Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2018

[Sophie Beecher]

There was once a provision in the bill—and it is still there for the moment—that indicated that nothing in the legislation affected the retention or disposal of information. An amendment to that effect has just been passed. That is why these words must be taken out of the bill. If they are not, there will be a contradiction.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 118 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We now move on to LIB-49, which was Ms. Dabrusin but is now Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would add a new section to clarify the relationship between SCISA and the Privacy Act, specifically that SCISA is an authority to disclose personal information as per paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act. This amendment would specify, to be clearer here, for greater certainty, that SCISA is an authority to disclose personal information as contemplated by paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 119)

Mr. Dubé, do you wish to move NDP-9.12?

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

Yes. I will propose the amendment, once again with the objective of rescinding the points about sharing information.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm to rule that as inadmissible.

LIB-50 has already passed. We're now on to NDP-74.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The objective of this amendment is to allow the Privacy Commissioner to obtain the documents prepared as part of the information-sharing system. This was requested by the commissioner, as well as by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Mr. Chair, the NSIRA has been designated to review national security activities across the Government of Canada, including reviewing the full scope of information-sharing activities for national security purposes. The bill obligates institutions to provide copies of records to NSIRA for this express purpose.

Furthermore, under the Privacy Act, the Privacy Commissioner already has the authority to review personal information-sharing practices of government institutions and to request records of such practices. To provide an additional explicit authority to review these practices in SCISA is, I fear, redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate? I see none.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 119 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 120)

We're now on to clause 120.

Do you wish to move NDP-9.13, Mr. Dubé?

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

I so move, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is ruled as inadmissible.

We're now on to LIB-51 with Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is consequential to LIB-50. It accommodates the new record-keeping requirement for recipient institutions that was introduced by LIB-50 within the record-keeping regulation-making authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-75 has been dealt with.

We will go to Ms. May on PV-34.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This again pursues consistency in my efforts to remove the new language “undermine the security of Canada”, and revert to a more traditional, understood, legislatively predictable, and less murky threshold with “threats to the security of”. It would be wonderful to see it change in one place in the act, even as we go along.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 120 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 121 to 126 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 127)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

PV-36 is still good to go.

Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This moves to a completely different area. This is to repeal the changes that were brought in by the previous government in Bill C-51, which removed protections for named persons in security certificate proceedings. This was adopted following a 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada.

The framework in place at the time allowed for non-disclosure of evidence in certificate hearings, and the court found that this did not impair the rights of people named in certificates. The legislative move by Bill C-51 was to reduce those protections for named persons in security certificate hearings. You'll recall that there was evidence for this from Alex Neve of Amnesty International and from Professor Kent Roach of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

The effect of my amendment—and I'm certainly not going to read it because it is quite long and extends over several sections—is to repeal the entirety of the changes made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-51 of the previous Parliament, and to restore important protections to people who are affected by security certification proceedings.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much.

As Ms. May has mentioned, this amendment would remove changes that were made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or IRPA in 2015. The changes were made to help the government protect classified information that is used in security certificate proceedings before the Federal Court.

The changes were crafted in response to a Supreme Court decision, Canada v. Harkat, in 2014 to ensure their charter compliance. If the amendment goes forward, the government would lose the ability to immediately appeal or seek judicial review of an order requiring public disclosure for information that the minister believes should not be disclosed. In those circumstances, the government may be forced to withdraw this information to protect sensitive national security interests, and that would weaken the case before the Federal Court.

In my submission, this amendment should not be pursued.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

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

I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're good.

Is there any other debate?

Ms. May.