Evidence of meeting #35 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 review.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
You gave the example of the U.K., but how do you see other countries handling it that have a parliamentary system similar to ours?
3:40 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Certainly, if we look at similar parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom and Australia, they have effective oversight, and they also have an independent body that looks at national security legislation, and gives advice to the government.
This committee is not aligned with government at all. They are independent experts and they report to government annually, saying how a piece of legislation can be improved. That's another mechanism you should be looking at.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Your comments were directed at oversight, but in terms of overview or review, what international example of best practices could we apprise ourselves of?
3:40 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
With respect to review, it's hard to say. The key thing in review is, once again, independence from government, obviously independence from the agency they are reviewing. The review body has to have jurisdiction or power over all the national security agencies, so they don't have what is referred to as siloed jurisdiction, and SIRC can only deal with—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Could you point to an international example where this works?
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Probably the best example would be the United Kingdom.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you very much.
Just to continue along that line of questioning, can you define for me how you would see that? We've talked about the oversight bodies of CSIS, the RCMP, and everything else. Would you do away with all that? Would you have the parliamentary committee and the independent body with those independent oversight agencies sitting on it reporting up to Parliament?
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
What I would recommend is that you have the parliamentary oversight, which would be a committee of parliamentarians that would deal with systemic issues, as well as the policies that CSIS and the RCMP should have, such as what agreements they should have with foreign countries, that kind of thing—the broader, blue-sky kinds of issues.
On the other hand, you would have a review body, which would be made up of independent experts. Some people call it a “super-SIRC”, except that it has jurisdiction over all bodies. It would, in effect, make determinations on either a complaint from a member of the public or a self-initiated complaint. It would look at something that CSIS or the RCMP did and rule on the propriety of it, the lawfulness of the activity.
At the end of the year, they would make an annual report to the public and to you as parliamentarians. The other effective thing they would do to complement your important mandate is make recommendations on how the agency can operate better, because they are going to be on the ground looking at front-line investigations. They can see where improvements can be made, and they can make recommendations to the parliamentary committee, which will have a responsibility to make recommendations for legislative change.
You would be working in tandem. They would be dealing with the daily issues; you would be dealing with the systemic issues. What they learn on the ground on a daily basis, that experience, should be transferred up to you in terms of your law-making.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Am I correct in hearing you say that SIRC would remain in place, and it would work with the experts?
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
No, we would have a new body.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Back to my original question, to do away with all the oversight bodies and then have an independent body of experts....
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Yes, this independent body would have all the powers—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
—SIRC, the CSC commissioner, the RCMP, and so on. It would be one body dealing with all the agencies, so they can effectively review what's going on, because all of these investigations are joint investigations. When you have CSIS, RCMP, CBSA, and Immigration Canada involved, you need a full-fledged—what's called a “cross-government” or “all-of-government”—review body.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
That would be my next question.
Would you see the panel of experts being government experts?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Outside the realm of government...and the only government body would be the parliamentary committee.
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
That's right, but the independent experts would have to be appointed by government. They are like judges. They would be appointed by government, but they would be independent, act independently, and make recommendations to you as the parliamentary committee. At the same time, they would make findings on complaints. For example, if I complained about something that CSIS or the RCMP did, I could have a hearing before this independent body, and it would make findings.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Who would appoint them? Would that come out of the Prime Minister's Office or the House of Commons?
3:45 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
It would be like a judicial appointment. The executive would make the appointment. You could change that. For example, if you wanted the parliamentary committee to have more power, maybe the parliamentary committee could appoint the independent body. That's a question of mechanics.
The key thing is that once they are appointed, they are independent, just like a judge. A judge could be appointed by whatever Prime Minister, but the fact is that, hopefully, once the judge is appointed, he or she is independent.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Right. Okay.
What you are saying, then, is that the independent body would do an annual report to Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Representative, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
That's correct.
