Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2014

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock, for your question.

We are very proud to be Canadian. Whenever we go around the world we are also very proud to show our Canadian passport, which is well recognized and established. What we realize is that individuals are abusing the generosity of Canadian individuals who have embraced Canadian principles and values, and they are ready to turn their backs on this society.

Just last Friday I met with the cross-cultural round table where we have people coming from different backgrounds. Most of them are not Canadian-born citizens and they all agree that when we are Canadians, we are winners. We are winners of the lottery. We are a great country, and to be a citizen of this country is a great privilege.

Those individuals who are committing terrorist acts using the Canadian passport don't deserve to use their citizenship to propagate violence around the world. That is why, once they are convicted of a terrorist act, I find it fairly appropriate to remove this tool and the great privilege it is to be a Canadian citizen.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

What you're saying is that citizenship is a great honour and to those who would do us otherwise, it is not a right. At least that's what I think you said, and that's what I believe.

Minister, I'd like to go further into this piece of legislation. One of the parts of the legislation deals with judicial oversight of CSIS warrants. We've heard statements that we have to respect international law and the laws of other countries. I think of some countries that don't have the respect for human rights and the rule of law that our country does. They may get warrants in ways that we would find totally inappropriate, and that are totally against all we stand for as a country that respects human rights.

I wonder if you could comment on judicial oversight, the necessity of issuing warrants, and comment on this provision and why you believe it makes sense.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank you for your question.

CSIS operates under Canadian law. This is why we have set up a package of law so that, whenever it operates, it is operating within the law. Of course, I may be involved in those authorizations, but more importantly, judges warrant when our issues need to be validated by the judicial system. On top of that, we have an overview mechanism of the whole service, and this is done by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. I have brought here a copy of that report. It's in both official languages. We have robust oversight of an agency that is to abide by Canadian law. This is exactly what this bill would do. We have, over the course of the last month, been given the opportunity by the court to clearly define that CSIS has the mandate to operate within and outside the country. That's the first main part of the bill. The second part of the bill, which is so important, is to protect the sources. To quote the definition of “source” in this bill:

“human source” means an individual who, after having received a promise of confidentiality, has provided, provides or is likely to provide information to the Service;

When the service is entering into a contract—if I can put it that way—with a human source, there is this promise of confidentiality. Those sources are sometimes putting their lives at risk to share this information. That is why it is important that this contract be clearly defined under the law, and under certain circumstances this protection can be used in a trial or tribunals if it is used to prove that someone is accused.

This bill has been crafted based on our Constitution, based on our laws, and based on the principle, as I've mentioned, that the fundamental right to a fair trial is not only preserved but reinforced. That's why I'm seeking your approval for this bill, which is accomplishing those main important things: protection of human sources within our Constitution, confirming the authority of CSIS to operate abroad, and as we have indicated, speeding up the process of removing dual citizenship, while adding no other element to the already-adopted bill.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

It's not dissimilar to the rights and to the tools that exist for police officers within Canada, and have done so for some time and have stood the test of many court challenges over the years. I think what you're saying is that it would be reasonable to assume that this would withstand the test of the courts in Canada, as does the legislation that currently exists.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. Thank you very much.

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister. You no doubt will be aware that I forwarded to your office a series of nine questions that I had hoped you could provide written answers to prior to this committee. I wasn't actually overly enamoured with the response I got back from your office. I'll quote it. It said, “It is preferable that Mr. Easter pose these questions to the minister and officials on Monday to allow the responses to be on the record and have all members of the committee be able to hear the responses to these specific questions.”

Anyway, Mr. Minister, I do have those questions in both official languages here and, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the clerk to distribute them. I may or may not get into them, but I would request, because they are quite technical, that your office provide the committee with answers prior to us going to clause by clause, because it is asking for some technical responses in terms of the bill. Before I get to the specific bill, but on something related, when you last appeared before us on October 8 you said, “We know of about 80 who have returned to Canada”, meaning terrorists who operated abroad, or Canadians who operated in terrorist entities abroad. This is your quote: “Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law, as passed by this Parliament in the Combating Terrorism Act.”

This is my question to you. None of these people have been arrested yet as I understand it, although you said they violated the Canadian law. I have said to you in the House that I believe they should be able to be arrested under section 83.181. I'll not get into it. There are four different evaluations there. Can you answer? One, why hasn't section 83.181 of the Criminal Code been used to arrest those individuals? Two, are there components in this bill that will allow you to arrest those individuals where you're not now able to?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank you for your question and also your detailed written questions and we'll do our best to answer them properly.

Related to your written questions, they are related to the bill. Now if I get back to your asks today, they are more broad but I'll try to also answer them properly. This number, if I go back to the latest information provided by Commissioner Paulson, is around 93 individuals. Mr. Easter, as you are well aware, and you've been in that position before, it is not because you suspect an individual to have contravened the criminal law that you necessarily are able to transfer this intelligence into evidence. That's why we need to move forward as the legislator. That's why I will come back to this committee to address this issue, and that's why I hope I can count on your support to do exactly that.

To get back to the existing provision of the Criminal Code, Commissioner Paulson has already indicated that the threshold was too high and that they were not able to proceed.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, but sir, you did indicate that they had violated Canadian law.

My secondary question on that is this. If the threshold is too high to meet and to charge them, is there anything in this bill that does that, or will it be new legislation? You can answer that with my other question.

