-time security, prevention and detection capabilities, which we've built up over our history. Our real-time cyber and fraud capabilities help Canadians digitally transact with confidence across a variety of devices and platforms, including mobile devices. At the same time, we adhere to our core values that have been central to our history, including corporate responsibility, safety and soundness.

committee hansard secu 29048 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 08, 2019

2019-04-04 RNNR 132

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

(1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everybody.

We have no witnesses in person today. We had one cancellation, but we still have three groups of witnesses.

On the screen on our right, we have Brenda Gunn, associate professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba.

On the telephone we have Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh. We thought he was coming from the University of Dublin, but he's not.

You're actually in Australia, right?

Professor Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh (Professor, Griffith University, As an Individual):

I am indeed in Brisbane.

The Chair:

We also have Gunn-Britt Retter, head of the Arctic and environment unit of the Saami Council, by video conference from Norway. Correct?

Ms. Gunn-Britt Retter (Head, Arctic and Environment Unit, Saami Council):

Yes.

The Chair:

Thank you, all of you, for joining us.

We have a number of committee members around the table. Our format is that each of you will be given up to 10 minutes to do a presentation, and then after all three of you complete your presentations, we'll open the table to questions.

I may have to cut you off if we're getting short of time or you're getting close to your time or go over it, so I'll apologize in advance.

Why don't we start with Ms. Retter?

Ms. Gunn-Britt Retter:

Thank you for inviting me to speak before the committee. It is a great honour. It is also interesting that Canada is the one looking for international best practices for engaging with indigenous peoples. Usually we look to Canada for good practices for engaging with indigenous peoples.

At the outset, it is worth noting the fundamental difference between indigenous peoples in large parts of Canada, I believe in particular in the Canadian north, who have completed land claim agreements. In Sápmi, the Sami, areas, there are few or close to zero, territories where Sami rights are recognized. The exception is the county of Finnmark in Norway, where the Finnmark Act establishes the Finnmark Estate, which is considered to be co-management of the land, as the Sami Parliament and Finnmark County Council each appoints three members to the board. The Finnmark Act transfers the common land, which the national state claims to own, to the Finnmark Estate. The Finnmark Estate, as the land owner, can be engaged in energy projects as well. So far, to my knowledge there has not been any mechanism in place to engage with indigenous peoples in particular in the one established over Windmill Park, beyond the usual standard national procedures, of course, of conducting environmental impact assessments related to local authority and their spatial planning procedures and applying for licence and the hearing process connected to that applied in national law and for involving stakeholders.

No other considerations are carried out related to Sami peoples. Sami interests are considered part of the Finnmark Estate Board, as I said.

Industry and authorities often call for dialogue. The Sami people often claim that dialogue is needed as well. This is also related to energy projects, as is the question. But we also have gained experiences that tell us that entering a dialogue is a risky business, as the Sami people who are impacted by a project go into a dialogue hoping for understanding of their needs for access to land end up coming out of it without a satisfying outcome, while the project leads go ahead claiming that a dialogue has been conducted, the boxed is ticked and they move on. Without recognition of land rights, it is hard to match the industry that simply follows the national legislation. We end up depending entirely on goodwill.

With no recognition of territory, Sami rights to land are also in the hands of goodwill from the authorities and the legislation they develop. In speeches and jubilees, ministers claim the Sami culture is valuable and important, and enriches Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish or Russian culture, but often some interests have to give way to more important national interests. Now that is the green shift to mitigate climate change.

A recent example in Norway is the permission given to the Nussir copper mine in Fâlesnuorri/Kvalsund. In the name of supporting a green shift and the need for copper to, among other things, produce batteries to replace fossil fuel, both reindeer herding lands and the health of the fjord are put at risk by the mine tailings being deposited on the sea floor. Marine experts have pointed to the environmental risk of this, but through a political decision to support the green shift, the mine has deliberately chosen to take that risk.

There are also several examples of huge windmill plants placed on Sami reindeer herding land, representing a fundamental change in land use in the name of reducing CO2 emissions to promote the green shift. This is a very delicate dilemma.

The Sami people are constantly under pressure to give up land use and fishing grounds for the good of the nation states' interest in the name of mitigating climate change and promoting the green shift.

I am sorry I was not able to provide best practices so far. There is, however, one here in my neighbourhood where the windmill project and reindeer herding entity came to an agreement on the placement the windmill park. I am not aware of the degree to which the company informed the reindeer herders of the fact that the project will produce much more energy than the electricity lines—the grid—to have capacity to send out to the market. Now the company is working hard to get a huge new electricity line established to be able to transfer the energy out to the market.

This is why free, prior and informed consent would be very important when engaging with the indigenous peoples. The information part, as in this example, would have been essential to understanding the full picture through the engagement process.

I would also like to add before I conclude that beyond the Sami region I could mention that, as I'm engaged in the Arctic Council work, there are two forthcoming reports prepared through the Arctic Council. One is on the Arctic environmental impact assessment conducted through the Sustainable Development Working Group, and the other is through the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, PAME, Working Group, a project called Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities. This is an inventory of good practices in the engagement of indigenous peoples, mostly examples from Canada and America actually.

I don't know your deadlines, but these will be published at the beginning of May at the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, so it might be worthwhile for the committee to consider these two reports.

In conclusion, from my perspective, best practice should be to focused on our own consumption patterns to spend and waste less, use energy and resources more efficiently, and reuse resources that are already taken. I would rather do this than occupy more territory for the mitigation efforts.

I hope I kept to the time limit.

Thank you.

(1540)

The Chair:

You did. You had time to spare. We're grateful for that, so thank you.

Professor O'Faircheallaigh, why don't you go next.

Prof. Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh:

Thank you.

Just very briefly, good morning from Brisbane and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you.

By way of background, my research for the last 25 years has focused on the interrelationship between indigenous people and extractive industries. Over that time I've also worked as a negotiator for aboriginal peoples. I have worked with them to conduct what I refer to as indigenous or aboriginal impact assessments. A number of these have related to large energy projects, particularly to a number of liquefied natural gas projects in the northwest of Western Australia. My experience extends to Canada. I've undertaken fieldwork in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Alberta and in the Northwest Territories.

My comments on international best practice draw on that 25 years of both research and professional engagement.

I want to stress that I am addressing what I consider to be best practice. That, to me, involves two components. It involves the conduct of indigenous or aboriginal impact assessments of major energy projects and, based on those, the negotiation of legally binding agreements between aboriginal peoples, governments and proponents, covering the whole life of energy projects.

The reason for stressing those two points is as follows. Conventional impact assessment has dismally failed indigenous people. That applies in Australia, it applies in Canada, it applies throughout the globe. There are numerous reasons for that. Time means I can't go into them in detail, but I am happy to take follow-up questions.

The major issues are that conventional impact assessment is driven by proponents and the consultants they employ. Their objective is to get approval for projects and, as a result, they tend, for example, to systematically understate problems and issues associated with projects, and to overstate particularly their economic benefits.

Conventional impact assessment tends to deny the validity and knowledge of indigenous knowing, indigenous views of the world. It fails to adopt appropriate methodologies and it tends to be very much project focused. It tends to deal with one project at a time.

The result of that last point is that cumulative impacts tend to be either ignored or very much understated. That, for example, is very evident in the context of oil sands in Alberta.

In response to these fundamental problems, what is happening increasingly is the emergence of indigenous-conducted impact assessment. There are a number of different models that can be applied in developing indigenous-controlled impact assessment. Again, I am happy to elaborate.

Just to mention one, for a proposed liquefied natural gas hub in the northwest of Western Australia, a strategic assessment was conducted by the federal government and the state government in Western Australia. There were a number of terms of reference for the strategic assessment that related to indigenous impacts.

committee hansard rnnr 26238 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 04, 2019

2019-04-04 PROC 147

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1105)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

We'll call this meeting to order. [Translation]

Good morning.

Welcome to the 147th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This morning, we are continuing our study of parallel debating chambers. We are pleased to welcome Charles Robert, the Clerk of the House of Commons, to share his expertise on parallel chambers.

Mr. Clerk, it's a pleasure to have you here. [English]

Just before we start, you may remember that about a year ago the Clerk told us that he was embarking on reorganizing the Standing Orders just to make them clear and easy to access, not making changes to them, and that he would report back to us. He's available on Tuesday, if the committee would be willing, to just update us on the progress of that report and on getting it ready for the next Parliament. By that time it would be ready, I think. If it's okay, he could report to us next meeting.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

If you are looking for consent from the members, I'd be happy to indicate on behalf of the Conservatives that we would very much welcome that.

The Chair:

Okay, so we'll put you on the agenda for Tuesday and you can update us on that project.

Mr. Charles Robert (Clerk of the House of Commons):

I look forward to it. [Translation]

The Chair:

You can now have the floor for your presentation.[English]

We look forward to hearing your views on this exciting initiative.

Mr. Charles Robert:

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here today to talk about parallel debating chambers. I understand that the former clerk of the United Kingdom House of Commons, my good friend Sir David Natzler, who retired recently, as you know, has also appeared to discuss that legislature's experience with its parallel chamber, Westminster Hall.

I would like to begin by reminding the committee of an updated briefing note that was initially submitted in 2016 during your study of initiatives towards a family-friendly House of Commons. This updated note was sent to you a few weeks ago, and I hope the information it offers will be helpful as you discuss the possibility of establishing a parallel debating chamber. [Translation]

My presentation today is intended as an open discussion on establishing a second debating chamber parallel to the House of Commons, and on the implications for our practices and procedures. I would like to share a few thoughts on the issues being studied by the committee.

The work of the House is governed by practices and rules of procedure that structure each sitting, from government orders and private members' business to routine proceedings. These rules also apply to the House of Commons calendar, voting and many other areas.[English]

Changes in House practices have often been influenced by the needs of members themselves. Major procedural reforms are often the result of a consensus among MPs.

Establishing a second chamber could open up some interesting opportunities for members, and I encourage you to study innovative recommendations and proposed options that, as Mr. Natzler explains so well in his testimony, could be new, unexpected and different from the operations of the House.

It is up to you, as a committee, to determine the scope of your study and the recommendations you wish to make. It will then be the responsibility of the entire House to decide whether to proceed with this reform.

Australia and the United Kingdom offer starting points for a look at how our own House of Commons could introduce a parallel chamber. Some elements could be copied and applied to our legislature. Others may not be as easy to apply since our practices and procedures differ in many respects from those of our counterparts. It is therefore a good idea to analyze how parallel chambers function elsewhere, but still take into account our own rules and way of doing things. [Translation]

And so, if your committee intends to recommend a parallel chamber, you must determine how it will operate. This involves such issues as where the chamber would sit, what limitations would be placed on its activities and what decisions it could take.

There are many, more specific questions to be answered as well. In terms of logistics, where would members want this new chamber to be housed? How would the chamber be laid out? Would members debate face to face as they do in the House of Commons or would the room be arranged in a hemicycle?[English]

The committee might also address some important questions concerning the debates themselves. For example, how would the work of the House, such as bills, the business of supply, and private members' business, be managed? Would the parallel chamber be empowered to make decisions? Similarly, what would be the quorum requirement? Would members be able to move motions and amendments during debates in the parallel chamber? How would the two chambers be allowed to communicate to ensure continuity in proceedings? What rules of debate would apply? Would they be similar to the rules of the House or more like those used in committee? What would be the hours of sitting for the parallel chamber? What would happen if there were a sitting in the second chamber and the bells rang for a vote in the House of Commons, or if it were time for oral questions or other activities that required all MPs to be present in the House?

These are a few of the procedural matters that the committee will want to consider. As you discuss these questions and their answers, you may find that they give rise to other complex issues.[Translation]

And so, while I encourage the committee to pursue your study and report back to the House, I am tempted to recommend, if I may, that you use this report as a springboard and a starting point for the debate on procedure at the beginning of the next parliament. Your report would serve as a benchmark and its recommendations would be food for thought in the debate pursuant to Standing Order 51.

As always, your committee is the master of its own proceedings and is solely responsible for deciding on the next steps to take. If your committee, and subsequently the House, decides to proceed with a parallel chamber, it goes without saying that the administration, my procedural team and I will be pleased to provide our support. We will be ready to act on your recommendations and provide you with all the resources necessary to implement them.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

(1110)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.[English]

I'd like to welcome Linda Duncan and Scot Davidson to the procedure and House affairs committee. I know everyone wants to be here, so you've drawn the lucky straws today.

While the boss is here, Mr. Clerk, I think the committee would agree that we'd like to thank you for providing us with the best clerk in the House of Commons for our committee.

Mr. Charles Robert: I don't know how long you'll keep him. [Translation]

The Chair:

We'll move to questions.

Mr. Simms, go ahead. [English]

Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.):

I am the second Scott—any more Scotts and we'd have a country.

Mr. Robert, first of all, it's a pleasure to have you here, sir. We spoke to the clerk in the U.K. He speaks highly of you.

Mr. Charles Robert:

Does he?

Mr. Scott Simms:

Yes, he does. I guess you've probably already figured that out, but I thought I'd let you know.

committee hansard proc 37948 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 04, 2019

2019-04-03 SECU 155

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1610)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

I see quorum.

I also see that it's 4:10, and we have a vote at 5:45, I believe, in which case we will likely have to be done by 5:30, or a little bit later than that, but not much later.

We have, from the Privacy Commissioner's office, Mr. Smolynec—

Dr. Gregory Smolynec (Deputy Commissioner, Policy and Promotion Sector, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada):

That's correct.

The Chair:

—and Ms. Fournier-Dupelle.

I'm going to invite them to make their opening statement. The TD witness who is about to arrive is a little concerned that what TD has to say is a little different from what the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has to say.

I'm going to play it by ear a little bit as to whether we merge the two witnesses, or go back and forth.

With that, we'll ask you to make your opening statement. [Translation]

Dr. Gregory Smolynec:

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. I'm grateful for the opportunity given your study touches on issues with which Canadians and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, or OPC, are seized.

I will reiterate the concerns I voiced when I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on its study of open banking: the financial sector must be built upon a foundation that includes respect for privacy and other fundamental rights at its core. Banks and other financial institutions must have robust standards for both cybersecurity and privacy.

