Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll commence our deliberation of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-59. Where we left off last Tuesday was at amendment LIB-8. I'm going to call upon Mr. Fragiskatos to reintroduce that discussion.

(On clause 2)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We left off on Liberal-8. I think everybody knows the wording of the amendment so I don't have to go into that. If I'm going to say anything to it, or if I'm going to speak to it, without repeating myself from last time, I'll just say that the main goal here is to make sure the review agency's activities don't fall into conflict with the work that would be done by police. Suspended complaints investigations would be resumed once any conflict is resolved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Motz.

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

I believe we had a subamendment on the table from last week, from Tuesday, in regard to this particular section or clause. We proposed some language. We debated back and forth with the officials and I think the officials have come back with some language that certainly I am prepared to accept as a friendly amendment to my subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

I don't think you can be friendly to yourself. You have to be friendly to Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The question is whether Mr. Fragiskatos sees your amendment, which I would ask you to read into the record, as a friendly amendment and we'll go from there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Proposed section 27.1 would now read, based on the subamendment, “Despite any provisions of this Act, the Review Agency must suspend an investigation if, after consultation with the appropriate department, the Agency is of the opinion that continuing the investigation would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.”

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see you have that in writing.

As it's being circulated to members my first question to Mr. Fragiskatos is whether he sees that as a friendly amendment.

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

I do see it as a friendly amendment, Mr. Chair. I think the department's fine with it obviously. They've come up with the wording. If it's good with them, frankly, I don't have a legal degree and if they think this particular amendment does not compromise the rule of law or any other major legal framework as part of Bill C-59 in general terms, then I'm not going to be very difficult.

In fact, as you'll see, with any amendments that I'm proposing I'm open to suggestions. In general terms, I think we have amendments here that respect the rule of law, respect legal tradition in Canada, and I'll leave it to the officials to take up the matter where there could be a major question. The opposition can raise that and I'm open to suggestions, but I think the wording of the amendment in general terms is good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's generally beneficial not to have a legal degree.

I'm therefore assuming that the amendment as amended is before the committee for debate. Is there any further debate?

Apparently there's no such thing as friendly. Therefore, the subamendment at this point takes precedence over the amendment. We are to debate the subamendment and then vote on the subamendment.

Is there any debate on the subamendment?

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

There's no debate on this side.

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

I just wonder if the officials could weigh in on it. I know I received it from them but they haven't said anything on the record about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Davies.

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

As we said the other day, the amendment's not completely necessary. It's implied that there will be a discussion with the lead agency, or law enforcement agency in this case. But if there's a desire to strengthen that, I think the language is okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Subamendment agreed to)

The debate, therefore, moves to the amendment as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

The next vote is on NDP-7.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I won't be moving NDP-7 because I one-upped myself.

NDP-8 is the better version of NDP-7. It was submitted 24 hours later.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. NDP-7 is withdrawn.

We'll turn to NDP-8, which is, apparently, a far superior version.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Chair.

This is following testimony from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It is an amendment that seeks public reporting on the number of warrants requested for the use of CSIS's threat disruption powers. Those who were on the committee at the time will recall that Mr. Coulombe, director, was testifying there was a troubling lack of clarity after the use of those powers, even though they confirmed that they had been used. We believe this is appropriate in order to have a better understanding of these powers, which are not really supposed to be part of CSIS's mandate. Its raison d'être is to not have these types of powers, but that's a debate we'll get to with later amendments.

It also seeks to have public reporting on the activities carried out by the national security and intelligence review agency. This is, once again, in keeping with the spirit of accountability and transparency that the agency seeks to accomplish, by having public reports on its activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

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

With due respect to my colleague, I don't think the amendment is necessary. I don't think it's necessary for the following reasons. NSIRA should be left to determine the statistics that would be most useful to disclose in the public interest rather than being given a list. A flexible approach should help to ensure that NSIRA's annual report stays relevant as national security tools and responsibilities evolve over time.

Moreover, NSIRA's predecessor, SIRC, has long published a range of statistics on CSIS warrant applications and the number of complaint investigations it has undertaken, and the NSIRA will likely continue to do so.

Moreover, because the NSIRA will summarize each of its reviews in its annual report, it's not necessary to publish the overall number. The NSIRA would, finally, also be required under proposed subsection 8(2) to review an aspect of CSIS's use of its threat reduction powers each year. This will ensure that each annual report discusses threat reduction activity by CSIS.

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

I'd like the officials to weigh in on this, if possible, to see if they feel that this additional reporting process and the types of reporting would, in any way, potentially compromise security issues.

[John Davies]

The important thing here is proposed subsection 8(2) that was already mentioned. The mandate includes reviewing one aspect of the service's work in threat reduction. The concern, I guess, with the amendment is that proposed paragraph (b) implies a review of all applications for warrants. In a way, there's a confusion or potential expansion of a mandate, which is really a reporting amendment. It's not really directly answering your question in terms of the security implications, but there's certainly a mandate conflict with 8(2), which is meant to be the scope of the reporting on threat reduction.

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

Once again, when I hear words like “likely” and things like that, I would say this amendment is not exhaustive. It prescribes certain things that should be published but certainly leaves discretion for the agency to publish more. Once again, I don't see why we continue to reject things by saying they will “likely” happen, the “odds are”, etc., when we should be codifying these things as much as possible.

Moreover, as I said, this will be debated in later amendments, but at the end of the day, as far as we're concerned, threat reduction powers should not be part of CSIS's mandate. That's been an ongoing debate since former Bill C-51. In the meantime, in the same way that there would be accountability for other forms of law enforcement if these powers are going to exist, I do think it's appropriate that they be reported on, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said in its testimony to this committee.

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

As I demonstrated with a previous amendment, I'm open to compromise, but on this, I go back to the original point. I don't believe this particular amendment is necessary for the reasons I articulated.