Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of points here. One, the SIRC, Security Intelligence Review Committee, study in its summary in the 2009-10 annual report noted that the CSIS director had testified in Parliament in May 2010 that disruption operations should principally be left to the RCMP. So I think it is possible to do disruption without it necessarily being CSIS that does the disruption, and it might be better placed with police authorities.

When Professor Forcese was asked a question on how our intelligence agencies compare with our Five Eyes partners and whether or not any of our Five Eyes partners had empowered their CSIS equivalents with the authority to violate domestic law, he stated:

I can only report what it is that I've asked counterpart colleagues in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States when I posed the question whether their domestic security intelligence organizations have powers of disruption, and whether those powers of disruption are permitted to supersede either their domestic law or their constitutional rights. The answer from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom was no.

I wonder if the witnesses who are here could respond. With these new disruptive powers of CSIS, why are we so far removed from the mainstream of what our Five Eyes partners do?

I would say again, Mr. Chair, our Five Eyes partners all have national oversight but the government fails to bring that up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On a point of order—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I think Mr. Easter is asking the witnesses to give an opinion as opposed to explaining the context of what's actually in the bill, so I'm not sure whether there's a different question that Mr. Easter would like to ask, but it's certainly not the position of the witnesses to provide opinion testimony as to why certain countries do one thing and other countries do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your point is in order.

You may ask a direct question, but not ask for an opinion, Mr. Easter. If it's seeking information that would be in order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Then my question would be do any of our Five Eyes partners, United States, Australia, New Zealand or U.K., give these kinds of disruptive powers to their equivalents of CSIS and do they allow their agencies to supercede either domestic law or constitutional rights?

[John Davies]

Yes. Not New Zealand, but the others, Australia, U.K., U.S., absolutely have equivalent powers. The minister mentioned that in his remarks when he was at the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Because the minister mentioned it doesn't mean it's correct, that's for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, that is not helpful. Just carry on.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm just stating a fact, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That is not a fact, Mr. Easter. That's just not necessary.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can appreciate Mr. Easter making that comment, but I cannot appreciate the questioning of the witness casting him in a disparaging way. As a matter of fact, I don't think we should cast any witness, or anyone here to give us advice, in a disparaging way, just as I would never impugn or put into question an academic's opinion based on his or her research. I think it's important for this committee to make sure that....

We have witnesses who have different opinions, and we have witnesses who can look at other countries and come away with differences of opinion as to their ability or inability to do certain things. Canada is a separate, independent, and sovereign country. We do adapt certain things from other countries, but we don't necessarily have to emulate them or have what they have. I suspect that if we had certain agencies, such as they do south of the border, the people across the way would be—well, except for Randall—pulling their hair out.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor now, sir.

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

Like most people who are listening to this, and most people at the table, I'm assuming we're back on the Liberal amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No, I thought you had your question. I thought you had your hand up—

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

We're still on the Green Party amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, we are. We are on PV-39. Are you fine on that one?

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

I've spoken on it. Yes, I'm fine. I was anticipating the next one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry. Okay, thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go to Liberal amendment 11.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, my question concerns the amendment to the act that would ensure that CSIS could not contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're basically asking a judge to authorize a violation—that may be too strong a word, but I can't think of a lighter one—of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe one of the witnesses, and I forget which one, said that would constitute a constitutional breach from his or her point of view.

I have a question for Justice officials, Mr. Chair. Are Justice officials prepared to state on the record that the provisions in part 4 related to the ability of CSIS to violate the charter will not be overturned as the result of litigation? Can they comment on that?

[John Davies]

Just to be clear, I'm from Public Safety, as is Ms. Banerjee. Mr. Duffy is from Justice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On a point of order, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

Mr. Easter, you know, because you've been Attorney General, that you can never prejudge what the outcome of litigation might be. Do you really think it's fair to put this question to a witness?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I really do not know. I put the question forward for the simple reason that I'm fully convinced that the Supreme Court will overturn this at some point in time. I cannot believe that the Department of Justice, with this section in the bill, has found this to be charter-proof. That's why I'm asking the question.

Let me ask it another way, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, the chair will respond briefly. It would have to be in a totally different way, the simple reason being that you cannot ask witnesses to pass judgement on something that is subjective and not even before them, from the point of view of an action having been taken. Please head into another direction, if you would.