Public Safety Committee on April 17th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On CPC-8, we have Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair. This requires that the review agency, NSIRA, take all steps possible to avoid the duplication of work. It will cut down on duplication, obviously, and make the groups more effective in the long run.

The amendment seeks to have NSIRA and part of the committee coordinate their work to limit the amount of red tape and extra work provided to the agencies such as CSIS and CSE to ensure that the massive costs are reduced at least a bit and to make the administrative burden that of these new groups. Parliament needs to know this issue, and I think it's a reasonable ask, a reasonable amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

If I can direct the committee's attention to clause 49 on pages 35 to 39 of the bill, in my view there are provisions in that clause that are very similar, if not identical, to what's being proposed.

Clause 49 does a couple of things. It requires NSIRA and NSICOP to co-operate to avoid unnecessary duplication. It also gives these two bodies explicit authority to exchange a range of classified information that's related to their reviews. My submission to our colleagues is that we do not actually need this amendment.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'd like to hear from the officials about that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Davies.

[John Davies]

The spirit is there, as was mentioned. The ability for them to co-operate is already contained in clause 49.

The other concern with the drafting of this amendment is that it does not allow the exchange of classified information. It does not remove the ability to exchange complaint information, which you would not necessarily want to do in this case.

There are two concerns there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate on CPC-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

We're on NDP-4.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the agency could obtain the foreign intelligence used by bodies like CSE on which that organization relies to take actions related to national security.

Right now, it has access to any documents a department may have in its possession. I am sure it could be argued that foreign intelligence could be included in this definition, but the objective of my amendment is to ensure that it will be as clear as possible, especially since CSIS and CSE often act based on intelligence obtained by allies or other countries. This amendment is complementary and adds clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It seems this amendment isn't necessary, and maybe officials could clarify this for us. Foreign intelligence services already can make a disclosure to the NSIRA, and it's probably unlikely that they would. They would likely go through our security agencies. It seems that it's redundant to add it to the legislation when the ability is already there. The NSIRA could request that information anyway.

[John Davies]

Yes, you are correct. We do not believe you need legislative authority for the NSIRA to receive classified information from a foreign intelligence agency should that agency want to give the NSIRA that information. Normally the NSIRA would get it directly from any of the Canadian departments and agencies. They have full access to it. Anything the agencies have, other than cabinet confidences, the NSIRA can get.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I anticipated that argument, and that's why, as I said, and I'll repeat, I believe greater clarity is always better when it comes to a body that is being put in place to protect Canadians' rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate on NDP-4?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on LIB-4 with Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would clarify that, when conducting reviews, the NSIRA has access to all information except cabinet confidences. That would include information that is subject to common law privileges under the law of evidence, such as police and former privilege. The intent was always for the agency to access this information, but making it more explicit removes any potential for disputes should they arise in the future.

Finally, Bill C-58 makes explicit reference to privileges under the law of evidence and it raises the possibility that the absence of such language from this bill, Bill C-59, could be interpreted as suggesting a lack of access. As such, the need to make the review agency's access clear is here with this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate? I see none.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Wait a minute, Mr. Chair.

I need clarifications. You will see that amendments CPC-9 and CPC-10 are saying something very similar. So I would like Mr. Davies to give me clarifications on the government's position and to compare it with ours. We were adding a small nuance regarding the ministerial cabinet's documents.

Can you explain to us the argument that was just made, but from a more technical perspective?

[John Davies]

The idea with this amendment is to replicate exactly what was already in the CSIS Act in terms of access to information covered under common law privilege. When Bill C-59 was drafted, this was just an oversight of the CSIS Act. We didn't want any confusion that there would be any lack of or any differential access for review that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee enjoyed. All we're doing is fixing an error in drafting when Bill C-59 was created.

I think this issue was raised in other amendments coming up, and it was raised during committee hearings a number of times. It looked like there was less access and that was not the intent.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Is it possible for you to comment on the differences between this amendment, LIB-4, and amendments CPC-9 and CPC-10, which we have coming up? I know we haven't got to them yet, but the implications.... Before we vote on this one, what are the differences? Is this going to have implications for CPC-9 and CPC-10, which are coming up?

[John Davies]

It's just drafting language in terms of CPC.... I don't know if we want to jump ahead to CPC-9, but the words “or” and “but” are used, and in CPC-10, it's “and”, versus LIB-4. It's crystal clear that the information is subject to any privilege on the law of evidence. It's just drafting differences.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

With respect to CPC-9 and CPC-10, I think the real similarity lies with LIB-5, which I'll be speaking to in a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On CPC-9, we have Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

This is what we just talked about. This amendment is similar to amendment LIB-4. We wanted to get explanations to ensure that the difference—We just voted on LIB-4, but is the impact on amendment CPC-9 negative, positive or none?

It is technical. What we are proposing in amendments CPC-9 and CPC-10 is proposed in amendment LIB-4. We want you to tell us whether, from a technical stand point, these amendments are no longer necessary or should still be debated. I am not sure whether I am explaining clearly.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay. We just voted on LIB-4. We feel that CPC-9 is similar to LIB-4. We just want to check whether that is indeed the case. Should we vote on it or get rid of it, since we have already voted on LIB-4?