Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Malcolm Brown]

Yes, but it's the interplay of those issues along with the potential damage. The mere fact that those issues are subject matter that the committee addresses doesn't necessarily preclude those issues from being shared with the committee. I think the question becomes one where a head of the service, the RCMP, feels that there is a particular risk associated with it, and the practical obligation will be that the head of the service or agency involved will have to have an engagement with the committee. The committee can then say, no, we would still like to have that information. Then there's engagement with the minister.

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

Beyond engagement, that's how it's defined, right?

[Malcolm Brown]

But it's in the context of a very specific and narrow understanding of that interplay of the risk. It's not just all information in that context, but also that the sharing of that information will be injurious to national—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to stop you there.

Mr. Dubé rarely goes on long, so I gave him a little latitude today, but I'm afraid he's at the end of his time.

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take us back to a more general level. I'll just return to the minister's comments that our fundamental task here is to balance two public goods, our charter rights on the one hand and effective public safety and security on the other. I want to put it to you that probably the most important asset that we share as elected officials across to the bureaucracy is public trust, and it's public trust in government.

I want to ask each of the four representatives of our security establishments and agencies if you could give us your views on the expectation of this committee once formed and how it could help your organization to improve or strengthen public trust in government.

We'll go in the order in which you're listed on the agenda, starting with Commissioner Paulson.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I agree with the premise of the question. It's absolutely vital to the success of our organization and our mission that we have the trust and confidence from Canadians in our ability to do our job. That comes from I think a detailed understanding of the complexities that attach to our work. In that regard, I think, we will be completely forthcoming with the committee on how we approach these national security investigations, what the challenges are, what the risks are, and in doing so broaden the ambit of understanding of those challenges. So I think it's a very important step.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Director Coulombe, what are your views?

[Michel Coulombe]

I would agree with what Commissioner Paulson just said; it's to have a more informed discussion. For example, he mentioned challenges. What is the threat environment out there in terms of classified information? What is really the threat? What are are the gaps in terms of tools available to us? I think you would have that informed discussion with parliamentarians and then the public would know that we can have that discussion with members of Parliament.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Lizotte-MacPherson.

[Linda Lizotte-MacPherson]

Thank you.

I think trust is absolutely essential for us to fulfill our mandate, trust with Canadians and parliamentarians. I think the role of the committee is key in terms of increasing awareness and understanding of the domain, particularly understanding the threat environment, and some of the gaps. This is a complex area, so I think a more comprehensive understanding and dialogue will be very beneficial.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Deputy Chief Rochon.

[Dominic Rochon]

Not surprisingly, I'm going to agree with my colleagues, but I will say that it will be a welcome opportunity to provide a picture from the security and intelligence community. Often when something happens, we're often questioned either through the RCMP lens or the CSIS lens or the CSE lens. I think this will provide a nice opportunity for the security and intelligence community to speak with one voice, and the committee will have an opportunity to strategically look at the community as a whole. I very much welcome the opportunity to be able to have that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful.

I have a couple more specific questions, if I may, and I'll put them to whoever's wanting to answer.

With respect to international intelligence sharing, I'm assuming that in each of your four areas that's something you're invested in quite heavily; the security and intelligence establishment is heavily networked internationally. What constraints, if any, do you see with respect to this committee's ability to examine defects or even best practices in international intelligence sharing, because it involves other jurisdictions to which this committee would need access?

[Ian McCowan]

To the extent that the information is in the control of any of the departments, it's fair game for the committee to look at it. In order for the committee not to have access, one of the exceptions would have to apply, so either something in clause 14 or something in clause 16, but as long as it's in the control of the department it would be part of the discussion for the committee.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

To take that further, let's assume that there's an instance where intelligence should be shared with another jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is not forthcoming to the extent it may have been in the past. Is it in your view within the ambit of this committee to then approach that other jurisdiction and make enquiries?

[Malcolm Brown]

I'm not sure I understand the scenario. The committee wouldn't be in receipt of intelligence any longer...?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It may even be a scenario where intelligence is not shared that should have been shared.

[Malcolm Brown]

It's hard to know what you.... Proving the negative is a challenge, so I think it would be a—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

To put it in more simple terms, would the committee be in a position to approach another jurisdiction to make inquiries with respect to the quality and extent of the common practices of intelligence sharing?

[Malcolm Brown]

I think the committee would be free to approach whoever they would want. There would be no extra legal obligation on other countries to respond.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Have there been any preparatory discussions with other jurisdictions in anticipation of Bill C-22, that this committee may make inquiry on the practice of—

[Malcolm Brown]

Partners are aware of our activities and the proposed legislation before Parliament.

[Ian McCowan]

What I'd say is that it's really up to the committee to decide where they want to go in terms of where they can explore. The statute gives them a certain range of powers and there are certain restrictions, but within this framework it's up to them to decide where they want to pursue, and we'll just have to see where they take it.

[Malcolm Brown]

I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I would put it in the inverse and ask how this committee—this committee of Parliament—would feel about these officials being called before a committee of another country.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Sure, that's understood.