Evidence of meeting #42 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 recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Here's what my last question would be. If these are security-cleared parliamentarians, why should we feel more comfortable with your office having complete access and parliamentarians not having complete access?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
That's a good question, and I guess it's for the government to answer. I suspect, bearing in mind that this is a new committee and that it's the first time parliamentarians will be involved in those matters, that the government wants to go cautiously and slowly. We'll see as things develop what changes should be made to the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much, Mr. Plouffe.
Mrs. Gallant—I'm struggling with Madam, Ms., and Mrs.—welcome back.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions will be directed through you mostly to Mr. Plouffe.
First of all, in your comments, you mentioned that the government wants to have a review of the national security intelligence activities of those agencies and departments not currently subject to review. Would you please list the agencies and departments that you feel are not adequately reviewed at this time?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
I must admit that I don't have the list at hand right now to tell you exactly. The border agency, for example, is the first one that comes to mind. I think that agency should be reviewed by somebody. As an example, it could be SIRC, because the work that CSIS does on the one hand and the work that the border agency does on the other are somewhat similar. SIRC could be the review body for that agency.
With regard to other departments that are not subject to review, the option is for the government to divide them among the existing review bodies—for example, the CSE commissioner, SIRC, the CRCC—or to create a new review body or bodies. I think it's important that the agencies and departments that are not subject to review be reviewed.
November 15th, 2016 / 5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
My concern is that we see from time to time in Parliament an issue that is sensitive, that is urgent—for example, the screening of Syrian refugees—and the system is in place may have some deficiencies. This committee may have wanted to study it, but were told no. We were just outnumbered by the tyranny of the majority. Do you see it as a concern that what parliamentarians possibly should be studying in standing committees could, by virtue of the government's wanting to keep it out of the public eye, be deferred to this special committee?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
If I understand your question correctly.... I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again, just the essence?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Do you see that the government might want to defer an issue that a committee might want to study to this special committee just so that it's kept out of the public domain?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
No, I don't see that at all. As I say, the mandates are different, but they are complementary. I think the important thing, as I said in my opening remarks, is to work together: the committee of parliamentarians on the one hand and the expert review bodies on the other. If we do that, I guess this will answer your question.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay. Now, you've said that the committee does not have the same freedom of access as your office or SIRC, though in a specific area it has more explicit access. Which area is that?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
That's the access with regard to the legal opinions, the client-lawyer privilege.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay. Very good. Paragraph 8(b) says unless the appropriate minister determines otherwise, so how would the members of the special committee be able to verify that there is actually a reason that the committee should not have access to certain information?
5 p.m.
J. William Galbraith Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
The legislation sets out that if a minister refuses, or if information is refused to the committee, there has to be an explanation given. Is that what you're referring to?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We see this in the defence committee all the time when they say that something is a matter of operational security. We don't know whether it really is a matter of operational security. They could be just using this as a way to avoid providing the information. How would committee members know that there is actually a national security issue as opposed to the department or agency not wanting to be forthcoming with the information?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
In the bill, if I'm not mistaken, there's a provision whereby if a minister is refusing that type of information he has to give you reasons, the reason why he's not releasing that type of information.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
In the bill, we're talking about paragraph 8(b). The witnesses could state how the—
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
It's 8(b)?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Yes. Are you certain that the government or the agency could not simply be using national security as an escape clause for not having to provide the information to the committee?
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
I don't see why they would do that unless they are in bad faith, and I assume that everybody is acting in good faith unless the contrary is proven to me.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
All right.
We'll go on to the procedure of the committee. It says:
The Committee is to meet at the call of the Chair.
Do any of the witnesses see that there should be a provision whereby a certain number of the members of committee, a minimum number that would be equal to or less than the number of government members, would be able to call for a meeting of the committee?
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Are you talking about a quorum?