Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2015

[Barry Cooper]

Well, it should certainly be over the RCMP, and yes, I would include members of Parliament under the same circumstances as the current SIRC members operate. The Australians, as I said, have done this for awhile and it seems to be working fairly well and they have the same kind of regime as we do.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The British as well increased their oversight in 2013.

Mr. Champ, maybe you can explain clause 6 to me. I'll just read what it says:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents a head, or their delegate,...under subsection 5(1) from, in accordance with the law, using that information, or further disclosing it to any person, for any purpose.

I'm worried about that section. What does that mean from your perspective?

[Paul Champ]

It's a wide open door to share information for just what it says “to any person for any reason”. That's why we feel this bill is such a serious threat to privacy. It drops all the controls that have really been a thrust of Canadian law for so long, in the Privacy Act and everything. It's a pretty dramatic departure for Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is not the first time we've seen the term “lawful dissent” in a national security bill. It was initially in the one we introduced in 2001, but the government of the day had the wisdom to amend that out. If the word “lawful” were amended out in that section of the bill, would it make it more satisfactory to you and the group you represent?

[Paul Champ]

I would say so, Mr. Easter. That's part of it, but, again, I just don't think we've heard an explanation about why we're coming up with a new definition for threats to the security of Canada when the one in the CSIS Act has worked so well for so long.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You still have about 30 seconds, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Let me come back to Mr. Cooper then.

Have you seen either Hugh Segal's bill, Bill S-220, or the other one before Parliament that proposes oversight by parliamentarians?

[Barry Cooper]

No.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I will agree with Mr. Atkey. I do think the Segal bill is better, because it compels departments and agencies to provide information to parliamentarians who are sworn to secrecy on the day-to-day monitoring of those agencies. Do you think that's a reasonable approach?

[Barry Cooper]

Yes, I do.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We have about one minute, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thanks very much.

Thanks very much to all three witnesses for appearing today and giving very valuable testimony.

Since I have only one minute, I will go to Mr. Champ. As a former prosecutor, do you think this new terrorism offence that's being proposed has value in combatting the threats we face now, or is existing law adequate to do that?

[Paul Champ]

The big point on that is that offences already exist for those who advocate violent acts or terrorism. Again, I am not sure if it has been fully explained why we need this expanded definition of “reasonable and proportional”. What is the kind of speech that it's designed to address? Everything that I've heard so far would already be captured by existing offences in the Criminal Code.

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

When it comes to information-sharing, if I understand correctly, your concern is that it essentially tears down the existing protections of privacy when the government deals with individuals' information. Is that the essence of your objection to that?

[Paul Champ]

Yes, absolutely. It's not simply some of the individuals I mentioned. It's also a general problem. Knowledge that their information might be “shared” and “collated”—that's the language of the bill—into secret files creates a chilling effect for people who want to engage in maybe unpopular or controversial speech. That's what Canada is about. We are a democratic society. It is essential to a vibrant and robust society to allow that kind of speech.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

To our witnesses today, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Champ, and Chief Bellegarde, thank you very kindly for coming here today.

We will now adjourn until the meeting tonight.