Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. It is extremely important to have you here so that we can better understand the intricacies of Bill C-51.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the distinctions that you made. I reread the definition that is being used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I do not see why the 17 federal institutions affected by Bill C-51 could not use this definition, which seems to include a lot of things. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, activities that promote the use of violence, and so on. The definition that CSIS is currently using already includes a lot of things.

First, why could the 17 federal institutions affected by Bill C-51 not use that definition? What would that change?

Second, if I understood correctly, CSIS is one of the 17 institutions that will be affected by the definition set out in Bill C-51. In a way, the bill would not change the definition used by CSIS. Is that correct?

[Élise Renaud, Policy Specialist, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I will answer your first question about broadening the definition.

The existing mandates of the 17 institutions listed in Schedule 3 of the bill are much broader than CSIS's mandate. If only CSIS's definition were used, the existing mandates of the other 16 institutions would not be consistent with the bill's wording.

There are two things to consider with regard to the issue of information. First, there is the information that the other government organizations could send. Second, the 17 institutions listed in Schedule 3 need to have a mandate to gather information.

Such a broad definition is required to allow for maximum flexibility in order to take into account all of the mandates. However, under this bill, the mandate for the gathering of information cannot be broadened because every organization is limited by the powers that it already has in that area. The bill merely authorizes these 17 institutions to share the information in question.

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

To help me better understand, could you give me an example of the sharing of corporate information? What would the new definition actually do?

[Élise Renaud]

A department could have information that is not necessarily related to national security. I cannot give a specific example, but it could involve any government organization that has information that meets the criteria set out in the definition.

First, according to the definition, the information must actually undermine the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada. Then, we would need to see, of the 17 institutions set out in Schedule 3, which mandate relates to this type of information. If the relevance criteria is met, then the organization in question can share the information. An institution listed in Schedule 3 must already have a legal mandate to receive this information through enabling legislation or other means.

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

With regard to the last part of my question, or in other words, with regard to CSIS, the change to the definition proposed in the second clause of Bill C-51 will broaden CSIS's definition, even though the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act already includes a definition. Bill C-51 affects CSIS's definition. What tangible impact will that have on the agency?

[Élise Renaud]

It will not change CSIS's existing mandate at all. To receive the information in question, CSIS must respect the existing mandate set out in the act. The definition contained in the bill will not affect the other definitions or the other activities of the organizations listed in Schedule 3. There is therefore no impact on the definition that is currently set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, and I do thank the officials for their assistance.

Even though the government constantly tries to re-characterize what we're saying, no one on this side has ever argued that this changes CSIS operations. It changes information sharing. The concern that we heard from witness after witness was that the definitions in Bill C-51 are much broader and risk bringing in legitimate dissent. They risk bringing in economic activities, such as protests against pipelines, and they present a risk, because of their broadness, to first nations who are attempting to defend their title and rights. We've heard witness after witness raise these concerns.

I think the purpose of our amendment is clear, and that is to narrow the scope of information sharing. We would agree with the government that if we're talking about use of violence and the common-language understanding of terrorism, obviously government departments need to be able to share that information. But when you come to this much broader list, I think we have a great deal of disagreement.

I just want to cite recommendation 2 from the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA recommended that the scope of activities subject to information sharing under the SCISA be narrowed, and that's exactly what our amendment does. It would narrow those to the much more easy-to-understand definitions that occur in the CSIS Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Seeing no further questions, I will call for a vote on amendment NDP-1.

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

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We'll have a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We will now go to the second amendment, PV-1 by the Green Party.

Ms. May, as we've discussed, you certainly have the opportunity and the courtesy and consideration of the committee to briefly introduce your amendment, and I would obviously suggest that it be brief.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I'm here only as a result of a majority vote of this committee identical to all the others undertaken through a motion obviously drafted in PMO that deprives me of my right to do so at report stage, I accept the opportunity, but I also have to note that there's a bit of coercion involved. I'm very glad to have the chance, Mr. Chair, to present amendments anywhere in the Parliament of Canada; it is my right as a member of Parliament.

