Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2018

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want a recorded vote?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Of course.

(Clauses 109 to 111 inclusive agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're now on to clause—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

We have to vote, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Members, I do need unanimous consent to carry on while the lights are flashing.

I would have hoped that we could have gotten in at least a few minutes, because the vote is just down the hall. In the event that certain members, I know, have anxiety to sit around and wait for half an hour for the vote, I'm just wondering whether there might be some consensus to carry on for the next 10 or 15 minutes until we actually have to go down and vote.

Are we good with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're back on.

(On clause 112)

We have Mr. Dubé on NDP-67.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is an amendment that seeks to change the definition of “activities that undermine the security of Canada” to “threats to the security of Canada”. This is a recommendation that came from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, among others, and from Professor Roach as well. It's obviously something that's been at the core of this debate for a long time, and with regard to former Bill C-51 as well.

We believe this definition still gives the service the ability to do its work but will do more to protect rights and certain types of activities such as protests and things like that. There are a few consequential amendments to that as well.

It is so moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Before I call on Ms. May, because she will be affected by any changes to NDP-67, colleagues should note that in the event that we vote on NDP-67, it will affect NDP-68, NDP-69, NDP-70, NDP-71, NDP-73, NDP-75, and NDP-76, so up or down they're affected. Similarly, if NDP-67 is defeated or adopted, it effectively defeats PV-27, PV-28, PV-30, PV-33, and PV-35, all of which cannot be moved because they're identical.

I'm going to call on Ms. May to speak to her amendments and then we will have debate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you've accurately predicted, my amendments touch every single place where the quite novel definition of “activities that undermine the security of” is replaced with the definition more consistent to other acts within the Government of Canada: “threats to the security of”.

If I may, I've picked a very short excerpt from the testimony of Professor Roach, which is that if this goes ahead as written, this definition will remain, “the broadest definition of...national security in the law books”. He went on to say:

This distinguishes this approach from a similar approach to protest taken in the CSIS Act which is indexed not to the overbroad and relatively novel concept of “activities that undermine the security of Canada”, but the more limited and traditional definition of “threats to the security of Canada”, [as] in [section] 2 of the CSIS Act.

I would put to my friends the Liberals in this committee, as well as my friends the Conservatives and New Democrats—obviously Monsieur Dubé and I agree on this—that there's no policy rationale that's been put forward and there's no explanation for having this quasi-sedition section, with language that is so overbroad that it can't be found anywhere else in legislation that accomplishes the same purpose, in security legislation or anti-terrorism legislation.

I hope my amendments will meet with success here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues understand the arguments put forward by Ms. May and Mr. Dubé. Are there any comments?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concern I have—and it is a policy concern—is that “threats to the security of Canada” is a term that is used extensively in the CSIS Act for a purpose that is specific to CSIS's mandate. It would be problematic, therefore, to employ the same term for two distinct purposes in Canadian law and could lead to interpretive issues with the term in the context of the CSIS Act in the future, something that should obviously be avoided.

Before I ask the officials to comment with their view, because I hope they would have something to offer on this—and I think they probably do, especially since we're talking about interpretive issues—this same concern that I've expressed applies to Green Party-27, NDP-68, Green Party-28, NDP-75, and Green Party-34.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Davies, do you want to weigh in on this?

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Sure. Just to echo that comment, the “threats to the security of Canada” are already defined in the CSIS Act, as was said. It's very clear in the CSIS Act.

The Security of Canada Information Sharing Act is not just about CSIS. It's about the entire national security community as already scheduled in the act and includes 16 other departments and agencies, including defence, border control, law enforcement, and so on. The issue with the SCISA definition in the concept of undermining threats to security is both that you would not want confusion with the CSIS Act and that it also needs to be broad enough to include the entire national security community.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there anything further? I think Ms. May was first and Mr. Dubé was second.

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

I appreciate the view of the officials, but with all due respect to Mr. Fragiskatos, Professor Roach and the Canadian Bar Association aren't pikers, and this isn't, as we like to say, their first rodeo. Professor Roach is one of the country's leading experts in security law, and the same departments and the same Justice officials in the previous government gave us completely dangerous broad definitions such as “terrorism...in general” in part 3 of Bill C-51, which made no sense, but they defended them just as vigorously to a committee then.

With all due respect to our officials here, there is no justification for having a different definition. It doesn't add confusion to the law to be consistent. It adds confusion to the law to use a novel definition that's found only in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.

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

I agree with Ms. May entirely and I would simply add that it's even more dangerous, to my mind, in this context, because information sharing is at the heart of one of the most problematic elements of former Bill C-51, now being modified through Bill C-59.

I think the wording that both Ms. May and I are proposing here is far more appropriate and, as she so eloquently pointed out, is what is proposed by many experts who clearly have expertise in the field.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I read into the record the consequential results of defeating amendment NDP-67 on both PV amendments and the other NDP amendments. Therefore, amendment PV-27 has been dealt with.

(Clause 112 agreed to on division)

(On clause 113)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're now on clause 113, and I'm going to ask the clerk what we did with amendment NDP-9.6.

I'm advised that amendment NDP 9.6 is inadmissible. Amendment NDP-68 was dealt with in a previous vote, as was amendment PV-28.

(Clause 113 agreed to on division)

(On clause 114)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Now we're going to clause 114 and amendment NDP-9.7.

I'm advised that amendment NDP-9.7 is inadmissible.

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

Chair, do I get to speak to the inadmissible amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If you wish. We didn't actually vote, so going back to amendment NDP-9.7, you can speak to it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This will be brief. This is another consequential amendment to what I presented in the first meeting that seeks to fully repeal what was SCISA, now SCIDA, the information sharing regime brought in by former Bill C-51.