Public Safety Committee on April 24th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)]

(On clause 95)

We're on amendment NDP-46.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is the same as that of the similar amendment I presented regarding part 3 of the bill, that is, the publication of ministerial directions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I ask for debate, please note that if NDP-46 is adopted, NDP-47 cannot be moved.

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on NDP-47, Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

There may be some amendments that are consequential, so I'm seeking clarity as to whether we're dealing with this one individually or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I was going to ask you, in all collegiality, whether amendments 48, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59—oh my goodness, on and on—60, 61, 63, and 64 could also be grouped, if you will, for voting purposes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Yes, I'm okay with that, Chair. They do all deal with the same topic. At the end of the day, as much as people think that people in our profession like to hear ourselves talk, I'm okay making the point once.

Obviously, this amendment and the others you mention deal with the threat reduction powers that were given to CSIS by Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament. This is obviously one of the most controversial elements, in particular because the raison d'être of CSIS was initially to separate intelligence gathering and law enforcement from the RCMP after a number of scandals and problematic situations, which have been debated quite extensively in the different commissions that followed. This is one of the key points—which is why I'll ask for a recorded vote—on which the bill fails to correct the problems that were brought forward by the former bill, Bill C-51.

As to the powers of interference, while the purpose is clearly to protect national security through a wide range of existing mechanisms, including security certificates and police resources—or lack thereof, if I may say so—, there is a role for the police to play in that.

That is what we said in the last Parliament during debate on Bill C-51. We said that we must give the RCMP more support so it can do its work, and increase our capacity to fight radicalization. There is a whole range of national security measures available without having to turn back the clock and give CSIS powers that go against the agency's purpose. It is an intelligence service and, with all due respect, it should not be engaged in work that, as a result of these powers, gradually becomes police work.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm respectful of the NDP's position on this. Throughout our study of the national security framework and then on this bill, I think we've disagreed on where we fall on this. In our opinion, Bill C-59 respects the rights and freedoms of Canadians while also giving our security agencies the tools they need to protect Canadians. We have taken steps to increase the rights and freedoms aspect of the legislation while at the same time providing the security agencies those tools that they do need.

For that reason and because, as the chair mentioned, this is part of a number of amendments that would have removed that threat reduction provision in the bill, we won't be supporting those changes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Because this was a controversial issue and I heard a fair bit about it, I looked to Professor Roach and a lot of what he'd written. I was interested in something that I saw in an article, “A report card on the national security bill”, from June 23, 2017.

On the disruption powers, I was hoping to get this out there because I thought it was interesting for me, as to how I would feel about it. This is just an excerpt:

Bill C-51 was widely criticized for the open-ended new “threat reduction” powers it gave CSIS—the ability to intervene physically to reduce threats to the security of Canada.

...Bill C-59 reins in those powers. It adds a bar on torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, detention and serious property damage endangering a person. We do not believe CSIS ever wanted this authority, and so this is both a principled and entirely rational change.

...Bill C-59 stresses (repeatedly) that threat reduction powers must comply with the Charter, and it provides a closed list of what those powers are: altering or disrupting communications and goods, fabricating documents, disrupting financial transactions, impersonating persons.... This approach allows the government to argue that threat reduction powers are prescribed by law and are a reasonable and justified limit on Charter rights.

It's quite a strong statement within this article about how threat disruption powers remain, but it says they have been clarified and that they are a stronger piece. I don't want to leave the impression that this is exactly as it was in the previous legislation. There can be further discussion on the point, but this is an improved piece that does point out the prescribed limits on those powers.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I would ask the officials if they could weigh in on this. I have a couple of questions.

What would be the value of adding this type of information to a report? That's one. Second, will this specific information, if added to the report, be relevant down the road in the future? Third, is it possible that foreign threats could use the kind of specific information this amendment is speaking about to better attack Canada down the road? Is that a good enough reason, or a justification, to block it or to oppose the amendment?

[John Davies]

Just talking about NDP-47, which is just one component in the broader threat reduction and elimination in the mandate, at least the warranted reduction, what NDP-47 does is take out the reporting that was already in Bill C-51. In subsection 6(5) of the CSIS Act, there already is threat reduction reporting required in law on pretty detailed things, in addressing issues or concerns that you've raised in terms of the number of warrants and so on. That's already in the act. That's traditional. It exists on the collection-side warrants as well, so I don't think there's a big issue here.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Can you explain that last statement? You don't think there's a big issue here, which means that you don't think the amendment is a big issue?

[John Davies]

It's in the sense that the numbers of warrants on the collection side are already public, for example. They're already issued in SIRC's annual report. For the provisions to ensure the committee of parliamentarians and the NSIRA are also alerted to how CSIS goes about implementing its threat reduction powers, both for warrants and for non-warrants, there would be redacted unclassified reports of all of that. Any concern related to what foreign adversaries could have would be taken care of in that process.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Seeing no further wish to debate, I'll call the question.

Before I do, I want to make sure that colleagues know what it is they're voting on. It's NDP-47. If NDP-47 is defeated, so also are NDP-48, NDP-51, NDP-54, NDP-56, NDP-57, NDP-58, NDP-59, NDP-60, NDP-61, NDP-62, NDP-63, NDP-64, and NDP-66, so also are PV-8, PV-9, PV-16, PV-17, PV-18, PV-19, PV-20, PV-21, and PV-26.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

One of the amendments in that grouping....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

One of the amendments.... Which one?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

NDP-51 actually acts as if the powers are still there and does not eliminate threat reduction powers, so it's like a plan B, so to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In the event that the vote goes the way you think it might go...?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It's my optimism showing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Without expressing an opinion, which I don't have, would it be at all useful to extract NDP-51 out of that list, and then debate NDP-51 as a separate amendment thereafter? Would that work?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

We won't challenge you on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I am on a roll with Mr. Calkins here today.

I know Ms. May had one, but I want to make sure I'm procedurally correct, having said that.

Colleagues, the list I read now does not include NDP-51.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I recognize that you have ruled, but as you'll recall, the wording of the motion this committee passed, which requires me to be here to present my amendments, and forgoes the right I otherwise would have to present at report stage, included that I have the right to speak to my amendments, even briefly.

I didn't know that when you didn't want to hear from me in the rubric of Mr. Dubé's amendments that I'd be foreclosed to speak to them at all.

I really would request a short opportunity to speak to all of my amendments. I'm prepared to see our rules more flexibly and not stick to the wording of the motion this committee passed, that I have a right to speak to each one of my amendments, PV-8 to PV-12, PV-15 to PV-22, and PV-24 to PV-26, separately. I am prepared to speak to them all at once in the interest of letting the committee move ahead.