Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The subamendment seems consistent with.... You'll hear me talk about more access to information later, but Mr. Mendicino's amendment and the subamendment together strike a balance, it seems to me.

We had Mr. Coulombe testify from CSIS, and I think he provided a pretty compelling reason for limiting the ability of the committee to review a project. It was because you don't want people who are in an ongoing operational activity being pulled off the field and testifying in front of the committee.

Together these make sense to me, though I'm open to argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Clement is next, and then Ms. Damoff.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I would agree with Mr. Erskine-Smith and the NDP caucus as well. The whole point here is that none of us wants to be in a situation in which in real time there's an activity going on and the committee is meddling in the success of that activity. I don't think any of us wants to be put in that position. However, we also heard that sometimes an activity is not “operational” but is “ongoing”, such as was the case with Air India. I think this subamendment strikes the right balance to ensure that the committee can do its job while at the same time not interfering with ongoing operations to the detriment of the national security of the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I wonder whether the officials could comment on what unintended consequences this could have, if any.

[Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Consistent with what Mr. Mendicino mentioned, the effect of adding the word “operational” would be to narrow the scope. We'd have to think about how it would relate to point 16, which also deals with the same sort of activities.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Except that we need to decide now. To Mr. Dubé's point, if he's trying to refine it to be “operational” as opposed to any “ongoing” activity, I think we need some input from you.

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

My concern is that unless the definition of “operational” is anchored in the act, you may find your way to viewing anything that is ongoing as operational. If “ongoing”, as I think, implies “operational” by nature, whether you put it in or not will not, I think, have a great effect, but I think you would have to look at the draft. Your jurilinguists would probably want to weigh in on that, and you may want to anchor the word “operational” in the definition in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

This is directed to the officials.

I wonder whether the “ongoing” aspect of Air India is the investigation, which is still ongoing.

[John Davies]

Again, I think there are operational aspects to any kind of report that means something's ongoing and people are doing work in real time. The issue is, from a policy discussion standpoint, whether or not you want that kind of thing brought in front of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

May I ask a clarifying question?

Mr. Sutherland, I couldn't tell whether, when you said clause 16—

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

—you were talking about its being in contradiction with or consistent with clause 16.

[Allen Sutherland]

It covers the same sort of territory, and more cleanly. The worry that we have with “operational” is that it has components of activity in it, and it's just vague and unclear to us. It's interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

But it's in clause 16?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes, but there it has some specific language attached to it that makes it clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Then, Mr. Davies, I heard from you that it could be redundant but not problematic.

[John Davies]

My first reaction is that it would be redundant, but I think you'd want to ideally define the word “operational” in the act, if you're going to put it in, because the effect of the narrowing is not clear either way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

But it's in the act at clause 16.

[John Davies]

It's anchored in the SOI Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm just looking at paragraph 16(1)(a), and it reads:

operational information, as defined in subsection 8(1) of the Security of Information Act.

Is that...?

[John Davies]

Yes, that's a copy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'll just wait for Mr. Davies.

Were you going to comment?