Evidence of meeting #90 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 privacy.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Before I start, I have a student shadowing me today. I want to recognize Ian Lewis, who is here. He's a student here in Ottawa. I think it's wonderful that he's taken an interest in what the national security framework in this legislation is looking at.
During our previous study on the national security framework, there was a lot of desire on the part of Canadians for greater transparency from the intelligence and security agencies. We also heard that when we were looking at Bill C-22. A witness we heard at the last meeting, Dr. Stephanie Carvin, was quite passionate about calling for better transparency. She cited a couple of models to look at. One was the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence's worldwide threat assessment report as well as the recent report on cyber-threats to Canada's election system and democratic institutions by the Communications Security Establishment.
I wonder whether both of you might comment on that and say whether you see it as something that should be included in the legislation we're looking at or whether it's something that would be looked at more through regulation or ministerial directive.
December 7th, 2017 / 10:35 a.m.
Research Assistant, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think the NSIRA provides a greater transparency, because they have several different types of reports, including annual reports and agency-specific reports, that they must submit to Parliament. They have a number of reports going to Parliament that parliamentarians as public representatives of people can read and analyze and speak about.
I think that will speak a lot to enhancing transparency. The agencies themselves, specifically CSE and the existing accountability bodies, have made a publicity push to get people to know what they do and how they do it and give them more information regarding it.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just before we move on, when she was here she was talking specifically about the U.S. report dealing with specific threats. It outlines the number of threats. It was very specific on threats within the United States. In this it differs, I think, from the reports that we'll be getting to Parliament right now.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think there is a need for demystification, because of course our adversaries play actively in this environment on a permanent basis. The cyber-threat is the single greatest threat to our national security, to our democracy, our social harmony, and our prosperity today. I think there is opportunity here to be more systematic in the way we communicate that fact to Canadians.
Also, however, we currently don't do particularly well in the area of small and medium-sized enterprise. Large enterprise has the capacity; small and medium-sized enterprise—the people who generate much of our prosperity, our innovation, and much of the employment in this country—currently do not have access to those tools. Any mechanism the government can agree upon to inform people better and give, for instance, organizations such as CSE more capacity to support small and medium-sized enterprise would be critical. I think a report is one effort to that effect.
Liberal
Director, Privacy, Technology and Surveillance Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Yes. Thank you.
I think that, in general, the CCLA would share Professor Carvin's passion for the concept of transparency. In relation to the U.S. report on specific threats, one thing we often hear, as a civil liberties organization, when we make comments that are perceived to be idealistic about national security and accountability, is that we don't understand what's really going on. A report such as you're referring to, which actually shares with all Canadians the nature of real and existing threats, would provide, I think, an important framework for every Canadian and every civil society group to be able to make more rational assessments in relation to these kinds of analyses and processes that we're going through today. It would enhance public trust that things are happening as they should, that risks are real, and that we therefore have the clear and specific procedures enacted in legislation to deal with the kinds of threats that we're legitimately facing.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you very much.
My next question has to do with the minister's testimony when he was before this committee on Bill C-59. He was talking about the changes from Bill C-51, amending, advocating, and promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, and replacing the offence to apply only when a person specifically counsels another person to commit a terrorism offence. It provides a clear and more appropriate legal structure surrounding them. When he was questioned, he was asked if this would actually provide law enforcement with better tools to be able to enforce.... Now, you had mentioned that you thought the definition was still too broad. I don't know if you had an opportunity to see what the minister was saying in terms of it actually narrowing the definition to allow law enforcement to enforce....
I'd also welcome comments from both of you on that.
Acting General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I didn't have the opportunity to see all of the minister's testimony, but I do know, and we do agree, that this is an improvement in terms of narrowing the offence considerably. In our view, it's still arguably unnecessary, since counselling any offence that's already an offence under the Criminal Code is already an offence. So it's not exactly clear what this offence is doing. The fact that it references terrorism offences, which is not actually a defined term in the code, makes me think that there may be some interest in being able to prosecute someone for counselling without having to specify which terrorism offence in particular they were counselling, which is potentially problematic from a rule of law perspective, in terms of someone understanding what it is they're charged with and where the bounds of the law are. The list of terrorist activity in the code—and that's the language we think should be inserted into that provision—is quite long, and it does include a number of things that fall well beyond any acts of violence, that is, things that are participating in or that may be facilitating terrorist activity. So we think it could be sharpened and clarified by making that amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much.
Ms. Leitch, we're down to about three minutes.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, all, for taking the time to come today.
Mr. Leuprecht, I'd like to ask you one particular question. I guess it's in follow-up to your comment about how Canada no longer lives in an isolated part of the world with respect to these issues around security.
Bill C-59, we've heard from the Department of Justice, will make it more difficult for law enforcement to secure preventative arrests because the threshold is being raised to secure such an order. I was wondering if you could make some comments with respect to that and your perspective on it.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
The challenge in that space is that you ultimately have to be preventative, and different countries have different mechanisms. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has fantastic mechanisms that work very well in this particular sphere. I'm concerned about the reduction of the ability to work in a preventative space.
I'm also—and this ties in with the previous question—deeply concerned that we have upwards of 120 Canadians who have returned to this country, some of whom have pillaged, raped, killed, and are able to return to this country and live here with impunity because we do not have the legislative instruments to bring them to justice.
To that effect, it's helpful to have some changes with the Criminal Code, but we need other offences, including offences, for instance, that make it illegal to travel to certain parts of the world, which has proven a very effective measure in Australia to prosecute people who engage in this type of activity. I think we're tinkering at the edges here when it comes to preventative arrest and when it comes to how exactly we define it, to hopefully make it more effective for law enforcement to use the tools that we have. I think there's a lot more that needs to be done.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I've been meaning to ask all of you another question.
In your reading of Bill C-59, each of you have made some comments on the number of layers and whether or not new reviews would be placed on CSIS and their capacity to be able to do things. Do you think it's helpful in allowing CSIS to meet its mandate by having these additional layers? Mr. Leuprecht, you had commented with regard to the issues around methodology and how that would be implemented. Could you comment and then we'll come back to the others?
Research Assistant, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think that in order to allow CSIS to complete their mandate in time while making the most of their resources, that the committee of parliamentarians and the review agencies should coordinate on how they get information from CSIS, whether it's through their parliamentary liaison to save time and not be such a burden on the agency.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
There is a cost to every layer of review and oversight that we impose on agencies. Without additional funding, in a democracy we need to weigh the trade-offs we engage in, but as we mentioned, there are potentially quite positive outcomes, especially in efficacy and innovation for the community itself, as a result of the work that will be done.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Ms. Leitch.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for your contributions. We look forward to receipt of your further submissions as may be required.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.