Evidence of meeting #108 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.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, shall clause 114 carry?
(Clause 114 agreed to on division)
(On clause 115)
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, there are several amendments, NDP-9.8 and so forth, which I believe, since they seek to repeal the SCIDA, will be ruled inadmissible. However, it was important for me to move these amendments to make the point that this is probably the most unchanged element of former Bill C-51. These are cosmetic changes at best.
I won't speak to and move all of them, but I want that on the record as the reason for presenting these amendments today. That is a key point for New Democrats with regard to Bill C-59.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
As you know, it's going to be ruled as inadmissible.
On amendment PV-29, we have Ms. May.
6:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I thought that was defeated with amendment PV-27. It's again to replace “undermine the security” to the test of “threats” to the security of Canada.
I'm perfectly happy to put forward an argument in favour of it.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's wonderful. Let me then put it forward. I thought it was caught under the same argument.
At page 114, it would amend the clause so that the language would be replaced with the more traditional definition of threats to the security of Canada in order to strengthen the act.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
Is there debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We've already dealt with amendment NDP-69.
Next is LIB-45.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Sophie Beecher Director of Intelligence Policy, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I will just explain what it does. It takes away from the definition pure activities of “advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. It's to make clear that we don't wish to capture those when sharing information.
However, we did modify it to say that if such an activity were conducted in conjunction with an activity that is captured in the definition, we can then share information about that particular activity. We think that reaches the right balance in respecting advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression, but also not being prevented from sharing information when we need to, when there is an actual threat to national security.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 115 agreed to on division)
(On clause 116)
We are on amendment NDP-9.9.
Do you want to move it?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It is ruled inadmissible.
NDP-70 has already been dealt with, as has PV-30.
(Clause 116 agreed to on division)
(On clause 117)
Is NDP-9.10 so moved?
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's inadmissible.
NDP-71 has already been dealt with.
I think PV-31 is still alive.
Ms. May.
6:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, Mr. Chair, this is to restore the language that is more traditionally used as to threats to the security of Canada as opposed to undermining the security of Canada. I would hope that in this instance, perhaps, we could restore the CSIS definition.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Ms. May.
Is there any debate? I see none.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 117 agreed to on division)
(On clause 118)
Next is NDP-9.11.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This particular amendment proposes to replace line 35 on page 116 with the following:
Government of Canada institution must, on its own initia-
It changes the word “may” to “must” with regard to the Government of Canada institution's own initiative. This is based on testimony from the former head of CSIS and other knowledgeable security personnel who noted that information sharing is critical to having Canada deal with national security threats. Siloed information is a major risk. We've heard that repeatedly throughout the testimony. It should never happen, and we should never read that Canada was attacked or failed to act because someone didn't share information or take the time to call another agency.
I proposed the amendment to require public servants who obtain information to share it with the relevant national security and intelligence teams. While the act provides for “may” share, the number of times privacy and charter rights are mentioned will cause them to withhold out of self-preservation. Where there are questions of privacy, public servants can consult the commissioner for rules without disclosing the information. It can share with NSIRA to make sure the information is handled appropriately.
This bill is supposed to be about protecting Canadians, and we should have everyone on the same page with respect to sharing information. I don't want to speak presumptuously, but I think it's something that my colleagues across the way have said repeatedly. The siloing of information is a risk.
That's the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chair.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
Is there any debate? I see none.
(Amendment negatived)
We'll now go to amendment NDP-72.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is intended to change the current wording about sharing information. So our proposal is to replace “the disclosure will contribute to the exercise” with “the disclosure is necessary to the exercise”.
This is on the recommendation of several witnesses who appeared before us—the Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and Professor Roach, who, with the committee's indulgence, I will quote:
...the breadth of security information disclosure and sharing under Bill C-59 remains almost as large as it is in Bill C-51. This will provide challenges both for the Privacy Commissioner and the new review agency asked to keep an eye on this system.
As the Privacy Commissioner suggested, the use of the word “necessary” limits the sharing of information to the form that is the most essential for the exercise of the functions that the various organizations have.