It is important to clarify the difference between a privacy breach and a security breach as the two terms are often used interchangeably.

A security breach is any incident that results in unauthorized access of data, applications, services, networks and/or devices by bypassing their underlying security mechanisms. A privacy breach is the loss of, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, personal information, regardless of the means. A privacy breach is broader and can occur without any compromise of security systems.

And this is the challenge: cybersecurity and privacy have some overlap in that the former can help protect the latter, but in some cases, cybersecurity can create risks for privacy. For example, it is vital to ensure that cybersecurity strategies and activities do not lead to the development of massive surveillance regimes for unlimited and unending monitoring and analysis of the personal information of individuals.

Both the public and private sectors have obligations to report breaches. Under the public sector Privacy Act, that obligation resides in Treasury Board policy, which requires that OPC officials be notified of material privacy breaches. A breach is “material” if it involves sensitive personal information, could reasonably be expected to cause harm or involves a large number of individuals.

On the private sector side, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, requires organizations to report breaches of security safeguards involving personal information that pose a real risk of significant harm to individuals. Organizations must notify affected individuals about those breaches and keep records of all breaches.

(1615)

[English]

An example of a high-profile privacy breach is the World Anti-Doping Agency—otherwise known as WADA—case. As a result of a phishing attack in 2016, WADA's database containing extremely sensitive personal information of athletes was compromised by Russian military intelligence operators, who subsequently released some of this data into the public domain, with the threat of releasing more.

ln the OPC's WADA investigation, we concluded that cybersecurity measures should be proportionate both to the sensitivity of the personal information being protected and to the attractiveness of the information to malign actors. This reasoning also applies to cybersecurity in the financial sector. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that financial information is indeed sensitive. Other major breaches in recent memory have been those concerning Equifax, Ashley Madison and the Phoenix pay system.

Privacy breach reporting in the private sector has been mandatory since November 1, 2018. Since then, we have seen an approximately fourfold increase in breach reports from the private sector. With six months of private sector data breach reporting under our belt, and considerably more experience on the public sector side of the house, we have made a number of observations. These include that institutions are not always aware of the personal information they hold, where it goes or who has access to it. Oftentimes in the rush to protect against hackers, the internal threat is overlooked, yet privacy breaches involve not only loss of personal information to external forces, but also inappropriate access by internal actors. Mandatory breach reporting requirements can be a tool to enable institutions to confront the adequacy, or lack thereof, of cybersecurity plans and preparations. Furthermore, the OPC uses this information to inform our guidance to organizations.

The challenge for our office and for Canadians is to keep pace with technology. Understanding how personal data will be used, by whom and for what purpose, is equally difficult. While it's the case that privacy policies are seldom read, we may be approaching a time where how data is used is equally ill-understood. The office has done work in the area of examining notions of consent in this space, and has recently launched guidelines for organizations subject to PIPEDA on how best to obtain meaningful consent for the use of personal information.

As others have indicated before this committee, we believe that these issues are best addressed with a collaborative approach. To that end, we work together with other data protection and privacy offices on joint investigations. We participate in Global Privacy Enforcement Network sweeps, and have found that this enables sharing of best practices. The OPC also participates in the cyber security analysts network group, chaired by Public Safety, with the participation of other federal government departments. Our government advisory directorate also provides advice to federal government stakeholders in this area. Other solutions involve education and outreach for companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often hard pressed to ensure their information, including personal information, is adequately safeguarded.

ln conclusion, privacy regulators and advocates have a role to play to ensure that cybersecurity strategies, principles, action plans and implementation activities promote privacy protection both as a guiding principle and an enduring standard. We also need to reform our privacy legislation to make it fit for purpose to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is protected as technologies and economies change, including those in the financial sector.

I welcome your questions.

(1620)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Smolynec.

Just to update colleagues before I ask Mr. de Burgh Graham for his seven minutes of questions, TD does have a concern about sitting at the same table with a regulator. I think we should respect that concern, so I'm therefore going to have to divide the time in half, in which case members are not going to get the same amount of time for questions of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which I think is quite regrettable.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

Chair, I have a quick question.

I've never seen a precedent where the witnesses asked to be separated that way. We often have contradictory witnesses in same panel. I don't see why this is necessary, given the time we have.

The Chair:

It's not so much about having contradictory witnesses, and on that I generally agree with your point, but about having a financial institution with one of its regulators sitting side by each on a panel. That's a concern that's been raised by the financial institution. There is an issue of appearance, if not a reality issue.

That does make it difficult to allocate time for some questions here—

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC):

When do we have to be done, Mr. Chair?

The Chair:

I'm just calculating that. We have to be done by 5:30. That will pretty well be a hard stop, because you have a vote at 5:45. We might press that—

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC):

The vote is at 6 o'clock. The bell is at 5:30.

The Chair:

Well, if colleagues will grant the chair the opportunity to extend the hearings....

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: All right. Thanks very much.

Let's start with six-minute rounds, because, regardless, it's going to be cut back—

Mr. Glen Motz:

committee hansard secu 27238 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 03, 2019

2019-04-02 RNNR 131

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

(1540)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)):

Thank you all for joining us today. It's been a while since we've been together. I can tell just by everybody's demeanour just how much they miss being here. We're glad to be back together. I'd like to thank our two witnesses in the first hour.

From Woodland Cree First Nation, we have Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom.

From Amnesty International, we have Craig Benjamin.

Thank you both for joining us today. The format is that each of you will be given up to 10 minutes to deliver your opening remarks, and then we'll open the table to questions from around the table.

I will open the floor to either one of you, whoever wants to go first.

Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom (Chief, Woodland Cree First Nation):

Tansi. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w.

It's a pleasure and an honour to be here. My name is Chief Isaac Ausinis Laboucan-Avirom. I'm from the Woodland Cree First Nation. I was grand chief of the Treaty No. 8 territory not too long ago, grand chief of my tribal council, but today I'm here just as chief of my first nation. I'd like to say that I know that this is a good effort to do, but this is not in consultation with other first nations. I don't want to be accountable....

As for Woodland Cree, we are surrounded by natural resource activity, from oil and gas development to forestry to green energy projects like Site C. There are always negative and positive impacts when doing resource development, but we're in a day and age in which there has to be more accountability to first nations communities and to the environment. We have to make sure we're making good decisions so that we can have sustainability and so that generations of our children can grow in a country that is not fully polluted and that still has healthy jobs for people to get to.

You have to forgive me; I'm supposed to be on spring break, and my executive assistant is on spring break, so I'll be jumping back and forth in some of my notes here.

Companies should be encouraged to develop some understanding of the legal and constitutional rights of first nations. In Canada, first nations were not defeated in war. We have treaties. These treaty rights are constitutionally protected. Many international companies do not understand this, and they come from different perspectives. From my understanding of this, sometimes it gets very difficult when we are dealing with this mindset. We have to re-educate them and tell them who we are and why we have our rights. A best practice would include an educational component for international companies to understand the landscape in Canada so that first nations don't have to consistently recreate this work.

You know, one of the biggest struggles for first nations is that we are always looking for better and better human capacity. As I look around this room, I know that some of the best mindsets in Canada are here. As a first nations chief, sometimes I'm obligated to work with some of the best on the other side of the table, where I'm going against people such.... They used to be Shell, CNRL...where they have some of the best minds money can buy.

In order to have meaningful consultation, first nations need to have the capacity to understand the technical aspects of the projects, communicate information to community members, and gather information from community members and knowledge-keepers. This takes much more funding than is currently offered by Canada. The nation spends a lot of time and energy building the case for capacity funding and negotiating capacity funding, etc. The time and energy would be better spent actually engaging in the consultation and the search for accommodation measures. Best practices should include a requirement to provide adequate funding, which could be expressed as a percentage of the amount the company expects to spend on environmental, geotechnical and other types of studies.

I have the example of Site C. I'll be jumping back and forth between oil and gas and other resource departments. I had lawyers come to my nation one time, saying that they wanted to build Site C. My nation does not have monies to spend on lawyers. We'd rather build houses and put money into education and the elders. One of the questions I asked the Site C legal team was around what environmental impacts would be caused. They said, oh, there won't be much. Well, they'd be extinguishing two species of fish in the reservoir, the Arctic grayling and the goldeye. It doesn't take a university individual to understand that this has a direct impact on other ecological systems. Those are feeder fish for bigger fish, etc. Woodland Cree at that time did not have a million dollars to spend in the courts, so it's something.... And then also through the consultation process, that the borders between Alberta and B.C....said that the consultation process was basically a no-go zone.

(1545)

Indigenous knowledge and input from the community should be incorporated into all aspects of the environment and social investigations into the projects. A best practice would include encouraging companies to look at the inclusion of indigenous communities through project development, design and implementation. Ultimately, the goal of any best practice would be to actually arrive at a meaningful mitigation or accommodation of impacts. When I think of meaningful consultation, that means I know exactly what the other side of the table, the proponent producer, is talking about.

When I look at these bills such as Bill C-69, I see this is just an example of where, at one of my chiefs meetings in Alberta, we condoned it, and then just last week we rescinded it. That's a good example of how it was so complex and misunderstood, and then now we're sitting here today where it's already gone so far in the process. I don't believe there was proper and meaningful consultation on Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and we're at a place where we shouldn't be at.

In most cases today, the parties have become much better at exchanging information, but there is still a resistance to making meaningful changes to the projects to lessen impacts on traditional land uses and resistance to involving indigenous communities in long-term economic development benefits.

Woodland is one nation that has been working hard to make strong and meaningful partnerships with business to develop business capacities, local employment, etc., but these have to be long-term opportunities not just brush-clearing and construction.

Woodland Cree needs to get into the business of developing and eventually owning resources such as the Eagle Spirit pipeline. I am on the chiefs' committee of that group. I can only talk so much to companies. Yes, they will nod their head and they will say yes, we tried, but if we were actually owners and operators of those companies, then our corporate values would follow that company.

For example, if I'm an owner of a company, I want to say I want to be the best in the world. I want to make that pipeline as indestructible as we can. I know there's technology and the abilities to do that. We're at this meeting today to be the best in the world, and I know we can do that.

It also goes into trading aspects of it. If we had ownership of these pipelines, then we could tell our customers that they need a better environmental standard on the products they develop from our resources.

Best practices would include encouraging companies to dig into business development with indigenous communities to share with them what types of businesses should also be pursued in order to support the project. Companies should also be willing to learn about capacities that different first nations have to offer. If both parties come to the table with a willingness to share information and work together to build first nations' capacity, then we will achieve meaningful accommodation.

Sometimes the feds are typically avoiding absolutely any language in the question that alludes to free, prior and informed consent. There are also quite a few articles written specifically about this within UNDRIP. We know this, especially if we're looking internationally.

There is no perfect international example of projects. However, projects in Bolivia entrenched the rights of nature—they actually used “mother earth” in Spanish—using indigenous law. New Zealand protected the rivers using Maori law. The Sami have a parliament and can pass laws in their territory. If a corporation has personhood, so then should the same things that make first nations....

Project approval currently only represents one culture's law and relations with the land. In order for a project to be truly collaborative and successful from a first nations' viewpoint, it should also respect our culture and our laws too.

(1550)

That can seem almost impossible when our laws in Canada aren't respected or admitted into courts of regulatory.... If we want projects to go through, then consent is the only way.

The Chair:

I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up in about 30 seconds.

Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom:

Basically I'm here to find a solution and to be part of the solution. There are a lot of misconceptions in the media all the time. As a first nations individual, I think our land, our water, the air and the animals are important to all of us. They are sustainability for future generations to come.

It frustrates me, as a first nations individual, when I have to almost beg for monies when we're living in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. Why should our people be living in third-class or second-class communities when we are surrounded by natural resources that go into paving our roads, putting in rec centres, and so on?

I have children and I want my children to have the same abilities your children have. I know that a treaty is a nation-to-nation relationship. We need to encourage that to keep going on, and to understand and be more respectful to each other.

The Chair:

Thank you.

Mr. Benjamin.

Mr. Craig Benjamin (Campaigner, Indigenous Rights, Amnesty International Canada):

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Algonquin people on whose territory we have the privilege of meeting today.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to come to speak to you. I would also like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to share the table with Chief Laboucan-Avirom.

The subject of this study is one of great interest to Amnesty International, and to me personally. There are a lot of things I could talk about, but what I'd like to do is focus on one specific example of international guidelines for engagement with indigenous peoples, which is the International Finance Corporation's performance standards on indigenous peoples.

Members of the committee will know that the International Finance Corporation, IFC, is the institution within the World Bank group that focuses exclusively on support to the private sector in development activities.

After the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, the IFC undertook a review of its social and environmental performance standards. In 2012 it adopted a dramatically revised requirement for projects potentially affecting indigenous peoples.

These performance standards take a precautionary approach, setting out measures needed to reduce the risk of significant harm to indigenous peoples, regardless of the recognition or lack of recognition of indigenous people's rights in national law. The performance standards do not directly address indigenous people's right to self-determination, nor do the standards address indigenous people's continued right to exercise jurisdiction over their traditional lands. These are matters at the very heart of the UN declaration, but the performance standards leave them to national governments to resolve.

Strikingly, however, even in the absence of explicit requirements to respect and uphold traditional land title and to engage with indigenous peoples as an order of government exercising jurisdiction within their territories, the standards that were adopted by the IFC are still, in many ways, considerably more stringent than Canada's current domestic laws and regulations around resource extraction.

In particular, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the IFC's provisions on free, prior and informed consent, FPIC. The IFC states that FPIC is both a process and an outcome. In other words, it doesn't just call on the private sector to seek consent; it makes consent a formal requirement for its support.

The performance standard specifically requires FPIC in four broad areas: where there is potential for significant impacts on indigenous peoples's identities or the cultural, ceremonial or spiritual aspects of their lives; where there are impacts on lands and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use; where a project might lead to displacement from lands and resources; or where a project proposes to exploit indigenous people's cultural heritage.

committee hansard rnnr 30288 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 02, 2019

2019-04-02 PROC 146

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning. Welcome to the 146th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This morning, the committee is looking into a situation involving PSPC's plans for the white elm tree that lies on the east side of Centre Block, as you can see in the photo on the screen before you. There are three other photos that I took, and we'll run through them, too, so you get a closer look. It's just next to the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald. This matter was brought to our attention by today's first witness, Mr. Paul Johanis, Chair of Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital.

