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.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
But with respect, what you're saying sometimes seems circular to me, because if CSIS is one of the 17 and you're saying it has no impact on CSIS, I don't understand how that can possibly work.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'll let Sophie take a crack at it.
Sophie Beecher Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Actually the definition of “activity that undermines the security of Canada” took into account the concepts of national security relevant to the 17 recipients, so we made sure that the elements of the CSIS definition were included in clause 2 so they could receive information under our act but always in accordance with their mandate and their collection authority.
However, the definition needs to be broader because we have 16 other agencies that also need to receive information when it is relevant to their national security responsibilities. The extra portions you see of the definition of activity that undermines the security of Canada reflects their mandate. If you look at the list of 17, it's a very varied list.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I have one last question then.
If Bill C-51 instead had the definition of threats to the security of Canada that's in the CSIS Act, you're saying this system of information sharing will not function?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's right, because the other 16 would be affected. You cannot disclose lawfully to the other 16 without the proposed definition. The CSIS Act definition in section 2 of that act doesn't necessarily include all the other 16.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much.
I think Mr. Easter wanted.... Sorry.
Conservative
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our official for helping to clarify that. That's actually been an issue since the start of this Bill C-51, because there's been some sort of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the actual bill itself.
There are actually five parts of this bill. The first part we're going through right now, with this amendment by the NDP dealing with the information sharing act. It has absolutely nothing to do with the basis of CSIS activities, as Mr. Garrison just indicated.
The basis of activities that CSIS can undertake is included in the CSIS Act, which is completely separate from this bill and separate from the security of the proposed Canada information sharing act, which is part 1 of this bill. I'm glad you clarified that, or attempted to clarify that one more time.
I understand the information sharing act has to be broad and comprehensive, because we have to include all of the agencies that could be crucial to a piece of information that could go towards impacting our national security and providing security for our citizens.
That is why the definition is different. The definition of the information sharing act applies to multiple agencies and government bodies, whereas the CSIS Act just applies to CSIS, and there is no connection whatsoever with the information sharing act in part 1 of the bill.
I wanted to thank you for clarifying that. I will not be supporting this amendment.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, officials.
In this whole clause that the NDP amendment would amend out, there is a lot of concern about the broad language. I think I understand your point about sharing with 16 other agencies, but what kinds of activities would be considered under the terminology about a threat to the economic security of Canada?
The bill reads undermine “the economic or financial stability of Canada”, and so anybody reading this looks at it very broadly. There could be a tractor demonstration for instance that slowed traffic, or some aboriginal demonstrations that maybe slow down the construction of a pipeline. A lot of people would look at that as undermining the economic or financial stability of the country, yet it's a legitimate protest.
So how do you explain that?
Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
I think it's very important to continue to consider the examples and the definition in light of the chapeau. The test in the definition is actually included in the chapeau, so therefore “an activity that undermines the security of Canada” is an activity that undermines the sovereignty, security, or territorial integrity of Canada, or the lives or the security of the people of Canada. The chapeau is meant to raise the bar on the seriousness of the actions. Therefore any interference with the economic or financial stability of Canada needs to be read with the chapeau in mind. It has to reach that scope that affects the country in a national way. Therefore we'd be talking about something fairly serious here that would cripple Canada in a way that would affect the lives and the security of its people.
The other important thing to remember is that in the example in paragraph 2(a), where you find “the economic or financial stability of Canada”, we are talking about “interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to”... “the economic or financial stability of Canada”. Therefore, it is not just the fact of affecting that particular area, but affecting the capability of the government to maintain economic or financial stability.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
What complicates this even further, though, relates to what Randall was talking about earlier. In the bill, under paragraph 2(d), it's “terrorism” very broadly defined. I heard your arguments before about sharing with more agencies, and that maybe makes it difficult to use the “terrorist activity” definition that is in the Criminal Code. However, without using that “terrorist activity” definition from the Criminal Code, then the bill as currently worded seems to be too broad. There's no sense in my repeating the points that Randall made, but that is a concern.
So how do you get around that argument that people engaging in some activities may feel or be considered to be engaging in a terrorist activity that is broader than the ones already defined under the CSIS Act as terrorist activity? How do you narrow that?
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
On a point of order, first, the officials are here to help us understand the bill as it's written, not to ask them questions about their opinions on how to get around something. I just want to make sure that the officials are being used as they're intended to be, to assist us in understanding the bill, and not describing what their opinions might be on other things that are a possibility, or are not in the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I thank you for that. However, in clause by clause there are no specific rules governing the questions that may be asked. Obviously, the chair would certainly appreciate relevancy to the topic.
Carry on, Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm not asking for opinions, Mr. Chair. I'm asking officials from the Department of Justice why the terrorist activity definitions in the CSIS Act were not used, because they're very specific. In this bill, it seems to me—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, I'm just going to interrupt you. I just stated there is no limitation—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
—so I would just ask you to receive that. I've already stated it clearly, but I would also just ask for consideration, moving forward, that we try to be as close to the parameters of the study as possible. That way we'll be a little bit more efficient and effective.
You still have the floor, sir.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you.
I come back to my question. There are concerns over the view that this word “terrorism” is clause 2 is much too broad and may draw in areas beyond the narrower definition in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code on terrorist activity.
I'll ask you a second question at the same time, and that will be it for me, Mr. Chair.
I would like you to explain, if you could, what's the threshold of activity that's related to “interference with critical infrastructure”.
Counsel, Public Safety Canada, Legal Services, Department of Justice
When the definition was crafted, all existing definitions in law were studied and taken into account. It was considered that we should not constrain the definition to legal interpretations that are associated with other statutes because they were brought into force in very specific contexts for very specific purposes.
We did not want to discount the interpretation of those terms either and, therefore, it is anticipated that the word “terrorism”, as used in this act, will be interpreted first of all in the very specific context of this act with a view to the chapeau and the objectives of this act, but also not in isolation of similar concepts or the use of the word “terrorism” in other statutes.
Therefore, we anticipate that the definition will be interpreted with a view to the definition of terrorist activity in the Criminal Code as well as any other definitions. It will be read in context.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
To the second part on the threshold related to critical infrastructure, I just go back to the point that we've made before that the chapeau is the key here, that the threshold be considered in the context of whether the activity undermined the sovereignty of Canada, the security of Canada, or the territorial integrity of Canada.