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.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think Mr. Davies responded earlier, but I'm sure there's nothing like repetition to improve the point.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Same issue as the last amendment. There's no direct provision in law to net out classified information.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm going to withdraw this amendment, because it's similar to LIB-21, which my colleague, Mr. Picard, introduced in my absence. It deals with the report of the commissioner.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
No, I was wondering if I could move it, because I find it is different than LIB-21. If it wasn't, you would have ruled it out of order.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'll move this, because a report to Parliament from the commissioner detailing his activities—in this case even better than my amendment—and making recommendations for updates to the act is a great idea.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Any further debate on the amendment that's been withdrawn, and now moved by Mr. Dubé?
Mr. Calkins.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to vote for the Liberal amendment that I think the Liberals are going to vote against.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sure you want a recorded vote as well.
Any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I will move it from the floor as well for the same reason as the previous one.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Could we have a recorded vote, please?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We will have recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It's amazing how the opposition is more in favour of government than government is of itself.
Those are all the amendments to clause 50.
(Clause 50 as amended agreed to)
There are no amendments to clauses 51 through 60. May I group them for one vote?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
April 23rd, 2018 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'll just review this amendment. We heard about this quite extensively throughout the entire testimony from a number of individuals, Mr. Fadden, Mr. Boisvert, and others. They spoke of the issue between intel and evidence, and how we navigate that particular challenge. In the language being proposed in clause 60.1, you'll see that we're talking about appointing “a special advocate from among the persons on the list established by the Minister of Justice under subsection 85(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”, and then in subclause 60.1(2) we amend section 38.04 of the Canada Evidence Act, with, “A special advocate's role is to protect the interests of a participant in a proceeding”.
The intel to evidence amends section 38 to allow trial judges, and not just special Federal Court judges, to review intelligence where it is in the best interests of justice to determine admissibility. As I said previously, we've had this issue raised by a number of people regarding the barrier of information to prosecution without compromising intelligence and the agreements for information sharing. It was recommended in the national framework discussion but not included—for some reason—in Bill C-59. Mr. Picard, I'm sure, given one of his responsibilities in his past life, would appreciate that there are times when there is important intelligence for an ongoing criminal investigation, and there are those in the intelligence community who would hesitate to have that intelligence shared because they currently have an operative who might be compromised or an entire operation that might be compromised with the release of it. We had talked at length at committee about how we bridge that gap, how we ensure, in cases where we need to prosecute someone criminally, that we can provide information without jeopardizing their rights to full answer and defence, as well as protect issues of national security or ongoing operations or things like that. This language is intended to fill that gap.
Mr. Fadden was one of those who were quite adamant about the gap in previous legislation, not just Bill C-59 as it's written, but previous ones. It's something we have to fix. I think it will help us identify some of the issues we've had with ongoing terrorist threats, potentially on returning ISIS terrorists, or ongoing threats we have locally, and we can provide an opportunity to pursue criminal charges. The idea would be that the trial judge, who in this case wouldn't necessarily be a Federal Court judge, would have access to information through a special advocate who would be available to the defence, without disclosing the information to the accused. That's the whole intent behind this: it doesn't prevent lawful prosecutions and it doesn't negatively impact ongoing operations. They can continue. That's the basis of this amendment.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'm seeking some clarity because the issue of special advocates will come up again. I'm just wondering, for this amendment and its specific context, whether it's with regard to all activities in this bill.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal