Public Safety Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

In what sense?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

You mentioned that you wanted to make sure that rights and freedoms were protected. At least, I was sure that's what you said.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

I'm trying to suggest that's a function of Parliament, to look out for Canadians' interests in that area. It's a shared responsibility with a lot of other elements of our government system, but it's a primary one for Parliament to do.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I presume, although one should never presume, that you also meant privacy and what have you. In today's world we live in a different climate, with terrorism and other threats, than we did even 10 years ago. Should it be an expectation that Canadians or the public may have to accept small sacrifices to privacy in order to protect the greater freedom? What are your thoughts on that?

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

Let me put my view on the table here. I'm one of those people who believe that, providing government can make a case for powers and puts in place a robust and effective oversight system, that's fine. I want a security and intelligence system that is effective, and that is one of the functions of oversight. There are benefits—I was going to argue in the paper—of oversight, even for the national security organizations themselves.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Sure, and I agree with you on that oversight.

You mentioned that C-22 should be amended. This is something that some of us have brought up before. It's been mentioned, as you did again, that C-22 is modelled after the British model. The one thing that hasn't come out is that the British model was amended, big time, in 2013.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

Absolutely.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I take it from your comments that you would agree that we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel on this. We should learn from other countries in cases like this. Is that correct?

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

Absolutely. You can also learn from their techniques. I think you can draw on American experiences particularly, on just the techniques that Congress uses.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay.

You talked again about the committee reporting to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. Again, that comes under the checks and balances, in my opinion. From your comments, it seems that you'd agree that it's just another one of those checks and balances that you cannot put too much power in one place. In terms of reporting back to Parliament, at the end of the day somebody has to make a final decision and I understand that is with the Prime Minister, but to report there and not to Parliament.... Other than what you mentioned, what other negativities could come out of having that approach?

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

By reporting to Parliament...?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

By not reporting to Parliament.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

As I have said, I don't think Parliament can do its proper job when it comes to estimates and new legislation because it's absolutely crucial that you have the capacity to go into the tent in order to ask the right questions.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Back at the start, you mentioned C-51, and you mentioned shortly after that things that you thought were missing from the framework. One of the things that you talked about was the military forces, and you did mention the Afghan prisoners thing. I'd like you to expand a little more on that.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

There are lots of other parts of the framework. National Defence is one, not only in terms of Canada's forces but also in terms of the analytical capabilities that it has in the intelligence area, in addition to the Communications Security Establishment, which falls under the remittance of that minister.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Staying with the military, you mentioned the Afghan situation. Are there other specific examples in the past that maybe wouldn't have happened or shouldn't have happened if a proper framework had been in place, military-wise?

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

Let me answer it in a slightly different way.

Within the last decade, there was a defence review of the intelligence sector. I don't think many people heard about that. What did it recommend? How did it change? It could have been, perhaps, made more effective. Given that the Canadian government is now pondering going into Africa, how good is that assessment area in Defence to prepare for the concerns that commanders might have in the field?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need you to end there.

We now continue with Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Farson, thanks for being here. I have a few questions. I don't want to get lost in the weeds on Bill C-22 because we will, as was mentioned, have the chance to study it at committee. Since it was brought up, there are a few points. There are some things we brought up as amendments that should be seen, and I perhaps wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on those.

For example, there is election of the chair, which is something the British model does that the current legislation doesn't provide for. There's the question of oversight versus review. I'd also like to hear from you about it, because you did mention briefly the issue of SIRC when it comes to the fact that it's a review and not actual oversight. It's a very important distinction that doesn't come up often enough. The other thing is that the executive's discretionary power over what the committee actually gets to see has been a huge concern we have as well. I'd just start off on those three points and hear your thoughts on them.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

If you have a committee that looks into this area of governance, I would hope that all political parties could agree on what our national interests are and what needs to be put in place. Is it necessary to have a chair? Could you survive with co-chairs and an equal balance between parties in opposition? Perhaps that sort of approach might be another way of looking at it.

In terms of the difference between review and oversight, traditionally we've looked at the whole bailiwick of oversight in terms of after-the-fact review. This isn't the way it actually happens. If you're looking for something, on the estimates, for example, you need to know what it's going to be used for so you need a form of scrutiny that actually informs you about that future event. If you're putting in place military equipment, for example, you need to know what the costs are ahead of time, and whether it's the best option.

You have one of the innovations of the last government, which was to introduce the parliamentary budget officer. I think that was a very promising development. There are avenues that do need to be done first or ahead of time, as well as after the fact.

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

I appreciate that. Like I said, I'll get off Bill C-22. There's a lot more to be said, but we'll have that opportunity when we study the bill.

You talked about the wider array of departments when it comes to the green paper and the review that needs to happen of the national security framework. There's a very specific story that comes to mind that's come out in the last couple of week of information sharing under Bill C-51 with consular affairs, for example, and the risk that runs of creating another situation like we saw with Maher Arar.

I'm just wondering, because you mentioned the foreign policy implications, if perhaps you could elaborate on that and some of the concerns there are even within Bill C-51 that the legal dispositions that exist here at home aren't the same as what happens abroad when information sharing happens.

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

One reason that I think you need to look at the issue more broadly is that there are a lot of issues that perhaps aren't in the public forum right now. If you've been noticing the activities of Mr. Putin in recent years, they give cause for concern. Is he serious in what he wants to do and what he has done? What are his intentions? These are the sorts of issues for which one wants to know whether we have a competent intelligence community operating on our behalf.

Just by way of raising a problem, which comes back to my issue of learning, is that if you look at the intelligence and security area and the way it's presented in the media, it tends to be about what went wrong. There's good reason for that. It's because you can't tell publicly what your successes are. We have had successes, and they are on the record if you want to look hard enough for them.

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

If I may, because my time is running low, I appreciate the answer but perhaps I didn't ask the question the right way. I'm wondering, just when it comes to Canadians, because that's the big issue, especially when you're talking about the example I used of consular services and so forth.... How we relate to foreign entities is important when it comes to intelligence sharing and so on, but when we look at the door that's been opened to the use of information obtained under torture, things like that, in terms of protecting Canadians' rights, is it something missing from the green paper that certainly should be more prominent?

[Prof. Stuart Farson]

I think it has been front and centre in Canada for a long time. I mentioned the inquiry the MPCC did. That was a decade ago.

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

You also mentioned, though, how a lot of those things end up gathering dust on the shelves and being forgotten in the annals of history.

Staying on the green paper for a minute, the other question is the issue of privacy rights. The Privacy Commissioner has brought up some criticisms of that not having enough of a prominent role. We focus on the national security issues, and those are important. Fair enough. Once again, coming back to the protection of Canadians and their rights, is that something you would agree with? Perhaps you could comment further.