Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2017

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

Okay. My answer will be short and clear.

Of course, torture may not be used under any circumstances and we should never obtain information or conduct security-related activities based on information obtained through torture. Canada must not subscribe to that, not only because of our way of doing things here, but also to show the rest of world once again that torture must not be considered under any circumstances. Unfortunately, when democratic countries start to undermine this principle, it also opens the door to many other countries that are less particular in this regard.

[Alex Neve]

If I could add one point, I think it's worth highlighting that in 2012, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, which was reviewing Canada's record of compliance with the UN convention against torture at the time, pointed to concerns about the ministerial directions and highlighted that in their existing form, they do not meet our international obligations—which Béatrice has so well summarized—and called on Canada to make reforms.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That is an excellent reply. Thank you very much.

We were discussing the sharing of information with the United States.

The idea is to go forward and share more information. We saw that last week or the week before. A number of decrees have been signed recently. Certain legal protections have been removed that citizens of other countries had as regards their information in the United States.

Can you elaborate on the sharing of information with the United States in general, given that their administration is rather unpredictable? This applies not only to the United States itself, but also to Russia, for example. We know that questions have been raised in this regard. Are we sharing information with a close ally that could end up somewhere else? These are all questions to consider.

What are your thoughts?

[Alex Neve]

I think it's very timely to be pointing to concerns about what the rapidly changing, and we would say deteriorating, human rights situation in the United States means potentially for our intelligence relationships.

One is the concerns around torture, obviously. I think it's going to be incumbent upon the Canadian government, and all of our agencies, to pay very careful attention to what is or is not the emerging U.S. policy with respect to the use of certain forms of torture by intelligence agencies, such as waterboarding, and what safeguards we're going to need to absolutely ensure we are not in any way complicit with that in our relationship with the United States,.

More widely, there's a lot of uncertainty right now, but I think there are a lot of reasons to be concerned. What we're highlighting is that the government needs to keep a very watchful eye on what is happening in the United States. Our own approach to information sharing was, of course, broadened expansively in ways that we've never seen before through Bill C-51, in terms of the breadth and nature of information that gets shared right across government. I think that highlights once again why it's so important that we ensure we have proper safeguards in place to ensure relevancy and accuracy and that inflammatory information isn't being shared, because with all of those risks we want to make sure that none of that information would then subsequently find its way into the hands of U.S. agencies.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Do you have any comments about customs operations? People have been asked for social network passwords even though there is absolutely no legal requirement to provide them, either in Canada or in the United States.

Moreover, this is not practical yet, but there has been talk of using biometrics and scans. This has been raised. What are your thoughts? I know it is relatively new, but I would also like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Alex Neve]

Béatrice, do you want to answer?

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

No, I will let you answer, Mr. Neve.

[Alex Neve]

I would agree that those are all areas of concern that we're watching very closely.

I wouldn't say that Amnesty necessarily has clear positions of opposition with respect to the issues that you're highlighting, but we certainly have signalled the very real potential that there are serious human rights violations that can ensue if, for instance, those new technologies aren't used responsibly. That's number one. Number two, they do not have effective safeguards in place, so it often comes down to questions of safeguards and review and oversight, and we know, for the large part, that Canada's national security framework is lacking on that front.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

My final question is for all the witnesses.

There has been a lot of discussion of the no fly list. How much difficulty are people experiencing as a result of this list?

As you said, Mr. Leuprecht, the U.S. list is used very often. How great is the impact of that? Regardless of what we do in Canada, the U.S. list remains problematic.

Is there some way of rectifying that?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Yes, I think the federal government can tell the people on the no fly list that their problems are not the result of Canada's list. The government cannot necessarily tell people which list is being used, but they could be told that the ban is not due to the passenger protect program. I think that could relieve some tension in this regard.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Perhaps the debate should be better structured in order to determine where improvements are needed.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I think the government has a duty to explain that, although several lists are being used, just one list is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

We will now move on to Mr. Arseneault, a new member of the committee.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Mr. Neve, Mr. Leuprecht, and Ms. Vaugrante for being here today.

As the chair pointed out, I am a newcomer to the committee. This is just my third meeting. You will have noticed that I am surrounded by eminently wise colleagues. I feel like I am six months behind on this file.

My questions may initially be technical in nature.

Ms. Vaugrante, you said earlier that all public safety laws that can affect human rights should be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that was your second recommendation.

Is that correct?

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

Our point is that at this time the Canadian national security statutes mention neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is no reference to them, and even fewer obligations, with an exception for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We are asking that any law on national security, whether it is new or not, include a provision requiring that it be interpreted be in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and international law.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and please reassure me, but I believe that in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supercedes all other Canadian legislation.

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

That should be the case, and if it were mentioned we would feel decidedly better. Unfortunately, certain provisions, among others in Bill C-51, do not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Several provisions in some acts or bills disturb us considerably.

If this legislation expressly referred to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and international law, it could be interpreted in light of human rights. That is necessary, given the balance that must be established between security and the respect of human rights. As Mr. Neve and myself were saying earlier, this is already expressed in provisions relating to human rights.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

As you were saying, this law is quite recent, and we have to give the courts some time to interpret its provisions to determine what might run counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. That is how our justice system works.

Do you share my opinion on this?

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

Of course, I agree with you, but once again, we would be reassured if there were some guidelines and guarantees in this regard. We understand very well that national security policies and their implementation always have to develop, be tested, and perhaps sometimes be found wanting.

We are asking, as a second guarantee, that there be a Canadian oversight model. Indeed, there is no integrated and complete oversight body that could shed light on the need to correct certain things. In my opinion, that is what is really missing in Canada. This would allow us to move forward while taking into account both the legislation and security considerations. If Canada had this type of complete and integrated review framework, and if independent bodies could assess national security practices, I think we would all benefit.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'd like to go back to a question that was put by my colleague Mr. Clement. I'd like to believe that Canada is a leader. or at least in the lead group when it comes to respecting individual rights and freedoms.

Could you give us some examples of other countries that have created an independent review framework or an independent body to supervise all of that?

[Béatrice Vaugrante]

I will let my colleague Alex Neve complete my comments, because he will probably be able to provide more references in this regard. For my part, I know that other countries such as Great Britain have created such parliamentary committees. We all understand that Bill C-22 refers to a parliamentary committee on national security, but that kind of mechanism often reaches its limits.

National security agencies sometimes have trouble working together, and we have unfortunately seen that in the past. Organizations all have their own particular culture. That is why other countries, and even Canada, have trouble putting in place an organization that will be able to oversee all of it. There has to be a way to get beyond those cultural differences and that past in order to be able to do so.

Perhaps my colleague could provide a better answer to your question.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Neve, does any country in the world have an organization whose mandate is to facilitate that supervision?

[Alex Neve]

There is nowhere we would give the gold star—

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Do we have a bronze at least?

[Alex Neve]

—and Amnesty rarely gives the gold star. However, there are other countries that we think are much further down that road, and Béatrice has highlighted the importance of a review mechanism that's independent, comprehensive, and expert.