Evidence of meeting #62 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was just looking at clause 44, and I see the words:
(f) any terms and conditions that the judge considers advisable in the public interest.
My view is that if a warrant is issued by a judge.... I believe that our colleague Mr. Easter said that's the end of it. That is not correct. The judge can put conditions on that they may have to come back before the judge to determine whether in fact they followed all of the conditions that were set by the judiciary.
Thank you.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
A recorded vote, please.
(Clause 42 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you, colleagues.
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(On clause 44)
We will now go to Green Party amendment 44.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This proposed amendment is directly related to watching much testimony, but particularly the concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association that, in the event of the judicial warrant provisions carrying, which they now have, we at least amend the bill “to ensure that”—this is the language from the CBA brief—“they align with the fundamental role of Canada's judiciary in upholding the Rule of Law and Canada's constitutional guarantees”.
They point out some of the real weaknesses with the process, which is why this is so important as an amendment. They point out that in this judicial constitutional breach procedure:
No third parties will be able to make submissions. ...the ultimate court decision will be...unavailable to the public, due to confidential security information. No party will be able to appeal the decision. It is untenable that the infringement of Charter rights is open to debate, in secret proceedings where only the government is represented.
That is from the Canadian Bar Association.
Therefore, I am suggesting that we amend this at the end of clause 44 by replacing line 25 with “determined that the measures proposed to be taken are consistent with the rule of law and...the principles of fundamental justice”.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Ms. May seems to have a touching faith in the Canadian Bar Association, but others of us have been members of various bar associations. I've been one, and I have quite a different opinion. It's disappointing to see the Green Party continuing to attempt to put more barriers in the way of protecting Canadian society against terrorism and terrorist threats.
Here's another example. Right now, in order for CSIS to take the steps that they feel are necessary to protect against a threat, they have to go to a judge and say what they're going to do and why they're going to do it, and convince the judge that this is a reasonable and legal thing to do. The judge has to consider the CSIS Act to see whether CSIS is in fact acting within their mandate and, of course, the charter, because anything that CSIS wants to do has to be compliant with the charter, as we've already talked about at length.
Now the Green Party wants to throw some other things into the mix. I'm sure the NDP would never want to do that. Now the judge would have to also consider, in addition to the charter and the CSIS Act, something like “rule of law”. They would have to consider things like “principles of fundamental justice”, whatever that is. If the Green Party had their way, there would be such a morass of opinions and considerations that action would be pretty much at a stalemate.
I've been a member of the bar and I strongly disagree with the Canadian Bar Association on this, and I strongly disagree with this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much. Now for the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to Green Party 45.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, I would mention just briefly, because I was not allowed to respond earlier, that the Green Party is very concerned to appropriately and responsibly address any terrorist threats. We are not putting barriers in the way of protecting Canadians, but we do like to protect Canadian rights and freedoms, and one of them is—
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, again, I think we need the Green Party member to speak to the amendment she's put forward and not to the past decisions and votes that were done on a previous amendment that was put forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I understand that, but we just allowed a quick response, and it was a quick response. The chair has a little latitude there as long as it's very quick.
Now, of course, please finish your motion.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment, again compliant with the advice that we received from many witnesses, takes out the following:
(d) to do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures.
(4) Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state,
My language at this point picks up with:
(4) A judge may, in a
It is not in anyway hampering the new CSIS kinetic powers, which I actually think will make Canada less safe.
In any case, this is to tighten up the language.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you.
I'll reiterate that I don't believe you can actually fix this section of the bill or fix these warrants. But if you were going to fix it, this amendment would be a very good start. For that reason we will be supporting Ms. May's amendment.
The language that she's taking out—“Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state”—implies that there will be some kind of violations of international law allowed, and implies that we'll get into situations where we might be violating the laws of our allies and inviting them to do the same for us.
Again, I think generally it's unfixable, but this would be a good start if we were trying to fix the language here.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Certainly I disagree with the amendment. It's contrary to the intent of the bill. The bill gives CSIS a broad mandate to take measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, and as long as they are reasonable and proportional as well as charter-compliant.... The amendment would prevent CSIS from taking a wide range of threat reduction measures, and would weaken its ability to address threats to national security.
The amendment, by removing the authority of judges to consider only relevant Canadian law and authorizing measures outside Canada, would force CSIS to be aware at all times of any international or foreign legal impacts of our proposed activity and an unreasonable standard to be met.
I think that's enough on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We've had discussion. All in favour....
Oh, excuse me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, I'm sorry, but I have Mrs. James down first, and then I'll certainly get to you as well.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I think the biggest concern with this is that it would somehow make CSIS' ability to take threat diminishment measures dependent upon the laws of other countries. I just think back to when we did our previous Bill C-44. We heard testimony, and we've heard testimony again here, about how absolutely ridiculous that would be considering some of the countries' laws and how backwards they are to what we believe is right in a democratic society and under the umbrella of the charter.
I think that's the biggest concern with this amendment, that we would be relying on other countries' laws to dictate how CSIS could carry out their work. Considering some of those countries, I think that's completely over the top and outrageous.
