Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I would like to continue to talk about the civilian oversight of CSIS, because a number of questions have been left unanswered.

Right now, the civilian oversight body of CSIS provides a report after the fact. Bill C-51 gives new powers to CSIS, but this is what I am wondering. Who will provide the oversight in real time? Who will ensure that CSIS complies with the warrants?

Bill C-51 is providing several new powers to CSIS. Right now, the civilian oversight body provides a report once a year after the fact. Will we find out what happened after the fact as is the case right now, or will we know in real time what is happening exactly?

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

The answer is very simple. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is subject to all Canadian laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and privacy laws.

It is important to specify it this morning. The threat reduction activities set out in the legislation cannot undermine the physical integrity or health of an individual in any way whatsoever.

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

Mr. Minister, I would still like to know where we are at on that. It is an extremely important aspect and several experts have pointed it out over the last few weeks. What is the situation with the civilian oversight? Will it stay the same, meaning it will take place after the fact, or will there be an oversight mechanism? Do you think it would be a good idea to have a mechanism providing oversight in real time so that we know exactly what is happening?

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

That is what I am telling you. We have both: the belt and the suspenders. We have an oversight mechanism at all times. Let me remind you that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service must respect the law; its inherent responsibility is to respect the law.

I also mentioned other mechanisms, such as the authorizations granted through ministerial directives or through a judge, in some cases.

Over the past 30 years, the roadmap of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been listed in the annual reports of the review committee that has the power to intervene in various sectors.

This morning, you are giving me the opportunity to remind you that Bill C-51 gives more powers to the review committee, specifically enabling it to review the threat reduction activities.

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

Yes, but that takes place after the fact. Do the provisions in Bill C-51 make it possible to provide more powers to the Security Intelligence Review Committee?

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

Yes, there are the legal warrants for threat reduction cases. As we have seen, that does not affect the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It has to do more with preventive arrests related to warrants. There are additional tools for both cases. In addition, let me remind you that, to my knowledge, we are the only country that does not have those tools. We checked what tools many of our allied countries have. We must realize that we are lagging behind. Right now, all the intelligence services of our allies can reduce the threat. They are able to take action.

Remember that your first question was about whether we had anti-radicalization prevention measures. Right now, the intelligence services that are in the line of fire, where radicalization takes place, are not able to intervene to reduce the threat. To be consistent in taking a stand to reduce radicalization, we must be in favour of threat reduction measures. Let me say this again: we are the only country to include judicial oversight and a warrant issued by a judge.

As part of this warrant, the service must describe all the activities to the judge. The judge can deny or issue the warrant or bring in a third party to obtain a critical opinion. That is the system in place and we are strengthening it through Bill C-51.

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

Right now, there are positions available on the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Will you be appointing people quickly to fill those positions?

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

There are already 15 to 20 full-time employees. There are four commissioners and a fifth position needs to be filled. Clearly, we must have experts. For instance, the last person to be appointed is Mr. Holloway, the dean of a law faculty.

As Minister MacKay said, it is important to entrust this mandate to people who have the necessary skills. That is what the staff of the Security Intelligence Review Committee does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blaney.

Mr. Falk, you have five minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I want to thank the ministers and their officials for attending this meeting this morning and for their input.

Back in the 1920s my grandparents were experiencing terrorism in what was then known as the Soviet Union. They were refugees in Canada during that time. We've been thankful ever since that the government allowed my grandparents to immigrate here under the refugee program.

One of the things that is of interest to me is with regard to the changes being made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In terms of some of the amendments that this bill proposes, can you clarify why they are needed and why those changes are being made?

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

Canada is a welcoming country. Canada is welcoming immigrants from around the world every year. There are more than 200,000 immigrants, new Canadians, coming to Canada. They come and they like, if I can put it this way, our Canadian way of living. My ancestors emigrated from Ireland. That's probably why I'm so skinny; there was not much to eat at that time.

To get back to your question regarding the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, this is in response to the Supreme Court. In the case of some individuals who could come here and potentially represent a threat to our security, we want to make sure that we clarify the rules under which we are able to protect Canadians while ensuring that we respect their rights.

That's why we've defined the way in which the information can be processed and also how we can protect national security in that regard. There is also a clearly defined appeal process for any individual. Once again, this is to clarify the procedures under which Canada, when an individual could represent a threat, is dealing with that issue.

We've actually considered a former decision of the Supreme Court that indicated that we needed to clarify the law. That is why this section is in the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I would only add, Mr. Falk, that this ties in with what Mr. Blaney outlined earlier in terms of the importance of the information sharing that goes on between government departments. I think it would actually shock some Canadians to know that this isn't already happening to the extent that's necessary in this very fluid and evolving threat assessment. The information sharing is extremely important particularly with a department such as immigration. To your very real experience in terms of your family lineage, so many people do come to this country to get out from under the yoke of terrorism, to leave that behind and to come to Canada and avail themselves of the protections that we enjoy in this country, our charter, our Constitution. Our way of life is something that they're quick to embrace.

In talking about this bill, I think it's new Canadians perhaps who have the greatest perspective on what makes this country great and why they're here and why they're so quick to embrace and participate in the freedoms that we're so fortunate to enjoy. This bill is about enhancing and protecting those freedoms and all Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Minister, and that's the way I see it as well, that this bill is a step forward in protecting our rights and freedoms.

Can you explain briefly what the process is in respect to appealing a decision by a judge during the course of proceedings?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

With respect to immigration?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, with a security certificate regime.

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

I would suggest that you refer to clause 52 of the bill, which clearly defines the technical way in which an appeal can be targeted. The bill describes how it works. Basically, we base our appeal process on other appeal processes so that it would meet constitutional rights. That's how it is filled. I would say it is a model of appeal that compares to others in similar situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll go to—

[A voice]

Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like the discretion of the committee to be allowed to ask a question. As you know, a number of us as members of Parliament requested to have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, we never—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No, you don't have the floor. You don't have the floor, I'm sorry. What I will do is the chair will put your request and if I have a majority decision here to allow that to happen, that could take place.

Do I have unanimous support?

[An hon. member]

No.