Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, welcome to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security meeting number 42.

Today we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44. You'll notice the chair had committee business right at the start, but in order to make it easier to move people in and out and off, we will have just a very brief amount of committee business in order to set a date. If the committee is comfortable, I will move the committee business to five or ten minutes at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Easter.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I think it's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm okay with what you're suggesting, but I do want to express a concern if I could put it that way. Given the haste with which we do these bills, neither the critic for the NDP nor I was able to be here for witnesses we had called for at the meeting the other day since Bill C-42 was being debated in the House at the same time.

I read the minutes as soon as they were available to me. Based on some of the evidence, especially that from Professor Craig Forcese, there are other amendments that I think could be made to this bill. We haven't heard from the Privacy Commissioner either. Whatever the reason the government has for wanting to push these bills through, we run the risk of not doing an adequate job of our work as parliamentarians because of that haste in doing it, and I just want to issue a complaint. I think that's absolutely wrong. I don't feel we're doing our job correctly. We haven't had time to review all the evidence and make appropriate amendments. We do have amendments, but other information comes up out of those minutes of the meetings I was unable to attend. Why the government wants to move with such haste, I don't know. Haste makes waste. The better thing to do is a good job.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Garrison, do you have a point of order as well?

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

It's on the same point.

I think we have registered our concern that it has become the habit of the government to severely limit the amount of time we spend especially on witnesses, but also on clause-by-clause consideration. While the minister has said many times that this is a short bill, he has also said it's an important bill. I share the idea that it's an important bill, and therefore I'm concerned that we take our time to do this. Having only one day for witnesses and then having the deadlines that come up because of clause-by-clause means that we have had very little time to prepare amendments and we have a large number of amendments to go through. I believe we were not able to adequately consider some of the submissions and some of the testimony before we were forced to move on. So I echo the concern about the pacing on these bills.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Okay. That is duly registered.

Are there any further comments?

I see none.

Before we go to clause-by-clause, I will just update the committee with a little bit of information regarding the incident at the end of last meeting. The chair has had discussions with the Sergeant-at-Arms. The clerk is also having discussions, and there is an ongoing investigation with the superintendent of our emergency planning. The chair will report back to this committee with further information. Of course we will do so in camera at that time for security reasons. I just bring that to your attention so that you feel comfortable that the matter is being looked into at this point.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will now go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44.

Pursuant to standing order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, the short title, is naturally postponed until after the clauses are all moved. Should there be any variation in the title, consideration of that will be postponed. So at this point we will go directly to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Mr. Easter has an amendment I do believe.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Yes, Mr. Chair. It is as follows:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:

“human source” means an individual who resides or who is present in Canada and who, after”

The purpose of the amendment is to clearly define that a human source who provides information to CSIS under the conditions prescribed in the bill should be accessible by some means in the course of any prosecution. That individual would then be accorded protection from disclosure. I think it is fair to say this issue is not clarified in the legislation on how the courts would have access to an individual who is afforded protection from disclosure by CSIS when a charge is laid against someone in Canada. If a charge is laid against someone in Canada, how does that person get his just due in court if he can't access an individual because he or she is not in Canada?

That's the dilemma. You do need the right of fairness under the law and the right to question the individual who provided the information against you should you be charged.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison or Ms. James can comment.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

I disagree with Mr. Easter on this one. Really, I do disagree.

You're specifically excluding anyone who is currently outside of Canada, and that's not the purpose of the clarification in this act. We believe—or I believe—firmly that when a promise is made to a human source, it shouldn't be restricted to those who are currently residing in Canada. You've indicated that there may be an issue with bringing that person to court or whatever else, but that's a decision the court would make.

