Public Safety Committee on June 2nd, 2016

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

Minister, I don't mean to interrupt you, but what specifically do you have to say about the $2.5 million per year to SIRC that's being cut?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I think you have to understand the context, Mr. Dubé.

We are examining how all of this apparatus fits together, so that we can enhance review and scrutiny, not reduce it. In the process of doing that, we will examine the financial commitments that need to be made, not only to the new committee of parliamentarians but to the existing review agencies that are in place now, to make sure they can do the job that Canadians expect them to do.

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

You mention the committee, and I know that you are starting a study, but we must recognize that there is some urgency. While the study is being done, CSIS is using the powers that it has been granted, as Mr. Coulombe said in committee. I read your testimony at the Senate committee. The key question to ask ourselves is this: will the committee do the review after CSIS acts or while it is acting? Let me explain.

As I understand it, our allies that have similar committees analyze decisions made by their spy agencies—CSIS in our case—before its actions happen, not afterwards. Essentially, it is the same mandate that the current committee has, although it will not be made up of parliamentarians.

Will the legislation stipulate that the analysis is done before CSIS acts or afterwards?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I'm not sure if I completely get that question, Mr. Dubé, but we hope to have before Parliament the legislation with respect to the committee of parliamentarians before the end of this month, for the beginning of the parliamentary process.

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

Perhaps I could rephrase my question.

My understanding is that the Five Eyes, who have similar parliamentary committees or elected officials, review what happens while it's happening and don't simply have an after-the-fact review. Am I correct in that statement?

Therefore, will the committee that you're putting together with this legislation be reviewing things after the fact? That's already what SIRC does. We need some oversight during events, when CSIS is actually taking action.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

We will lay out in the legislation the exact mandate of the committee of parliamentarians. Obviously, I can't pre-empt the legislation, Mr. Dubé. You'll understand the parliamentary rules on that one. However, this committee will have the authority to examine all of the security intelligence activities of the Government of Canada, with two objectives: are those activities effective in keeping Canadians safe, and are they safeguarding the rights and values and freedoms of Canadians?

They will have extraordinary access to classified information. That's why the members of this new committee will be sworn to the top security level and will be able to examine information and activities and operations to ensure that they are meeting the standards that Canadians would want met. In terms of how that is expressed in the legislation, I'll have to leave that to the tabling of the legislation, but it will accomplish that objective.

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

That’s great. We are looking forward to that.

Let me turn to another matter.

I do not want you to tell us about upcoming bills. However, I would like to have an idea of the amendments that you intend to propose to the provisions in Bill C-51 that are already adopted.

The Liberal Party's Aboriginal People's Commission has asked the government to immediately repeal the provisions of Bill C-51 because they are incompatible with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

Is that an example of an amendment that the Liberal Party could introduce? We in the NDP have always thought that the provisions in that bill must be repealed. What changes to the act do you envisage to ensure that we are respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That particular motion before our recent convention was defeated, Mr. Dubé. The platform—

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

There are preoccupations, nonetheless.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

—laid out specifically where we would begin in correcting the defects in Bill C-51 by, for example, ensuring its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protecting advocacy and protest, dealing with certain defects in the procedures around the no-fly list, providing a better and more precise definition of terrorist propaganda, and providing for a full review of the legislation after three years. Those items were expressly enumerated in the platform. The consultation I'm about to begin with Canadians is to determine what else Canadians would want to see included in the changes to our security legislation. What's in the platform is the minimum of what we will do. The consultation will determine what what other things beyond that Canadians want to see fixed.

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

After that consultation, if you you realize that the best course of action is to repeal Bill C-51, would you be open to doing that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

We will correct the defects in the law. You understand that C-51 no longer exists. It's embedded in five or six other different pieces of legislation. Rather than using the defective bill as the reference point, we need to have a fresh look at the entire security architecture of the Government of Canada to make sure that we get it right, without being wedged into an old form that was obviously defective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I note that funding for SIRC has been increased by $4 million due to the expanded operations of CSIS, in part. I also note that CSIS is receiving increased funding from the previous year, and a $60 million increase from 2014-2015. This reflects the importance of security, but to pick up on my friend's question from before, we have to strike a balance. I previously volunteered for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Certainly, Beaches-East York, which is my riding, cares a lot about changing and fixing Bill C-51. I'd like you to speak a bit more about how we can best strike that balance and if there are other changes that you see us making and, more ,importantly how we intend to engage Canadians in this process. What will that engagement process look like?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

There was a moment after the tragedies in October of 2014 when Canadians were looking forward to a good discussion, analysis, and debate about our national security architecture. I think people recognized at that time, in the light of those tragedies, that things needed to be improved, strengthened, and changed. At the same time, they wanted to make sure that their rights and freedoms were being properly respected and safeguarded, along with the open, generous nature of the country.

