Public Safety Committee on Dec. 1st, 2014

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, to reiterate, we signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Did we mean it when we signed it, or did we not mean it? If we meant it when we signed it and if we still believe in it, there should really be no qualms whatsoever about reaffirming it and making it explicitly clear in this bill.

It's regrettable that you chose not to pass the amendment to clause 3, but I hope that at least through clause 4 we will show our commitment to what we signed in 1984, for the very good reasons, which I won't reiterate, that, as the honourable member from the NDP stated, governments change, commissioners change, and ministers change.

Once again, we agree with the Privacy Commissioner that it is important to make sure this is explicit and well understood, and that we recommit to those principles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there further comment?

Mr. Carmichael.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

I'll weigh in on it.

The amendment as it's currently written would not achieve its intended effect.

This issue is covered by the ministerial direction on information sharing with foreign entities dated July 28, 2011. It sets out a coherent approach regarding information sharing where there may be a risk of mistreatment.

I'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there further discussion on amendments PV-3 and PV-3a?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

We have amendment NDP-2.

You're on, Mr. Garrison.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a small amendment, but I think it's an important one in that it indicates the tendency of the government to overreach as it drafted the legislation. As drafted, the legislation says that CSIS could keep each and every one of its employees' names secret. It could become an entirely secret organization.

I think the intent of it, which I think is valid, is to say if people are likely to be assigned to covert activities in the future, then their identity could be protected. That's why we've chosen to say “designated”. When someone is hired and is being trained as an agent who's going to work in the field, you designate them as that, and then you can protect their identity, instead of having this overly broad statement that simply allows protection of the identity of everyone who has ever worked or who might in future work for CSIS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can't support that amendment because that would limit career potential for anyone employed with CSIS. Once they're identified, that removes the anonymity they may have in the field if ever they choose to move from a position within their administration into covert activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madam Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you.

I think the amendment is quite reasonable. In fact, the words used are the following: “An employee who was, is or has been designated as likely to become [...]”

That is very broad when we we are talking about the employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but I think that it is still in the spirit of how we should consider a future employee.

In English, the terms are the following:

“likely to become”.

There again, the wording is quite broad. A lot of identities could be protected with that.

That is all I wanted to mention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I do support this amendment. I think Randall's arguments are valid.

This does not place a big burden on CSIS or on the government. It is basically asking for designation. Almost daily we're seeing this, even in the RCMP accountability act, with this gag order for life that in many cases is being placed on public servants.

In this case, I know, it's CSIS, and that is an issue that's involving national security, but there are cases, whether it's a review body or whatever, where an individual may need to talk about some of the problems in terms of the operations without impacting on specific information that should be kept secret. It creates a fear factor within the public service, such that people are scared to say anything even if it is in the legitimate public interest.

This is not a big burden on CSIS, and I fully support it. It just requires them to designate certain individuals rather than a blanket treatment for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James, then Mr. Carmichael, and then Ms. Ablonczy.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'll try to be very brief. I just want to say that I'm not supporting it either. I agree with what Mr. Falk said about someone who is within CSIS and is moving within the administration. This would actually prevent them from doing so. What would happen? Would you have to fire someone and rehire them under a designated title?

I think you would also find that CSIS would simply, as a matter of a contract, designate everyone as having the potential to be in that capacity at some time in their career. I don't see the point of this. I think it's almost like a moot point to put an extra word in there, and I'm not going to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Carmichael.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I support Madam James' comments.

To my colleague opposite, Madam Doré Lefebvre, who suggested the amendment was reasonable, I don't disagree with that, but I think it's restrictive. I think what it does to a corporation is it puts handcuffs on that corporation that limits them in their ability to move people as they so designate in a timely manner. I think this amendment would do just that. It would restrict the corporation in its activities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. Ablonczy.

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

I was just going to say, not to be a conspiracy theorist, but to maintain its flexibility, why wouldn't CSIS just designate all of their employees as possibly going to be engaging in covert activities? So the whole thing becomes meaningless. That's what I would do if I were handcuffed by this. I don't want to put any bad thoughts in anybody's mind, but.... I think the intent of this is somewhat laudable, but I think that in practice it's probably not going to work anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, point made.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There was some good discussion. Thanks, colleagues.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, the government never listens to us, no matter how good the discussion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Sorry, Mr. Chair. That wasn't even a point of order.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we have a number of amendments on the clauses that are left. We'll just move forward.

On clause 7, we have amendment NDP-3.

Mr. Garrison.

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

This is very similar to the Green Party's amendment earlier which amended a different section. We found what we thought would be a better place for it. We felt there should be an express commitment to protecting the identity of a human source given in advance of providing the information.

We have this protection which allows CSIS to sort of go out and offer a blanket protection to everybody who tells them anything, instead of what I think is the intention and actually the practice, which is to say that in pieces of important and significant information where there's a threat to someone, you offer that protection. That is what this says, that you would make an express commitment, not necessarily written, but in advance of receiving the information. That's what the sources are looking for in order to cooperate with CSIS, rather than a kind of broad “everybody who tells us anything gets protected”, which I think the courts will find difficult to deal with if the legislation is left as it is. This actually protects the integrity of the process by saying that there will be an express commitment in advance of the information having been given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. Ablonczy.

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

Sorry, I can't help myself here. Isn't the blanket protection the best protection that you can give? It's kind of like knowing that journalists are going to protect their sources, because why would anyone talk to them otherwise? This is the same thing. Why would anyone talk to a security agent if there were some doubt about whether there was explicit enough protection.

If you go into a seedy bar and someone sidles up to you and says, “Guess what one of my buddies did? And by the way, if I tell you this, do I have explicit protection?” I just don't see this working in practice. Everybody has to know that if you help out a security agency of Canada, you are going to be protected, just like journalists will protect their sources. Then everybody knows where they're at. There's no question about whether this protection is explicit enough, or maybe it isn't, and do they have to worry about that.

I think you're getting into a really unworkable situation.