Evidence of meeting #57 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 sharing.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much.
In your time with CSIS and the RCMP, did you observe or feel there were any systemic prejudices in your organization with regard to any individual groups? Or would I be correct in saying that would happen only where there was criminality in any group or cadre of Canadian persons?
As an Individual
I have vast experience over 35-plus years of dealing with different law enforcement agencies internationally, and I would say I've never seen that. As well, I would encourage indigenous leaders to be part of the governance when we start developing what is going to be shared in the information-sharing act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.
Mr. Easter, go ahead for seven minutes, please, sir.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all three witnesses for coming.
Mr. Morrison, you said that you had worked for the federal government—I didn't catch the year, but I think it was in 2012 or that it ended in 2012—on the whole information-sharing act aspect. I do agree with you on the point that information, whatever it is, has to be accurate, timely, and reliable, especially in the area of counterterrorism.
You said that the funding was withdrawn. Can you name the program and when that happened?
As an Individual
I was seconded to Treasury Board Secretariat, and the funding was withdrawn as the Treasury Board was just starting the Shared Services Canada initiative. That was a higher priority at the time.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
One of the things that I think we, and a lot of people, are increasingly concerned about, which I didn't expect to come forward at this committee, is resourcing. It's important too. The Minister of Public Safety had said that there will be no new financial resources required to do the things that are required under this act. If there are no new resources, in my view, the job won't get done.
We know now there are cutbacks in the RCMP to the point that they're having to move personnel from criminal investigations to anti-terrorism investigations. I say that just to raise the point that funding is an important issue for us to be able to do what needs to be done in dealing with terrorism analysis.
Mr. Wark, I went through your long submission as well. I do appreciate your work and the fact that you've outlined in there a number of recommendations. In your longer paper you do talk about—and you mentioned it as well in your remarks—the elephant in the room being the CSE.
Can you expand on that somewhat? CSE is certainly not mentioned in the bill, as you say in your submission, but how important is it that all the elements related to public security and national safety be looked at for accountability and oversight reasons, the whole combination?
It's not just enough to do SIRC when you're talking of a bill of this magnitude. Can you perhaps expand on that.
Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
My comments regarding CSE being the secret elephant in the room really refer to the fact that CSE is one of our leading national security intelligence agencies, with a three-part mandate, as you will know. It includes foreign intelligence gathering; cyber-security, a cyber-security mission and a third part, which is assistance to law enforcement and security agencies in Canada.
I think what we will see with Bill C-51, if it passes in either unamended or amended form, is that CSE will be deeply engaged by the various new provisions in Bill C-51 under the third part of its mandate, in which it really relies on the lawful authority of other agencies to conduct the collection of electronic information, whether at home or abroad. I think in a way that is leading CSE into a secret space where it shouldn't be left, in terms of Canadians' understanding of the significance of its role.
The second thing I would say briefly—and I mentioned it both in the longer brief and in the prepared statement—is that CSE's enabling legislation was passed in 2001 as part of the Anti-terrorism Act. I commented on that enabling legislation at the time and raised questions about it. It was an experiment, enabling legislation, and I think it's an experiment that hasn't passed the test of time, as successive CSE commissioners have complained over and over again that there are aspects of the legal authority under which CSE operates that are simply insufficient, particularly with regard to ministerial authorizations.
I think Bill C-51 presented us with an opportunity to update and amend CSE's legislation, an opportunity that has, to my mind, puzzlingly not been seized by the government, and it's left Canadians not appreciating how crucial its role is in the counterterrorism field.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you.
I would submit that Bill C-51 still does present us that opportunity, if government backbench members—there's not a member of the executive here—stand up in their own right stand at this committee and allow amendments, because that can happen. Bills can be improved. It's only in recent Parliaments that we have seen bills go through, with witnesses not being listened to, and the resulting bill being the same as the one that came to committee. That's unacceptable in a democracy like Canada's.
In any event, related to the CSE, I have here the report of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. This is one of the possibilities that was looked at for proper oversight of all their intelligence agencies. In the report, the chair says, “The Committee sets its own agenda and work programme” and “takes evidence from Government Ministers, the heads of the intelligence Agencies” and security agencies, etc.
Would that concept at least be helpful in bringing some satisfaction that there is proper parliamentary oversight of all our security agencies and give Canadians some confidence that, on the one hand, security agencies are doing their job using the authorities they have under the law, but also, on the other hand, not overreaching and using the law for things that might impact on civil liberties and freedom of expression?
Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Very briefly, I'm very much a fan of the British model, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which has now been in existence for a number of years. Its powers were recently expanded.
If we were to adapt such a model to Canadian needs, it would not only fill a huge gap in the current accountability regime, which is the inability of Parliament to successfully scrutinize security and intelligence activities in this country, but it would also provide for a kind of strategic level look at the whole range of intelligence and national security activities, which is also currently absent from our accountability system, as Justice O'Connor understood in volume II of his report in the Arar inquiry.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Thank you, colleagues.
To our witnesses, on behalf of the committee, thank you very kindly for taking the time and making the effort to come here today.
The chair will make one quick note. We will meet again this evening, of course. Our timing could be a little suspect due to the voting requirements, but we will meet regardless, for two hours, immediately after the votes.
The meeting is adjourned.