Before we start, I'll read to the committee a letter from the Speakers, so you know what their interest is. The Speakers wrote to the ADM of Public Services and Procurement Canada: It has come to our attention that Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital has expressed concerns about the potential uprooting of a number of mature trees on the grounds of Parliament Hill to make way for the upcoming renovations to Centre Block. In particular, Greenspace is worried about a particular heritage elm tree, located next to the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, just east of Centre Block. With the understanding that such decisions are not taken lightly, we are asking Public Services and Procurement Canada to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of these mature and now vulnerable trees during the Centre Block restoration. It is our hope that with your support, a solution can be found to address the concerns that have been raised.

Welcome, Mr. Johanis. Maybe before you start, you could identify anyone in the audience who is related to the four organizations you said had an interest in this topic.

Mr. Paul Johanis (Chair, Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital):

Good morning.

Yes, there are members of Greenspace Alliance here, and members of Big Trees of Kitchissippi, which is a neighbourhood in the western part of Ottawa. We have Daniel Buckles and Debra Huron. Also here is Robert McAulay, president of the Beaverbrook Community Association in the Kanata area of Ottawa, who is very active in tree protection. Jennifer Humphries has just joined us. She is a member of the Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability, CAFES.

The Chair:

Thank you.

The clerk will cycle through a couple more photos.

Mr. Johanis, we look forward to some opening remarks, and then we'll have some questions from the committee members.

Mr. Paul Johanis:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the standing committee.

We're very honoured to be here. I have to say that we never expected to be here, but we're very happy to be here. Thank you for putting this on the agenda for the committee's consideration, and for inviting me to speak to you today.

I speak to you on behalf of four organizations that sent you the letter concerning the elm on March 18: Ecology Ottawa, a grassroots organization with a broad environmental mandate and a large following, mostly aimed at a younger demographic; the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, founded in 1863 and the oldest natural history club in Canada, with 800-odd members; the Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability, CAFES, a collective of about 30 neighbourhood associations in Ottawa, including all or most of those in this riding, Ottawa Centre; and the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital, of which I'm the current chair. We're a 100% volunteer, non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and preserving green space in the Ottawa-Gatineau area since 1997.

We're here to ask for two things. The first is to delay the removal of the centenary elm until after “leaf out”, so that its condition can be ascertained clearly and without controversy. The second is to reconsider the currently held assumptions about the size and location of phase two of the visitor welcome complex.

Why reconsider these assumptions? These assumptions are the proximate cause of the planned removal of the elm. We believe they should be revisited to confirm that the implicit trade-off that is being made between preserving the elm and building phase two of the visitor welcome complex in the same location still holds. To be clear, unless the government is open to considering or reconsidering these assumptions, the elm cannot be saved.

Why delay the removal of the elm? Well, to reconsider this trade-off, you as parliamentarians really need up-to-date, conclusive information about its condition.

Why this tree? Why are we going all-out to protect this one tree? First, it's not just any tree. It's an American elm. It's a species that was widespread in this part of Ontario until it was all but wiped out by Dutch elm disease in our area in the 1970s and 1980s. There were many on Parliament Hill, but this one is the sole survivor. It is unique. It's distinctive. It's historic.

For our colleagues in the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, on this basis alone it would deserve protection and preservation wherever it might be located, but it's not located just anywhere. It stands next to Canada's most iconic building, Centre Block of Parliament. From this close proximity, it acquires an added significance and takes on an emblematic quality. Whatever happens to this elm makes a statement, which gets magnified and resonates far and wide.

To community organizations such as CAFES, the elm is emblematic of every mature tree being routinely taken down in their neighbourhoods to make way for infill and renovation. The loss of mature trees in Ottawa's core, and in urban centres across Canada, has reached crisis proportions. Community associations are desperate to stop the loss of tree canopy in their neighbourhoods. They are aghast to see the same dynamic being played out on Parliament Hill—they really can't understand it—wherein a builder with a plan always trumps green space.

To Ecology Ottawa, whatever happens to the elm is emblematic of the federal response to climate change. Mr. Reid, at the last meeting, referred to the 2006 long-term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct. The rehabilitation of Centre Block represents the culmination of this vision. At the same meeting, deputy clerk Michel Patrice emphasized the need to reassess plans when things have changed.

Well, things have changed in a fundamental way since 2006. In 2019, climate change is real and action is urgently required to mitigate its impact. This is why the scope of the visitor centre now needs to be reconsidered. In this new context, different relative weights would likely be applied in the implicit trade-offs being made between preserving the elm and locating phase two of the visitor complex in that same space.

(1105)

At this time of climate crisis, every action matters. Every bit of warming matters. Every year matters, and every choice matters. This is the message the youth strike for climate brought to Parliament Hill and all over the world on March 15. I was with them on the Hill that day, and I spoke with maybe 100 of them, singly and in groups. When I pointed out the elm to them and informed them of the government's intention to cut it down, all reacted with shock, disbelief and disgust. They don't think you have your priorities right.

Up until last Tuesday, the elm did not stand alone. It was surrounded by many other mature trees. Most or all were removed by PSPC when they stripped the site of vegetation last week and turned it into a construction zone. This little enclave was part of the city's urban forest, which is one of the city's most important assets in its defence against climate change. It provided shade for visitors to the Hill, which is otherwise quite denuded, cooling and filtering the ambient air, absorbing and fixing carbon and releasing the oxygen we breathe, just the basic life-preserving work that trees do for us.

This clear-cut may seem catastrophic, but in fact it is also an opportunity. One of the arborist's reports commissioned by PSPC in September 2018 includes this recommendation: If this tree is to be preserved where it stands, multiple measures will need to be taken....If we are to see any improvement in the trees health the entire critical root zone measuring 9 meters from the trees trunk in all directions should be carefully excavated and cleared of all unnatural debris. This area...would have to be closed off to the public and all soil within the area would need to be remediated.

If the option of preserving the tree were selected rather than cutting it down, the clear-cut and vegetation stripping carried out by PSPC has in fact made a good start towards doing this remediation work. It's an opportunity.

In prior communications, both PSPC and the NCC have asked us to consider how their plan includes the regreening of the area after the renovations are complete. To replace the elm with like for like would take 100 years. It is, for all practical purposes, irreplaceable.

Regarding the planting of other trees in 10, 13 or however many years it will take to complete this renovation project, all we can say is that it's literally too little too late. We have the same 10 or 12 years to take effective action against climate change if we wish to keep its impact within adaptable limits. Again, however, the clear-cut may present an opportunity. The field is now clear to proceed with this replanting immediately with large caliper trees and the 4:1 replacement ratio recommended by the NCC to recreate a new, improved green enclave in this location.

Every one of us is being called upon to take action against climate change in whatever small way we can, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions or preserving or increasing green space as carbon sinks in our homes, in our lifestyles and in our own backyards. Preserving the centenary elm and restoring this green space is something parliamentarians can do right here on Parliament Hill in your own backyard.

PSPC has referred to the poor condition of the centenary elm as justification for its removal. We have found that the information supporting this judgment is contradictory and inconclusive. Our technical report on the subject was sent to you on March 18. I will read out only its conclusion here: Given the conflicting information concerning the condition of the tree, the dramatic unexplained changes observed in September 2018, the lack of testing or other inspection other than ground level visual observation and the fact that weather conditions in September 2018 might well indicate that heat and water stress were at the root of the tree’s observed condition, it would seem appropriate to delay the removal until such time as 1) it is ascertained whether the tree has survived into spring 2019, and 2) further testing is done to determine if the tree is affected by any disease.

(1110)

Destruction of this elm must not happen, and it can be stopped by you, Canada's parliamentarians.

While the National Capital Commission provides federal land use authorization and Public Services and Procurement Canada, as custodian of the land and buildings, executes the construction and renovation project, both are working to requirements approved by the Speakers of the House and Senate who, on your behalf, exercise the powers of Parliament to regulate its own affairs and to administer its precinct. Indeed, this standing committee has rightly taken upon itself the exercise of oversight that is so badly needed for this renovation project.

We've heard from PSPC and parliamentary staff, at the last meeting, that designs for the second phase of the visitor's centre are still very preliminary. All they know right now is how big a hole they want to excavate. It's very big—wiping out the centenary elm and forestalling the growth of any greenery in the northeast quadrant of the Hill for many years. Is this what you want? Is this what Canadians want?

Please do the right thing. Preserve the elm and restore its retinue of trees for the benefits they provide locally here on Parliament Hill. Also, take this opportunity to send the right message to all Canadians watching. Every action matters. Every choice matters. Please delay the removal of the centenary elm until leaf out and initiate a process whereby the currently held assumptions about the size and location of phase two of the visitor welcome complex are reconsidered.

Thank you.

(1115)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Before we go to questions I just want to add a little bit of information that may affect your questions, or Mr. Johanis you could comment on them in your answers to questions.

First of all, I want to know how long these trees can live. The researcher looked that up for me. Do you want to read the quote?

Mr. Andre Barnes (Committee Researcher):

The chair wanted to know the life expectancy. According to the University of Kentucky, many white or American elms can live to 100 to 200 years old, and some have been recorded as more than 300 years old.

The Chair:

We also have a dendrologist from Natural Resources Canada, who was asked to provide information to Public Works Canada.

committee hansard proc 37274 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 02, 2019

2019-04-01 14:12 House intervention / intervention en chambre

International relations, Montana, Statements by Members

Déclarations de députés, Montana, Relations internationales

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that there is a petition across the United States that calls on Canada to buy Montana for a trillion dollars. While we appreciate their interest, we would like to present our counter-offer.

We will annex Washington state, Oregon, California, New England and enough of New York to get the rest of Niagara Falls and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, with her values, would be a pretty average Canadian. We will offer, in exchange, to take over Puerto Rico and make it a province, to provide the 74 million new immigrants created by this deal universal free health care, regardless of what they believe or wear, and to take Montana.

We believe that this is a fair deal that would also help compensate for our century-old reticence to accept the Turks and Caicos, which was a grave error, we now recognize. In that spirit, if they are not intending to help make Britain great again, we could also make room for Scotland in our Confederation

Monsieur le Président, nous avons appris qu'il existe une pétition aux États-Unis qui demande au Canada d'acheter le Montana pour un billion de dollars. Nous sommes certes heureux de cet intérêt, mais nous aimerions faire une contre-offre.

Nous annexerons l'État de Washington, l'Oregon, la Californie, la Nouvelle-Angleterre et une partie suffisante de l'État de New York pour que nous puissions obtenir le reste des chutes Niagara et Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, dont les valeurs rejoindraient celles de l'ensemble des Canadiens. En échange, nous proposons de prendre Porto Rico et d'en faire une province, d'offrir aux 74 millions de nouveaux immigrants par suite de cet accord des soins de santé universels gratuits, peu importe ce en quoi ils croient ou ce qu'ils portent, et de prendre aussi le Montana.

Nous croyons qu'il s'agit d'un accord juste qui permettrait aussi de compenser notre réticence, depuis 100 ans, à accepter les îles Turques et Caïques, ce qui a été — nous le reconnaissons maintenant — une grave erreur. Dans cet esprit, si les États-Unis n'ont pas l'intention d'aider la Grande-Bretagne à retrouver sa grandeur, nous pourrions également faire de la place à l'Écosse dans la Confédération.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr satire statements tv 377 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on April 01, 2019

2019-04-01 SECU 154

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1600)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

Ladies and gentleman, we have quorum, and we have lost half an hour.

I'm just going to ask all the witnesses to come up to the table directly.

My proposal, colleagues, is that we mash the panels. I've spoken to all the witnesses and asked that they be prepared to speak for less than 10 minutes. My thought is to give the panellists seven minutes each to make their presentations.

The first round of questions will be six minutes, and the next round, four minutes. We'll just run as long as we can.

I think there's another vote. We're not sure.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

Are we not going all night tonight?

The Chair:

Did you bring your cot?

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Okay, with that, the meeting has come to order.

I'll simply call the witnesses in the order that we have on the agenda, which starts with Mr. Green from Mastercard, followed by Mr. Davies from EY, Mr. Finlay from Cybersecure Catalyst and Mr. Gordon from Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange.

With that, Mr Green, you have seven minutes, please.

Mr. Ron Green (Executive Vice-President and Chief Security Officer, Mastercard Canada):

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

First, I want to praise the committee for launching this study. Cybersecurity is one of the greatest challenges governments and businesses are facing at the present time, with serious implications for national security, financial stability and consumer protection.

I also want to congratulate the Government of Canada for launching its national cybersecurity strategy and establishing the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. I had the opportunity to meet with the leadership of the centre today, and we at Mastercard look forward to supporting their work however we can.

Cybersecurity is a top global priority for Mastercard. Safety and security are foundational principles for every part of our business and the innovative technology platforms and services we enable. We know that secure products and services are essential to the trust our customers, cardholders, merchants and other partners place in us. Let me contextualize this.

As you probably know, Mastercard does not issue credit cards or have a direct relationship with consumers. That is the purview of the banks that issue our cards.

Mastercard is a technology company. We provide the network that allows consumers to use their Mastercard virtually anywhere in the world, in more than 210 countries and territories, and have those transactions processed in seconds, connecting 2.5 billion cardholders with tens of millions of merchants.

For us to provide value to banks, merchants and consumers who use our network, we must provide safety and security. We cannot afford to have any interruptions in the operations of our network.

We are also investing in innovation: enhancing our capabilities in-house; acquiring cutting-edge technology companies; and nurturing our Start Path group of curated start-ups, including five in Canada, connecting with our issuing partners to grow their business. Just last month, Mastercard entered into an agreement to acquire Toronto-based Ethoca, a fraud solution powered by collaboration between banks and merchants.

At a very high level, that's what we're doing. Please let me now turn to our advice for government, which falls into six main areas.

First, in a networked, interconnected digital world, we need cybersecurity solutions tailored to small and medium-sized businesses. Cybercriminals will seek out the weakest point in the system to launch an attack. Therefore, we need to provide a framework for small businesses to protect their operations. Mastercard is playing a leading role in defending SMEs as we stand up our Cyber Readiness Institute, which emphasizes the practical application of tools for small and medium-sized businesses. The institute also facilitates the workforce development needed to implement these cybersecurity risk management tools.

