Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[John Davies]

The head of the CRCC had asked for this in terms of clarifying when the complaint is notified and also making clear the sequence, that the commissioner of the RCMP should be the first to know, to give a pause to make sure to understand the effect on operations. From our point of view, this can be traced back to the CRCC.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 43)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We move on to LIB-15.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Much the same here. It requires the CRCC to notify the RCMP, and for the reasons offered already, the RCMP should be notified first. It's a sequential matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

I imagine that your answer will be the same as for the other amendment, Mr. Davies.

[John Davies]

Yes.

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

I don't understand why we would adopt amendments where we're informing them in writing, but we can't adopt amendments where they would just send the frigging complaint back to them. It makes no sense to me at all, but at any rate once again for the same reasons I'll support it, but it's just bizarre, quite frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sure Hansard will note that “frigging” is possibly not a word of parliamentary significance.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 43 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 44 to 49 inclusive agreed to)

We are now on LIB-16.

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, because this amendment is a bit more sensitive and sensitive, I will take a little more time to explain it.

Torture is still a very sensitive issue in Quebec. All the consultations I've done for the government show me that this is true in the rest of Canada as well. In the last two years of this process, I have never heard of stories of torture in Canada. It is therefore certain that torture is envisaged in the context of exchange of information between countries.

In September 2017, Minister Goodale issued new departmental guidelines to avoid complicity in cases of abuse by foreign agencies, guidelines which have been warmly welcomed by the security community.

In committee testimony, professors Craig Forcese and Peter Edelman of the Canadian Bar Association, both wanted the 2017 departmental directive to be enshrined in legislation. That's why today I am proposing an act to prevent complicity in cases of abuse by foreign entities, to make it very clear that Canada will not be an accomplice to torturers around the world.

More technically, the proposed legislation requires the Governor in Council to issue instructions for the disclosure, request and use of information that would result in a serious risk of ill-treatment of an individual or is likely to result from ill-treatment inflicted on an individual by a foreign entity. Instructions must be given to the chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister of National Defence, the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the president of the Canada Border Services Agency and the chief of the Communications Security Establishment.

Micheal Vonn from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association also appeared before the committee to discuss the problem of secret legislation and directives. Professor Wesley Wark said it was very important that departmental directives be made public. That's why the last component of this legislation is that its instructions are made public. There is no reason for guidelines on torture to be decided behind closed doors.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague for his amendment. We have long been waiting for these measures to be inscribed in law.

What we have seen over many years, if not decades, is that the departmental directives were not sufficient. Certainly this is extremely important, especially when we think of cases that are still relevant today, such as I had the opportunity to raise yesterday during question period.

In short, I am very happy to be able to support my colleague's initiative. It must also be said that a significant follow-up will have to be ensured in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in time and place. After all, all too often the consequences of information sharing, as my colleague said, do not happen here in Canada. It is rather as a result of the sharing of information that we observe this kind of blunder.

I commend my colleague for his efforts, and I am happy to support them.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, torture is an extremely delicate topic, and it has major implications for people's lives.

However, in our opinion, there is one essential point with respect to national security. Of course, we are against any form of torture—we agree on that, I want my words to be clear—from Canadian organizations or from anywhere in the world. We are totally against that.

However, for us, one point is clear, and we have discussed it over the years. Take the case of information from a foreign source that would involve the safety and security of Canadians or Canadian infrastructure, such as an attack, and that would have been obtained in a way that we don't support, through a form of torture, for example. We consider that, in such a case, for the protection of Canadian interests and especially of citizens, our security agencies should be able to intervene, despite the fact that the information would unfortunately have arrived in a way that we do not wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. May has indicated that she wishes to make a very small intervention, but I can only do that with the unanimous consent of all colleagues.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I want to say how deeply grateful I am to see this amendment. This was one of the weakest parts—well, there's another part that I'll get to in my amendments—of Bill C-51, in trying to remedy the damage. We could call this the “Maher Arar act”.

I'm deeply grateful to see this amendment and I hope it passes.

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

This is really a bill in itself. This is not being debated by parliamentarians in the House. It's a big deal. It's something that's new. I don't know if we can do it justice here.

My concerns, as my colleague has indicated, is that in circumstances—and we don't agree with the idea of obtaining information through torture in the first place—where information is obtained in that way and somewhere in Canada we have an imminent risk, are we not going to act on that? Are we going to ignore that information? That's what you're saying, that we're going to ignore it because we're not going to accept that information as being admissible or being able to be acted upon. We're going to ignore it and who pays the consequences of that?

I get that we have to be careful. I get that this is an area that we have to tread on very, very carefully. I'm concerned that in exigent circumstances, we are opening ourselves up to the potential for public safety risk, national security risk. I want us to be mindful that this is what this act is all about. We don't go out seeking it. We don't go out endorsing the gathering of information in this manner. However, we need to be mindful that should it present itself, we can't ignore it.

