“I think all Canadians should be concerned by these types of threats posed to our democracy by these online bullies and thugs who are in fact intimidating the democratic process,” Mr. Toews (Provencher, Man.) told the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 27. The committee is investigating House Speaker Andrew Scheer’s (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) finding of a prima facie breach of privilege against Mr. Toews ability to do his job because of threats made by Anonymous.
Mr. Toews said the recent cyber attacks that caused delays in online voting during the NDP’s recent leadership convention on March 23 and 24 are a prime example of why these sorts of attacks should be a concern to people “of all political backgrounds.”
Mr. Toews said Parliament owes it to the next generation of politicians to look into what can be done to protect Parliamentarians.
Mr. Toews introduced Bill C-30 on Feb. 14 and quickly came under criticism for his comments that those who were against the bill were in support of “child pornographers.”
There was a public outcry on the breach of Canadians’ privacy rights, including from the Ontario privacy commissioner, and people who thought the government and police and national security agencies would now be able to spy on Canadians’ online activities.
This also led to a Twitter account,
@vikileaks30, which tweeted details from Mr. Toews’ divorce. Liberal staffer Adam Carroll was subsequently found to be responsible for the account, which Conservatives called “sleazy.”
The 110-page bill is intended to give police and national security agencies the powers they need to combat online, organized crime.
The international group Anonymous, which has hacked the U.S. Justice Department and FBI websites and has been involved in protests from the Arab Spring to internet censorship, later targeted Mr. Toews on Feb. 17 by posting a Youtube video, which, through a computer-generated voice, demanded that Mr. Toews scrap Bill C-30 and resign as minister. If he didn’t comply, the video threatened, information about Mr. Toews’ personal life would be exposed.
Mr. Toews raised a point of privilege on the matter, which Mr. Scheer ruled was a breach of privilege. Mr. Toews also referred “threatening communications” to the RCMP to investigate “serious threats” against him as a result of backlash from Bill C-30.
The Procedure and House Affairs Committee is continuing its study into the Anonymous video.
MPs on the committee asked Mr. Toews what sort of remedies he’s hoping for and what direction he thinks the investigation should take. Some committee members also questioned Mr. Toews about the extent of threats against him and what other action he was taking.
Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.) asked him if he had received any other credible threats and Mr. Toews deferred questions to the RCMP’s criminal investigation team. Mr. Toews said, however, “I can indicate that they are broader than the issue of the threats on YouTube.”
Mr. Toews told committee members it wasn’t up to him to propose remedies, but suggested they continue speaking with witnesses, such as security enforcement agencies, to get their advice.
“I hope that there are those who have thought about these situations and have the expertise who can perhaps give you some better solution than simply that’s the way of the world and that’s what you bear when you become a Member of Parliament,” he said.
Mr. Lukiwski said one witness he’d like to hear from is the U.S. enforcement agency that succeeded in arresting a number of alleged Anonymous members to learn how they went about it.
On March 15, committee members heard from House Clerk Audrey O’Brien, Sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers and Chief Information Officer Louis Bard, updating them on the state of the House’s internet security systems, which they said are already regularly upgraded.
Mr. Lukiwski said he got the impression that opposition committee members, particularly the NDP, were “downplaying the seriousness” of the committee’s study.
NDP Whip Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, Ont.) said that’s not the case. “It’s not that anybody was making light of the fact that there was a breach of privilege … but for the committee to spend its time trying to track down Anonymous, to me, does not seem to be a wise use of resources, and in fact, we asked the Minister whether there was not a criminal investigation on the go. He said there was. So obviously, there are others already engaged in trying to find those answers, and we would be relying on the same expertise,” said Ms. Charlton, adding that there have been past examples where a breach of privilege was found without a culprit being identified.
Mr. Toews told the committee he thinks an effort should at least be made to identify the people who posted the threatening YouTube video.
Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.), who sits on the committee, said the committee has a duty to investigate, but said threats made via a YouTube video are unavoidable.
“We’ve got to certainly vigorously condemn it and we’ve got to put the police on it when it’s something that is clearly threatening, but its not clear to me how our committee can do much, much more than that,” said Mr. Garneau. “We will be listening to other people but I’m not sure it’s going to lead to anything, perhaps other than us making sure that all MPs are well educated on the fact that these kinds of things can happen.”
Conservative MP Joe Preston (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Ont.), chair of the House Affairs Committee, said with matters of privilege there should always be an effort to identify a culprit, but noted such a thing wasn’t necessary for the committee to find a breach. As for updating Parliament’s internet security systems, Mr. Preston said the YouTube video itself was simply a verbal threat but he noted that the group claiming responsibility has a “history” of hacking and said the committee would be looking into Parliament’s security systems beyond what was discussed with Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Bard.
Queen’s University professor Ned Franks testified after Mr. Toews, and told the committee he thinks it’s important for them to keep a “spectrum” of harm in mind when looking at the YouTube video threats, and said the entire context that led to the video being posted is an important consideration.
However, with an RCMP investigation into the Anonymous video already ongoing, Prof. Franks warned the committee about getting into a “double jeopardy” situation: “I’d rather the committee didn’t act as a court of law.”
Prof. Franks also said that the opposition parties’ duty is to oppose, and questioned whether Mr. Toews’ comments about opposition to Bill C-30 is also a question of privilege.
“I’ve often wondered, looking at this, if a member had raised a question of privilege at the Minister’s words—that those who are not with us on this are with the child pornographers—if that would not have been construed as a question of privilege as well. Because I find it certainly offensive to Members who have legitimate disagreement with the act,” he said.
This is one of two on-going House investigations involving actions against Minister Toews. The @vikileaks30 account, which aired personal details about Mr. Toews in response to his introduction of Bill C-30 and his above comments, is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, with @Vikileaks30 author and former Liberal Research Bureau staffer Adam Carroll’s testimony next up on their docket.
Interestingly, at the March 27 meeting Mr. Toews said: “I take no issue with the criticism of a minister, whether they choose to criticize my professional, my political position or indeed my personal life. That is fair game. I know that’s a difficulty, I think, even for Members to accept that your personal life is fair game. That’s the world we live in and I’m not going to try in any way to suggest that somehow aspects of my life are off limits. My life is literally an open book.”
Bill C-30 has yet to be debated in the House. According to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan’s (York-Simcoe, Ont.) director of communications, Fraser Malcolm, debate hasn’t yet been scheduled because the government has been focused on the budget. Mr. Malcolm confirmed that the government still plans to send the bill to committee before second reading, an announcement that was first made shortly after the bill was introduced on Feb. 14.
“I believe that the next meeting that we [the committee will] have on this study will involve representation from the RCMP police,” said Mr. Lukiwski.
The Procedure and House Affairs Committee next meets on April 3. Mr. Preston said there would be “at least a couple more” meetings on the Anonymous video.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment