Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, I was wondering if Mr. Millar was able to answer the question I posed about unintended consequences?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were directing a question. I thought you were making a commentary.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
The CSE act does not allow for a warrant to infringe on the charter.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
In terms of the CSE act, we don't operate under warrant, and we don't have a warrant authority to infringe upon the charter.
Again, I think the CSIS Act element speaks to that part of their regime and, I would say, that unique charter quantum as it relates to them as a domestic investigatory body with that kind of authority, should a judge grant it.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I think the idea is to make sure we don't work against the Charter of Rights. Everyone agrees with that.
Maybe the expert will explain why we use different verbs. When you read the paragraph Mr. Dubé refers to, using the verb.... In the paragraph, we say “limit” in CSIS, “limit a right”, where, I guess, in English—and I'm a French-speaking person—you cannot limit a charter. You can limit something of a charter, like limit a right, whereas in our case, we just say “infringe”. We don't cause prejudice to a charter, which is the sense of what she says. Maybe that explains why we have a bit different wording. The use of the verb is not the same. But the idea, at the end of the day, is to prevent infringement against the charter. Maybe the expert can confirm if this makes sense.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
I would say that, within the CSE ministerial authorization construct, we cannot direct our activities at Canadians, which is a big difference here, so that element of not infringing.... We don't have something proposed in the CSE act that would allow us to infringe upon a right. Things are being structured to cohere with the charter and the “not directed at” is that protection or extra level of protection as it relates to section 8 in particular in terms of not directing at....
I don't know if that helps, but that's a clarification I thought was important to share.
April 23rd, 2018 / 5:25 p.m.
Cherie Henderson Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I'll just clarify, for the service—and it's written in the Bill C-59—the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of Canada, and everything that we take or any measures shall comply with the charter. If we do want to limit, then we are required to go and get judicial authorization in order to be able to do that, so everything is bound by the judge. Within the service, we fully respect the charter and operate under that.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
It takes me back to the point now where we seem to be, as a committee, twisting in the wind trying to explain away why the wording of the supreme law of Canada, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would be worded differently in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act legislation than it would be in the CSE legislation of the same bill. This is what Mr. Dubé quoted, on page 100.
If it's the supreme law of all the laws we have, why are we trying to explain and twist away in the wind why it would be worded differently? The nuance of language would be different on page 100 of this piece of legislation versus what Mr. Dubé is proposing right now, and I haven't got a satisfactory answer to that. Again, I don't have any skin in this game. I just want it to be consistent. If we're going to do it right, we should do it right all the way through, and I just want some assurances on that front.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
In a situation where, if we look at section 24, where we can acquire and disclose publicly available information and then we have information acquired incidentally, activities aren't being directed at Canadians or persons in Canada, but it could be an infringement on a right or a freedom guaranteed by the charter.
I think there's a distinction, which is why I think my amendment is important here. I think it's important to protect Canadians in a context of CSE's activities, even if they're not being directed directly at a Canadian or a person in Canada.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have two things just quickly. The section with regard to CSIS is completely different because it's dealing with where a judge has issued a warrant, so to Mr. Calkins' concerns, they're two totally different situations.
I think my colleague Julie has put an amendment forward to remove the words “a right or freedom guaranteed by”.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The subamendment? Okay, so I think we're prepared to support that subamendment and then support the amendment with those words removed.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
The initial vote is on the subamendment which deletes “a right or freedom guaranteed by”.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think we are going to anyway, aren't we? You asked for that at the beginning, so it's a recorded vote.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
Now we move to the amendment as amended. We're now voting on NDP-26 as amended. Do you still require a recorded vote?
