No.
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.
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.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That is exactly the point that I was driving at in my first comment. I think it's unclear on the face of the language what category of information we're talking about and whether it is the same as that intended under clause 16, which has a very specific definition under a specific statute.
It may indeed be redundant, in which case we don't need the subamendment, as Mr. Dubé is proposing, because it would be covered under clause 16. On the other hand, if it's not redundant and if it's intended to cover some other category or subcategory of activity, then I would agree with the comments made by Mr. Davies and Mr. Sutherland that we would want it anchored in some kind of definition that currently does not exist. That's why I think there is the prospect, which is my original concern, that there could be unintended consequences and contradictions that flow from adding this new term to the act.
Do I have that right?
4:30 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Our concern is just what the word.... If we're talking about redundancies or vagueness, then my feeling is that the word “activity” is, in itself, vague. Perhaps I should withdraw that subamendment and move on to make the following change instead, or we could change Mr. Mendicino's wording, “ongoing operation” as opposed to “activity” and just strike “activity” entirely and replace it with “operation”.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Just before we do that, if you want to withdraw it, it would have to be unanimous consent, because it's been duly moved.
Is there unanimous consent to have that withdrawn?
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
(Amendment withdrawn)
Okay, and now the second proposal you're making is—
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
It is to change the wording. Once again, if we're following Mr. Mendicino's amendment, use the words “unless the activity is an ongoing operation”, and strike out “activity” entirely.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
All right. That is a subamendment on the floor.
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
How is “operation” defined? I don't know if you have a definition, and that's also to the officials.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's my point. The Security of Information Act defines “operational information”, but it doesn't define “operations”. On the face of it, “operations” and “activities” are synonyms, but it's not something that's defined in law or is anchored in this act.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
If it was amended so that it was an ongoing operation, as defined under the Security of Information Act, would that help?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The Security of Information Act doesn't define “operations”; it defines “operational information”, which is different from “operations”. Am I right on that?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The other thing we would note is simply that the word “activity” is used throughout the act, so if you're going to change it here, then you might need to change it everywhere.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
May I ask what the concern would be with changing this to “operation”? It doesn't need to be defined in the act. I think we can all agree, for the lawyers in the room, that a judge would look at this if it ever came to them, and the minister gets to interpret whether it's an ongoing operation and there is no judicial review, so “operation”....
We had Michel Coulombe testify before us and talk about ongoing operations. The whole idea to strike this balance is that we're not taking people out of the field of a particular operation. If it's just semantics, we're talking activity or operation, and since it's in the minister's discretion anyway, then it seems to me to be more specific and accurate in addressing what the agency's concern was in the first place.
I wonder if you would comment on that.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't have a comment on the difference between “activity” and “operations”.
4:35 p.m.
Nancy Miles Senior Legal Counsel, Privy Council Office
As “operations” is not defined in the statute, then you would have to look to what the ordinary language would be, the ordinary meaning of “operation”. That's not necessarily going to be sufficient to give clarity to what an “ongoing” operation is. It can have a number of different definitions, and before a judge it could mean any one of a number of things.
There is always an attempt to try to define a term that may have a number of different interpretations.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I just want to clarify something. How could it go to a judge, Ms. Miles? There is no judicial review in this.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Privy Council Office
Your point is taken. It's just that it's an issue of whether we are being clear enough in the statute and whether Parliament knows what it means by each of the words being used.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Paragraph 14(e) of the English version uses the expression “ongoing investigation”. I would like to ask Mr. Dubé if this is what he was referring to when he proposed replacing “ongoing activity” with “ongoing operational activity”, then with “ongoing operation”. Is he referring to the expression “ongoing investigation”? That expression is used in the bill already. It would avoid the risk of creating confusion in the very structure of the bill by introducing new terminology through an amendment.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Perhaps either Mr. Rankin or Mr. Dubé would like to comment on Mr. Di Iorio's comment.