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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I'm trying to understand.
I imagine that the intelligence commissioner will be informed daily or a number of times per week. We feel that 30 days is a long time to make a decision since, technically, he has already been informed.
Could you tell me what the connection with the National Defence Act is when we are talking about the intelligence commissioner. Why did you start by making a connection with National Defence?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I was just making the point that the National Defence Act has a 30-day time limit for the existing commissioner to respond to the authorizations of the CSE. That's pretty much the approach that was adopted for Bill C-59 for the intelligence commissioner. When you look at the duties and functions of the intelligence commissioner as expressed in clauses 13 to 20 of the proposed intelligence commissioner act, for the most part it's not going to be necessarily a rush or urgent. The issue that may be urgent is with regard to querying datasets, and you'll see in clause 19 and proposed paragraph 21(3)(a) that there are provisions for “as soon as feasible”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
For lack of a better word, Mr. Millar, I'll use exigent circumstances for the five-day period, in the sense that where you have exigent circumstances, you can proceed up to five days without an authorization. Is this correct? If the clause in this piece of legislation isn't changed in the way we are asking for—for a 24-hour mandatory period—what comfort can any of you give me that something will be turned around it if needs to continue on beyond the five days? I just want to make sure that those dots can connect clearly within the legislative framework if this isn't accepted.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
There are a couple of things. One that is also worked into Bill C-59 is the element of urgent circumstances. If there's risk to life, you can proceed without ministerial authorization. The clarification that I want to provide, though, is that even with the emergency authorizations, all the tests for ministerial authorization still do have to be met before the minister approves. There just isn't that additional level of the intelligence commissioner reviewing that authorization if not available to do so—so if we just have to move quickly. There still is the element of urgent circumstances without a ministerial authorization. That's a separate kind of thing.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
But everybody here agrees that five days is a lot shorter than 30 days.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
Five is shorter than 30. It's been worked in, though, to provide five days to undertake those activities and to connect with the intelligence commissioner or, if it needs to proceed beyond the five days, to have that ministerial authorization reviewed by the commissioner to then make that an ongoing thing. That's how it's designed.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This goes back to a point that we talked about last week: whether full time or part time, and the responsibilities the commissioner has. If his work is so critical and if he's going to be this busy, why aren't we still going back to consider that he should be full time, and why aren't we leaving that option even open?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
In terms of how busy, again, I just go back to the duties and functions. Again, clauses 13 to 20 of the proposed intelligence commissioner act go through all the decisions on reasonableness that the commissioner will be expected to make throughout the year. It's not at all clear that this would necessarily mean every day or every week or so on. A lot of these authorizations are done more on an annual basis and so on. In terms of the querying of datasets, the frequency that the commissioner would need to be, perhaps, ready to go in terms of making quick decisions.... It's not clear at all that this would be that often either. I think the main point is that 24 hours would be really tight for any position like this to consider all the angles in order to make a good decision on the minister's decision.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-21, Mr. Picard.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
In a desire for the transparency of information, the amendment proposes that an annual report be produced for Parliament specifically containing statistics.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, since I consider that preparing more reports is always a good thing.
However, I would like to clarify that the report would be submitted first to the Prime Minister, who will have the right of censorship on it. Perhaps we should think twice, given that parliamentarians will not necessarily know all the facts.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-22, Mr. Fragiskatos.
April 23rd, 2018 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would clarify that the intelligence commissioner can receive information when evaluating ministerial decisions, subject to a privilege under the law of evidence. It seeks to address in particular any ambiguity relating to privileges under the law of evidence that would be posed by Bill C-58.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Although I am supportive of this, I want to hear from our officials on any implications this might have or any positive or negative impact.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Again, as we went through with NSIRA, this is just a draft, and we do not quote the exact phrasing used in the CSIS Act in particular, which made it clear that the review bodies would have access to common law privileged information. It was left out. It was inadvertent. We don't want any confusion with that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There is no further debate.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
My goodness, it's unanimous.
LIB-23 was withdrawn.
On amendment LIB-24, Mr. Fragiskatos.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
This is almost exactly the same as amendment LIB-22, however this applies to CSIS and CSE and, as I said before, it deals with any potential ambiguity that Bill C-58 brings into play. It addresses a drafting error, as the official mentioned.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm curious. Did the officials identify these issues when it was first drafted, which is one of the reasons it came to committee before second reading?
4 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It was post-tabling, maybe, as we changed the French side on the NSIRA act. You will recall there was a discussion on ”and” and et and mais, and it was changed to “et” and “et” so for consistency you may want to—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
That relates to something I also wanted to raise, Mr. Chair, which is the potential for a subamendment to deal with the French. I wonder whether we could include the word “et”. I think it might make more sense.