When you go to the bill, it specifies “within or outside Canada” for CSIS action under its collection duties in proposed new subsection 12(1) and under its investigation functions in proposed new subsection 15(1). This bill introduces an extraterritorial element within the checks and balances present in section 16, regarding foreign intelligence, of the obligation of consultation with the minister of foreign affairs.

From that complicated wording, under foreign affairs, if Canada is going to have some of its people do something, there's a check with the foreign affairs minister, because anything we do in a foreign country can impact us in other areas with that foreign country.

As I see it under this bill, there are no checks and balances where CSIS is going to do something that violates the law of another country but is able to do so because of the warrants issued within Canada. There doesn't seem to be a need for those checks and balances to protect our foreign affairs interests whether in trade or in other areas.

Can you, or someone, clarify that for me? Where are the checks and balances to protect Canada's interest when we take action under this section?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'll answer that question first.

This is exactly why the service is conducting its operation, to protect the interests of Canada, its companies, its citizens—its safety and also its interests.

To get back to your first question, this bill indeed addresses that indirectly and would make it easier to track terrorists. This is because we would be able to gather better intelligence. Why? Because we would be able to guarantee a level of protection to the witness, which is critical in gathering intelligence, and because we would be able to operate prior to those two court decisions. Basically, we would just get back to where we were before those court decisions, which are, at some point, diminishing the capability of the service to protect us. Obviously, this would have a positive impact because when we want to lay charges we need to have strong cases, and those cases are emanating from intelligence.

The answer is yes. This bill is definitely a step in the right direction. We need to do more, and that's why we will come back with additional measures in the near future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter. Your time is up.

We will now go to Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for being here today.

I would like to come back to a question that my colleague, Mr. Garrison, asked. Can you confirm, with a yes or no, whether Bill C-44 is constitutional?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I think this is the most constitutional bill we have introduced and that you will have an opportunity to support.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Did you receive any legal opinions that it was constitutional?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Of course. We always consider the legal elements.

As I clearly indicated in my presentation, not only does the bill confirm that an individual can receive a fair and equitable ruling, but it also strengthens and defines this right.

The mechanisms for this are explained in the new subsection 18.1(4) that can be found in clause 7 of the bill, which stipulates that you can even have what we call an amicus curiae, a friend of the court who, in a way, enshrines and oversees the application of the individual's rights.

So this is a bill that establishes an absolutely effective way of strengthening the safety of Canadians while fully respecting the spirit of our Canadian legislation and the Constitution, particularly the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You mentioned CSIS. This bill is largely related to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, aside from the part that affects Citizenship and Immigration Canada. In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the importance of public safety, while not overlooking the related civil liberties and while finding a balance between the two.

Why not provide CSIS with better tools for the civilian oversight mechanism at the same time?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for your question. I think I remember it being raised during the House of Commons debates.

There are excellent oversight mechanisms. I have here the 2012-13 annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and every member here has a copy. The committee is made up of prominent Canadians, who submit an annual report to Parliament. They are responsible before Parliament for ensuring that CSIS carries out its duties in the full respect of Canadian legislation.

As I indicated, I expect CSIS will follow up on the recommendations that were made in this year's report. The Security Intelligence Review Committee is doing important and very serious work.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have another question about the part relating to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Bill C-44 concerns CSIS. Why include that act? Does it have any kind of relationship? I don't understand the connection between CSIS and moving up the implementation dates.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

It is to facilitate and accelerate the removal of dual citizenship in those cases where individuals have been found guilty. There are no new legislative elements, except for the provisions aimed at expediting the implementation of the legislation that has been adopted. Perhaps Ms. Girard can round out my answer.

As for the oversight mechanisms, clause 7 of Bill C-44 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act by adding subsections 18.1(4) and (5) to enable the courts to intervene if there is a possibility that a source's identity would no longer be protected. The bill contains such provisions.

Ms. Girard, could you perhaps comment on citizenship and accelerating the implementation of the legislation?

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I don't have much to add to what the minister said. He provided a very good description of two separate elements of Bill C-44.

The objectives are complementary insofar as the proposed technical changes to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act will help attain the same objective, which is to strengthen the safety of Canadians, the value of Canadian citizenship and the integrity of the program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will now go to Ms. Ablonczy, please, for five minutes.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Minister, this act contains amendments to the CSIS Act that would clarify that CSIS may perform its duties and functions within or outside Canada. I wonder if you would tell us why you think that clarification is important.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

The reason it is so important is that this law was crafted 30 years ago, and at that time it seemed it was not necessary for the legislation to clearly specify that CSIS can operate in and outside Canada. In a later judgment that was rendered by the Supreme Court, it was acknowledged that it might be pretty useful, especially in the context of foreign fighters, terrorists' attacks coming from abroad, that the service operate outside, which it has done over the course of the last year. That's why it is important to clearly specify in the basic law of the service that this principle be entrenched.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I note too that the act, and others have mentioned this, would allow CSIS to protect their sources in the same way that police officers can protect their sources, because obviously no one is going to give you information if they can be hung out to dry, shall we say. I'm a little puzzled about why CSIS wouldn't have already had this ability to protect their sources, and I'd like to know why you think it's important that it be in this legislation.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

That's a good question. I will turn to Mr. Coulombe. But one thing is sure, we clearly need it to maintain the quality and the reputation of the service and the accuracy of the data they are collecting. Before, this court decision, this right, if I can put it that way, was taken for granted. Due to this court decision, we are invited as a legislature to clearly define it in the law.

Monsieur Coulombe.