Bill C-22 (Historical)

An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

This enactment establishes the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and sets out its composition and mandate. In addition, it establishes the Committee’s Secretariat, the role of which is to assist the Committee in fulfilling its mandate. It also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope Canada will be safer after Bill C-22 is passed. How can the bill guarantee accountability and public trust when the chair of the committee is being parachuted into the position by the Prime Minister?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Good morning, Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of BillC-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. With this bill, our government would fulfill a key commitment it made to Canadians to ensure that our national security framework is working effectively to keep Canadians safe, and to ensure that our rights and freedoms are safeguarded.

Far too often, I have heard in the House that the great imperatives of every government to keep its citizens safe and to safeguard their rights and freedoms is being spoken of as if we are required to make a choice, a compromise, or a calculation. The very nature of the public discourse suggests that it may be necessary to sacrifice one in order to achieve the other. I respectfully disagree. I believe it is the responsibility of every government, and by that I mean every member of the House, to ensure that we achieve both safety and freedom in equal measure.

I have had the opportunity over the course of my life to be involved in operational matters of national security. From these operational matters, I want to share some of my experience. There is always a tension between those who are responsible for gathering national security intelligence, those responsible for gathering evidence for prosecutions, and those who are responsible for ensuring that nothing bad happens in any of our communities. That tension is often resolved through certain guiding principles.

The principles that guide the work of those dedicated men and women who are responsible for keeping our communities safe while adhering to the rule of law are precisely these things, including the highest in this country, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is their responsibility not only to obey those laws but to uphold them, to uphold them to be respected and honoured throughout the country.

We are also guided by the important principles of public interest. It is important that those who are responsible for keeping us safe do the right thing. That means, of course, not merely obeying the law, because this can lead to situations that in my old business we used to call “lawful but awful”, but respecting the public interest, ensuring that we are doing the right things and in a way that will engender the respect and trust of the public.

That brings me to the most important principle that always has to guide the work of those responsible for and tasked with keeping our communities safe, and that is maintaining the public trust. Maintaining the public trust is based upon a number of things. Certainly the rule of law and acting in the public interest are important, but it also requires transparency and accountability. This is particularly difficult in circumstances where the work is done in secret, where we are engaged in activities that are clandestine, covert, or are classified and secret, when it is not in the public interest to disclose to the public what we know or the means by which we came to know it. It is not in the public interest for that information to become known to those who would do harm in our communities.

How can the public be assured that those tasked with safeguarding their security and their rights obeyed the rule of law and acted in the public interest? It comes down to who guards the guards. I believe that Bill C-22 would allow for a more fulsome answer to this critical question in Canadian governance.

I have been the beneficiary of both good governance and bad governance, and I can say from my experience that doing the job right requires good governance. Indeed, the effective operation of a national security framework requires that we have in place governance and oversight mechanisms that work for us.

We already have a fairly robust system of oversight for national security. We have ministerial oversight, and many of our laws require the explicit consent of the relevant minister for those enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies to proceed and for those involved to do their job. Much of their work requires judicial oversight to ensure that certain legal thresholds are met. The organizations and the individuals who are responsible for this work are guided by internal policy. In addition to that, we have other important review bodies. CSIS, for example, is governed and overseen by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to certain classified information to review the work of CSIS. The work of our RCMP officers and other police services is subject to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and other oversight bodies to ensure that they are obeying the rule of law and acting in the public interest. CSE is overseen by the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.

In addition to that work, Parliament has a number of parliamentary committees. Here it is important to acknowledge that the committee being proposed in Bill C-22 would not be a committee of Parliament. It would not be a committee of either house of Parliament. Instead, it would be an additional review mechanism to assure Canadians that we are effective in our oversight and control of the extraordinary powers that are given.

I can tell the House from my experience that those who are tasked with this responsibility welcome oversight. They welcome that accountability. It is important to them that oversight and governance exist, because without public trust in the important work they will be doing, they cannot succeed in their dual mission of both maintaining safety and upholding the rights of our citizens. This measure is an important one to fulfill our commitment to provide effective governance and oversight of national security matters and to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens.

The committee, from its proposed composition in the bill, would be an effective mechanism to ensure that matters are dealt with across various government agencies. In my experience, keeping our country safe and upholding our laws and freedoms is the responsibility not of a single agency of government, but of all agencies of government.

In far too many cases we have seen that oversight by one body is insufficient to review all of the activities of those other bodies engaged in this important activity, and that as a result there have been a number of gaps in information sharing, and our effectiveness has been compromised. Through the introduction of this new review committee, our government will be able to assure Canadians that those gaps are closed and that all committees are operating in a collaborative and more effective way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question was specifically about whether the member opposite felt that there would be more accountability because of the fact that there would be minority Liberal representation on the committee. I did not really get an answer to that, so I can only assume that she agrees that there would be more accountability.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act. This bill is of incredible importance and is part of this government's larger plan to rectify the Harper Conservatives' flawed attempt at anti-terrorism legislation, which infringes upon our most basic rights in a bad attempt to make Canadians safer. I am happy to see this piece of legislation, which was promised in the last election and which I believe an overwhelming number of Canadians support, before the House.

I am proud to represent the riding of Kingston and the Islands and have always enjoyed engaging with constituents on matters of importance to them. A common concern raised in my riding was with regard to flawed Bill C-51. My constituents were concerned about their rights and freedoms and how they would be affected by it.

Although it is true that the government must be equipped to adequately meet the security challenges of the day, it must never lose sight of its responsibility to be accountable to Canadians.

This bill begins to deal with many of the concerns raised by Canadians with respect to Bill C-51. The government has listened and is delivering on this important promise. I believe that this legislation ensures faithful compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is in line with what Canadians elected this government to do.

In my opinion, Bill C-22 is required to establish accountability and to ensure that Canadians' rights and freedoms are respected. Reforming the flawed provisions enacted by the Harper government is crucial in protecting Canadians' rights and freedom of expression, which is of the utmost importance in a healthy democracy. Bill C-51 set the course to erode this most fundamental right, a right that should never be taken lightly and should always be guarded with the utmost respect.