For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment you have put forward.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Garrison.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, the New Democrats have a concern about the extension of the blanket protection for our human sources, and from the testimony that was given before the committee and from some of the submissions we've had, there is no evidence that the case-by-case basis is not working. I think Mr. Easter is trying to correct a part of that in this amendment. We'll be presenting an amendment with similar impact later on, but we would be in support of this amendment.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Ms. Ablonczy.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I hate to disagree with you, Wayne, but security risks are not tidy little creatures who keep themselves within the confines of our great country. People are very mobile these days, and as we just saw in the news this morning with the discovery of an intention to blow up five European airliners, this is a very mobile threat. For us to say that if information on intentions to blow up a Canadian airliner comes in from a source who's in Paris or Bonn then we're not going to protect those people, how does that make sense, Wayne? To me, it makes no sense at all. I don't know why you would suggest it.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Easter, in response, go ahead.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I understand what Diane is saying, Mr. Chair, and I understand it from a national security point of view, but on the other side of the coin, if an individual is informing on someone else, that person needs to be able to question that individual in court, and that is the dilemma. They need to be able to defend themselves. That is why the amendment is there. But I do understand where you are coming from as well.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much for the comment.

(Amendment negatived)

I just make note as well, colleagues, that I do believe everybody has hard copies of the amendments. I just want to make sure that everybody does. I also want to thank our staff for putting them all into the modified sequence. You will also note there were no additions or subtractions to amendments, simply the modified sequence. I just bring that to your attention. If anybody doesn't have a copy of those, the chair would certainly be pleased to deal with it.

Also there has been a correction to the date at the bottom.

We will now go to amendment PV-1.

Mr. Hyer, I would just caution you at this point that as an independent, you have the right to speak to this, but of course your time is limited to, let's just say, a minute plus. The chair will be flexible, but I think you understand where we are coming from.

3:40 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to do it in a minute minus.

Mr. Chair, the way this bill defines “human source” could have some negative effects on the ability of law enforcement or the courts to investigate and prosecute terrorists.

Obviously, CSIS needs to be able to promise some sources confidentiality, but the courts have found several times that this promise can be implicit. If we are not explicit here, this could handcuff our ability to actually convict terrorists.

You may recall that in committee Professor Kent Roach spoke to and testified that “language should at least be limited so that it is only an explicit promise made by CSIS of anonymity that would trigger this broad privilege”.

The wish here is that we clarify this potential ambiguity by adding the words “explicit written promise”.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer.

Is there further debate or comment on the motion?

Ms. James.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

I was just going to disagree with that amendment. For one thing, just to be more specific, the fact that this says “written promise”, something does not have to be written to already be explicit and be known. Obviously everything that is done between CSIS and an informant is taking best interests into account.

I disagree with this completely. I can't imagine anyone thinking that a CSIS agent would have to get out a computer and type up some sort of a contract or agreement and then have someone sign it before CSIS would promise them confidentiality. I think that's out of line.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ablonczy.

December 1st, 2014 / 3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I remember talking to a highly respected political figure a few years ago, and he said something very interesting to me. He said, “Diane, anything you put in writing becomes a public document.”

I think that's the concern, Bruce. If you have something written on a piece of paper that is floating around, the chances of it becoming public are very high. We've seen with WikiLeaks and other things that even so-called confidential documents suddenly become spread all over the Internet. If I were an informant—not that I know anything, but there might be some who do—knowing that this document was on computers and in the cyberworld would make me extremely nervous. I would be much less likely to come forward with information in that case.

As a lawyer, I would point out another thing. We all love lawyers, but you get into the question of how explicit does it need to be. Is it explicit enough? What kind of language is actually explicit?

Lawyers would have a field day. It's like the disclaimer at the end of e-mails. It started out saying “this is for the addressee only”, but now it's like a whole page of a disclaimer because more and more stuff has been added. I think we're wading into waters that would just cause more problems than this would solve.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

We'll hear from Mr. Garrison and then we'll go back to Mr. Hyer.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Chair, I look forward to the debate on amendment NDP-3 since Ms. James and Ms. Ablonczy have expressed concerns about the written commitments. Our amendment proposes something very similar, but instead of a “written” promise, it refers to an “express” commitment.

I look forward to the debate on that amendment.

We will be supporting this amendment even though we thought it would be better placed in another section of the bill and we did not include the “written” part in our similar amendment.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Hyer, go ahead briefly.

3:45 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

I'm not a lawyer, but I was a judge for a decade and it's not exactly in explicitly written stated form, but it's well known that verbal agreements are worth the paper they're printed on, Mr. Chair. We hope that everyone will choose to make this more clear.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Is there any further comment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have amendment NDP-1.