In addition, keeping with this focus, in February, Mastercard and the Global Cyber Alliance released a new cybersecurity tool kit specifically designed for SMEs. This is a free online resource available worldwide. It offers actionable guidance and tools with clear direction to combat the increasing volume of cyber-attacks. There are operational tools, how-to materials and recognized best practices, all with an action focus. This tool kit will be updated regularly.

Second, global companies frequently confront an expanding and overlapping set of cybersecurity regulations in different jurisdictions. Those need to be harmonized using a baseline framework. We understand good trilateral progress was made here in the context of the NAFTA renegotiation, developing a common framework to align and manage cybersecurity risks, which is encouraging.

Third, there is a need to improve identity management and authentication as more devices are connected online. We need a robust identity ecosystem to enable easier and more secure digital interactions and transactions that safeguard the privacy of our cardholders.

Fourth, with the Internet of things there will soon be 30 billion connected devices. This creates enormous opportunities for the digital economy, but it also increases cyber-risk. Therefore, governments and the private sector should develop standards to improve the interoperability and cyber-threat detection and prevention while removing friction from commerce.

Fifth, as cyber-threats grow, governments and the private sector face a shortage of employees with cybersecurity skills. The world needs to start training the next generation of cybersecurity experts, and government has a role to play. If you have kids or grandkids, get them hooked on cybersecurity and they can make a lot of money in their lifetime, because right now the needs are there but the qualified security personnel are not.

Finally, collaboration, information-sharing and bringing all stakeholders to the table are required to fight cybercrime. President Obama commissioned an expert task force on cybersecurity on which our CEO sat. The task force issued a series of recommendations. The CRI, which I mentioned earlier, is a direct offshoot of the task force's emphasis on securing SMEs.

I believe this issue is so fundamental to the future of our economy and society that it needs attention from leadership at the highest levels. Mastercard is ready to lend its expertise to the Government of Canada in much the same way.

I could talk for hours on the subject but I will stop here and happily take questions on the areas that are of most interest to you. I have tried to provide a snapshot of what we are doing and what we think governments should be doing.

Thank you again to the committee for having me here, and I look forward to your questions.

(1605)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Green, and thank you for respecting the time.

Mr. Davies is next for seven minutes, please.

Mr. Thomas Davies (National Financial Services Cyber Leader, EY):

Thank you for inviting us to this session to provide insights and field questions on cybersecurity in the financial sector.

My name is Thomas Davies, and I am the National Financial Services Cybersecurity Leader for EY in Canada. I'm also a special adviser for financial crime for the firm globally with a focus on insider and outsider threats. Prior to joining EY, I spent eight years as a director of Scotiabank, supporting all three lines of defence.

Cyber-attacks are on the rise and the financial services industry is considered a high value target globally. The number of individuals, organizations and nation states with access to advanced tools has grown exponentially as service offerings for hacking have been developed and optimized by criminal organizations. Attacks on financial services are not limited to cyber-breaches. They can quickly move to fraud and money-laundering activities, which then create a strain on the talent and financial resources of any organization. These concerns are exacerbated by the shortage of skilled professionals across financial crime domains. A successful breach of payment systems, transaction networks or customer data could have a material impact on the economy.

Consider for a moment the implications of not being able to use your debit or credit card for a day or even a week. Imagine over one million Canadians trying to withdraw cash to pay for groceries, gas or medicine. Many global regulators consider the resiliency of financial services against a cyber-event to be a top priority for ensured economic health, as exhibited by new security requirements in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and New York.

As Canadians demand greater access to financial services through digital platforms such as open banking, we need to consider embedding security and privacy principles into the design phase of a solution. In doing so, we will help to build customer trust, encourage adoption and proactively reduce the likelihood of costly fixes later. Implementing preventative measures such as training and awareness, access management, system hygiene, third party risk and corporate governance will reduce both the attack surface of these platforms and the maintenance required to support them.

Canada has an opportunity to become a global leader in security and privacy while continuing to be a great innovator of fintech. Through the continued support of shared intelligence, the development of talent through early and continuous education, and by enhancing public awareness of cyber-threats leading to financial crime, we can ready ourselves against this growing threat.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

I encourage colleagues to take note of the way in which these presentations are made in a timely fashion.

committee hansard secu 27278 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on April 01, 2019

2019 Spring newsletter / infolettre printemps 2019

A Word From David

Dear friends,

Over the past three-and-a-half years that I have been working on your behalf all across the region, I have been very impressed by the level of community engagement on display in our towns and cities.

Everywhere I go I meet people involved in many ways, by organizing and participating in fundraising meals and social, sport and cultural activities, all on a volunteer basis in the service of their fellow-citizens. The degree of engagement provides a measure of the health of our society.

Our communities are so dynamic thanks to the directors, staff, elected officials and volunteers of all ages who give their all so that other people, often those who are less privileged or more isolated, can enjoy a better quality of life. Thank you for crucial support and the contributions you make to local vitality! You are inspiring!

Across the region groups provide necessary services like food banks, caregiver support, seniors’ clubs, youth and family centres, assistance to the intellectually and physically handicapped and other vulnerable individuals. Other groups work to improve things for the entire community they serve, starting with the important role of the medical foundations. Others work on a different aspect of our social fabric, such as lake and environmental associations, and cultural, sport and recreational activities and events. All contribute to building and maintaining our local identity.

My team and I are here to provide you our help in achieving your goals, and our recognition of all that you have accomplished so far.

As historian Michel Allard said during a talk on volunteering to the CAB des Laurentides in December 2017, “In the Laurentians, volunteering is based on a tradition of mutual assistance,” explaining the history of old-time work bees. This tradition of mutual help and community involvement is ongoing. I am proud to participate as often as possible.

This issue is dedicated to the people who work so hard as well as the community organizations that contribute to maintaining and strengthening the social fabric of our community.

- David

Mot de David

Chers amis,

Au cours de ces trois années et demie durant lesquelles j’ai travaillé avec vous dans toute la région, j’ai toujours été impressionné par le niveau d’engagement communautaire que l’on retrouve dans nos villes et municipalités.

Partout où je vais, je rencontre des gens qui s’impliquent dans tous les domaines, en organisant et participant à des repas-bénéfice ou à des activités sociales, sportives ou culturelles et qui le font de façon bénévole, au service de leurs concitoyens. Leur degré d’engagement permet de mesurer la santé de notre société.

Nous devons ce dynamisme dans la communauté aux dirigeants, travailleurs, élus et bénévoles de tous âges qui s’investissent pour que d’autres, souvent moins privilégiés ou plus isolés, puissent apprécier une meilleure qualité de vie. Je vous remercie pour votre essentiel dévouement et la contribution qu’il apporte à la vitalité locale. Vous êtes inspirants!

Des organisations de toute la région offrent des services nécessaires, comme les banques alimentaires, les groupes de proches aidants, les fondations médicales, les clubs d’aînés, les maisons de la famille, l’aide aux personnes handicapées ou l’aide aux citoyens plus vulnérables. D’autres organismes travaillent à l’amélioration de certains aspects de leur communauté, tels que les associations de lac et de protection de l’environnement ou l’organisation d’activités et évènements de loisir, culturels et sportifs. Tous contribuent à bâtir et préserver notre identité régionale. Mon équipe et moi sommes à votre service, pour vous aider à atteindre vos objectifs et pour reconnaitre, humblement, tout ce que vous accomplissez.

En décembre 2017, l’historien Michel Allard a animé un atelier au CAB des Laurentides, portant sur l’histoire du bénévolat. Faisant le parallèle avec les abeilles et leur organisation du travail, il a expliqué que « dans les Laurentides, le bénévolat est basé sur une tradition d’assistance mutuelle ». Cette tradition d’assistance et d’engagement communautaire est toujours en vigueur et je suis fier d’y participer aussi souvent que possible.

Cette édition de mon Infolettre est dédiée à tous ces bénévoles ainsi qu’à toutes ces organisations qui contribuent à maintenir et renforcer le tissu social de notre communauté.

- David

KNOWING OUR REGION: from the past to the present

As the saying goes, “You have to know where you come from to know where you’re going.” In the past three years, my father, local historian Joseph Graham, has passed on various parts of our regional history via this Newsletter. For this edition, he presents us a family that has been living in the Laurentians for over 150 years and has contributed to the local community. Enjoy the read!

CONNAÎTRE NOTRE RÉGION : d’hier à aujourd’hui

Il y a un adage qui dit: « il faut savoir d’où l’on vient pour savoir où l’on va ». Au cours des trois dernières années, mon père, l’historien local Joseph Graham, nous a présenté différents pans de notre histoire régionale via cette Infolettre. Pour cette édition, il nous présente une famille implantée dans les Laurentides depuis plus de 150 ans. Et son apport au milieu communautaire de la région. Bonne lecture !

The Grignons, Community Builders

Claude-Henri Grignon, author of Un Homme et son Péché, televised as Les Belles Histoires des Pays d’en Haut, is known well beyond the hills of Séraphin and is one of the most significant people in our local cultural history. Perhaps less well known is that he came from a large family that contributed enormously to our greater community.

His grandparents, Médard Grignon and Henriette Lalande of Saint-Jérome, had 11 children and did not stint on making sure they had an education. They could not resist cultural demands made on them and are mentioned as active members of the Institut canadien des artisans de Dumontville, conceived for the cultural development of its members. They were also known to willingly extend themselves to help anyone who was at a disadvantage, and, as owners of a popular auberge, their home became a local destination. In those days of the early 1900s, Médard’s facility on the fiddle and a large drum of whisky contributed to the ambiance.

Their large family grew to include three doctors and many other professionals. Wilfrid Grignon, the eldest, became a doctor in Ste. Adele and a noted lecturer on agriculture, while Dr. Edmond Grignon set up practice in Ste. Agathe. The third doctor practiced medicine in Menominee, Michigan, the largest lumbering centre in the United States in the 19th century. According to our local histories, many farmers left to work as lumberjacks in Michigan.

Two sons of Ste. Adele’s Dr. Wilfrid are also well remembered; the elder, Louis, a veterinarian, set up his practice in Mont Laurier, and the younger was Claude-Henri.

Dr. Edmond, remembered as Le Vieux Doc, wrote that it was Curé Labelle who encouraged him to go to Ste. Agathe. In his book En Guettant les Ours, he described his role not just as a doctor, but also as an educator. He was also a community builder. He was secretary of the Cercle Agricole as well as of two municipal corporations. In 1912, Grignon accepted to write the history of the parish to commemorate its first fifty years, and the book, L’Album Historique de la Paroise de Sainte Agathe des Monts, is still an extremely useful reference work, loaded with anecdotes and perspectives on the times. Back then, doctors fulfilled a lot of different roles, not limited to the health and social services, and, as a master community builder, Curé Labelle had good instincts in encouraging the right people to come north to help him build our community. Le Vieux Doc’s eldest son, Henri, also became a doctor, carrying the family mission to St. Jovite, and we must recall the next generations, notably Pierre Grignon, the former mayor of Ste. Adele.

There is a humour, a perspective on the world, in the family. Médard and Henriette’s happy, worldly home echoed down the generations as their other children and their spouses, including a lawyer, a notary, an engineer and various others, carried that spirit with them to their communities.

Through their values and actions, the Grignons and many other families helped build the community.

- Joseph Graham

Les Grignon, bâtisseurs de communautés

Claude-Henri Grignon, l’auteur d’Un homme et son péché, qui a inspiré le téléroman Les belles histoires des Pays-d’en-Haut, est connu bien au-delà des montagnes du pays de Séraphin et figure parmi les personnalités les plus marquantes de notre histoire culturelle locale. Ce que peu de gens savent peut-être, c’est qu’il est issu d’une famille nombreuse qui a fourni un apport énorme à l’ensemble de nos communautés.

Ses grands-parents, Médard Grignon et Henriette Lalande, étaient propriétaires d’un populaire hôtel à SaintJérôme. La virtuosité de Médard au violon et un grand fût de whisky aidant, leur résidence est devenue une destination incontournable. On leur connaissait une bienveillance à l’égard de quiconque était dans le besoin. De plus, ils ne refusaient aucune demande de nature culturelle, et leur nom figure parmi les membres actifs de l’Institut canadien des artisans de Dumontville, voué à la promotion culturelle de ses membres. En ce milieu du 19 e siècle, Médard et Henriette n’ont ménagé aucun effort pour que chacun de leurs 11 enfants fassent des études.

Trois fils de leur grande famille sont devenus médecins et de nombreux autres ont porté des titres professionnels. L’aîné, Wilfrid, a pratiqué la médecine à Sainte-Adèle en plus d’être un conférencier renommé en matière d’agriculture. Son frère, Edmond, a établi sa clinique médicale à Sainte-Agathe. Le troisième médecin de la famille s’est établi à Menominee, au Michigan, plaque tournante de l’exploitation forestière au 19e siècle. Selon les récits, nombre d’agriculteurs locaux quittaient la terre pendant l’hiver pour aller gagner leur vie comme bûcherons au Michigan.

Le docteur Edmond, dont on se souvient comme le Vieux Doc, a écrit que c’est le curé Labelle qui l’a motivé à s’établir à Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. Le curé Labelle, en sa qualité de maître bâtisseur, savait d’instinct encourager les bonnes personnes à s’établir au Nord pour contribuer à l’essor de la communauté. Outre les soins de santé et les service sociaux, les médecins assumaient alors différents rôles. Dans son ouvrage En guettant les ours, le Dr Grignon se décrivait comme un médecin, mais également comme un enseignant. Il était aussi un bâtisseur, agissant comme juge de paix et comme secrétaire du Cercle agricole et de deux corporations municipales.

En 1912, il accepte d’écrire l’histoire de la paroisse pour commémorer le 50e anniversaire de sa fondation; l’Album historique de la paroisse de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts est ainsi demeuré un ouvrage de référence très utile rempli d’anecdotes et de perspectives d’époque. Henri Grignon, l’aîné des fils du Vieux Doc, est également devenu médecin et a poursuivi la mission de la lignée familiale à Saint-Jovite. Ses cousins, deux des fils du docteur Wilfrid de Sainte-Adèle, ont également acquis une certaine notoriété: l’aîné, Louis en tant que vétérinaire à MontLaurier, et le benjamin, qui est Claude-Henri, sans oublier les contributions des générations suivantes, notamment Pierre Grignon, ancien maire de Sainte-Adèle.

