Evidence of meeting #34 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was scisa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It's a viable question to ask in the context of the consultations that we're doing, but it's not as easy as a one-week or a two-week reply. It will take a few months.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Presumably it already ought to have been done, if you expanded the definition in the first place and that was your rationale.
1:05 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Not necessarily the CSIS Act.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Fair enough. It was not necessarily the CSIS Act.
1:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Could I just make a couple of points?
One is that the sources of inspiration were the CSIS Act, and it's meant to cover that, and “a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State” in section 3 of the Security of Information Act, and the terrorist activity and terrorism offences in the Criminal Code.
Why didn't we cross-reference them? We didn't want to bind the interpretation of other statutes. Also, with the Criminal Code, there was concern that people might have to prove mens rea before disclosing, so we didn't.
Some of the things that were included were critical infrastructure, global information infrastructure within the National Defence Act, and the capability of the government to deal with certain spheres of activity such as the financial system security intelligence capability. Some of those things were added in. Not all the recipient institutions have a statutory mandate; some operate under the common law or under a prerogative. To try to codify that would be next to impossible, I think, especially when you get into the area of defence. That's one of the reasons we didn't do that, just to give you a flavour.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
More information would be useful, because when we have experts come to us and say it's a radical expansion, it's a real worry for us not to propose that change. Going back to the CSIS Act, it would be good to have evidence as to why that new definition is a necessary one. I would appreciate any additional information you can provide on that.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Erskine-Smith, we are well past seven minutes.
Fellow committee members, I don't know if the witnesses have more time in front of them, but since we were delayed due to the votes in the House, the last round of questions would put us at maybe 25 minutes.
Do you want to continue or do you want to adjourn?
Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I think we ought to adjourn.
We've had our day compressed a fair bit with the two votes. I think perhaps our witnesses and other committee members may well have some catching up that they need to do before our next responsibilities in the House.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Okay.
If it's the committee's will to adjourn, I will accept your will, though I found that very interesting.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here and for the work that you do in protecting our country. We appreciate it greatly.
Have a great day. Thanks for being with us.
This meeting is adjourned.