Canadians pride themselves on living in a democratic country, and they deserve their government respecting their rights and freedoms, period. The legislation before us sets the stage for ensuring that those rights and freedoms are respected while at the same time Canadians are protected from the changing reality of the serious threats posed throughout the world.

I am proud to stand with a government that does not use the politics of fear. I am proud to support a government whose policies are based on evidence and fact. It would be much easier to scare Canadians into believing that certain measures were paramount for their safety, as the previous government did, even if the measures meant infringing upon their most basic rights and freedoms. This government will not do that. It will not use fear to advance its political agenda, as we have seen in the past.

What we see before us today is the proper way to establish safety and security while respecting the rights of Canadians. These changes are long overdue, and I am glad to see this government fulfilling a promise to Canadians: to protect Canada's national security and rights and freedoms while at the same time protecting us from the realities of a changing world.

I listened carefully to the debate in the House throughout this week and heard concerns about the openness and accountability of the committee proposed in this legislation. Let me assure everyone that I, too, expect the government to be accountable, and that is why I see this legislation as a necessity. This legislation strikes the right balance. It would protect Canada's national security while allowing for accountable oversight for Canadians. This legislation has the proper checks and balances in place to address the concerns raised in the House during the debate this week.

The national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians would have representation from both the upper house and the lower house and would be charged with having non-partisan responsibility for reporting on security matters in the interest of all Canadians. Members of this committee would be granted unprecedented access to classified material to adequately carry out their mandate.

With the current challenges Canada faces, this would be a crucial step in ensuring that Canada is prepared for what the future brings. By creating the national security committee of parliamentarians, the government would be ensuring that there was appropriate oversight and accountability moving forward. Specifically, this committee would have the ability to review the full range of national security activities, including all departments and agencies across the Government of Canada, and would be able to gain a full picture of what is being done by those government agencies in national security and intelligence matters.

Committees have been referred to as the backbone of Parliament. This committee would work to ensure that our national security was effective in keeping Canadians safe and that Canadians' rights were safeguarded. In fact, Canada is currently the only Five Eyes ally without parliamentary review. The U.S., U.K., Australia, and New Zealand all have committees similar to the one proposed in this bill. Many of our allies formed these committees in the late 1980s and 1990s. That means that Canada is already lagging behind our allies. We are long overdue for setting up this oversight, which is in the best interest of Canadians.

Actually, I am proud to see the broad scope of this committee and believe that it has the potential be a stronger body than those seen in other countries. This is significant for Canada, as it has the potential to be most effective committee within the Five Eyes group.

Something else caught my attention. On Tuesday, my colleague from Louis-Hébert pointed out that four former prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, have recommended that an oversight committee be formed. All four have called for an independent committee to review the actions of our intelligence agencies, but that is not all. Four Supreme Court justices and four former ministers also support the concept of this committee.

I am proud to join with those former prime ministers, Supreme Court justices, and justice ministers, as well as the current government and Canadians from across this country, in supporting this bill. This is not a place for blind partisanship but is an opportunity to fix our currently flawed system.

As one of my colleagues across the aisle said earlier in this debate, good oversight not only builds public trust but must make our security services much more effective. That is exactly what this legislation allows for. This committee would provide the oversight necessary to maintain accountability and to ensure that Canadians' safety and rights are maintained.

I urge all my colleagues to put their partisanship aside and see this important bill passed in this House. I see no reason why this legislation should not receive all-party approval.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act.

Above all else, governments must be able to ensure the safety and security of the citizens they serve. All of us here in this place share in this duty.

Our public safety institutions take many forms and have different resources to fulfill their different mandates. Day in and day out, the people who keep us safe work to balance national security concerns with the privacy rights that Canadians expect and deserve. They do an excellent job. They work diligently under challenging circumstances and deserve our gratitude.

The bill being considered here today would create a statutory committee of parliamentarians appointed by the executive branch and housed within it. In Canada, the executive branch is the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office that supports it. This would be a committee of parliamentarians and not a parliamentary committee. The difference is important because one is able to decide its mandate while the other cannot. A parliamentary committee is the master of its own affairs and has standing orders and practices. The members of a parliamentary committee are named by each member's whip and not by the Prime Minister. The chair of a parliamentary committee is elected by its members.

This new national security and intelligence committee would have none of that. According to the government's press release, the committee would have a mandate to scrutinize any matter related to the national security of Canada. Unfortunately, the fine print is not as generous concerning the responsibilities that the committee and its members will have.

Under the bill, the Prime Minister and his ministers will be allowed to withhold information requested by the committee if they consider that the disclosure of the requested information would negatively impact national security. However, while the responsible minister would be expected to provide the committee with the rationale on his or her decision to hold back information, in practice this will not work. We cannot ask for something if we do not know it exists. If we are told that something exists but we cannot see it because of national security concerns, the entire point of having a committee to reinforce the oversight of Canada's security apparatus disappears. A member, or anyone for that matter, cannot be expected to work with only partial information.

As prescribed in the bill, the committee would be a creation of the executive branch and its dealings would be kept secret. Therefore, it is difficult to identify what resources the members of the committee would have at their disposal if they were dissatisfied or frustrated in their role.

Furthermore, if members of the committee have a major concern with the information they receive in testimony or through a brief, they can only report their concerns to the Prime Minister or the minister responsible. Presuming that the Prime Minister does not share the same security concern, he does not have to act on it, and members cannot bring their trepidation to the elected House of Commons, or to anyone for that matter, because they have been sworn to secrecy.

The way that this committee would be set up makes me think of the philosophical thought experiment of “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” If members cannot speak about what they have been briefed on, does it even matter that they have been briefed?

While it may be premature to speculate on what the committee will actually do, it is no stretch to imagine that the committee will meet semi-regularly and be given access to documents and testimony that an already existing parliamentary committee would receive and members could access via access to information requests. Assuming that the committee finds itself in agreement on recommendations, the government will review the committee's report before it can be tabled in Parliament.

If the purpose of the committee is indeed to provide elected members of Parliament with a greater role in overseeing Canada's national security institutions, then I do not understand why the inputs and the outputs of the committee will be screened by the Prime Minister.