On retrouve chez les membres de la famille Grignon une perspective sur le monde bien caractéristique. L’esprit de Médard et Henriette d’offrir d’un foyer heureux et ouvert s’est répercuté sur les générations suivantes. Leurs autres enfants et leurs conjoints, parmi lesquels un avocat, un notaire, un ingénieur et d’autres professionnels, ont à leur tour répandu cet esprit dans leur milieu.

Par leurs valeurs et leurs actions, des familles comme les Grignon et de nombreuses autres dans notre région ont contribué à bâtir la communauté.

- Joseph Graham

View the original publication.

Voir la publication originale.

history newsletter 1909 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:42 on April 01, 2019

2019-03-19 PROC 145

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Welcome to the 145th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, as we continue our study of parallel debating chambers, we are pleased to be joined by Mr. Bruce Stanton, member of Parliament for Simcoe North, who is also the Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole. As a personal note, he is also the chair of the Canada-Myanmar Friendship Group. For members' information, Mr. Stanton has authored articles on the subject of parallel chambers in both the IRPP's Policy Options magazine and the Canadian Parliamentary Review.

Thank you for being here.

Just before you start, I want to let members know that the delegation from Kenya never made it, so the meeting you got a notice for is not on. Take it off your schedule if you did include it.

Mr. Stanton, we're delighted you're here. I actually think this is one of the most exciting projects that PROC has undertaken, so we look forward to your suggestions. [Translation]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

Thank you for the invitation to appear as part of your study of a parallel or concurrent debating chamber for the House of Commons.[English]

Before I get into this, I'd first like to say that I really don't consider myself to be an expert in these matters, but I have shared and will share my perspective today on some of the research I have done in this area. Of course, as some of you may know, some of this was published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review and in the IRPP op-ed the chair mentioned, but these are also my own observations, as a parliamentarian, here since 2006.

I am going to touch on three main things here in my opening comments. The first will be a general description of the concept; second will be some reasons we might be considering this kind of innovation; and third will be some thoughts on how, if the decision were to proceed, that might be dealt with.

After that, of course, I'd be happy to take your questions. [Translation]

Firstly, in terms of the second chamber itself, the briefing materials and the testimony of Mr. Natzler, the clerk of the UK House, will give you a rough idea of how the system works. Both Australia's House of Representatives and the UK Parliament use them. Australia was the first country to implement the structure, in 1993, and the UK followed, to a degree inspired by Australia’s experience, in 1999.[English]

Each has evolved into a permanent and valued part of its parliamentary institution, and it's noteworthy that their functions and the way they serve MPs and Parliament are somewhat different.

The Federation Chamber in Australia, for example, is used as an adjacent lane for parts of the legislative process, such as second reading and report-stage debates, whereas the U.K. keeps all its consideration of government legislation in the main chamber.

In my view, this is telling. While we share the Westminster parliamentary tradition with our Commonwealth friends in the U.K. and Australia, our Standing Orders, conventions and practices have evolved differently to suit our needs and the priorities of parliamentarians here.[Translation]

However, there are some common virtues of the two second chambers. These virtues include the following.

They have a low quorum of three people, including the chair occupant, a member from the government side and member from the opposition. The forum is less controversial, since the debates by their nature are less divided.

(1105)

The parallel structure affords more time for members of Parliament to debate and to speak about issues that have direct relevance in their constituencies. The second chambers operate on a fixed schedule that’s around 30% to 35% of the time in the main chamber.

The second chambers are seen as a way of managing or supplementing the noncontroversial aspects of the day's business that would otherwise take debating time away from the more consequential business of the main chamber, such as routine proceedings, adjournment debates and members statements.[English]

They can act as a proving ground for testing new procedures that may be considered for implementation in the House, and for MPs to hone their debating skills and familiarity with procedures. They are also a help for newer presiding officers to gain knowledge of their roles and points of procedure that will invariably become helpful when they preside in the House.

They generally operate on the same rules of order as the main chamber. They are televised, transcribed and journaled, and provide a small gallery for the public. In our case we would have to add to that simultaneous translation—in essence, the same way that we support standing committees.

The physical setting is similar to a large committee room. The more intimate setting aids decorum. The U.K. and Australia use a U-shaped design to invite more collegiality across party lines.

Since their inception, each of the two chambers has created new features that have become very popular. In the U.K., as you heard, they use the chamber for e-petition debates that can have in excess of 100,000 signatures. Due to the high level of public interest in these debates, they can attract a big online audience, which have been noted to be sometimes higher than for other debates that are broadcast. In Australia, time is reserved for what is called “constituency statements”, like a three-minute S.O. 31, which both members and ministers can use to tailor messages to their own constituents. You'll know that our ministers are prohibited from using that in our S.O. 31 system.[Translation]

The reviews of each second chamber after more than a decade of use—two decades in the case of Australia—show that each overcame the early concerns and skepticism regarding their merit and usefulness.

Secondly, I want to address the reasons for embarking on a project like this. I believe that it's important that any effort to establish a second chamber be based on a reasonable need or short-coming with our current parliamentary system and procedures.

Understanding the scope of the problems would be instrumental in explaining how a proposed second chamber would work, and more importantly, why it's worth doing. Though the outcomes were favourable for the parliaments in our fellow Commonwealth countries, it's recommended that we understand what issue or gap a second chamber would be intended to address.[English]

There should be a cross-party consensus on this before proceeding much further, and it would take some additional work even to land on what the rationale for such a project would be in the Canadian context.

For the examination of where these gaps or areas of improvement could lie, Samara has done some excellent exit surveys of MPs and tapping of the views of MPs currently serving. House leaders, whips past and present, and table officers have an understanding and experience of parliamentary processes that is unique compared with that of the average backbencher, and their insights on where the current system could be improved would be invaluable.

(1110)

I would also suggest getting a firm understanding of the original motivations for both the Federation Chamber and Westminster Hall, because they are instructive. The way these two chambers operate today reflects very much their initial raison d’être. That is why, for example, Westminster Hall is more a domain for backbench business versus the main chamber, whereas the Federation Chamber acts as more of an adjacent lane for a wider array of House business.

Finally, as you look at possible steps for your study and recommendations, it is worth looking at how the Select Committee on Modernisation proceeded with their investigations into what eventually became Westminster Hall.[Translation]

The select committee was aware that creating a second chamber would be, for the institution, a radical and broad innovation to the usual practices. The UK first looked into the second chamber idea in 1994, based on Australia's success. It wasn't until December 1998 that the select committee tabled a discussion document for members of Parliament presenting the possible advantages of the chamber. At that point, the select committee wasn't even proposing to start a second chamber on an experimental basis.[English]

Their intent was to set the idea out in some detail, so members could give their views on the basis of as much information as possible. They then invited members to comment on the proposal over several months, after which they could determine whether to proceed, but if so, how it might best be implemented. As they explained, members will wish to consider it with care, not only in principle but how it might work in practice.

With the inputs they received from MPs in hand, the modernisation committee tabled its second report in the House on March 24, 1999. It was debated in the House in May, and that second report became the basis of a trial of Westminster Hall starting in November of that year. It was not until 2001-02 that Westminster Hall became a permanent part of the U.K. House of Commons parliamentary process.[Translation]

In summary, I believe that your consideration of this idea is a constructive exercise. Parliament, like any other organization with which we have worked, must constantly seek to improve the efficiency of its internal and administrative processes and make good use of its time. The time demands on parliamentarians is a recurring theme throughout the evolution of our standing orders and our practices and traditions.[English]Moreover, we should always be looking for ways to demonstrate to our constituents the value and consequence of the exercise of our duties as MPs.

There are many possible advantages to moving ahead with this idea, and the success in the U.K. and in Australia is well established. For our Parliament, having a good grasp of the issues, obstacles or limits that a second parallel chamber could address is the crucial first step.

I thank you for your attention. I'm happy to take your questions, Mr. Chair. [Translation]

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.[English]

Great.

In the report, you referred to the information from Samara. We have a report here. It's in English, but it's in translation, so you will get a copy of that shortly.

Also, we have someone from Samara here. Could you put your hand up, in case anyone wants to talk to you later?

I have just a quick question. Am I correct that the Australian double chamber evolved because the Canberra state chamber did it first? Are you aware of that?

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

I'm not certain of that, Mr. Chair. I do know that, in the original evolution of this around 1993, it was a fairly volatile time politically for the House of Representatives. They were having real issues with essentially closure of debates, time allocation—“guillotining” was the word they used at that time. They really got to somewhat of an impasse there. I think that got them looking at finding other ways to get on with it. The Federation Chamber was born out of that.

The Chair:

committee hansard proc 38418 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on March 19, 2019

2019-03-18 15:11 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Employment opportunities, Mining industry, Oral questions

Industrie minière, Questions orales,

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the metal and mining industry is important for our economy and for our communities across the country, including many municipalities in Laurentides—Labelle. That is why our government is working hard to ensure that this industry continues to create jobs and generate economic growth.

Could the minister tell the House how our government is focusing on innovation, the development of clean technologies and strengthening the regulatory framework to ensure that the exploration and mining sector is prosperous, resilient and sustainable?

Monsieur le Président, les Canadiens savent que l'industrie des mines et des métaux est importante pour notre économie et pour nos communautés partout au pays, comme c'est le cas dans plusieurs municipalités de Laurentides—Labelle. C'est pourquoi notre gouvernement travaille fort pour s'assurer que cette industrie demeure une source de création d'emplois et de croissance économique.

Est-ce que le ministre peut indiquer à la Chambre de quelle façon notre gouvernement met l'accent sur l'innovation, le développement des technologies propres et le renforcement du cadre réglementaire pour assurer un secteur d'exploration et d'exploitation prospère, résilient et durable?

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr qp tv 199 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on March 18, 2019

2019-03-18 SECU 152

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

(1545)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)):

It's my privilege to open the meeting and invite the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to address the committee. Both groups have been instructed on the parameters of their presentations.

Did you do rock, paper, scissors as to who will go first, or will we just go with the Canadian Bankers Association?

Mr. Docherty.

Mr. Charles Docherty (Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association):

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today about cybersecurity in the financial sector.

My name is Charles Docherty. I am the assistant general counsel for the Canadian Bankers Association, or CBA. Joining me is my colleague Andrew Ross, director, payments and cybersecurity.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

Banks in Canada are leaders in cybersecurity and have invested heavily to protect the financial system and the personal information of their customers from cyber-threats. Despite the growing number of attempts, banks have an excellent record of protecting their systems from cyber-threats. Banks take seriously the trust that has been placed in them by Canadians to keep their money safe and to protect their personal and financial information.

Canadians have come to expect greater convenience when using and accessing financial services, and banks have embraced innovation to provide Canadians faster and more convenient ways to do their banking. Now consumers can bank any time from virtually anywhere in the world through online banking and mobile apps that provide real-time access to their financial information. Today 76% of Canadians primarily do their banking online or on their mobile device. That's up from 52% just four years ago. As more and more transactions are done electronically, networks and systems are becoming interconnected. This requires banks, government and other sectors to work together to ensure that Canada's cybersecurity framework is strong and able to adapt to the digital economy.

The CBA was an active participant in the Department of Public Safety's consultation on the new national cybersecurity strategy. Our industry is a willing and active partner that supports the government in working to achieve the outcomes outlined in the strategy with the common goal of improving cyber-resiliency in Canada.

The banking industry is strongly supportive of the federal government's move to establish the Canadian centre for cybersecurity under the Communications Security Establishment as a unified source of expert guidance, advice and support on cybersecurity operational matters. We also welcome the creation of the centralized cybercrime unit under the RCMP.

A key priority for the new centre will be to ensure cyber-resiliency across key industry sectors in Canada. Encouraging a collaborative environment with the centre providing a focus where the public and private sectors can turn for expertise and guidance will enhance Canada's cyber-resiliency.

The security of Canada's critical infrastructure sectors is essential in order to protect the safety, security and economic well-being of Canadians. The banking industry counts on other critical infrastructures such as telecommunications and energy to deliver financial services for Canadians. We encourage the government to leverage and promote common industry cybersecurity standards that would apply to those within the critical infrastructure sectors.

We recognize that critical infrastructures such as energy cross jurisdictional boundaries, and we recommend that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to define a cybersecurity framework across all critical infrastructure sectors. Having consistent, well-defined cybersecurity standards will provide for greater oversight and assurance that these systems are effective and protected.

Effective sharing of information about cyber-threats and expertise about cyber-protection is a critical component to cyber-resiliency and increasingly important to Canada's digital and data-driven economy. The benefits from sharing threat information extend beyond the financial sector to other sectors, the federal government and law enforcement agencies. Sharing information is a highly effective means of minimizing the impact of cyber-attacks. Banks are supportive and active participants in initiatives such as the Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange that promotes the exchange of cybersecurity information and best practices between businesses and government as a way to enhance cyber-resiliency across sectors.

To foster information sharing and for such forums to be effective, we recommend the government consider legislative options such as changes to privacy legislation and the introduction of safe harbour provisions to ensure that appropriate protections are in place when sharing information related to cyber-threats.

Protecting against threats from industries or other nations requires a defensive response that is coordinated between the government and the private sector. The government can play a pivotal role in coordinating among critical infrastructure partners and other stakeholders, building upon existing efforts to respond to cyber-threats. Establishing clear and streamlined processes among all major stakeholders will enhance Canada's ability to effectively respond to, and defend against, cyber-threats.

We understand that the government plans to introduce a new legislative framework that addresses the implications and obligations in a world that is increasingly connected. We look forward to engaging with the government on the framework.

The CBA also believes that raising awareness about cybersecurity among Canadians is imperative. Educating Canadian citizens is, and should be, a shared responsibility between the government and the private sector. General knowledge of the issues and an understanding of personal accountability to maintain a safe cyber environment are required to help ensure that comprehensive cybersecurity extends to the individual user level. The banking industry looks forward to further collaboration with the government on such common public awareness initiatives as incorporating online cybersecurity safety into federal efforts to promote financial literacy.

