Public Safety Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

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

Part of it can be through a consultative process like this one.

Part of the answer is making sure that our security and intelligence and police agencies have the right kind of independent oversight. We'll be adding to that through the committee of parliamentarians, but already, there is oversight provided in most cases, but not all. That's another issue we need to address in this consultation process: where there are gaps in the oversight mechanisms, for example, with respect to CBSA which does not have an agency providing oversight like SIRC provides to CSIS, or the CRCC provides to the RCMP, or the commissioner provides oversight to the communications security establishment in National Defence.

If you read the reports of those agencies.... SIRC just published its report a week ago. It is a very interesting overview of CSIS' activities in the last fiscal year. It shows the kinds of things that they've been looking into, the kinds of activities they've been conducting both in Canada and abroad, and where the activities of the agency could potentially be upgraded.

This oversight function, I think, can be very helpful to the public in understanding what the agencies are doing, and that in the process, they are effective and they are safeguarding Canadian rights and freedoms. I would commend to you those detailed reports by the oversight agencies. Ultimately, when we add the committee of parliamentarians, that overview which will come at least annually from a committee of nine parliamentarians will add another dimension to Canadians' ability to understand what our various police, security and intelligence operations are doing.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Canada is a federation, so constitutional powers are shared and legislative powers are shared. You mention the exchange of information between federal agencies. How can we be assured that provincial agencies and authorities also share information between themselves and with federal authorities?

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

Our jurisdiction is federal, so we have to be careful to respect the Constitution in that regard, but there is very effective co-operation among all levels of police forces in the country.

To go back to the incident on the 10th of August in Strathroy, Ontario, the first people to be notified, of course, were the RCMP, but as they went about identifying the individual, Aaron Driver, and his location, they engaged the city police force in London, the regional local community police force in Strathroy-Caradoc, and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The federal, provincial, and two municipal police forces collaborated very effectively together. It was a seamless operation. We could actually add a fifth level to that because the original information came from the FBI in the United States. That was a classic illustration of how our various forces and agencies communicate with each other and co-operate with each other to make sure that we're keeping Canadians safe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

We continue the second round with Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Minister, thanks for being here today.

Yesterday, The Globe and Mail reported that you said recently that Bill C-22 creates a committee that “will set its own agenda and report when it sees fit.” Yet an independent report by the Library of Parliament stated:

How much the committee members would be able to access state secrets is in question because the legislation would allow cabinet ministers to block reviews of some spy programs and thwart the committee’s bids to see sensitive documents. “Bill C-22 authorizes ministers to refuse to provide information,”

We know there are seven exemptions that are in place within the legislation. We also know there was an issue back in 2010 where Speaker Milliken ruled on a question of privilege. He was quite clear in his ruling that the fact that there was sensitive information, or intelligence documents, or information relating to an ongoing investigation did not remove the obligation of the government to share those documents with the House. In fact, you said in support of that ruling, “That series of questions of privilege resulted in your ruling on April 27, when, in very eloquent terms, you indicated that Parliament did have the right to information.”

As a committee of Parliament, what has changed, Minister?

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

If you read the entire judgment from Speaker Milliken, you'll see that he put national security—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

—national defence, international relations—

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

—protections in place in the very structure of his ruling.

The point is this. With the greatest of respect to the author of that report from the Library of Parliament, I would disagree with his conclusions. I know we're not discussing Bill C-22—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

May I ask you, then, Minister—

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

Just a second. I want to answer your first question before you go on to a second one.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I want to ask another question, so be brief.

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

Well, if you want an answer to the question, it takes a little time.

Bill C-22, which I gather we are discussing today, Mr. Chair, even though we weren't supposed to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll try to keep Bill C-22 to a minimum, and we estimate that we will be having you back on Bill C-22 in a few weeks.

I'll give you extra time because I've taken your time, but let's try to keep Bill C-22 down to a minimum.

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

Bill C-22 provides to this Canadian committee of parliamentarians more authority, more scope, and more power than almost any of its counterparts in any of our allied countries. It will have more jurisdiction to provide a higher level of oversight, and the intervention of a minister or the Prime Minister is limited only to those cases where a particular review at a particular point in time would be injurious to national security. On those grounds, a minister or the Prime Minister could intervene to say, “Not this particular area at this moment in time”. They would have to give written reasons to the committee as to why they were making that judgment.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

May I ask, Mr. Chair, how much time we have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have another two minutes.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay.

When you say that it will set its own agenda and report when it sees fit, what do you mean by that?

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

It can look at any activity in the Government of Canada. It can ask for any information within the Government of Canada. It is required by the draft statute to report at least once a year. It's entitled to report at any other time that it thinks is appropriate. If this committee finds something in the national security activities or architecture of the government that it thinks is wrong, either not effectively keeping Canadians safe or not respecting Canadians' rights and freedoms, then the committee is perfectly at liberty to blow the whistle.

The committee cannot divulge classified information, and I presume no one around the table would argue that it should. Classified information needs to be classified. But if members say publicly—and if you have seven MPs and two senators, it's certainly going to be public—that something here is wrong, even without divulging the classified detail, they can blow a whistle that will make it exceedingly uncomfortable for the government of the day. That whistle will keep being blown until the problem is solved. They have a bully pulpit like no other.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

Thank you for appearing, Minister.

I'm going to start with the simple premise that when we limit Canadians' rights, we have to justify that those limits are necessary. I want to speak to the threat reduction powers specifically. Can you speak to the necessity for these powers? What was wrong with the previous regime, and why are these reduction powers necessary?

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

Mr. Erskine-Smith, that's exactly the reason that we're having the consultation—

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

Fair enough.

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

—because we want to hear Canadians on this topic. They didn't have a full opportunity to be heard before. We're giving them that opportunity now.

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

That's absolutely fair. In the interim, while consultations are ongoing, I recognize that obviously you've restricted the ability of CSIS or CSIS has agreed to not seek a warrant to violate charter rights. However, there have been dozens of opportunities, if not more, of CSIS engaging in threat reduction powers. What assurances can we give to Canadians that their rights are being protected in the interim?