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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment LIB-39 is withdrawn, unless Mr. Dubé wishes it otherwise. We are on amendment LIB-40.
Ms. Damoff.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment responds to comments the minister made when he appeared before the committee on March 1 to clarify that the wording in the bill itself is a drafting error. It rectifies that the threshold for CSIS is being “likely” to produce desired intelligence rather than that it would in fact produce it. It's just acting upon the comments the minister made when he came to committee.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I want to confirm with officials that this loosening of the language is actually going to work.
12:25 p.m.
Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Yes. It reduces the threshold. If you were trying to know exactly what was in before you did your query, you would never be able to do a query.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I was just going to ask a question in that context.
I'm wondering what the threshold is. How do we define “likely”? Are we using previous evidence from other aspects of the investigatory powers?
12:25 p.m.
Special Advisor, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It's more of a legal issue. The common interpretation is “odds are” but I can't comment on a legal interpretation of the threshold.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
We heard the testimony of Craig Forcese regarding the importance of keeping foreign information. The part stipulating how that data would be gathered and analyzed was missing. The document that has been provided to you fills in that gap.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 97 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 98)
NDP-51 is Mr. Dubé's fallback position, and PV-11 is out.
Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
This is based on the testimony of the Canadian Bar Association that said that the right to infringe on the charter, as was actually brought up yesterday by a Liberal colleague, is already built into the charter through section 1. The Canadian Bar Association argued that the ruling of the court in giving the warrant is already acknowledging a certain infringement in a way or a “reasonableness”, to perhaps use the more legally appropriate term. This amendment seeks to bring better language and avoid discussions of contravening the charter in any way, understanding that the charter allows for it within itself. Again, this is just going on the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
This amendment partially extinguishes the ability on the part of CSIS to undertake threat reductions under warrant. The amendment replaces the provisions of proposed subsections 12.1(3.2) to 12.1(3.4) with the requirement that CSIS does not undertake any threat reduction measures that are contrary to Canadian law, not even under judicial warrant. In my view, that is an unjustifiable reduction of the powers that CSIS requires to do its job. There are protections that we've built in through recognition of the charter. There are protections that we've built in through Mr. Picard's amendment on torture, which is very important. There are all sorts of other limitations, beyond the processes described here, that would allow CSIS to go forward with the confidence of Canadians that they're not violating their rights in an undue fashion and are still able to provide protection in a very uncertain environment.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 98 agreed to)
(On clause 99)
PV-13 is still alive, so I'll call upon Ms. May.
12:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This amendment attempts to ensure the absolute centrality of the charter in the entire act. It amends this act to ensure that any actions are essentially—I'll read it out. It is amended by adding:
(g) limit a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; or
(h) violate international human rights law.
I know this is the intent of the government. I hear that through many amendments and through the substance of the act. This is reflecting the testimony of Alex Neve of Amnesty International. It would be the only one that inserts a specific reference to the charter and international human rights law. As that is the intent of the government, I would urge you to pass it, just to make sure that it's abundantly clear at every stage that no actions can violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
The intention is along the same lines as what Ms. May is proposing, but the bill already includes protection, and has done so from the outset. Amendment LIB-16 offers the same protection with respect to torture. The bill as a whole already includes a guarantee. In any case, the list indicates the activities authorized under special warrants. So there is no need to add an additional guarantee to the guarantee that is already in the bill.
So I do not see why the paragraphs proposed in the amendment should be added.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
My question is for our experts.
Does the inclusion of international law not conflict with our own laws? Does that not create a constitutional problem?
In my opinion, it is not admissible at all from a constitutional point of view.
April 24th, 2018 / 12:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I may not directly be answering your question, but international human rights law is already ported into domestic law. It's already part of Canadian law.
12:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I do, only to the extent that the operations are also now allowed to be international. What if Canadian human rights law applies in Canada when we're operating overseas? This also allows CSIS to operate overseas. Do we not also want to ensure that we're observing international human rights law throughout?
It's just to absolutely nail down Canada's commitment within our boundaries to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and outside our boundaries to international human rights law.