Evidence of meeting #162 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 report.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McGuinty and Ms. Marcoux, for being here today.
Before I begin with my questions, I just want to commend you and thank you for your dedication of this report to our colleague Gord Brown who passed away just about a year ago. I know his family is really appreciative of that gesture, so thank you very much.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Thank you, sir.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I also appreciate the comments you made about the necessity to have national security issues remain non-partisan. These issues need to be non-partisan. I couldn't agree with you more and there are a lot of lessons to be learned.
Unfortunately, the 2018 terrorism report produced by the Minister of Public Safety appears to have now become mired in some partisan politics.
Would that report have come to NSICOP before it was published?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Do you want to take a shot at that?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Are you referring to the 2017 or the 2018 report?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
We were given a copy of the final report, I think, a day or two in advance of its publication, as a courtesy.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
No.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. McGuinty, does your committee intend then to evaluate the development or publication or revision of this report to determine if there was any political interference in its various iterations, in what best practices should be moving forward, or does that not fall within your mandate?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
It might, but it's not something I'm in a position to comment on now. We have a full spectrum of four reviews for 2019 and we generally only pronounce on what we're working on once we announce what we're working on.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay, fair enough.
In the original terrorism threat report, the Minister of Public Safety named Khalistan extremism as a threat. The minister has since reworded that, but the evidence remains very dated in the report.
The only explanation that I can think of is either that the new information can't be published or that it was a political issue, not a security one. If it's the latter, if it was political and not security, then it's a significant breach of trust, in my opinion, to use terrorism threats for a political purpose.
Where should these questions be investigated? Is this committee the right one? Is your committee the right one? How do we get to the bottom of that issue, sir?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
We haven't turned our minds to this question at all. We're not in a position at all to comment on the government's decision one way or the other. I think that's a question better put to the government itself and the minister.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. Are your members of the committee prevented from speaking out on any errors in reports like this?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
As a general rule, the membership has agreed from the very beginning that we are extremely circumspect in any public comments, and generally we only comment on the merits of the work that we've done in the form of reports.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
The work our committee has done. That's correct.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
And those reports, of course, are unanimous.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay, very good.
I just want to ask a more general question about the committee and how you operate now.
During study of Bill C-22, which is the legislation that created your committee, former CSIS director and national security adviser Richard Fadden said that the committee should go slow and see how the committee does.
Now that you have 16 to 18 months of operations under your belt, do you think there are aspects that the committee should consider changing in its operations, in its role or its access? I know you and Mr. Dubé just talked about the timeliness of its release once you give it to the PMO. Is there anything else you can think of? Would those changes be legislative or internal? There must be touchpoints now, some things you need to work on.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Yes, one of the areas we're learning a lot about is this question of redaction and the redaction process. We have turned our minds to this, and we reserve the right, so to speak, to say more about it in due course. We're comparing and contrasting with other redaction processes—Australia was raised, and there's the United States and other countries—to see what their practices are. We also think the redaction process may be capable of evolving. However, we always tend, as best as we can, towards providing more information, rather than less, to the Canadian public.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If I'm hearing you correctly, this committee should maybe have its own redaction rules, and because it's non-partisan and it represents the government, well, the whole House, then maybe no outside redaction should occur. Have I heard you correctly?
4:10 p.m.
Chair, National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
Not exactly. What we're trying to get our heads around collectively as a committee of parliamentarians is how the redaction process works, how the departments fit into this, what role the national security adviser plays, the role of the Department of Justice under the Canada Evidence Act, and on. We think its capable of evolving and becoming more transparent over time.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
May 13th, 2019 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Over the past few exchanges, we've heard a little bit about Bill C-59 and the other forms of oversight or review that might be put in place. In respect of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, NSIRA, how would you see the complementarity between the review agency and yourself?
