Evidence of meeting #46 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 activity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Where you would find what?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
You just explained your intention around this. Where would I find it?
4:45 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
It's in the construction of it as a whole.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It might be helpful if we read portion (a) together with portion (b)(3).
In portion (a), two things have to happen. The activity is ongoing. It has to be ongoing, whether it's an operation or not, and the appropriate minister has to determine that it is injurious to national security, so that's a tight lens. In (b)(3), the release of that tight lens is quick because, in that case, it says “or” the review is no longer injurious “or” it has discontinued. I think we can take comfort in the fact that the minister has to let go of the objection quicker than she would be forced to accept the restriction.
It is quite deliberate that the first one says “and” and in the second section we have “or”, which means the committee would be free to study as long as either of the two limits are met, but both of them have to be met in part (a) for the information to be excluded.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'm having a hard time understanding why we're objecting to changing a word because we don't know how it's defined, but we're referring to undefined discretion of the minister and using powers sparingly. I don't feel that those two thoughts jibe together.
If we're afraid of the definition of the word and its vagueness, we should also be afraid of the vagueness on how often the power should be used, because it's being referred to but it's nowhere written in the bill.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I have a quick question.
I tend to agree with Mr. Sutherland that “activity” is broader than “operation”. Can you give the committee an example where we have an ongoing activity that would be injurious to national security, but it isn't an ongoing operation?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I really hesitate to do this. An operation tends to have a specific duration attached to it, and it tends to have a specific goal. An activity could be general strategic planning of a department. That's an ongoing activity. That's an activity they do all the time, but it's not a specific operation.
To me, when I hear the two words, I think of an operation as being something more specific. An activity is more general.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I was agreeing with you that it is general. I was just wondering, to comfort myself, if we're sticking with “activity”. You said there may be some instances where it's necessary to have that broader definition. I was looking for an example or two of where that breadth was necessary.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't want to use Air India exactly, but obviously the criminal investigation around Air India would be an ongoing operation, for example, as a lead-up prior to the Toronto 18. After the fact, maybe it would be an ongoing activity as the national security community tried to piece together what happened, and so on. Obviously it would consume a lot of time. In the national security community, there would be different conclusions being made, so I would probably put that as an activity.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
By answering Mr. Erskine-Smith's questions, you've in effect eased the burden on the mover of the amendment to whom we look for some guidance as to what he or she intends to capture by way of the subamendment.
Having gotten an example or two and understanding the parameters intended by the word “activity” as opposed to “operations” a little more, at the end of the day the rationale for the discretion is to ensure that information that is potentially injurious to national security is not shared. Am I right about that?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
If the question is directed at me from Mr. Mendicino, I go to the Information Commissioner's story that she wanted information about a campus outreach program that CSIS was conducting. It's surely not an operation but surely an activity. That's, I would have thought, something a committee oversight of CSIS would want to be able to look at and not to let the government come in ab initio and simply say, “You can't go anywhere near there.” They have all of clauses 14 and 16 still outstanding, but to be able to say no to something like that.... I, for one, if I were on the committee, would like to know what they are doing on the campuses of our land. That is exactly what a parliamentarian should be doing, but it's not an operation. It's an activity.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
You're agreeing that is an activity. I saw you shaking your heads.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
