Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2014

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for your question.

I would just respond by stating that the two provisions of this bill are distinct. They are not intended to be related, other than that they both support the objective of the safety and security of Canadians.

Then the other point, more directly in response to your question, is that citizenship revocation cases would be initiated based on objective, open-source information to determine whether the provisions apply.

That's how I would respond to your question. Thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

There is no provision for using CSIS information in those proceedings.

[Nicole Girard]

There is not, as contemplated by Bill C-44 nor the changes under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn to Deputy Minister Guimont. I'm going to go back to the question of advice on constitutionality of this exemption provision from the Minister of Justice. The minister talked around the point; I think that is the most charitable way I can put it.

Can you tell us whether you received advice on that specific point from the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice; and if you received written advice, would you table it with the committee?

[François Guimont, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

The advice from justice is always factored into the cabinet process, always. That's number one. Number two, the aspects of the bill are consistent with the charter and Canadian law. That's number two. Number three is that this is part of cabinet confidence.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to be respectful of the committee, but most of you are aware of how that system unfolds. So that's my answer.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I respect that, and I am aware and certainly expected you to say it was a cabinet confidence—something the minister, of course, could have said. But there is a problem here then. We really need more time to have experts in on this, so that we can get our own advice in the committee on whether or not it's constitutional, since we can't see the government's advice on this. That is where we run up against the time limits, and the limited number of witnesses here makes it very difficult for us.

On a similar question, do any other like-minded countries, the Five Eyes countries, have provisions in their acts that allow ignoring the law of other countries or ignoring international law in the collection of intelligence?

[Michel Coulombe]

I'm not aware of any that specifically have it in their legislation.

You have to understand that everybody—and we'll talk, for example, of the Five Eyes partners—is working under different legislation, different frameworks, so it's very difficult to compare. I'm not aware of any other countries, partners, that would have the same type of legislation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What would be the response of the government, then, if we had a foreign intelligence agency collecting intelligence in Canada in contravention of Canadian laws? How do you deal with that? There seems to be a normal principle, which I think is called comity of international law, by which we don't violate each other's sovereignty and we don't conduct illegal surveillance in each other's countries, which to me, would seem to be part of that.

If we're now telling people we might be doing that to them, what would our response be to another country saying it is going to do the same thing in Canada?

[Michel Coulombe]

Maybe I can just correct my previous answer, because I'm not an expert on the legislation. Just quickly reading this, I see that actually New Zealand, in its legislation with regard to foreign intelligence warrants, which is what we're talking about here, says that it can be issued notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That's any other act of New Zealand, though, not of any other country.

[Michel Coulombe]

We can certainly dig down on that question and provide the committee with a better answer. As I said, I'm not coming here prepared to—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I appreciate that, and I thank you for being cooperative. I just will remind you that our deadline is going to be before next Monday, since we're going to be moving on to amendments to this bill.

I guess it still comes back to this question. What is the Canadian response, then, to foreign intelligence agencies conducting things that would be illegal here? How do we respond to that? If we're now saying, “We may do the same thing to you”, I find it troubling.

[Michel Coulombe]

You have to understand that, with like-minded partners, we do work overseas jointly. It's not like we would go into a friendly country and do things covertly. As a security intelligence service, and not just as a service—all of our partners do conduct operations covertly. That's kind of obvious. Although it might not be specific in their legislation, that's what a security service will do at times. Most of the time, for the service, we do our work overtly with our partners when they are like-minded, but there could be occasions when we're sending intelligence officers, for example, into countries that are not like-minded, when we might not tell that country what we're doing, because of the national interests of Canada but also for the safety of our officers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Please reply very briefly.

[Ritu Banerjee, Director, Intelligence Policy Division, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

In the past, when there have been issues of espionage in Canada, we have used the security certificate provisions to seek the removal of those individuals. I'm thinking of Russian spy cases. So there are limited uses of our current legal framework to manage that, but it is very sensitive and very difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Now we will go to Mr. Falk for seven minutes, please.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our witnesses here today for joining us. I've enjoyed listening to your presentations and your responses. I just want to clarify again that, in the proposed legislation that we're discussing here today, there are no new authorities. Is that correct?

[Michel Coulombe]

Yes, that is correct.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's a clarification of existing authorities.

[Michel Coulombe]

Exactly, it's following the Federal Court decision of last year, and the Federal Court of Appeal decision.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Good.

When we're conducting surveillance or intelligence-gathering in foreign countries, what kinds of activities would require a warrant in our country, or obtaining a warrant from the judicial?

[Michel Coulombe]

It's when section 8 of the charter is at play.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me clarify a little bit. Would it be fair to say that we would secure a warrant from a judge if we were involved in any activity that would require a warrant here in Canada?

[Michel Coulombe]

Yes, that's a fair description.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

So we apply the same standard when we work outside of Canada as we do here inside.