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.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
With regard to Green Party amendment 42, I believe that the amendment would specify that bodily harm includes torture, as defined in subsection 269.1(2) of the Criminal Code, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the UN convention against torture.
The amendment is not necessary. The bill already prohibits CSIS from causing bodily harm, which includes psychological harm, intentionally or by criminal negligence. Furthermore, torture would be contrary to Canadian constitutional obligations, the Criminal Code, and Canada's international commitments and obligations. Therefore, I do not support this amendment.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Is there further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will go to Ms. May on Green Party amendment 43.
7:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is in relation to testimony, recommendations, and amendments from Professors Forcese and Roach that we should not grant CSIS agents detention powers. I want to enter into the record their comment on the government amendment that just passed. They wrote, “Even more distressingly, the government refuses to redress in any”—
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Ms. May, you do not have at the committee an opportunity to comment on the issue.
7:50 p.m.
Green
7:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm guaranteed, by the motion you passed that brought me here, a reasonable opportunity to present my amendments. I don't think you can edit the way I present my amendments, Mr. Chair. My point is relevant to my amendment.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Ms. May, you do not have the floor.
When you have the floor to present your motion, you cannot be referring back to other government amendments. You may certainly speak on your amendment; you just do not have the authority to speak on an amendment that's passed.
Please go ahead on your motion.
7:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The confusion that will arise around the language in the bill now also relates to detention, which is why I think this amendment is even more relevant.
As Professors Roach and Forcese have put forward:
If CSIS wishes to detain or interrogate, it will do so for threat disruption purposes, not “law enforcement”. The government’s peculiar language does precisely nothing to dispel concerns about a system of CSIS “security detention” or “detention for security interrogation.” Given the disturbing experience in other jurisdictions after Sept. 11, 2001, the absence of an express, emphatic bar on detention is alarming.
That's their view, as legal experts. This amendment attempts to address that by explicitly prohibiting detention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment that is on the floor right now is not consistent with the intent of the bill. It would unduly narrow the range of possible measures that CSIS could take, and would so weaken CSIS's capacity to carry out its threat reduction mandate.
There is no need to place additional prohibitions on CSIS. The judiciary, through the Federal Court, can only authorize threat reduction measures found to be reasonable and proportional, as well as charter compliant.
With regard to detention, CSIS has no statutory authority to arrest individuals and is not being given the powers of law enforcement. Moreover, the bill prohibits CSIS from taking any measures that would cause death or bodily harm, making a prohibition on endangerment of health and safety unnecessary.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much for the conversation.
Shall the amendment carry?
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I was asking to speak on it. That's why my hand was up.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
My apologies. I thought we'd exhausted that.
Please, Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We're on PV-43 still. Yes, I do want to speak on that one.
I think Ms. May's description of her amendment was why we moved a subamendment to the last government amendment. The testimony we heard from legal experts is really very important. The Canadian Bar Association, I believe, maintained their concern about detention. I'm still having trouble understanding why the government wouldn't want to make the simple statement that detention is not part of the powers of CSIS.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we will go to clause 42 as amended.
Mr. Garrison.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I know we've had a lot of debate on this.
I just want to say once again that there are some differences between what we're talking about here in terms of warrants in this section and those used under section 8 of the charter. When we talk about search and seizure, I don't know of any other warrants that are issued, beyond search and seizure, that look for the reasonable limits of the charter. When we're talking about this section, we keep talking about warrants that involve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a whole, but I don't know that there are any others that are ever used in the courts on a regular basis, other than under section 8, in terms of search and seizure.
Second, the purpose of the warrant in the Criminal Code under section 8 is precisely to bring matters into court so that the way the warrant has been used can be judged, and those who use the warrant can be held accountable to the courts.
The problem, when we're talking about CSIS conducting secret activities authorized by a warrant, is that the purpose of those warrants is not to bring something to court; it's to disrupt an activity. Those warrants will never have a chance to be judged again on whether they've been used correctly or in accordance to the law.
The witness who said that most clearly was former Supreme Court Justice John Major. He said there is no backhand supervision on these warrants. That makes them quite different. In my opinion, and the opinion of the NDP, that is why this warrant section cannot be fixed and why we will be seeking to have these removed from the bill altogether.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I agree with Randall on the point that the granting of the judicial warrant is not oversight of any kind, although ministers have tried to claim that it was.
As one of the witnesses said, and I think it's the best way to explain this, the oversight ends when “the warrant walks out the door”. I think that's the reality of the issue. We are still short on oversight even with judicial warrant, so just add that into the discussion.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not want to repeat what Mr. Garrison said about warrants, since I completely agree with what he said. That said, I do want to bring up a point about the confusion, or the constitutionality, even, of the provisions that could be brought before the court pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When we heard from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we mentioned the importance of eliminating any confusion with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Minister of Justice seemed to say that there was no problem. However, we have not been given any tangible proof that these provisions are constitutional or that they are in line with the charter. That is one of my regrets about clause 42. I would have liked to get a little more evidence from the Conservatives on this point.
I must also mention that I'm a bit disappointed to see that, unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against the reasonable sub-amendment the NDP presented on its amendment. I think that our sub-amendment was right along the same lines. We tried to work with the government to address some concerns that they themselves had tried to do with the amendment they presented and we supported.
Frankly, clause 42 is deceiving. Once again, there is some confusion about what is going on and what the provisions in this part of the bill contain. Unfortunately, we will see whether it holds up in court and in the Supreme Court in the coming years. That is very sad to see.