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.
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Clause 17, is it? I notice there is no provision in the bill about a quorum in this committee. It says there are nine members, and clauses 18 and 19, for example, talk about voting, but they don't talk about a quorum. I think there should be a provision saying that the quorum for the committee, let's say, is five members or whatever.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Mr. Plouffe.
Pursuant to the National Defence Act, part of your mandate is to report any CSE activities that are not in compliance with the law. For our part, we are introducing an amendment that would make this committee responsible for alerting the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, so that is similar to your mandate.
I would ask you first to speak about the importance of this part of your mandate, and then to tell us whether you think our amendment is an appropriate proposal for this committee.
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Part of my mandate is to ensure that CSE activities comply with the law. It goes without saying therefore that if they do not comply, I have to inform the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for the CSE, as well as the Attorney General of Canada, in accordance with the National Defence Act. If you read the annual report I released last year that was tabled in both houses, you will find that I reported one case where this happened.
The committee's role is to ensure that the activities of the “agencies subject to review” comply with the law. I do not see why you could not also have the power to report such cases to the minister responsible for the agency in question and to the Attorney General of Canada.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Perfect, thank you very much.
We have spoken a great deal about paragraph 8b) and the minister's power to prevent an investigation by the committee, which is not the case for your office or for the SIRC ...
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
It is the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Yes, thank you, it is hard enough to remember all the acronyms, let alone the acronyms in both languages.
You spoke about complementarity. That would be one example of how we could work together. I would like to take a different approach and hear your opinion of it.
You spoke about something that is very important to the committee of parliamentarians, namely, public trust. Do you not think that adding discretionary powers for a minister—even if we can rely on other, existing bodies to provide oversight—undermines the key objective of public trust? We know that the minister can prohibit investigations, which is not the case for other review committees.
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
First of all, you have to understand the nature of the committee that the bill would create. It is a committee of parliamentarians, but not a committee of Parliament, it is a creature of the executive. I don't think this is the first time you have heard this. This is why the prime minister and the other ministers have a role to play. It would be different if it were a committee of Parliament.
It is a committee of parliamentarians, so it is a committee of the executive. This committee, by the way, must report to the prime minister in certain cases and to certain ministers in other cases. That's the philosophy.
Some day things might evolve, with practice, in the sense that we might realize—as is the case in England right now—that it is a committee of Parliament and not a committee of parliamentarians.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you.
Mr. McPhail and Mr. Evans, you raised an interesting point about the importance of your not being a former member of the RCMP, Mr. McPhail, and the independence that comes with that. I'm just wondering about your thoughts on this. We had a similar thought process when it comes to the choice of the chair for this committee, in the sense that if the Prime Minister is naming the chair, I feel there's almost a similarity. It's as if you were a former member of the RCMP. There is a bit of a conflict that can be seen there. What's the importance of the independence that you have and ensuring that you can exercise proper oversight?
5:10 p.m.
Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
My sense, Monsieur Dubé, is that it's not so much a matter of actual conflict, but rather public confidence.
I'll speak for Mr. Evans here, but I can also speak for all of the former RCMP members who are on our commission staff. They're all, I find, quite determined to proceed with the mandate of the commission, and they bring with them not just that determination, but their specialized and expert knowledge, which is frankly invaluable.
It would be my sense—and obviously this is beyond my authority or the commission's authority—that since the purpose of this bill is remedial and is designed to boost public confidence, I find it difficult to imagine that the Prime Minister or any number of parliamentarians would appoint as a chair someone whose appointment would detract from public confidence and trust.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
As one last quick question, what was the importance of the ongoing review of Justice O'Connor's recommendations? How important was it that you had access to all that information? You mentioned that in your remarks, but just how important is that? That's something we're debating in regard to this bill, as well?
5:10 p.m.
Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's critical, but as I said earlier, we haven't had to rely on any legal provision to date. I can't foretell the future, of course, but to date the RCMP has been fully co-operative in allowing our investigators full access.
5:10 p.m.
Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Absolutely.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your cooperation and valuable testimony.
I would like to talk about clause 8 of the bill, which pertains to the Committee' s mandate. It states: “The mandate of the Committee is to review“
Paragraph b) states:
(b) any activity
and it continues:
unless the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security;
Other witnesses have pointed out that there is repetition in the bill. I would like your opinion on that. Is there repetition in the bill?
Let us look first at clause 14.
Paragraph 14 b) no longer refers to review but rather information, which I consider much more limited.
5:10 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
It that clause 14 or clause 15?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It is paragraph 14 b) that pertains to information and not review.
Paragraph 14 d) pertains to the identity of a person. Once again, it does not refer to review.
Paragraph 14 e) pertains to information, so once again it does not refer to review.
I would also draw your attention to clause 16, which once again pertains to information and not review.
Would you also agree that there is unnecessary duplication and that things are repeated for nothing? In your opinion, are the exceptions set out in clauses 14 and 16 justified?
5:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Earlier, with Mr. Dubé, we touched on paragraph 8b). This paragraph is a restriction; how often will it be applied? We have to consider this. Based on what a minister said recently, this prerogative will be used very rarely.
I have a note in English that explains my thinking. I will read it out, if I may.
It states, “My experience has been that often the fears we have are seldom realized to the same extent as we had thought.”
It is a restriction, but is an exception. The principle of an exception is that it is used rarely.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Do you agree that the minister could allow the review, although the bill stipulates that certain information cannot be disclosed to the committee?
5:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
We have to understand—and I believe you understand this too—that there is a difference between review, which is part of the mandate, and access to the information referred to in clause 13 and in the following clauses. I would say it is not exactly the same thing.
