Evidence of meeting #40 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 parliamentarians.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Certainly. Thank you.
My last question is a question for the witnesses here from CSIS, Mr. Paulson from the RCMP, and SIRC. Do any of you see anything, in this framework or oversight committee, that would make you nervous? Every now and then things come up, unfortunately.
I'll open it up to each of you. If you could comment briefly on it, I'd appreciate it.
5:50 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
There's nothing, from my point of view.
5:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
The same here: nothing. We've been living with the SIRC review for 32 years, so we're used to it. Nothing makes me nervous.
5:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I still have a bit of time, gentlemen. Is there anything, Mr. Coulombe or Mr. Paulson, that you think should have been added to make the system work better?
5:50 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
Well, no, I've long been a proponent of a committee of parliamentarians to look into national security. From my point of view, I think the challenges and the nature of our work are very complex, and I think the more we can share with people, the better it will be understood.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Miller. I would have given you more time if you'd brought some international prize-winning ice cream from your riding.
5:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is mostly for the officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or perhaps for those from the Privy Council Office.
The minister claims that the power of the Prime Minister to review the reports seeks to protect classified information. Actually, the bill states that the information could be injurious to “national security, national defence or international relations”. Unless I'm mistaken, that definition seems much more vague to me. For instance, in terms of international relations, that might refer to information that puts the government in a tight spot.
Why was it written in that way? Why not simply specify that the Prime Minister could remove any classified information from the report?
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Safety, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'll let Ian respond on the drafting question, but I'll say two things very quickly. One is that I think on the nature of the information, the threshold would be very high. The expectation is that it's not just that it's inconvenient. The other is a specific suggestion you had in terms of classified: it's probably all classified. Much of the information that will be shared with the committee will be classified, and the degree to which agencies and ourselves are prepared to work with the committee to ensure that as much information as possible is released....
In terms of the specific wording, I'll turn to Ian.
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Yes, the intent was to try to get as specific as possible in requiring that whatever the redaction is fits into one of these specific categories. These categories exist in other parts of statutes, but the aim was to be specific in tying a redaction request to a very specific rationale in subclause 21(5).
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
In other words, you don't think it's possible to be more specific than that or to have a definition that would really limit that.
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I think Minister Goodale indicated in answer to an earlier question that he was open to suggestions from committee members on any possible amendments he was willing to consider.
I would think in that spirit, if there is an alternate formulation that you think better captures the spirit and intent of what the minister's described, I imagine that they would certainly be willing to look at whatever suggestion you had.
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Safety, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Certainly the intent is to be very economical with any redaction that might be required. You can look at examples in recent U.K. reports where it's a few words and in some places it's more, because of the nature of some of the reports they've done. In other cases, no element of a report is redacted even though it contains references to what I am sure my U.K. colleagues would view as very sensitive, but there's still a way to provide as much information publicly as possible.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you.
The other question I had is about the information we can access. For instance, in terms of the operational information that will not be disclosed, the existing definitions are vague, in the sense that everything implied by the information would also be restricted. That's what we more specifically call inferences. Actually, the legislation is there to prevent government employees from speaking.
Do you think it's really necessary to apply the same restriction to a parliamentary committee? That's actually very broad, given the information being shared with the committee. Why was it necessary to limit the information provided to such an extent?
5:55 p.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Could you give me a few more specifics on the scenario that you're concerned about here?
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
If I look at “special operational information”, for example, and all the idea of inferences also being part of that understanding in terms of access to information, my understanding is that it's broadly defined, specifically when we think of government employees and wanting to have the law be as broad as possible.
Why was it necessary to apply it that broadly to a committee of parliamentarians who are tasked specifically with review and oversight?
6 p.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
My colleague might have some more thoughts, but the objective of the statute is to give as much access to sensitive information as possible to parliamentarians. The flip side of that is that there are some checks and balances in terms of the information.
I think you're referring to clause 16 in terms of the reference to special operational information. In order for that to kick in, you would have to fit under, as you're aware, not only the definition of special operational information in the Security of Information Act, but you'd also have to have a determination that it was injurious to national security. Those two items together present a discrete requirement, two conditions that need to be met, which from the perspective of drafting is certainly a fairly contained requirement.
Was there something within the specifics of one of the elements of the SOIA that you were concerned about?
6 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
My understanding is just that it's very vague. It may be interpreted in various ways and thereby block access to a great deal of information.
6 p.m.
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
What I would say to that is if in fact during the course of the operations of the statute any of these exemptions are used in a way that the committee determines to be, in their sense of it, too heavy-handed, the committee can certainly make note of that in the report.
One of the checks and balances embedded here is that with the annual reporting mechanism it's possible for the committee members to aggregate, if you will, their experience in terms of dealing with the various agencies. If they determine, for example, that in relation to one department there is an issue in terms of how clause 16 is being applied, that's something they could make note of in their report.
6 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Safety, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As I understand it, and my colleagues might want to intervene here as well, the phrase “special operational information” is actually very precise and it's quite narrow, and it's in the context of having a particular impact on an ongoing operation that is at a critical point, not that it would be indefinite but sharing that information at a critical point, or it might be information that is particularly sensitive to sources, and so on. It's actually quite a precise phrase, so it might be worthwhile exploring the context around that.
6 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Just really quickly, if I look at a list of things here that can be included in SOI, you have targets of intelligence agencies, signal intelligence capabilities, efficacy of encryption systems, protection of sensitive networks from foreign hackers. Don't all those things go to the core of the mandate of this committee, that this committee would want to look at?