Given how the government is proposing to structure this committee, I am unsure of whether the Prime Minister believes that elected members of Parliament can be trusted to steward the information they receive with care and discretion.

If the Minister of Public Safety is truly intent on creating a national security oversight committee, then the committee should have real oversight over our national security agencies. Unfortunately, as it is being set up, the national security agencies would have oversight over the work of the committee.

The Prime Minister or minister would also have the responsibility to name the chair of the committee. This is problematic, as we have already heard during this debate. It reinforces the impression that the committee is just a PMO working group. It is understood that a chair of a committee plays a critical role as the spokesperson for the matters that are directed to the committee, and committee reports are published through the chair. In order for the committee to be successful and have legitimacy, I believe that the chair must be chosen by members of the committee.

I understand that in a majority government situation, as we find ourselves in right now, the members of the governing party will never select an opposition member as their chair. Interestingly, while we are debating the bill, the Prime Minister has already appointed the member for Ottawa South to chair the committee. That is a clear sign that the government is unwilling to compromise on this specific aspect of the legislation.

Taking this into consideration, together with the bill before us, more than anything the committee appears to be a make-work project for members of Parliament and a way for the Prime Minister to deflect any criticism on his action, or inaction for that matter, on national security matters.

I would like to conclude by making a few remarks about the role of members of Parliament and how the legislation fits into a disturbing trend that I have observed over the past 11 months.

Members, even if they were elected as members of the governing party, have not been elected to serve the government. The legislation serves to reverse this relationship by making members work for the government. While members of the governing party argue that the government is giving parliamentarians access to more information, Bill C-22, in its current form, makes it difficult to believe. The real test of whether the committee would have any teeth and impact on policy would be on whether it can freely report its findings with the weight of Parliament behind it. Again, the bill ensures that this simply would not happen because the prime minister and his ministers would be able to read any report from the committee before it is made public, if it is made public at all.

Ultimately, the bill's stated purpose is to empower members of Parliament. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the government will take the advice and concerns of members from all parties, which have been seriously raised, into consideration as we move forward.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today in support of Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

The proposed legislation fulfills a key campaign promise of the 2015 election, and represents a thoughtful and long overdue modernization of Canada's security framework.

Allow me to begin by referring to the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which unambiguously referenced the overarching goal of “keeping Canadians safe”. It reads:

This goal must be pursued while protecting the rights of Canadians, and with an appreciation that threats to public security arise from many sources, including natural disasters, inadequate regulations, crime, terrorism, weather-related emergencies, and public health emergencies.

What we are discussing here today is at the intersection of defence policy, foreign policy, and national security. The rationale behind this mandate is self-evident. We live in a world of new, ever-evolving, and unprecedented security threats. Just this past March, a lone wolf attack on a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in my riding of Willowdale underscored this point. While I am grateful for the incredible bravery and professionalism the RCMP and others displayed in responding to the attack, the fact remains we are largely operating in a brave new world where groups and individuals can pose serious challenges to our safety and security.

Meeting these challenges, while maintaining our respect for the cherished rights and freedoms of Canadians, requires a robust and responsible parliamentary framework. While the previous government curiously failed to recognize this, something I can assure members I heard repeatedly on doorsteps, it is my belief that Bill C-22 rectifies the obvious gaps within our existing security framework, namely, by establishing a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. This committee would be provided extraordinary access to national security information and an unprecedented ability to scrutinize federal departments and operations. In doing so, Bill C-22 rejects the notion that we must choose between prioritizing security concerns on the one hand and respecting civil and charter rights on the other. Rather, it establishes a framework that balances both.

The issue of accountability boils down to this. Does Canada have the institutions it needs to protect the safety of Canadians, while at the same time safeguarding our rights and freedoms? Bill C-22 ensures that we can answer that question in the affirmative.

The concept of establishing a parliamentary security oversight committee is hardly novel. The idea can be traced as far back as the 1981 McDonald commission report, while more recent efforts include a 2003 Auditor General's report, recommendations from the 2004 Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security, the 2005 national security committee of parliamentarians act, a 2009 recommendation from the House of Commons public safety committee, a 2011 Senate report, and private members' bills introduced in 2007, 2009, 2013, and 2014, most recently by my Liberal colleagues from Malpeque and Vancouver Quadra.

Over the past decade, these efforts were repeatedly obstructed and denied by the previous Conservative government, despite widespread support amongst experts, stakeholders, academics, non-governmental organizations, and the Canadian public. While there is no making up for this lost decade, I am proud to say that Bill C-22 finally provides Canadians with a modern and meaningful security oversight mechanism.

In keeping with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision-making, Bill C-22 notably aligns Canada's security regime with accepted international best practices. As colleagues before me have highlighted, Canada is currently the only member of the Five Eyes alliance lacking a security oversight committee that grants sitting legislators access to confidential national security information. In an era in which security threats are increasingly global and interdependent, Canada cannot afford to be an outlier on this issue. This absence of oversight has limited the ability of parliamentarians to examine national security issues in depth. The previous government argued that there was no need for parliamentarians to have access to confidential national security information. On this side of the House, we disagree. Giving parliamentarians access to such information will benefit Canadians who want their government to be open and transparent, including our national security agencies.

As Professors Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto recently noted in their working paper to modernize Canada's inadequate review of national security, a robust national review framework rests on three pillars.

First is a properly resourced and empowered committee of parliamentarians with robust access to secret information, charged primarily with strategic issues, including an emphasis on efficacy review. Second is a consolidated and enhanced expert review body, a security and intelligence community reviewer or super SIRC with all-of-government jurisdiction, capable of raising efficacy issues but charged primarily with proprietary review. Third is an independent monitor of national security law, built on the U.K. and Australian models, with robust access to secret information and charged with expert analysis of Canada's anti-terrorism and national security legislation and able to work in concert with the other bodies on specific issues.

It is my belief that the bill meets these criteria. Professor Forcese would appear to agree, writing as he did that Bill C-22 represents a good bill. He goes on to say that it creates a stronger body than the U.K. and Australian equivalents and that it constitutes “a dramatic change for Canadian national security accountability”.

