Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

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

I'm curious whether the officials could provide some sort of assurance, then, to the committee with respect to the type of information that would be reported on, which we're talking about here, to maybe alleviate any of those concerns or issues.

[John Davies]

It's difficult to say. We can look at how the Security Intelligence Review Committee does its work on collection warrants and how they report on the statistics. It depends on the year and the review work plan. They will comment on how the collection warrant process works and so on. It's really about looking at precedent on how SIRC has worked, guided by proposed subsection 8(2), which is their mandate that they must review. The new NSIRA must review an aspect of the threat reduction mandate of the service each year.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see nothing further.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to NDP-9 with Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The review agency's report discusses the type of information and structure used by the Communications Security Establishment, the CSE. A recommendation comes from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but also from the Citizen Lab, which has dealt extensively with issues related to the CSE.

We understand that the legislation remains vague about the type of information that can be collected and what will be included in the report. However, given the rapid evolution of technology, it is most appropriate that we have as much information as possible about the CSE.

I think it's fair, just as anecdotal evidence, to require more information to be published about what CSE is doing. We need to look no further than the estimates process, which to their credit was corrected on social media, where we weren't seeing the proper breakdowns being provided.

I know this is not directly linked, but once again, to the earlier point I made, I think codifying additional accountability is appropriate. That's what this amendment seeks to do, once again, in keeping with Citizen Lab's and CCLA's recommendation to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Is there debate?

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For our part, we are concerned about the disclosure of information on the organizations in question. We may be wrong but we would like some clarification on this. We believe this information could be intercepted by foreign intelligence agencies. At some point, the strictures of Canadian organizations will have to be updated.

Are we right to believe that being too open might be problematic? My question is for Mr. Davies or Ms. Henderson.

[John Davies]

I would defer to my CSE colleague in particular as it's geared to CSE, but the suggestion is really around the structure of the organization, and the structure of the organization is more or less already on the website and already transparent. It will not likely change year to year.

It's also about information in the annual report, so you're asking NSIRA to make commentary on how to improve their annual report, the statistical information required, and so on. I don't think it's so much a transparency as a concern of a foreign intelligence threat aspect. It's just more the point that NSIRA already has the capacity to ask for and review any of this, so I think it is in many ways redundant.

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

My concern is that, if we're reporting this, isn't this the type of information that foreign entities might be interested in, from our perspective? We focus our resources to defend Canada, and if we were to report on those, would those not potentially compromise CSE?

[John Davies]

Again, NSIRA's reports are always going to be unclassified. They're going to redact anything that could affect things in that way. I don't think that is so much of a concern.

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

I'm curious whether CSE is known on electronic databases such as GEDS.

[John Davies]

No, I don't believe so.

[Scott Millar, Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment]

Our senior management is on GEDS and information about us is on InfoBase, which is a TBS website that carries some of this information.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to amendment NDP-9.1.

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

Thank you, Chair.

On NDP-9.1, I'm seeking clarity on the consequential amendments, because I have a few in there and this would kick-start a longer process. I'm wondering about that before I proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

What I'm told is that if NDP-9.1 is adopted, so are NDP-9.2, NDP-9.3, NDP-9.4, NDP-9.5, NDP-9.14, NDP-9.15, NDP-9.16, NDP-9.17, NDP-9.18, and NDP-9.19. Similarly, if it's defeated, so also are all of those.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As you know, one of the most controversial aspects of former Bill C-51 was the information-sharing regime that was put in place, known as SCISA, and Bill C-59 brings essentially a cosmetic change alone to that regime. As far as we're concerned, this remains a problematic system to have in place. NDP-9.1 and the consequential amendments seek to fully repeal the elements of the bill that allow for this information sharing to take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what we heard earlier is that new obligations with regard to CSE, its organizational structure, and basic operations are unlikely to change much in most years and would not be an effective use of NSIRA's finite resources. That's one concern, but there are others as well.

I won't be supporting the amendment. I don't think it's necessary.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

If I may, I want some clarity. You're referring to information sharing under what would be the new SCISA, which is, I believe, in part 5. Can you explain to me how you see the interaction between the NSIRA part—because that's the review part—and the SCISA part?

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

Since this is the part of NSIRA act that deals with the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, these are just consequential amendments to remove all the references in the efforts that we're making to fully repeal that. Every reference in the bill, whether it's in this part or in part 5, is being deleted. This is seeking to remove this part, since if our efforts were successful, and we did manage to repeal these problematic elements, then it would obviously require these types of consequential amendments in the NSIRA act. It has nothing to do with NSIRA's mandate proper. It's a cleanup.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It's interesting, though, that because of the way the act is paced out, it ends up being a bit of the cart before the horse, because we have not considered any of those part 5 pieces.

I'm trying to figure out how it works. I understand we have to work sequentially through the act. I'm trying to sort it out, because right now we're dealing with technical cleanup in part 1 with regard to changes that you want to be making in part 5.

There might be nothing we can do about that, but what happens in part 5, ultimately, when we discuss those parts—and we haven't had those discussions—could impact what we're doing as far as cleanup pieces here. Maybe the clerk can help me on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're not exactly roaring through this bill.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In the event that there are other amendments in and around part 5 that someone wishes to put forward, I'm sure they will be well received.