A skilled cybersecurity workforce that can adapt to a changing digital and data-driven economy is equally important, not only for our industry but for all Canadians as well. Every year the CBA works with members to organize one of Canada's largest cybersecurity summits, bringing banks together with leading experts to share the latest intelligence about threats and to deepen the knowledge of our cybersecurity professionals.

As cybersecurity threats continue to rise, there's a growing demand for cybersecurity talent in Canada and abroad. Canada's new cybersecurity strategy recognizes that the existing gap in cyber-talent is both a challenge and an opportunity for our country. To address this shortage, we encourage the federal government, in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments, to promote and establish cybersecurity curricula in grade schools, colleges, universities and continuing education programs to enable students to develop cybersecurity skills.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that cybersecurity is a top priority for Canada's banks. They continue to collaborate and invest to protect Canadians' personal and financial information. Banks support the government's work to protect Canadians while promoting innovation and competition. However, the industry recognizes that threats and challenges are constantly evolving. We want to work more collaboratively with the government and with other sectors to ensure that Canada is a safe, strong and secure country to do business in.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

(1550)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Docherty.

We now have the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. [Translation]

Dr. Trevin Stratton (Chief Economist, Canadian Chamber of Commerce):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a real pleasure to be here with you today.[English]

I'm Trevin Stratton. I'm the chief economist at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The Canadian chamber is the voice of business in Canada, and represents a network of over 200,000 firms from every sector and region and every size of business. I'm here with my colleague, Scott Smith, the senior director of intellectual property and innovation policy at the chamber.

Banking transactions are increasingly being conducted in new ways, with 72% of Canadians primarily doing their banking online or through their mobile device. Disruptive or destructive attacks against the financial sector could, therefore, have significant effects on the Canadian economy and threaten financial stability. This could occur directly through lost revenue, as well as indirectly through losses in consumer confidence and effects that reverberate beyond the financial sector, because it serves as the backbone of other parts of the economy. For example, cyber-attacks that disrupt critical services, reduce confidence in specific firms, or the market itself, or undermine data integrity could have systemic consequences for the Canadian economy as a whole.

Banks have invested heavily in state-of-the-art cybersecurity measures to protect the financial system and the personal information of their customers from cyber-threats. In fact, cybersecurity measures and procedures are part of the banks' overall security approach, which includes teams of security experts who monitor transactions, prevent and detect fraud and maintain the security of customer accounts.

The sophisticated security systems in place protect customers' personal and financial information. Banks actively monitor their networks and continuously conduct routine maintenance to help ensure that online threats do not harm their servers or disrupt service to customers.

However, cybersecurity issues are marked by significant information asymmetries, where a disproportionate amount of intelligence and capacity resides with large institutions like the federal government, the Bank of Canada and a few large private sector companies, including financial institutions. Yet, small and medium-sized enterprises are no less vulnerable. It is important for them to secure a cybersecurity ecosystem. They are also disproportionately subject to mounting asymmetries in resources, technologies and skills to defend against nefarious adversaries who, with relatively primitive skill sets and resourcing, can inflict excessive financial and reputational damage.

My colleague, Scott Smith, will now outline the cyber-threat landscape facing Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises.

(1555)

Mr. Scott Smith (Senior Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce):

I believe you've heard from several witnesses over the past few months about the evolving cyber-threat landscape, some of the attacks that are being experienced across the board and how that's changing, and the challenge that represents. Instead, today I'm going to draw your attention to the growing attack surface and how economic disruption that impacts national security can come from unexpected places.

Canada depends on small business for economic well-being. There are 99.7% of businesses in Canada that have fewer than 500 employees, but they employ over 70% of the total private labour force. Small to medium-sized enterprises contribute 50% of Canada's GDP, 75% of the service-producing sector and 44% of the goods-producing sector. They also represent 39% of the financial, insurance and real estate sector.

Fintech has a projected continuous annual growth rate of 55% through 2020. Canada is a hot spot for fintech growth, especially in mobile payments, and most of the emerging companies are SMEs. SMEs collectively constitute a very large attack surface. This attack surface has attracted the attention of hackers.

With regard to some examples of the link between supply chains and major disruptions, in 2018, five natural gas pipeline operators in the U.S. had their operations disrupted when a third party supplier of electronic data and communications services was hacked in the spring of that year. The hacking of a third party vendor to more than 100 manufacturing companies was discovered in July 2018. Approximately 157 gigabytes of data that Level One Robotics was holding was exposed via rsynch, a common file transfer protocol used to mirror or back up large datasets.

The 2017 NotPetya malware outbreak forced shipping giant Maersk to replace 4,000 new servers, 45,000 new PCs and 25 applications over a period of 10 days, causing major disruption.

Why is this happening? Criminals are a bit like flood water; they follow the path of least resistance. Small to medium-sized enterprises have several challenges when it comes to security: limited financial resources, limited human resources and a culture of disbelief, the so-called “we're too small to be hacked” syndrome.

The digital economy has been a boon to small business growth, enabling rapid entry to global supply chains. However, this innovation and growth comes with significant risk if security concerns are not addressed, particularly given the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals. They've moved from the disruption of viruses, trojans and worms 10 years ago, which were common to hear about, to now generating usable digital trust certificates that bypass the human element.

The goal must be to reduce the attack surface, making Canadian business a less attractive target to criminals. The solution is a culture shift, through education, awareness and setting achievable industry-led standards, without stifling innovation. It's a big challenge. It also means investing in international criminal enforcement relationships and capabilities.

I'll stop there, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

The Chair:

committee foss hansard secu 35174 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on March 18, 2019

2019-02-28 ETHI 139

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

(1530)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)):

Good afternoon. We're going to begin.[Translation]

I would like to make an announcement first. There has been an uprising and I am the new captain of this committee. The anarchists have arrived.

An hon. member: Temporarily. [English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Charlie Angus): Welcome, my friends, to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. This is meeting 139, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), for the study of the privacy of digital government services.

Today, we have two groups of witnesses. We have, from the Herjavec Group, Matthew Anthony, the vice-president, incident response and threat analysis, and Ira Goldstein, senior vice-president of corporate development. We also have, from SecureKey Technologies Inc., Andre Boysen, chief information officer, and Rene McIver, chief security officer.

Each group will have 10 minutes to present. We are pretty reasonable here, but when you get close to the 10 minutes, I will start to jump up and down very loudly, not to distract you, but just to let you know. Then our first round of questions will go for seven minutes and then we will go to a five-minute round.

Is the Herjavec Group ready to begin?

Mr. Ira Goldstein (Senior Vice-President, Corporate Development, Herjavec Group):

Good afternoon. My thanks to the chair and vice-chairs and the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Ira Goldstein. I'm the senior vice-president of corporate development at the Herjavec Group. I've spent the last decade working in information security to help companies and governments secure their most critical digital assets.

I'm joined by Matt Anthony, our vice-president of security remediation services at Herjavec Group, whose remarks will follow mine.

Herjavec Group was founded in 2003 by Robert Herjavec, who immigrated to Canada with his parents from eastern Europe. A dynamic entrepreneur, Robert has built Herjavec Group to be one of the largest privately held cybersecurity firms in the world. Our experience includes working with private and public sector organizations in complex multi-technology environments to ensure their data security and privacy.

We are honoured to address the committee today on behalf of Robert, Herjavec Group and our fellow Canadians.

Our statement will address two subject areas related to the committee's study. First, I will outline why digital identity is a key building block in the transformation of government services. I will then outline steps to manage, govern and secure our digital identities.

My recommendation is for the government to tread lightly on the broader transformation path to ensure that privacy and security are top priorities. In parallel, the government should move quickly on a pilot project to expand the existing success of Canada's digital presence.

Digital government services must be built on a foundation of good identity governance. If our identities are to be digitized and managed by government, citizens expect a system that ensures security and privacy. Our identity attributes are assumed to be protected by the issuer, our federal government. In any system, physical or digital, fraud is a risk that must be mitigated through effective and ongoing assessment.

These concepts are not far from realization. When a baby is born or a new immigrant arrives, individuals may request their identity documentation online. Ultimately, physical artifacts are issued as proof of identity, but the fact that we have an online portal today to provision identification means that we have the foundation to leverage that data for use in digital government services.

Several government services are already online. One of the most critical functions of government, tax collection, is digitized through Canada Revenue Agency's EFILE system. Presumably the push to EFILE was supported by efficiency outcomes and stands as a successful case of digital transformation.

Any further steps to digitize citizen identity must consider the perception of the impact on individual privacy. Individuals may perceive digital identity as a threat to privacy despite the expected benefits. One recent example is the speed at which public perception soured over Statistics Canada's plan to collect personal financial information. Despite the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner and plans to anonymize the data, perception quickly turned negative toward this prospect.

The contrast between CRA's EFILE success and Statistics Canada's attempt to gather financial information is a guiding light for the committee. Digitizing government services will be welcomed by the public if managed and messaged thoughtfully. The upside of this effort is more access for historically marginalized groups and geography, so the opportunity cannot be ignored.

Historically, identity-proofing has required a trusted centralized authority to govern provisioning and usage. If I want to prove who I am, I need to show government-issued identification. I foresee this authoritative proof as a permanent feature of modern democracy, so despite the advances in decentralized identity, the government has an important role to play in identity management.

In sum, I strongly recommend that the committee seize the opportunity to further digitize components of citizen identity to enable the efficient and secure delivery of government services, while being cautious in the line that we must draw between centralizing data and ensuring that individual privacy is maintained.

(1535)

Mr. Matthew Anthony (Vice-President, Security Remediation Services, Herjavec Group):

Thanks, Ira.

My name is Matt Anthony. I'm the vice-president of security remediation services. I've been working in information security for over 20 years. I'm honoured to be here today to address the committee. I'll keep my remarks focused on two main areas.

Firstly, I'd like to address the issue of e-government, specifically the pace and volume of change. There have been great successes. Ira has already mentioned tax filing. You can do anything from tax filing to pet registrations at all levels of government. I think we're seeing real advantages from some of those, but I also see that fear of missing out and reputation enhancement are drivers for a lot of the initiatives that influence the adoption of and adaptation to electronic government services.

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, is famous for saying, “Move fast and break things”. While that was taken on as a mantra for global developers in all areas of business and the private sector, I don't think the Government of Canada should or could have that same kind of capability to move fast and break things. Herjavec Group's cyber-incident response teams have see the direct impact of moving fast and breaking things. We come back and sweep some of that up. Breaches are large, costly and very damaging.

Adding to that, there is a global skills shortage in the core capabilities needed to securely govern, develop, test, deploy and maintain complex software systems. Current published figures show that there'll be about three and a half million cybersecurity job openings by 2021—that's worldwide, obviously. The global digital transformation is in direct tension with that. There are more projects, more services and more data being created, stored, managed and mined. Canada and Canadian governments will feel this tension very directly.

The committee has heard a great deal about three case studies. Ira mentioned this already, and I've heard some talk in the corridors about a couple of them. They are Sidewalk Toronto, Estonia and Australia.

I want to address the Estonian example briefly, because it's been held up as a high-water mark for digital transformation, but Estonia has had a few major advantages in doing this that Canada doesn't enjoy. They have a very small population, a very small geography, a relatively green field in the post-Soviet era for technology and a relatively homogenous population accustomed to central control.

When I talk about those things, I think you can reflect on Canada not having many of those advantages in trying to do these kinds of services. The model would look very different for Canada.

While that transformation appears successful, we also don't know a whole lot about the security and privacy concerns. The political and cultural aspects of what would be expected, including how much we might learn about security and privacy aspects, might not be evident for years, or even longer than that. I caution against using Estonia as a North Star for our transformations in Canada.

You can't stand still, obviously, and we have to move forward, but my hope is that we go slowly enough to be assured that the changes we do are fully governed and secured to the appropriate level. Go carefully according to strong principles. Wait for the necessary technology, such as AI and automation controls, to support us better. Don't allow fear of missing out in international comparisons to cause us to hurry ahead of our abilities and capabilities.

Secondly, I'd like to briefly address information-sharing. I want to commend the data strategy road map, in that there are six most important things laid out in that document. I can't do much more than say that they are precise and correct. I would like to amplify them.

The concepts are simple: develop a strategy; provide clarity on data stewardship; develop standards and guidelines for governance; improve recruitment to gather the needed skills; and, develop technology systems that support the strategy. Those are all easy to say, but enormously difficult to do, individually and severally.

In 1984, Stewart Brand presciently wrote, “Information wants to be free.” At the time, he was talking about how the technology costs were going lower and lower, but now it has become synonymous with the difficult problem of keeping access control. Once information is beyond the source's control, it will tend to get distributed widely. It follows, then, that secondary and tertiary uses of the government's data need to be as acutely and astutely controlled as primary use is.

The government faces a monumental task in understanding and managing legacy data and systems. Reconciling inconsistent or undocumented consents for use, information silos, usage rules, data structures, identity platforms and administrative processes will each also be monumental in scale.

I believe that taking a greenfield approach may be advantageous, that is, by establishing rules clearly for new data collection and allowing legacy data to be integrated in the future, as capabilities such as AI and other data collection and tagging can be paired with lower costs for transformation through automation. Don't rush to data lake models, as unexpected de-anonymization and information correlations will emerge—I've seen them—some of which may be contrary to public policy, law or intent.

(1540)

There are a lot of assertions being made that opportunities will emerge and efficiencies will be achieved by aggressively mining, aggregating and sharing data. I urge the committee to show evidence for that. It's easy to get caught up in the rush to take that approach.

You cannot stand still, but I advise, indeed urge, the committee and industry to slow down, be more careful and do not allow ambition to overshadow capability. Go slowly enough to fully understand, measure and manage information risks. Remember, criminals like data, and breaches are messy, complicated and very expensive.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Charlie Angus):

Thank you very much.

We'll go to SecureKey Technologies, please.