I believe the legislation is well intentioned, well considered, and well rounded. In particular, I would like to highlight five notable elements of the bill.

First, Bill C-22 allows the committee to analyze and study laws, policies, and operations in real time, increasing the discipline, responsiveness, and accountability of our security framework.

Second, the legislation before us tasks the committee with the invaluable capacity to monitor classified security and intelligence activities and report findings to the Prime Minister. Rather than reviewing security activities on an ad hoc and siloed department-by-department basis, Bill C-22 provides the opportunity for comprehensive security oversight.

Third, the provisions regarding ministerial discretion on limits to access to information contained within the bill are clearly delineated and follow the best practice models established by the United States, Australia, and others.

Fourth, Bill C-22 guarantees that the government will constitute a minority within the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, thus ensuring increased accountability.

Finally and perhaps most significant, Bill C-22 represents an important counterbalance to the sweeping powers introduced through Bill C-51. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the bill represents the fulfillment of a key campaign pledge on the part of the government to rein in the excesses of Bill C-51, while ensuring the collective security of all Canadians. The introduction of a committee of parliamentarians tasked with overseeing Canadian security and intelligence represents a much-needed return to accountability.

The bill, however, merely represents one part of the puzzle. Our government has also committed to amending Bill C-51 to better protect the rights of assembly and protest, and to better define rules regarding terrorist propaganda, mandating statutory review of national security legislation, creating an office of community outreach and counter-radicalization, and increased consultations with Canadians from coast to coast on how best to balance security concerns and civil liberties.

This process, both within and outside Parliament, will allow us to strengthen the security and intelligence system of Canada. It will also provide Canadians with confidence that in protecting their safety and security, the government stands firmly behind their rights and freedoms.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow we will resume debate on Bill C-22, on the national security committee of parliamentarians.

I understand that tomorrow will be the final day of debate at second reading. I thank the opposition for their co-operation on this matter.

Next week we will debate a motion for the ratification of the Paris Agreement. As my colleague mentioned, I anticipate a very robust debate, as there is much interest by hon. members on all sides. I am working with the other House leaders to complete the debate with a vote on Wednesday.

Pursuant to Standing Order 51, the House will have a debate regarding the Standing Orders and procedures next Thursday.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports Review

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this important debate. Before I begin, I should indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West today.

I think it is really important that we start with what we are talking about and what we are not talking about. This is a forward-looking motion that is designed to achieve greater transparency and greater oversight. It calls upon Parliament to create, by amendment to the Standing Orders, an oversight committee for the issue of arms sales abroad and related procedural matters to that particular motion.

The objective is to say, learning from what we have done in the past, how we can do better in the future. The proposition in the motion that is before Parliament today is that we create a committee that would study this because our allies are doing a much better job and because we lack the information they have to do that job. That is what I would like to focus on in my remarks today.

In the last couple of days we have been dealing with another important initiative, Bill C-22 in which the Government of Canada has liberally adverted to the experience in the United Kingdom with its security intelligence oversight committee, and called for greater accountability through that process and greater access for parliamentarians to information about national security operations in our country.

Today's motion would do the same thing, but in a different context. It would create oversight of how arms exports occur in Canada, particularly when we learn more information about human rights abuses that may or may not be occurring in a particular country.

Let us examine the situation in the United Kingdom. Just as the government would want us to learn from their experience in national security oversight, I am suggesting that the House could profit from learning about the United Kingdom experience in this same area.

It was over 15 years ago that the United Kingdom set up a parliamentary committee on arms export controls. That committee had people drawn from a whole variety of other parliamentary committees to examine all aspects of the United Kingdom arms exports, from licensing to broader policy issues such as human rights. Every year in that country there is a government annual report on U.K. arms exports, and it has recently been focusing on exports to countries of concern, many of which are the subject of the debate we are having here today. It is looking at the role, for example, of U.K. exports to Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen, which of course are very much at the core of why this debate is before us today.

That is about oversight, but what about the need for greater transparency and information? The British public, through that committee, has had much more access to information about what is going on so that they can hold their government to account as to the extent to which arms exports are being sent to countries most people in Britain would not want to receive them.

What is the situation in Canada? We have an Access to Information Act, but its exceptions swallow the rule. The moment anything to do with international affairs or foreign policy comes up, it is a black hole. The ability to actually find out what is going on is very limited. This committee would be an opportunity to hear, not just from the public, NGOs and the like but also from people in industry, which is perfectly appropriate, as well as government representations and indeed the public so that we can have a broader national conversation about this important issue.

I had the honour of working with the former member for Mount Royal, Irwin Cotler, a champion of international human rights, and we are on a committee called the Raoul Wallenberg human rights committee, with members drawn from all the representative parties here. We had the opportunity to meet the wife of Raif Badawi here in Ottawa, who was arrested and imprisoned in that country for insulting Islam, sentenced to 10 years and a thousand lashes. That international human rights debate was the subject of great concern across this country.

We have understood in recent years more than we understood before about where Canada's arms are going. I will admit, I had no idea the extent to which Canadian arms abroad have become an important component of international trade in arms. Canada's weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. I confess, I did not know that.

In fact, Canada is the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East, according to Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the defence industry publication. Now Saudi Arabia is the world's second-largest buyer of Canadian-made military equipment after the United States. I do not think many Canadians are aware of that information. It may be that I am the last to know these things, but I find it very disturbing, as I think a lot of Canadians would, that we have become such an important arms export contributor in the international sphere.

Therefore, I ask myself, what do we have to hide as a country? Why can we not know more? Why can we not know the human rights records of the countries to which we are sending arms? Yes, we have assessments, but those human rights assessments have been watered down over the years. They are not as available as they should be to the Canadian public and to us so that we as the representatives of the public can have a better idea of just exactly where our money is being spent, where our arms are going, and the extent to which we are contributors to world peace. I think that is something that we need to look at very carefully.

Apparently our existing arms export rules have changed over the years. They are supposed to prohibit sales of military hardware to countries “whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens”, and here is the condition, “unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population”. Well obviously there are problems, because we have seen in the Saudi example how arms sent to that country for domestic purposes have been diverted to put down Shia protests in one part of the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, and, it seems, to be used by the Saudis in countries like Yemen, where human rights atrocities have been so widespread. Over 6,000 people have been killed there.

