Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Randall, if I got this correctly, it specifies that only the director may make an application for a warrant.
Am I wrong? I'd hate to think I was wrong twice in a row.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
What the text in the bill says is:
If the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant...is required....
It doesn't have to say that the director believes that. The wording that we're taking out says “or any employee designated”. That requires the director's signature in order to do this. It does say here quite clearly “or any employee designated...believes, on reasonable grounds”. We're trying to make sure that authority remains lodged in the director.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Does the director have to make all these applications himself?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The director doesn't have to do the paperwork or fill out the forms. It has to pass in front of the director who has to believe on reasonable grounds that this is necessary.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Okay, but aren't you saying “the Director...may...after having obtained”? It says the director is the guy or the gal who has to do this.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Your bill says “the Director or employee may, after having obtained the Minister's approval, make an application”.
I believe we are taking out both of those other employees and making sure it's the director. I'm now getting a bit lost in the legal drafting technicalities. I believe that's what we've done. That's our intent.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I'm prepared to table that and come back to it if you wish, or we can carry on with it right now.
Mr. Garrison, go ahead.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I believe we're correct.
If the government needs further advice on that, it should ask for it. I believe they're going to vote against it anyway.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That's more than likely.
I'll comment on Diane's question about whether this is going to create work for the director.
If the director is doing his job on these kinds of issues, the director is going to have to be informed in any event. This is pretty serious stuff. In my view, it's not a matter of the director's being overly busy as a result of this amendment. The director is going to have to know in any event. That's his or her responsibility.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm not sure if we're discussing the actual....
The clause is very specific. It talks about making an application. Removing “or any other employee designated by the minister” limits it only to the director of CSIS. The reason stated by Ms. Ablonczy is that obviously the director cannot be working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and every day of the year. I think that's unreasonable.
I can't support this amendment. There are other reasons as well, but to me that's the most obvious one. You cannot just limit it to the director only.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Clause 8 of Bill C-44 is very troubling. I'm even more troubled to hear Diane suggest that we'll have a lot of instances where we'll want to have warrants that may be used in other countries. We're explicitly setting out in this law that Canada's agents can operate knowingly in violation of the sovereignty and rule of law in another country. This was already drawn to the committee's attention as a source of concern by two different branches of the Canadian Bar Association, the immigration law section and the criminal justice section. They advised us, “we urge caution in adopting an approach that could suggest Canada is disregarding its obligations under international law.” I think definitely, as the Canadian Bar Association also pointed out, it could also undermine mutual cooperation.
With this amendment, Green Party 4, I've attempted to ensure that at least within the federal cabinet, the director, before applying to the court for a warrant that would apply extraterritorially, will be required to also consult with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This way we'll be certain that if there are other diplomatic considerations, other trade considerations, at least the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the loop before the director, in this case, goes and seeks a warrant from a Canadian court to allow CSIS agents to break the law overseas.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
While I welcome Ms. May's intention here, I'll just point out that her version of this clause contains the very problem we were trying to remove in the last one. It says that a director or an employee may do this. On our side, we will not vote for this amendment, because we're trying to make a very firm point here that the director of CSIS has to be accountable for all of these warrants.
While it may be kind of a flaw in the drafting—I guess that's what I'm saying here—and I don't disagree with your approach, we will vote against anything that allows the director of CSIS to pass that responsibility to others in the organization, because that makes accountability very difficult.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
This particular clause is dealing with applications for warrants within or outside Canada. I think putting in a stipulation that the Minister of Public Safety or departments have to speak with the Minister of Foreign Affairs is obviously not necessary when we're dealing with issues within Canada.
I also want to stress that in terms of these departments and ministers, there is already consultation going on. Putting it in here would make it a requirement even for warrants within Canada.
For those reasons I cannot support this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat similar to the last amendment. The purpose is quite simply to ensure that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is informed. I'll put it this way, I guess; if the ministers are sharing this information, and the approval of Foreign Affairs is required, then it's less likely to jeopardize the government's agenda in other areas. Ms. May named some of those: trade, diplomatic issues, etc.
I think it's important to keep in mind that these operations in a foreign country could be in violation of the law of that country. As such, if that activity is covered, it could have serious repercussions on Canadian interests in that country, be it trade, diplomatic, or otherwise.
Professor Wark, when he was before this committee, made reference to what he felt was an oversight that was lacking in Bill C-44. At the very least, if a CSIS operation that is in violation of the law in another country is discovered, and there may be repercussions, at least the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if informed ahead of time, would better be able to respond.
I think it's an absolutely necessary part of this bill to ensure that there is consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this kind of issue. That's what the amendment spells out.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It will be my pleasure to vote in favour of this amendment. I know it is similar to what was presented by the Green Party, but I think it is important to mention that we do not wish to diminish the responsibility of the director of CSIS.
And so we will vote in favour of this amendment. In my opinion, it is quite reasonable.