Ms. Rene McIver (Chief Security Officer, SecureKey Technologies Inc.):

Good afternoon. I am Rene McIver, chief security and privacy officer at SecureKey.

committee ethi hansard 27825 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 28, 2019

2019-02-28 PROC 144

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)):

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome to meeting 144 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, as we begin our study of parallel debating chambers, we are pleased to be joined by Sir David Natzler, the Clerk of the United Kingdom House of Commons, who is appearing by video conference from London, and who is retiring.

Congratulations on your retirement, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Natzler, for making yourself available. Please go ahead with your opening statement.

Sir David Natzler (Clerk of the House, United Kingdom House of Commons):

Thank you.

It's a great pleasure for me to be talking to you. I think I did talk to your committee some years ago on the subject of child care.

Today is indeed my last day as a Clerk. This is practically my last hour, and there is nowhere I would rather be.

You've had a paper from us about Westminster Hall. What I thought I would do is just make a few general points, and then I'm happy to answer any questions.

My first point is that 20 years ago when this started, a lot of people thought it was a pretty batty idea. How could the House sit in two places at once? Either everybody would go to Westminster Hall and the chamber would be empty, or nobody would bother to go to the parallel chamber in Westminster Hall. There's no possibility of having votes there, so what's the point of having parliamentary business when you can't come to any decisions that are at all controversial? They thought the thing would be a dead duck.

It wasn't an original British idea, as you probably know and as the memo sets out. It actually comes from our Australian cousins, who'd had a parallel chamber for some years, which we'd observed. It was a straight steal from them. Therefore, if you do take it on, please remember where the parliamentary copyright belongs: It is in Canberra, and you might like to ask my colleague in Canberra for his experiences over a longer period.

Over the last 20 years it has become an absolutely understood part of our parliamentary life here. As with you, we have a lot of members. We have more than you; we have 650. You're all members; many members have speeches and issues they want to raise, and they don't have enough opportunity to do it. Westminster Hall offers them that possibility through a series every week of around 12 debates of different lengths, but most importantly, all of them are answered by ministers.

In other words, it is not a graffiti wall. This is a series of policy issues that are answered by ministers. In the longer debates, the opposition has a slot, as does indeed the second-largest opposition party.

It has also proven a popular space for doing slightly new or different things. It has always been a little more relaxed than the main chamber, partly because it's smaller and partly because of the layout. It was a deliberate decision to lay it out not in the face-to-face style that I know you have and that we have in the main chamber, but in a couple of horseshoes so that there is less of the sense of party. I wouldn't overstate that, but there's less of a sense of party. It's also slightly better lit and less panelled and forbidding, particularly for new members, who often start by making a speech in Westminster Hall before they make a speech in the main chamber. The Speaker allows that, so their maiden speech is in the chamber, but they can, as it were, get used to the idea of speaking in front of colleagues in Westminster Hall.

It's also, on a very domestic note, a good breeding ground for our clerks. Our more junior clerks are in charge there, sitting next to the chair, and both the chairman and the clerks benefit from that.

It has, to my mind, no downsides. There's no real evidence that it sucks people out of the chamber. The two buildings are very near one another. It is true that the chamber retains a type of seniority in that people will have a debate in Westminster Hall sometimes for an hour or 90 minutes, and then a couple of weeks later you hear in the chamber, “Well, we've had a debate in Westminster Hall, but it's time we had a debate in the chamber”, as if that were somehow slightly higher status.

In terms of the debates raised by backbenchers, it has no more or no fewer practical consequences, but there is that inherent pecking order. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As I say, it has massively increased opportunities for individual backbenchers or groups of backbenchers to have debates heard and answered in reasonable time.

(1105)

I'll add one more thing. We have an e-petition system that you may know about. If more than 100,000 people sign a petition online, it's not guaranteed, but they're given a very strong steer that it is likely to be debated. Those are debated on Monday evenings. It's the only thing we do on Mondays between 4:30 and 7:30 in Westminster Hall.

It is very popular with the public. It's not that they come along, but they watch online in astonishing numbers. It is, of course, a subject they themselves have chosen, an often slightly unexpected one—slightly off centre, if you like. We tell the petitioners that this is when the debate is going to be and that they might want to watch or listen to it, and they do.

In the last few years, I think eight of the 10 most-watched debates in Parliament here have been in fact on e-petitions at Westminster Hall. The most watched was not the debate as to whether we should extend our bombing campaign of northern Iraq into Syria, as you might expect, but a debate, which sounds facetious, on whether we should exclude President Trump from visiting the United Kingdom. He wasn't at that time a president, but that was a very heavily signed petition. Something like, from my memory, 300,000 people watched it, and not just from the U.K., but from literally almost every corner of the world, including southern Sudan, so don't imagine that Westminster Hall, because it doesn't have the main party debates on second readings or report stages of controversial bills, is not of interest to the public.

That's probably enough.

Did you hear all of that?

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Yes. Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

We're excited to have you with us on the last day of your 43 years in office. Hopefully if you come to Canada, you'll visit us. You could probably tell us a lot more. You're welcome to come to our committee.

Thanks, Stephanie, for filling in for me.

We're going to have some questions now to see what we can mine from your 43 years of experience.

Go ahead, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.):

Yes, and I have a very short period of time to do it, Mr. Natzler.

My name is Scott Simms. I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you so much for being here.

I have a couple of specific questions, but before I get into the specifics, I want to ask you about participation rates in the parallel chamber. I've read quite a bit about Australia and the experience in Westminster.

Would you say that since its inception, participation rates have been better than expected, lower than expected, or as expected?

(1110)

Sir David Natzler:

It's very nice to meet you.

I don't think anything in particular was expected, and that's not being evasive.

Mr. Scott Simms:

I understand.

Sir David Natzler:

Most of the debates are in a standard format. A member puts in for a half-hour debate, makes a 15-minute speech, and is then answered by a minister for 15 minutes. The minister is normally accompanied by a parliamentary private secretary—in other words, another member—an unpaid assistant, and/or a whip. However, the party representative from the opposition is not allowed to take part, and other members are not expected to take part. You only expect three members, and it would be unusual if there weren't, and there nearly always have been.

There were some misunderstandings early on with the government—they perhaps didn't take it with the full seriousness that they later realized they should—in that they were either supplying the wrong minister or mentioning that a whip could answer the debates. That was a very brief early misunderstanding, and they're now fully answered by sometimes senior ministers at Westminster Hall.

For the longer debates—and there are about three 90-minute debates and two 60-minute debates a week—other members can be expected to join in, and they do. In the application, the member is meant to show a belief that there are going to be people there, because it is a competitive process to get the slots. When that has happened, there have nearly always been more than enough people to have a decent number of speakers, if I can put it that way.

What we don't do is keep an exact count of who is there for any one debate. We have at times done that—about 10 years ago, I think—and it showed unexpectedly high participation. Members like going there. It's easy to drop in. It's easier, psychologically, to drop in to Westminster Hall than it is to the chamber. You're still meant to be there for the opening speech, but there's slightly less of the atmosphere of going to church, which we still have with the chamber.

I don't know if you have that in Newfoundland, but—

Mr. Scott Simms:

Yes, we do. It's my cabin in the woods.

committee hansard proc 37186 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 28, 2019

2019-02-26 RNNR 130

Standing Committee on Natural Resources

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being with us this afternoon.

We have two witnesses. By video conference we have Liza Mack, from the Aleut International Association. With us in the room we have Chief Bill Erasmus, from the Arctic Athabaskan Council.

Thank you both for joining us today.

Chief, I know you travelled a long way. We're very grateful for that.

Each of you will be given 10 minutes to make a presentation, and then we are going to open the table to questions for about an hour. We have time for two full rounds today, so everybody will get lots of opportunity.

I know from our discussions earlier that Mr. Cannings is quite excited about that.

Ms. Mack, I was speaking with Chief Erasmus before you came on the line, and he kindly offered to let you go first, so the floor is yours.

Dr. Liza Mack (Executive Director, Aleut International Association):

Wonderful. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everybody. Qam agalaa. My name is Dr. Liza Mack. Qagaasakung for inviting me to speak with you today.

First I want to thank you for my being able to address this body about this very important topic of engaging indigenous communities when it comes to large energy projects.

As I begin, I would like to introduce myself and tell you a little bit about my background and the organization that I represent.

I am the executive director of the Aleut International Association. Aleut International is one of the six permanent participants on the Arctic Council. We represent the Aleut people, who live both in Russia and in Alaska, at the Arctic Council and all of its working groups and expert groups, and with many of their projects.

I was born and raised in the Aleutians. We grew up subsisting and living off the land. Our people are Unangan, or Aleut in English. We often say that when the tide is out, the table is set. We harvest. We preserve. We eat many things out of the tide pools and off the reefs. There's an abundance of seafood that actually sustains our communities. We are a coastal people. We've done this for thousands of generations. Some of the things that we harvest and eat include salmon—all five species—crab, halibut, cod and octopus; marine mammals such seals, whales and sea lions; and terrestrial animals such as caribou. We also eat different migratory birds as well as birds that live in and around our communities.

I left my hometown of King Cove when I was 15 to go to boarding school. This was the start of my education outside of our community. My educational background is in anthropology, cultural anthropology. I have both my bachelor's and my master's degrees in anthropology. Also, I just finished my doctorate in indigenous studies at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Most of the research that I did was with Aleut leaders and fishermen from around the state of Alaska. For my master's research, I analyzed the State of Alaska Board of Fisheries testimonies, and I also interviewed testifiers to see whether or not they felt their testimonies contributed to the regulations that were passed. In Alaska, the management of our resources, and especially fisheries, is sometimes very contentious, and the system is often daunting for people who are unfamiliar with the process.

Part of the reason this is important to the conversation today is that these types of decision-making processes are things that people in local communities around the Arctic need to be involved in as we move forward with some of these projects and some of these regulatory issues.

In my dissertation research, I was working with communities and also with Aleut leaders, and I helped to develop, implement and analyze a survey that had to do with natural resource management laws in Alaska. A lot of these laws actually affect local people in very unique ways. There are a lot of different boundaries, a lot of different guidelines, that people need to be aware of and cognizant of. There are also our cultural practices, the things we've done within our communities for generations. Understanding how these two worlds work together is very important.

Throughout the process of all of my background and research, and all of the things that I've been doing not only in this capacity but also as a researcher and as somebody who is involved with cultural revitalization and language within my community, there have been several issues that I think we could benefit from by mentioning them here.

We're starting to talk about energy projects and how to engage with indigenous communities. As I said, even though I am from the community, and that's where I did my research, there were certainly things that came up that I really hadn't put a lot of thought into until I was in the midst of that.

(1535)

I think you have some of my talking points in front of you. Really, I tend to just talk and not write things down. I hope the little points here are things you guys can see.

A big one was early engagement. Speaking to a community when a project is still an idea is very important. There are different issues about whether or not the community is even interested in projects.

Before I went back to school to pursue my bachelor's, my master's and my doctoral degrees, I worked as the economic development coordinator for the tribal council in my community. Part of that work led me to surveying people to see what kinds of things we were interested in pursuing as a community.

Some of the obvious things that came up were tourism and various things of that nature, but many people in my community weren't actually interested in those. They didn't want a lot of people coming into the community. Just having those kinds of conversations at the onset of some projects is really important and can't be stressed enough.

Also, there's the question whether or not various projects are appropriate. There are people who have different belief systems, and so understanding what is important at the community level is something that I think should also be looked at.

Also, with early engagement we could look at whether some people might be able to help with instruction about whether a plan is actually a good one. Looking at things from maps and other ways in which information is presented when you're starting the planning isn't necessarily the same as accessing the knowledge that is held within a community. A thing isn't going to be accessible just because the project is on, for instance, a flatter part of the topography; you may not know that this is where there are bears or where there's a swamp. Those kinds of things are really important for planning some bigger projects and planning for projects within a community.

The next point concerns communication. To us it would mean speaking with the community members and also being available to answer questions in more than a “check the box” kind of way. It's not just one-way communication, but also communicating and being accessible to not only describe what you see is going to happen but being available for those conversations is concerned. People put a lot of stock in being heard.

This speaks to the next point I noted regarding cultural expectations and whether we're looking at community participation and the resources that are around these projects and the way those resources are going to be affected. I alluded to the way people look at some energy projects. An elder once had told me that he didn't believe that all of the wind farms were actually important. He thought they were disrupting not only the flow of the way the birds were migrating, but other sorts of things like that.

It's just a matter of taking a minute to understand the potential effects. As indigenous people, in our communities we look at things from a very holistic perspective. Everything we do affects all other parts of our communities and cultures. The cultural expectation of what is important to the community is, I think, really important to think about. So is understanding of the goals of the project. Are the goals of the project to increase capacity? Are they to generate income? Are they to reduce the way we are dependent on fossil fuels? Having those goals set out with the community is certainly very important.

When we talk about the goals of a project and how they're going to affect people at the community level and how important it is to engage indigenous communities, one really big thing that we have to think about is that there's a very limited capacity to engage in our communities both financially and in terms of time.

(1540)

Even in my own research, being a very small project, some of the things that came up were that there are very small populations. Within these small populations, there's an even smaller subset of people who are kind of champions in the communities and who are trusted to fulfill leadership roles. People trust them to speak for them at different levels.

It's making sure that is looked at and also supported. By supported, I mean that it's important to give people funding so that they have both the time and the capacity to provide very thoughtful and meaningful engagement with the project.

Finally, the last note I had was that the timelines with these sorts of projects are culturally sensitive. It's understanding, for instance, that our region in the summertime is very busy. That's usually when people go out and do research, and they start building projects and different things. That's also when people are fishing, when the salmon are running. That's when these other things are happening.

As kind of an anecdote, when I was doing my dissertation research in my communities, I had planned to do the surveying in the summer. However, people were just not home. I would call, and people would say they were out berry picking and didn't expect to be home until the next day, or whenever. Unless I was willing to go and pick berries with them.... I mean, it may seem like you're not working or you're not doing what you have set out to do, but those kinds of things are [Technical difficulty—Editor]

I guess I would just say that a lot of these small—

The Chair:

I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, if you could please, Ms. Mack.

Dr. Liza Mack:

Okay.

Thank you for letting me mention some of these things to you. These are some of the things that I thought about on the importance of engaging with indigenous communities.

I'd be happy to answer questions. Thanks.

(1545)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Chief Erasmus, the floor is yours.