Do Canadians realize that their arms may be used in that theatre of war? Do we not need to know whether light armoured vehicles, which are used for the suppression of those people, are in fact made in Canada? Maybe that is good public policy. Why can we not have a committee tasked with doing just that, not as an add-on to other work that the foreign affairs committee might be doing but as a stand-alone committee to address what is obviously a growing and important industry in our country, and its ramifications? Why is that any different from what we do with other committees that look at an area of our economy and address its ramifications?

Why would the House be opposed to greater transparency and accountability through an oversight mechanism like the British have? Why does the current government refuse to see that what it proposed two days ago in one bill, following the U.K. example of oversight and transparency, should not be used a couple of days later in another important area of our economy and society? That is what is before the House today. I really fail to see how this can be politicized as if we were somehow trying to talk about past events, who supported what and who did not, and how much information we had at a particular time versus how much we have now.

Anyone who has seen the videos of the repression of Saudi citizens with Canadian light armoured vehicles at least has to ask questions about whether we are on the right track. We do not have time, as parliamentarians, to cover every single piece of policy. Why can we not give a multi-party committee the opportunity to look at it, to get the information that members need, and to report to Canadians what it can legitimately report to them about what is going on with our dollars abroad?

That is what is before us today. I urge the House to support a motion that would provide greater accountability and greater oversight of our arms export industry.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is hardly my first speech in the House, but it is my first as public safety critic, and it is my pleasure to speak to such a crucial bill.

This is one of the many elements we debated during the previous Parliament in the context of Bill C-51 and the parties' election promises. I want to make it clear that we have a lot of criticisms, which I will cover in my speech.

We are willing to support the bill at second reading simply because it is a good first step. The NDP has long believed that we need to create this committee. However, there are some serious problems with the government's approach.

Before we get into the composition of the committee, I think it is important to point out many of the inconsistencies in the government's approach to this particular file, whenever it comes to proposing anything. We still have not heard, despite the minister's great grocery list in question period yesterday, what the actual plan is. There is no bill before the House, despite a lot of talk, as is becoming far too typical on the part of the government.

Well, there is one bill, the bill from my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, which seeks to repeal Bill C-51.

That said, we are hearing about all these grand plans from the government to bring specific changes, with no actual legislative plan in place.

The other problem is that we can form committees, create all sorts of mechanisms, but the fact is some already exist. One that springs to mind is the Security Intelligence Review Committee. That committee, which currently exists, reviews the activities of CSIS. The way things stand right now, in light of the budget the government brought down in March 2016 and according to the employees of that very committee, funding is expected to drop by $2.5 million annually. Over the next few years, this will lead to the loss of 11 employees assigned to overseeing CSIS. We can certainly form a committee, but we are definitely starting off on the wrong foot if resources are lacking due to budget cuts.

The other big issue is one that has come up a few times. With all kidding aside, we have been parsing the words. The Minister of Foreign Affairs seems to want us to distinguish between “discussions” and “negotiations”. In this regard, I would like the government to understand the difference between “review” and “oversight”. These are not the same thing, despite some of the speeches we are hearing from our colleagues on the other side of the House.

The key to protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms is to have proper oversight, not after-the-fact “review” done at the behest of the minister and the Prime Minister. This word “review” is the other one we seem to be having to parse, in response to the answer given by my colleague in the previous speech.

I will concede that the reports might not be edited, but it will be hard to figure them out under all the black Sharpie that will be left by the Prime Minister on the grounds of national security. That is cause for concern.

After all, the MPs on this committee will swear an oath and be trustworthy. The bill gives the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Prime Minister a lot of discretion and that makes me think of the Conservatives' argument when we were debating Bill C-51 during the last Parliament.

The Conservatives argued, or at least strongly implied, that we needed to trust the authorities, that we could not trust parliamentarians to do this type of review, and that independent committees already existed.

I find it downright disturbing because giving cabinet that much power reminds me of the Conservatives' argument. Again, though the government may have changed colours, its approach remains the same.

As I said, we support the bill at second reading so that we can try to make some important changes. At the end of the day, we cannot say no to forming this committee because, after all, it is what we wanted. Nonetheless, there are some serious flaws that need to corrected, as I said from the outset.

Clearly, the first flaw is the election of the chair. Ultimately, the chair will ensure that the committee will be independent, which will be difficult if the chair is chosen by the Prime Minister.

As I mentioned in my earlier question, we heard from our cousins from the U.K., when they came here at the invitation of the minister himself last week. They shared with us how important it was in the debate they had when creating a similar committee that the chair be elected. I heard the argument from my Liberal colleague before that this does not matter, because the opposition members will be in the majority on the committee anyway. That is not the issue here. The issue is not about which party is the majority. The issue is not leaving it up to cabinet who is carrying the committee. Parliamentarians from all parties need to have a say. I have no doubt that the Liberal members of the committee will make a wise choice to ensure the independence of the committee, much more independence that when it is coming down from the PMO.

We will have to make another important change. Once again, I am going back to the points I raised earlier. I am referring to the discretionary authority granted the minister and the Prime Minister. We have serious concerns about this and we want to debate it.

I am taking the opportunity to return to yesterday's news and the Privacy Commissioner's report.

I will read one excerpt from the chapter on Bill C-51 in the Privacy Commissioner's report. He said:

While our Office welcomed legislation to create a Parliamentary committee to oversee matters related to national security as a positive first step, we have also recommended expert or administrative independent review or oversight of institutions permitted to receive information for national security purposes.

What that says, and I certainly hope it will not be the case, is that the government cannot sit on its laurels now that it has tabled this bill. This is only one piece of a far larger, more complicated puzzle.

Nonetheless, the position of inspector general of CSIS was eliminated by the Conservative government. The NDP has been asking for a long time that this position be re-established to allow greater independent oversight by people who, unlike us parliamentarians, have some expertise in the matter. Those two items are closely related and that is the important thing.