Unfortunately, that consultation did not happen at the time. I think the legislation that was presented, which turned out to be Bill C-51, could have been much improved had an opportunity been given to Canadians of all different views and perspectives to contribute to the process. We're going to provide that opportunity through this consultation, which will begin almost immediately and continue through the balance of this year.

The pieces of it would involve the cross-border relationship with the United States, which we have discussed, and the legislation that will be coming forward to strengthen our border arrangements, both to make those arrangements more secure and more efficient from an economic point of view.

The architecture will include the new committee of parliamentarians, which will provide a new level of review and scrutiny that has never been there before. Every other country in the western world has a vehicle of that kind. We don't. We're going to add that to make sure of two things, that we are being effective in keeping Canadians safe, and that we are safeguarding their rights and values.

We will have a new national office on community outreach to try to identify potentially vulnerable and risky situations in advance and to have the means and the wherewithal to intervene before tragedies occur. That's the new office on outreach and counter radicalization.

We will be beginning an initiative on cybersecurity. Canada's cyber policy was first established in 2010, but a lot has changed since then, and we need to bring that up to date.

Then we will make the specific amendments to Bill C-51 that I referred to, and we will ask Canadians this key question—that's the minimum we will do to make sure that rights and freedoms are properly respected—what else in the architecture do Canadians want to see changed?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Certainly one important promise was the inclusion of sunset clause provisions so that we can assess down the road whether the provisions in Bill C-51 were ultimately necessary at the end of the day. Do you remain committed to having sunset clause provisions?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

What the platform said explicitly was that, after three years, there would be a complete review of every element of our anti-terrorism legislation. That is what we will undertake three years down the road. Where parts of it are found to be defective, redundant, or no longer necessary in the circumstances, then Parliament would make those changes at that time.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I appreciate that we are currently taking action, or you are currently taking action with respect to the no-fly list. The working group has been struck.

First, one, when can we expect to see changes?

Second, there are going to be certain changes that are being proposed. Included in those proposed changes, might we see fixing the appeal mechanism, changing the legal standards of review that academics have questioned, and perhaps including special advocates, where the Immigration Protection and Refugee Act has been changed properly to include them and Bill C-51 was missing them?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Having special advocates is a very important idea that should be included in the consultation that we're doing over the next six months.

In terms of the specific commitment in the platform, it zeroed in on that issue of recourse, where someone believes they are improperly on a no-fly list. The law presently says that they can complain to the minister, and the minister has a certain period of time, 90 days I think, to consider the appeal and give an answer, but if the minister doesn't do so within the 90 days, he's deemed to have said no.

We would want a provision in the law to require the minister to give an answer. It may be yes or it may be no, but just don't deal with the situation by benign neglect.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My final question is with respect to the language that I think is unfortunate. Certainly academics have accused the legislation, Bill C-51, of allowing for judicial authorization of acts that would violate charter rights.

You've spoken to this previously. Could you, for the sake of Canadians, be as clear as possible as to whether this government would allow that to occur?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

In 10 seconds, please.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The wording of that section in the act, section 12.1, is obscure. I consider it to be very odd draftsmanship. Whether that was deliberate or accidental, I don't know, but we would want to make it clear that the behaviour of our security agencies needs to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Very good.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, my thanks to you and the senior officials accompanying you for taking the time to come and talk to us, despite your busy schedules.

I believe that the questions that we have for you are extremely important. I have three, so I am going to try to move along quickly. The first question deals with farmers, the second is about radicalization and the third is about refugees. Those topics are not at all related to each other.

You are aware that a loss of farmers and dairy producers will be coming to demonstrate on the Hill today. They have major concerns about diafiltered milk coming across our borders. There are difficulties: we do not have the resources or perhaps the technology capable of identifying that product.

My question is extremely simple and it could equally well go to Ms. Lizotte-MacPherson as to you, Mr. Minister. What is the amount allocated in the budget to solve the problem of diafiltered milk made in United States that is not used to make cheese and dairy products in that country, but that is imported to Canada?