I am again attempting to take up the case made by the NDP amendment that was just defeated. I just want to respond that what my amendment does is one more thing than what Randall's attempted to do, which is that I also deal with the provision that in the current draft reads:

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent

and so on.

Let me go to the first part of what I was trying to do. The definition is from the CSIS Act, and I reject the explanations given to us by the Department of Justice. They are nonsense. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time to go into why I think they're nonsense.

Secondly, I think the word “however” is clearer than “for greater certainty”; it becomes an actual exemption, as opposed to merely advice.

I know that the government amendment that's coming up soon, which I would support, removes the word “lawful”, which is one of the things my amendment does. But the government amendment doesn't deal with this question of “for greater certainty” versus “however”.

There is no more serious thing than sharing information inappropriately. Just ask Maher Arar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. May, for the discussion.

Yes, Ms. Ablonczy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I heard the same witnesses that my friend Mr. Garrison referred to. There has been a great deal of fearmongering about this bill. There's been a great deal of overblown suspicion about the bill. Sometimes you can correct that; sometimes you can't. I think the officials have been extremely clear that this is in no way intended to do anything other than protect the sovereignty and security of our country, and that normal protests or free speech in our country are absolutely not impacted.

So it's very clear that there's just been a misunderstanding about the scope of this provision. I think the explanation from the officials has been very helpful, and I think that we should accept the intent as it was explained to us by the officials who drafted this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Seeing nothing further, I will call for a vote.

Excuse me, Mr. Garrison. I'm sorry, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate the work that Ms. May has put into the amendments on this bill, and what she suggests here incorporates much of what was in our first amendment. But I do take exception to the government continuing to say that people who disagree misunderstand. This bill clearly expands information sharing among 17 agencies of the government, and Ms. May's amendment attempts to do the same thing that ours did in NDP-1, which is an attempt to narrow that, which is what the vast majority of the witnesses at our committee said needed to be done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to BQ-1.

Mr. Patry

[Claude Patry, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In one sentence, we want the agreement to be approved by the commissioner and for it to be set out in writing. That is what we are asking for.

Am I wrong? I apologize, Mr. Chair.

What people have been discussing is very interesting, but the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness told the committee that protestors, Aboriginal peoples, unions and separatists are not targeted by this bill.

We want that in writing, in black and white, so that it is truly clear. I come from a labour background, and if people had to go on strike tomorrow morning, then I want that to be clear in the legislation. For now, it is open to interpretation and that is what we are dealing with this morning at this table. It would be easier if it were written in black and white. That is what the Bloc Québécois is asking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Patry, and thank you for your brevity.

Yes, Mr. Falk.

Oh, excuse me. Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Patry, for being here with us and proposing amendments.

Mr. Patry is proposing one small change to a definition that we think is much too broad. I do not think that is enough. In fact, it would change only one word of paragraph (f) of this broad definition that the Conservatives are proposing in Bill C-51. I am not sure that that would do exactly what the witnesses wanted.

The committee heard from many witnesses, particularly about how the definition was too broad. Many groups, particularly first nations groups and environmental leaders, are affected by this. I get the impression that we are not addressing what is really important here.

Unfortunately, I am going to oppose the amendment that Mr. Patry is proposing today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Madam Doré Lefebvre.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Doré Lefebvre's analysis of this amendment is not accurate. It's not just one little change, which I don't agree with. They're suggesting changing the word “interference” to “sabotage”. I think some things are best addressed by nipping them in the bud, and changing it to actual “sabotage” does not allow it to do that.

But there is a second part to their amendment, which the NDP did not mention, and that's changing the “for greater certainty” clause in the bill. I think the change proposed by the separatist party is divisive in nature, and I can't support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll now call for a vote—

Mr. Easter, I missed you. Sorry, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's not a problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with both the Bloc amendment and what Ms. Doré Lefebvre said. I think it is better to say “sabotage of critical infrastructure” than “interference with critical infrastructure”. I think it would give some assurance to those out there who may be legally protesting certain actions.

I will admit I have concerns about the other part of the amendment. I believe there are better amendments further down our list that take out the word “lawful”. So I'm concerned about the second part, but I guess it all has to be voted on as a whole. Does it, Mr. Chair?