To bolster this argument, I will mention the minister's response concerning the government's approach when we asked him about the ministerial directives concerning torture. I am taking this opportunity to officially state in the house that the NDP is calling for the repeal of these directives, because it is completely unacceptable that a country like Canada allows the use of information acquired through torture. The practice does not benefit public safety in the least, and quite frankly, it is immoral and goes against our international commitments.

When we asked the minister the question, he told us not to worry and that the government would establish a committee to deal with such questions and provide oversight. Come on. It is ludicrous to claim that striking a committee makes it okay to keep such a directive in place.

I will say this with all due respect, because it is worth repeating in both official languages that we in the New Democratic Party absolutely want to see this ministerial directive that allows for the use of information on torture taken off the books and gone. It is completely unacceptable that in a country like Canada, we would even ponder using that kind of information. This is not information that will ensure the safety of Canadians and it goes against our values and our international commitments. I will say once again, when the minister stands in the House and says that it is okay, because they have Bill C-22 and we should not worry because all of these things will be supervised, that is absurd. The Liberals are using the bill as an escape hatch, and we do not want to see that.

It is important to understand that this is a first step in the right direction. Although the bill before us may be vague and flawed, it is in keeping with the concept that was also proposed by the NDP. This is one of many issues that were raised in the debate on Bill C-51. I hope that the members opposite will listen to what we have to say.

I repeat that we are trusting the Liberal members who sit on this committee to elect a chair and access the information without the Prime Minister exercising his veto power and covering that information up with a big black marker.

After all, we certainly do not want Bill C-22 to become an excuse for not repealing or making major changes to Bill C-51, which violates the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Scarborough—Agincourt for his in-depth analysis of the way he perceives Bill C-22. I would suggest that Bill C-22 is a token gesture on behalf of the Liberal government to comply with the campaign promise that it made.

I was on the public safety committee last year when Bill C-51 came through and I think the Conservative government at the time did a very good job of presenting a piece of legislation that was effective and a useful tool for our security organizations. It better enabled them to do the job that they do, and as we can see, we have had very good results in Canada.

I am wondering if the member would agree that the committee could be strengthened in a couple of ways. First, I see a weakness in the fact that members are appointed by one individual, the chair is appointed by one individual, and one individual can redact any information provided by the committee by way of report. I see that as a weakness, and I am wondering if the member would see a benefit to there being more openness, more transparency, and more electability among parliamentarians.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join the debate on Bill C-22. I want to use my time to focus not so much on why I am supporting Bill C-22, because I think the arguments have already been advanced quite significantly by the members of the government. I want to use my time instead to address some of the substantive concerns coming from the opposition parties, which is what I will do in the time that has been allotted to me today.

There are some broad themes that have clearly emerged from the opposition that I want to address and put to rest to try to allay their concerns.

The first, which has been advanced by the official opposition members, is the concept that the architecture of Bill C-22 undermines the independence of parliamentarians because of the apparent supremacy of the executive branch over the legislative branch. They have cited the various provisions in the act that deal with the Prime Minister's capacity to appoint the members of the committee under section 5, and the ability of ministers of the crown to withhold information in certain situations under section 16. They have highlighted issues with respect to the ability of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the chair of the committee, to redact certain portions of the proposed report coming from the committee that might be injurious to national security or might disclose information that might be subject to solicitor-client privilege or might be injurious to or impact international relations.

I appreciate this particular point because we do live in a Westminster model, wherein our branches of government, both our executive branch and our legislative branch, are fused into the same body. The supremacy of the executive branch is particularly exacerbated in this type of model, unlike, for example, in the United States, under a congressional model, where there are very clear and separate branches of government, and the executive branch is specifically divorced from the legislative branch.

I would remind my colleagues of a point that was specifically highlighted by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in his address to the House on the bill. The mandate of this committee is very broad. If we look carefully at the language of the legislation under section 8, it says that the committee's mandate is to review:

(a) the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;

(b) any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and

(c) any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.

Therefore, the oversight role, the review role, is very broad as set out specifically in the act. However, I would point out that the purpose of this piece of legislation is to do exactly that, to review the broad mandates of our national security and intelligence agencies. It is not to go and delve into the specific operational endeavours of the military or our police services to examine specific matters that are of a specific ongoing operational nature. I would submit that falls within the purview of the government's executive branch, to execute, in real time, responses to potential national security threats and to deal with those instances. The role of the committee is to look at these particularly broad mandates.

Some of the committee's other mandates are to review that our security and intelligence services have the right legislative tools, that the resources appropriated to our national security agencies are appropriate, that we have the appropriate interagency co-operation, and that the legislative framework allows for that appropriate exchange of information. I would also argue that it has to deal with some of the concerns that the third party has advanced, which is to ensure that the appropriate procedural and substantive protections are afforded to individuals who may be impacted by the actions of our security agencies.

I believe those are the appropriate measures of review, not the actual review of specific ongoing operational issues. The way I would frame it is that the role of the committee is not to play M in MI6 in a James Bond movie. Its role is to provide oversight and a check on the exercise of executive authority.

The second theme I wanted to address that I think has been overplayed by the opposition is with respect to the ability in terms of both access to information and the ability to redact information. Again, I would invite my colleagues on the opposite side to carefully review the actual language in the bill as it relates to those specific limitations.

Let me take, for example, the provisions that are dealt with under the access to information provisions in clauses 13 and 14, particularly as they relate to the exceptions under section 14. My colleagues on the other side have noted that there are seven exceptions, and they refer to them as being problematic. However, if we examine them carefully, they are very narrowly construed. Basically, they are construed with respect to other rights and immunities and privileges of other classes of persons other than parliamentarians.

Again, I think it is a bit of a mis-characterization that the supremacy of Parliament and the role of parliamentarians somehow supersedes the rights, privileges, and immunities of other classes of persons. I do not think that is a fair characterization. I think we have to always constantly engage and make sure that there is a balance.

We can take a look at the seven specific provisions in section 14. The first one is “a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, as defined in subsection 39(2) of the Canada Evidence Act”. In plain English, that means cabinet confidences. The question is whether parliamentarians should be subject and be able to access information as it relates to the deliberations of cabinet. Again, I think not.

