Evidence of meeting #44 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 security.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you.
I'd pose the same question to Mr. Fadden.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I start from the premise that whatever you do, please don't add another definition of “terrorism”. From an operational perspective, that would be terrible.
I don't remember the details, but I do remember that when Bill C-51 was being worked on, the definition in the CSIS act wasn't adopted because there was a view at the time, by some, that it really didn't cover a couple of things that should be covered if you were worried about national security.
I guess I would support the view that you should pick one of the two and embed it in this legislation. I think Mr. Edelmann is absolutely right. If people don't understand what the committee is mandated to do and what its parameters are, I think it would be very difficult to gain its support in public. I think he is entirely correct in that matter.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fadden, you talked about a situation Mr. Clement mentioned that has to do with the Treasury Board. Very appropriately, you highlighted the committee of the parliamentarians' highly unique nature.
You are an expert on intelligence. Is there a risk of a foreign power trying to set up one of the committee members? Should the legislation contain preventive measures to ensure the defence and the representation of the committee's members?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely. There is always a risk of a foreign power trying to, in one way or another, set up Canadians, be they public servants, parliamentarians or politicians.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The risk is further enhanced by the fact that the members of that committee are parliamentarians, and, as such, are likely to be subjected to political pressures.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. The approach would be slightly different. If there is one thing I can say with certainty, it is that countries that try to obtain information or influence people use those people's specific situation to get information from them.
I don't know what else could be done, but it would be very important for the committee members to be briefed in detail on the risks they will be exposed to. If they have the least suspicion that someone is trying to influence them, they should be actively encouraged to report it to the appropriate authorities.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The other element has to do with the right of access and what is covered by professional secrecy, which is mentioned in clause 13 of the bill. A former Supreme Court justice told us that he questioned the constitutional validity of that provision.
I would like both of you to briefly comment on that.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm not here as a lawyer, and it is a bit difficult to contradict a former judge.
All I can say is that, in Canadian legislation, there are a number of cases where the protection of professional secrecy is nearly absolute, but there also others where it is less absolute. In my opinion, it will depend on how people try to apply that provision.
In response to a previous question, I was going to say that it is often possible to answer a question by somewhat changing the level of details in an answer, while providing the basis of the response.
We call that aggregating up.
That is also the case when it comes to professional secrecy. Depending on whether we are in Quebec, in Ontario or in Nova Scotia, and depending on the profession in question, it is always possible to somewhat manipulate answers to enable the review organization to obtain most of the information required without, I hope, spending several months before the superior courts engaged in a constitutional debate.
I know that I am not quite answering your question, but I am somewhat limited.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much.
It is now 5:30 p.m.
Thank you very much to both witnesses. It is always helpful.
Mr. Fadden, you don't seem very retired to me, which is good.
5:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
With that, I will adjourn our meeting, and we will return on Thursday.