Chief Bill Erasmus (International Chair, Arctic Athabaskan Council):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present to you and have this discussion with this important committee.

committee hansard rnnr 25148 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 26, 2019

2019-02-26 SMEM 20

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1320)

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On our agenda is the determination of non-votable items, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1). Today, we are dealing with Bill S-238.

Do any members want to comment? If not, does our analyst have anything to say?

Go ahead, Mr. de Burgh Graham.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

If there is no objection, I move that we now decide that Bill S-238 can be votable.

The Chair:

I need a mover for the following:

That the Subcommittee present a report listing the item which it has determined should not be designated non-votable and recommending that it be considered by the House.

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP):

I so move.

The Chair:

Thank you.

Sous-comité des affaires émanant des députés du Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre

(1320)

[Français]

La présidente (Mme Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)):

Bonjour et bienvenue à la 20e réunion du Sous-comité des affaires émanant des députés du Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre. Nous avons à l'ordre du jour la détermination des affaires non votables, conformément à l'article 91.1(1) du Règlement. Aujourd'hui, il est question du projet de loi S-238.

Est-ce que des députés veulent émettre des commentaires? Sinon, l'analyste veut-il intervenir?

Vous avez la parole, monsieur de Burgh Graham.

M. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

S'il n'y a pas d'objection, je propose que nous déterminions dès maintenant que le projet de loi S-238 peut faire l'objet d'un vote.

La présidente:

J'ai besoin d'un proposeur pour ce qui suit: Que le Sous-comité présente un rapport énumérant l'affaire qui, selon lui, ne devrait pas être désignée non votable et recommandant à la Chambre de l'examiner.

Mme Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NPD):

J'en fais la proposition.

La présidente:

Merci.

Hansard

Hansard

committee hansard smem 327 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 26, 2019

2019-02-21 TRAN 131

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

I am calling to order meeting number 131 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are receiving a briefing on the transportation of flammable liquids by rail.

The witnesses we have here from 11 until 12 this morning are from the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. We have with us the Chair, Kathleen Fox.

Welcome again, Ms. Fox. It's nice to see you.

Also with us are Faye Ackermans, Board Member.

We also have Kirby Jang, Director, Rail and Pipeline Investigations; and, Jean Laporte, Chief Operating Officer.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming back.

Ms. Fox.

Ms. Kathleen Fox (Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board):

Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to appear before you today so that we can answer your questions relating to the removal of the transportation of flammable liquids by rail from the most recent update to our watchlist.

First issued in 2010, the TSB's watchlist identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed to make Canada's transportation system even safer. Each of the seven issues on the current edition is supported by a combination of investigation reports, board safety concerns and board recommendations. [Translation]

Over the years, the watchlist has served as both a call to action and a blueprint for change—a regular reminder to industry, to regulators, and to the public that the problems we highlight are complex, requiring coordinated action from multiple stakeholders in order to reduce the safety risks involved.

And that is exactly what has happened. As Canada's transportation network has evolved, so too has the watchlist: every two years, we put issues on it, call for change, and, when enough action has been taken that the risks have been sufficiently reduced, the issues are removed.[English]

As for the transportation of flammable liquids by rail, it was first added to the watchlist in 2014 in the wake of the terrible tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and it was supported by a number of board recommendations. In 2016, we kept the issue on the watchlist. We were also explicit about the type of action we wanted to see—specifically, two things.

First, we called on railway companies to conduct thorough route planning and analysis and to perform risk assessments to ensure that risk control measures are effective. Second, we wanted more robust tank cars used when large quantities of flammable liquids are being transported by rail, in order to reduce the likelihood or consequences of a dangerous goods release following derailments.

Since then, Transport Canada and the industry have taken a number of positive steps. Notably, railway companies are conducting more route planning and risk assessments and have increased targeted track inspections when transporting large quantities of flammable liquids.

New standards were established for the construction of rail tank cars, and the replacement of the DOT-111 legacy cars—as in what occurred in Lac-Mégantic—was initiated. Then, in August 2018, the Minister of Transport ordered an accelerated timeline for removing the least crash-resistant rail tank cars. Specifically, as of November 2018, in addition to the earlier removal of the legacy DOT-111 cars, unjacketed CPC-1232s would no longer be used to carry crude oil and, as of January 1 of this year, they would not be transporting condensate either.

Given that kind of action, we removed the issue from the watchlist. However, that does not mean that all the risks have been eliminated or that the TSB has stopped watching.

On the contrary, we are still closely monitoring the transportation of flammable liquids by rail through our review of occurrence statistics, via our ongoing investigations and via the annual reassessment of our outstanding recommendations. To assist the committee, we are pleased to table today an extract from our most recent rail occurrence statistics showing accidents and incidents involving dangerous goods, including crude oil, from 2013 to 2018.

We are now prepared to answer your questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. We'll go on to our questioners.

Ms. Block.

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC):

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In light of the fact that this motion was brought forward by Mr. Aubin, I am going to trade spots and allow him to have the first line of questioning.

The Chair:

I think we have the best committee ever, right? Everybody gets along so well. Look at that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ron Liepert (Calgary Signal Hill, CPC):

We aren't finished yet. Just wait.

The Chair:

Go ahead, Mr. Aubin. [Translation]

Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP):

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Block.

I thank all the members of this committee for agreeing to hold this study.

We are looking into this issue because I feel that Canadians, who—like myself—are not experts on railway safety and are seeing the exponential growth of rail transportation, are generally worried about the increase in the number of incidents and need to be reassured, if that is possible.

Ms. Fox, you have already said that, if the risks increased, nothing was preventing the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, or TSB, from putting the issue back on the watchlist. What criteria would you use to make that decision? Instead of always reacting after an accident, would it to not be possible to proactively implement measures that help avoid those accidents?

Ms. Kathleen Fox:

When we put an issue on the watchlist, it is because we have determined that a risk has not been sufficiently reduced. We ask the government, the regulatory organization or the industrial sector in question to take steps that would help further reduce those risks. We consider the statistics we have on incidents and accidents, as well as the recommendations that have not yet been implemented.

In the case of transportation of flammable liquids, we have noted that the actions we requested were taken, and that is why we removed that issue from the watchlist. However, if we note that risk management is declining and that the number of accidents is increasing significantly, we will consider the possibility of putting that issue back on the list.

(1105)

Mr. Robert Aubin:

You are talking about mitigation measures, which I understand. May I conclude from this that, if an issue is on the watchlist, it is because it poses an immediate danger requiring swift action, but if that issue is removed from the list, it is because the risk is considered to be controlled?

Ms. Kathleen Fox:

The determining factor here is not that the risk is immediate, but rather that it is ongoing and persistent. The issues we have kept on the watchlist are there because the actions we think would better mitigate the risk have not yet been taken.

Concerning the transportation of flammable liquids, we realize that the risk involved in the transportation of dangerous goods by any mode of transportation is ongoing. In this case, the actions we wanted to see in terms of analysis, risk management and use of more crash-resistant tank cars have been taken. So we have removed that issue from the list.

However, we continue to monitor the statistics and conduct our investigations when necessary. No action has yet been taken in response to three of the five recommendations we issued in relation to the Lac-Mégantic incident, or in response to two other recommendations we proposed after other derailments in 2015. So it is clear that we have not stopped monitoring that safety issue.

Mr. Robert Aubin:

committee hansard tran 25462 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 21, 2019

2019-02-21 PACP 128

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

(0850)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)):

Good morning, everyone.

This is meeting number 128 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for Thursday, February 21, 2019.

We are once again here in consideration of “Report 1—Connectivity in Rural and Remote Areas” of the 2018 fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

We're honoured to have with us this morning, from the Office of the Auditor General, Mr. Jerome Berthelette, the Assistant Auditor General, and Philippe Le Goff, Principal.

From the Department of Industry we have the Deputy Minister, Mr. John Knubley. We also have Lisa Setlakwe, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector. We also have Michelle Gravelle, Director General, Audit and Evaluation Branch.

From the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission we have Mr. Ian Scott, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Christopher Seidl, Executive Director of Telecommunications; and Mr. Ian Baggley, Director General, Telecommunications.

For those who may be interested, we are televised today. We had these folks with us before, but we were interrupted by votes in the House. Typically, all they did at that time was their opening statements. We didn't get into very much questioning.

They have complied with our request and are willing to again give us an opening statement. We thank them for that.

We will now turn our time over to Mr. Berthelette.

Mr. Jerome Berthelette (Assistant Auditor General, Performance Audit, Office of the Auditor General):

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to discuss our fall 2018 report on connectivity in rural and remote areas. Joining me at the table is Philippe Le Goff, the principal responsible for the audit.

This audit focused on whether Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, according to their respective roles and responsibilities, monitored the state of connectivity and developed and implemented a plan to meet the connectivity needs of Canadians in remote and rural areas.[Translation]

Over the past 12 years, detailed examinations of the state of broadband access in Canada have included recommendations that the federal government lead the creation of a national broadband strategy. However, at the time we finished our audit, the government had still not agreed to take that step.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada indicated that it was reluctant to establish a strategy with an objective that could not be reached with the available funding. The department had continued to follow an approach that expanded broadband coverage to underserved parts of the country according to when funds were available.

This approach left people in rural and remote parts of the country with less access to important online services, such as education, banking, and health care, and without information about when they could expect to have better access.

On October 26, 2018, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development announced that the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers for innovation and economic development agreed to make broadband a priority and to develop a long-term strategy to improve access to high-speed Internet services for all Canadians.

Ministers committed to a goal of establishing universal access to Internet speeds of 50 megabits per second download and 10 megabits per second upload.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the current state of connectivity in Canada, we found that the department relied on complete and accurate data to inform policy-making aimed at addressing the connectivity gap in rural and remote areas.[English]

In 2016, the government launched its connect to innovate funding program to bring high-speed Internet to 300 rural and remote communities in Canada. We examined whether the department designed and managed this program to maximize the value for taxpayers. We found that the department did not implement the program in a way that ensured the maximum broadband expansion for the public money spent. The program did not include a way to mitigate the risk that government funds might displace private sector funds.

We also found that the department did not provide key information to potential applicants for funding under the program. As a result, some applicants had to invest more effort in preparing their proposals, and all applicants lacked full knowledge of the basis for selecting funding proposals. For example, there were a number of considerations for selecting projects, but the application guide did not specify the relative weight of each criterion used in the project selection process. Also, projects were less likely to be funded if they did not align with provincial and territorial priorities. However, these priorities were not made public. In our view, the department should have made the weights and priorities public.

Many Canadians in rural and remote areas had to rely on fixed wireless broadband solutions. We found that small Internet service providers did not have sufficient access to high-quality spectrum to support broadband deployment in rural and remote areas. For example, the department auctioned spectrum licences for geographic areas that were too large for smaller service providers to bid on. The secondary market for unused spectrum did not function well, partly because licensees had little business incentive to make unused spectrum available for subordinate licensing. In addition, the information on unused spectrum was not readily available to interested Internet providers.[Translation]

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have agreed with our six recommendations, and we understand that the department has prepared a detailed action plan.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks.

We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you. [English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Berthelette.

We'll now turn to our deputy minister, Mr. Knubley, for his comments.

Mr. John Knubley (Deputy Minister, Department of Industry):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Overall, the Government of Canada sees connectivity and broadband as a critical enabler. It really is the way for all Canadians to participate in economic growth, innovation and social inclusion.

Overall, we also agree with the recommendations of the Auditor General. I thought I should, at the outset, acknowledge the contribution of the former Auditor General Ferguson. We had several heated conversations—good conversations—about this topic.

(0855)

The Chair:

Thank you. [Translation]

Mr. John Knubley:

I want to start by thanking the Auditor General and his office for their report. This is an extremely important set of issues. We accept the recommendations and are moving forward to improve rural and remote connectivity.[English]

I have just a few words, then, on the three specific areas of comment in the Auditor General's chapter: first, on strategy; second, on programs; and third, on spectrum.

On strategy, we agree on the need for a connectivity strategy, particularly in light of the CRTC decision in December 2016 declaring broadband a basic service and setting that 50/10 target. I personally believe that this declaration has created a significant inflection point for the delivery of broadband, which has required us to move from an evolutionary, step-by-step approach, addressing gaps, to a more collaborative, integrative approach to broadband.

As a basic service, the department's broadband programs predate this announcement from CRTC. As I said, they were designed to be step by step and to focus on specific gaps in services, coverages and speed. We focused on closing the gaps in speed between urban and rural areas in a way that carefully balances the public interest and private investment. We do want to avoid crowding out private investment in whatever we do.

I would also want to stress to members and to the chair that connectivity is very much a moving target. Technology is constantly changing and improving, and in this context, strategy is important, particularly as we set specific goals. However, it's constantly evolving. Only a few years ago our target was five and one, as opposed to 50 and 10.

As indicated earlier, work was already under way on a strategy this past spring. We established a federal-provincial-territorial connectivity committee. Federal-provincial groups have existed before, but we formalized it.

In June, the department launched a national digital and data strategy consultation, in which connectivity was the foundational component.

On September 25, Minister Bains released the economic strategy tables report, which focused on six sectors. This included the importance of broadband and digital infrastructure for economic growth, innovation and social inclusion.

Finally, on October 26 of last year, the federal-provincial-territorial ministers met. They agreed as a group to make broadband a priority, and to work together to that end. They agreed to a set of connectivity principles and to develop a long-term strategy to improve access for Canadians to high-speed Internet and mobile services. In other words, they accepted the 50/10 goal and the objective of serving Canadians with broadband as a basic service.

They did announce three specific principles: access to ensure reliable, high-quality service; collaboration to leverage all partners, and end fragmentation; and effective instruments, especially targeting market failures, so that government supports this where it is most needed in a real world context and does not crowd out private investment.

I would like to end my comments on the strategy by reminding members that the department has been very active in the digital and connectivity space for many years. It goes back to Minister Manley. There was a national broadband task force in 2001, led by David Johnston. If you look at their principles—I suspect I'll point them out to you later—you will see that they are remarkably similar to ones that are at the heart of our new strategy. The department has been committed for many years to providing programming around education related to digital and broadband activity. I can talk to you about some of those programs.

committee hansard pacp 33322 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on February 21, 2019