The second one refers to “information respecting ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting military operations”. My point is that those are operational decisions. Again, I do not think that it is within the purview of the committee to be reviewing ongoing military action.

The third is “information the disclosure of which is described in subsection 11(1) of the Witness Protection Program Act”. If somebody goes into the witness protection program, I do not think we need to know the identity of who that particular individual is.

The fourth is “the identity of a person who...has been approached to be...a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada”. Therefore, if somebody is prepared to spy on behalf of Canada, again, I do not think we need to have that specific type of information.

The fifth one is “information relating directly to an ongoing investigation”. Again, that is an operational matter. We can certainly look at it retrospectively and review if there was a problem, but I do not think that this committee should be in a position to compromise an ongoing active investigation.

The sixth is information related to the Investment Canada Act, and seventh is information relating to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Again, if we look at these particular sections, they are very narrowly construed.

Therefore, the exceptions that are articulated in the bill are very narrow. Again, I would argue that these are very narrow areas that are carved out, and that the mandate of the committee is in fact very broad.

The other point that has been raised is with respect to subclause 21(5), the writing of reports and the Prime Minister's capacity to edit the reports.

Again, I invite my colleagues to read subclause 21(5) carefully with respect to what it means. It does not mean that the Prime Minister rewrites the report. It means that a report that has been received by the Prime Minister is reviewed to make sure there is no sensitive confidential information that is then subsequently disclosed to the public. It is this information alone that would be redacted. Through consultation with the chair that information would be subject to review and allowed to be redacted on the basis of national security, on the basis that it might be injurious to international relations, or that the information is confidential because of solicitor-client privilege.

Again, it is very narrowly construed. I simply submit that to my colleagues—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that we disagreed with the former Conservative government when it introduced Bill C-51. In fact, all political parties, except the Liberals, disagreed with the Conservatives on Bill C-51. There is a real impact on rights and freedoms, but the Liberals voted to support Bill C-51 which has left us in a very difficult situation.

Now the Liberals have introduced Bill C-22. I think the member would probably agree with me, as I agree with him, that there are huge flaws in this legislation. Instead of providing the independent oversight that comes from having an independent chair, we would have a chair who is chosen by the government and by the Prime Minister, which certainly flies in the face of the way our major allies do this type of oversight committee. Then we would have the censorship oath in terms of the information that would be permitted to go to the oversight committee, and a censorship control of the Prime Minister's Office on what comes out of the committee.

Instead of having oversight that Canadians can have confidence in, does the member not think that we have a very flawed piece of legislation?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians

It goes without saying that safety and security of Canadians is one of the top priorities of any government. I am sure every member in this chamber would agree with that statement.

Like many members, I spent the last few months in my riding, travelling from one end to the other. I spoke with countless constituents about the issues that were important to them. For many, their highest priorities were, of course, jobs and the economy. As a Conservative, I am proud to say our record speaks for itself on those two files.

I also heard from people who were concerned about public safety and national security. Across the globe, terrorist attacks are taking place and have taken place. The idea that these types of attacks do not happen in Canada was a common belief a few years ago, but now, when we look at the political landscape, terrorism cannot be overlooked.

As we know, attacks have taken place in our own country, plans have been thwarted many times by our brave women and men in law enforcement. Do not misunderstand me, please, I am not attempting to strike fear into the hearts of Canadians, but I believe it is important that we are not naive about our place in the world.

The most prominent example of this was October 22, 2015, or even most recently in August, when our enforcement agencies stopped an attack. There have been attacks across Europe. We see them in France, Belgium, and Germany, among others, and of course, in the United States. I say all of this because it is important to provide context on what members of the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians will have to review.

Our law enforcement, intelligence, and military agencies have played a crucial role in keeping Canadians safe. This bill has legislated a committee of specific design. I think we agree on the essence of it, but there are parts of it that I have issues with, members on the Conservative and NDP benches seem to have the same issues.

The committee will consist of a chair recommended by the Prime Minister. The committee will have up to eight additional members of Parliament, to a maximum of four from the government and no more than two from the Senate. Members of the committee cannot be a minister of the crown, minister of state, parliamentary secretary, and are appointed by the Governor in Council on recommendation by the Prime Minister, and the leader of the other members' party.

The committee is intended to be non-partisan and highly independent, but yet, the Liberal government appointed the committee chair in January before the legislation was even created. This committee will review agencies that were highly specialized and effective in their designated fields; yet, there is no requirement that the members of the committee have any experience in public safety and security issues.

I also find it concerning that the government refused to consult with opposition parties, despite the public willingness by the Conservatives and the NDP to discuss this important committee. In fact, our official opposition critic wrote to the minister twice about this committee. The committee, as it is currently written, is appointed by and reports to the Prime Minister's Office.

I believe, and I think most members on this side believe, that it should be open and reporting to Parliament. The Prime Minister campaigned on a reduced role of the PMO. We all know actions speak louder than words.

The committee is mandated to review the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative, and financial framework for national security and intelligence, any activity carried out by the department that relates to national security or intelligence, and any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister refers to the committee.

I am going to quote the government's own backgrounder here:

The committee would have robust powers to access any information to conduct its reviews, subject to specific limitations such as to protect third parties, prevent interference in active military operations and maintain the independence of law enforcement functions. While the NSICOP would have a right of access to information it requests, the legislation would allow Ministers to withhold special operational information, but only if the disclosure would harm national security. The responsible minister would need to provide the committee with the rationale for their decision to withhold information.

The NSICOP findings and recommendations will be tabled in Parliament

However, and here is where some of the big concerns I have arise:

The government will review the committee’s reports before tabling to ensure that they do not contain classified information.

I find it deeply troubling that Bill C-22 provides for numerous exceptions, and permits government agencies and ministries to opt-out of providing information for review. This weakens the oversight, and does not permit the committee's mandate to be fulfilled.

I also find it concerning that the Prime Minister would basically have a veto on what is in the reports of the so-called independent committee. Would it not be even more appropriate for non-partisan officials or the committee to decide what can or cannot be released? The government in power should not have a veto on what the committee reviews or reports.

