The University of Alberta Faculty of Law was honoured to have Mr. David Loukidelis QC deliver a lecture as part of the Merv Leitch QC Memorial Lecture series. This lecture series has been held annually since 1991, between the University of Alberta and University of Calgary, in memory of Mr. C. Mervin Leitch BA LLB QC. As Dean Paul Paton stated, this lecture series contributes to important public debates and celebrates the legacy of Mr. Leitch. Members of the Leitch family were in attendance at the lecture, and we are grateful for the ongoing support they provide to our students through the Merv Leitch scholarships.
In the words of Dean Paton, it was "both an honour and a privilege" to have Mr. Loukidelis guide an important discussion on privacy in the age of national security. Mr. Loukidelis provided an overview of changes over the last ten years in the technological sphere as it relates to privacy. Mr. Loukidelis explained that "national security and public safety are vitally important, especially in a world with dangers, but we must only increase state power where shown to be necessary, and must", we must also "create robust and well-thought-out oversight mechanisms" to avoid the risk of creating a "culture of surveillance and control". Moreover, he explained that as our lives become increasingly reliant on technology, we transmit more information about ourselves. With this comes inherent dangers, including social sorting and using our personal information for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of collection.
Mr. Loukidelis further discussed privacy as a concept that is vital in democratic countries such as Canada, as well as the role of privacy in protecting individual autonomy and our rights and freedoms. As surveillance of individuals becomes increasingly electronically based, privacy risks "become more acute". Mr. Loukidelis acknowledged that despite these risks, electronic surveillance is not "inherently wrong" and can serve legitimate purposes. However, he cautions that Bill C-51 is "deeply problematic". Mr. Loukidelis emphasized that concerns with the Act do not stem from questioning the "good faith or integrity of the police force and national security agencies", but rather that we require more than trust in the system to protect our privacy rights.
Mr. Loukidelis explained that when we are "making national security or law enforcement claims to justify the introduction of laws with extraordinary measures", there must be evidence that the measures chosen are proportionate and effective. Mr. Loukidelis emphasized that a robust conversation is needed in order to ensure our "societal responses… remain proportionate to the risk". In the words of Mr. Loukidelis, we have to ensure that the powers that "we give to the state to keep each other safe don't remove [or] impair the very rights and liberties… that [terrorists] want to take away from us - surely, we cannot give them the satisfaction".