I think that's something we have to be very mindful of. In this day and age, putting our heads in the sand and hoping we'll never have to deal with this might be naive.

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

I have a couple of points. First, I'd like a recorded vote on this amendment when we get there.

Secondly, either we don't approve of torture or we do. It's one issue that I believe is black and white. I applaud my colleague for introducing this amendment, and I think all of us on this side are very proud to be part of a committee that is including this, assuming it passes on the vote.

I also think it's important to point out—and it's well known—that information obtained by torture is notoriously unreliable. To imply that we're putting the country at risk is just wrong. We know that information obtained through torture is likely not going to be accurate. If we're condoning it and then it's coming here and we're acting on it, we're complicit in that torture. I totally support my colleague's amendment.

Also, in terms of being debated in the House, we know that this bill has come to us after first reading. It will be going back to the House for second reading. There will be an opportunity for it to be debated there.

I think there's no grey area when it comes to torture.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I categorically refute what Ms. Damoff has said. To suggest that a vote against this particular clause means that somehow you're in favour of torture is somewhat disingenuous. There are plenty of reasons to have concerns about an entirely new piece of legislation being introduced into another piece of legislation at committee stage.

However, I was heartened by what Ms. Damoff said, and that was going to be my question to the government side. What assurances can you give the members of this committee about this?

We find ourselves in the peculiar situation where this committee is studying a bill before it has been voted on at second reading in the House of Commons. It could go back to the House and be deemed at report stage that it has already passed second reading and that it be adopted as such. It could then go straight to third reading. It would mean that this piece of legislation that's being added to an already existing piece of legislation would have never been debated in the House at second reading.

If I can get some semblance of a recorded assurance from my colleagues across the way that this bill will indeed go back to the House and get fulsome debate at second reading, it might allay some of the concerns I have of a technical and procedural nature. That's notwithstanding that I'll be coloured as a supporter of torture should I choose to vote against this as a matter of principle and procedure.

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

To my colleague, Ms. Damoff, I would think it would be incredibly naive to suggest that any agency would act on information or intelligence that was gathered solely through the use of any torture. I want to make it very clear, as Mr. Calkins just said, that my dislike for this amendment does not in any way, and should not in any way, suggest that I support the use of torture to gather information.

But I think we need to give credit to our security agencies who would have other corroborating pieces of evidence and intelligence that would support further information that might be received from another country in regard to this. It would only add support or add clarity around some issues. I think it would be important to appreciate that we don't have experts to speak on this here today. We should probably hear from them in regard to that. I'm just concerned with blanket statements that suggest we might put the Canadian public at risk or national security at risk because we do or we don't deal with this.

There's a bigger picture we have to look at here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have to get along well, and it has to be well recorded. The information that will come out of here should not go in the opposite direction of what was said. We agree on everything written there. There is no problem.

As for the spirit of the law, we all agree. Only the question of information from foreign agencies, which is dealt with in paragraph 3(1)(c), on page 51, is problematic. We just want to make sure that if Jordan's intelligence services, for example, send us information, we won't have to evaluate its quality. As Ms. Damoff mentioned, the information could be wrong. Suppose that the Jordanians send us information critical to the safety of the Canadians, and that they had to use a little force to obtain this information. I am talking about Jordanians, but it's only an example. If Canadians are in danger, we want to be able to use that information.

The rest of the bill doesn't cause us any problem. We support it 100%, except for the lawful denial of information from countries where some form of torture may have occurred. I think it's reasonable on our part.

We propose that paragraph 3(1)(c) be removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before you move the amendment I want to recognize Mr. Dubé and Mr. Picard. Then, when we get to the end of the debate, we'll deal with your amendment.

Is that all right?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In terms of hearing experts on it, this situation came up numerous times during the testimony on this bill as something that was missing from the bill. It came up numerous times during the consultations that we did as part of Canada's national security framework review. I would echo what Ms. Damoff said in the sense that the only times we've ever seen information sharing leading to torture have been situations where lives were not in danger. They were extraordinary renditions in other countries and information being shared in that way.

I think we're in a situation here where it's clear that the public safety objectives that parliamentarians want to achieve are better achieved by not using this kind of information, without even getting into the obvious point of who we are as a country and what we want to accept.

At the end of the day, frankly, the things that we want to be combatting through the public safety objectives that we're achieving, the horrible things that go on, whether terrorism or other crimes, this is when those people win as far as I'm concerned, when we're finding ourselves in a situation where we need to debate whether or not we're going to use this type of information. The experts all agree there's never been a situation where lives were saved or could have been saved had this type of information been used.

I would just once again echo my support for Mr. Picard's amendment and say that the fact that the bill was referred here before second reading gives us the opportunity to do something like this. As far as I was concerned in my initial criticism of the bill, and as Madam May said, I still have other points that are problematic, but this was a huge omission. To have it in here is certainly a very positive step.