As with any committee, the chair provides crucial support and direction to the committee as a whole. It is, therefore, peculiar for a committee of this importance, for a committee that is claimed to be independent and non-partisan, that the government would have already selected who it is going to appoint to this position. We know it is the member for Ottawa South, and like all of us he is political. I have great respect for the member for Ottawa South.

There are many members in the chamber who I am sure would like to be on that committee, and I have no doubt had there been a free election of the chair, the member probably would have won because he is well respected by members on all sides of the House. However, the government will not even give those members the opportunity to select their chair. What happened to the Liberals' sense of accountability? What happened to their transparency? Real change they said. However, the chair, as I have mentioned, was appointed before the committee was even struck.

There are seven exemptions under section 14 in this legislation, including that the committee cannot look at ongoing investigations that may lead to criminal charges. If I am not mistaken, that basically covers every investigation, and operation of law enforcement and security agencies in this country.

It has been made clear that Canada is not the first country to create this type of oversight committee. Many of our allies have enacted similar oversight systems. This includes the British, the Australians, and New Zealand. I will not get into all of the details because it has been discussed by my colleagues.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Durham and the official opposition critic for public safety, for his work on this important file.

The importance of a national security and intelligence committee cannot be overstated, and we have heard that throughout the debate. It is, therefore, critical that legislation be properly drafted. As I said earlier, we all agree on the essence of the committee, but there are just some finer points that need to be tuned up in order to appease people on this side of the House.

The committee of parliamentarians should not report to the Prime Minister or the government. This is something the Liberals raised many times in the previous Parliament. It is something the Liberals talked about during the election. They said the PMO has too much power, and that power needs to be given back to Parliament. What do we see with this piece of legislation? The Liberal government is no different than any other government before it. It just has the sunny ways title to go with it.

As the legislation stands now, the government will have the ability to vet and veto the decisions made by this committee. This, therefore, would take away all the independence claims that the government has made. In effect, under the current legislation, the committee would be controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, and the Prime Minister's Office has appointed the chair already. This is an issue I hope all members on both sides of the House would agree that politics should be left out of. After all, the Liberals campaigned on it.

We as parliamentarians need to continue to ensure that our enforcement agencies have the tools and equipment they need to keep Canadians safe.

I would like to take a moment to thank the men and women who put their lives on the line every day, and those who currently serve or who have previously served at home or abroad, in conflict or peacetime. I appreciate their sacrifices. We shall never forget. It is all in the protection of our rights and freedoms. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces, our intelligence agencies, police, firefighters, first responders, we thank them for their service.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-22, which will create a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. There can be no greater obligation than to protect the security of one's citizens, both here and abroad.

The government of a country such as Canada, which cherishes its hard-won freedoms, its democracy, and its rule of law, has another obligation, and that is to uphold the Constitution of Canada and to ensure that all laws uphold the rights and freedoms we enjoy as people living in a free and democratic society.

The need to simultaneously fulfill these two key obligations is at the very heart of the bill before us. This bill is a response to the threats and attacks that have targeted various countries in the world, including Canada and some of our closest allies. Faced with this violence, we must remain alert and never let down our guard.

In addition, Bill C-22 responds to the many calls over many years for enhanced accountability of departments and agencies working in the area of national security. Hon. members will recall that these calls intensified last year when the previous government introduced the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, also known as Bill C-51. At that time, our party made the argument that Canada's approach to national security legislation should avoid not only naïveté, but also fearmongering.

The threats are real, and so is the need to protect civil liberties. That is why we included improvements to our national security framework, including the creation of a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, as a major part of our campaign platform in the last election.

The bill before us would establish a committee with nine members. Seven of the committee members would be drawn from the House of Commons, and of these seven, only four can be government members. Two members would be drawn from the other place. This committee will be different from other committees and offices established to review security and intelligence matters.

Under the accountability framework, some review bodies can have access to classified documents, but only for a specific department or organization. The members of these committees are not sitting parliamentarians. Parliamentarians may be involved, but they do not have access to classified documents. Those external review bodies are the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which reviews CSIS, the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. None of those bodies include sitting parliamentarians.

On the one hand, parliamentary committees review security and intelligence issues, but they do that primarily by listening to testimony during their public meetings. On the other hand, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence has a broad mandate to examine legislation and national security and defence issues.

Moreover, in the House, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security studies legislation or issues related to Public Safety Canada and the other agencies in the public safety portfolio. They do extremely valuable work, but as a rule, neither of these committees has access to classified information. They have neither the mandate nor the resources to dig deep into the details of national security matters in order to hold the government and national security agencies truly accountable.

Under the bill before us, members of the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians would obtain the appropriate level of security clearance and would, therefore, have access to highly classified security and intelligence information regarding national security and intelligence activities across the Government of Canada.

I would also point out that our Five Eyes partners have review bodies that function in similar ways. In those countries, select parliamentarians have access to highly sensitive intelligence so that they can help protect the public interest with regard to civil rights while also helping protect public safety by ensuring that national security organizations are functioning effectively.

Until now, Canada has been alone among the Five Eyes partners in not having a committee where parliamentary representatives can access classified information. This bill would close that gap.

In fact, in some respects, our proposal goes a little further than that of our allies from Westminster parliamentary democracies. This committee will review all departments and agencies whose activities are related to security and intelligence. It will also have the authority to investigate ongoing operations.

When it comes to establishing a national security accountability mechanism, this bill sets a new standard that some of our allies might well follow.

Robust powers are given to this committee, its members, and its secretariat. The committee will be able to access any information it needs to conduct its reviews, subject to some specific and reasonable limits. As is the case with similar committees in other countries, while committee members are not in a position to disclose the classified information to which they will have access, they can bring tremendous pressure to bear on a given organization or the government in power by letting Canadians know that something is not right.

Clearly, this new committee represents a major step forward in strengthening the accountability of our national security and intelligence system. It will provide elected officials with a real opportunity to evaluate our national security policies and operations and to ensure that Canadians and their civil liberties are protected.

I encourage members to join me in supporting this vitally important bill.