Evidence of meeting #107 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 debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate on amendment PV-13?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 99 agreed to on division)
(On clause 100)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're now on clause 100. As my clerk has noted, we are precisely halfway through. Isn't that comforting?
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This seeks to repeal certain sections of the CSIS Act to provide informer privilege and complete confidentiality as part of the accountability process. It's something that was brought up by Professor Roach when he was here. It's complementary. I don't want to wade into grouping—they are two separate amendments—but it works with amendment NDP-65 as well, which completes the work that amendment NDP-52 begins.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Indeed, a vote on amendment NDP-52 will be also a vote on amendment NDP-65.
Is there any debate?
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a comment. Then I'd like the officials to weigh in a bit.
My understanding is that it's critical for CSIS to be able to guarantee protection of human source identities. I'm wondering whether you could comment on the impact that this amendment would have.
Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
CSIS sources are an extremely important tool. We are a humint agency, a human intelligence agency. What this amendment would do is take away the ability to protect our sources in a way similar to the way the RCMP can protect their assets.
If we couldn't ensure and build trust with our human sources that we would be able to protect their identity, it would put us in an extremely difficult situation for recruiting sources. We would not have trust built with the individual.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
Seeing none, I call the question on amendment NDP-52, knowing full well that if NDP-52 is defeated so also is amendment NDP-65.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 100 agreed to on division)
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, just to flag this, I believe my amendment next following is identical. Before you call the vote, it would be great if I could speak to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Out of the generosity of the chair, I would certainly be happy to have you speak to it, but I think Mr. Dubé should at least move his motion.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I did with regard to part 3, at the risk of repeating myself, I recognize that LIB-16 is a step in the right direction, but nothing more. I think it is essential for the bill to clearly indicate that it is prohibited to obtain or convey information that may have been obtained by torture. As I said earlier, this goes beyond the ministerial directions mentioned in the Liberal amendment, but it must be firmly established in the legislative framework.
I will not reread the amendments because they are nearly identical, as is Ms. May's amendment, to the ones I proposed earlier today regarding the CSE.
I would like a recorded division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
As Ms. May has noted, a negative or positive vote on amendment NDP-53 disposes of amendment PV-14 as well. I'm thus going to have Ms. May speak so that we have some efficiency here.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you. I'll be brief.
This is consistent with the amendment that was previously passed, which was amendment LIB-16. I don't think it's duplicative. It just nails down that with any ministerial directive we are to ensure that there is no torture, so that we have a legislative anchor here. Certainly this is the testimony from Alex Neve of Amnesty International and from both Craig Forcese and Kent Roach.
Again, as we noted, it's identical to the NDP motion and will enshrine the ministerial directive on torture in the legislation at this point.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We have had this conversation previously, and my colleague Ms. Dabrusin read the definition from amendment LIB-16 into the record, so I won't repeat it. However, with that amendment and with existing Criminal Code law, and given the fact that torture is prohibited both in the charter and under international law, it's not necessary, especially given the amendment that my colleague Mr. Picard brought forward in LIB-16. We just don't feel it's necessary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate? I'm seeing none.
Recognizing that a vote on NDP-53 will also be a vote on PV-14, will those in favour of amendment NDP-53—
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Amendment NDP-53 is defeated, and therefore, amendment PV-14 has been dealt with.
We're now on clause 101 and amendment LIB-42.
(On clause 101)
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair. With your indulgence, I'm going to speak to amendment LIB-42, but it would also cover LIB-44 when we get there, so I won't speak to it again.
My colleague Mr. Picard is going to propose a subamendment—if you like, he can do it now—to put this in line with amendment LIB-44 and also align it with what CSIS currently does. The way I worded this would cause an issue for CSIS in terms of the timing of their year end.
Do you want the subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm going to work under the assumption that you have moved amendment LIB-42.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. It is therefore in order for Mr. Picard to move a subamendment to amendment LIB-42.