Evidence of meeting #95 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 csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We still have a minute left, and you have raised an interesting issue with respect to the exemption for Global Affairs. For the benefit of our analysts here, could you could point to the section that you're relying on for that view?
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
That's what I'm trying to do. It's a 130-page bill. I can't quite get it quickly enough in a minute. You'll forgive me, Chair.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'll leave it open while I go to Ms. Dabrusin for seven minutes, please.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you to all of you for coming to talk with us today.
One of the issues that I'm particularly interested in when I look at all of this is the question of oversight and accountability in the bill and how that's been arranged.
We've heard a number of people come to talk about—and I know we said we were going to try to avoid acronyms—NSIRA, and how that's great because it gets past all the silos that we've had in the past, which have been a problem. Last week we had a witness from the Canadian Bar Association. He presented an interesting quandary about whether it is too broad now.
Is the way “national security” is defined for the NSIRA review too broad? Given your own experience and the transitional role that gets played, how do you see that? Do you see any concerns about the definition of “national security” for the NSIRA review?
11:35 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Before, we had only two or three organizations to review national security. Now we have 19 altogether, and you're saying maybe that's too many. I don't think so.
NSIRA will be created. It will be new when the bill is adopted. We will see, case by case. I would say that when we start as NSIRA, we will probably not have a dozen investigations in finance or transport or whatever. We're going to go where the real threat is. This is where we will look into the situation.
We were complaining that we should have access to other departments and institutions that have national security matters, but we could not have that access. Now we have. That doesn't mean we will spend all of our time there.
Usually we make a plan when we start the year. We sit down with the organization, with CSIS, or with.... Mr. Fadden knows that. We don't arrive in the morning, knocking on the door and saying, “Look, we want to see this and that.” We don't do that. We cannot do that. We cannot intervene in their operations. We prepare a plan. We say we'll look into this and this, and we report on it to the minister and to Parliament. This is what we do. It will not change. We will have more flexibility to extend and to look into areas that we were not able to look into. It will be better for Canadians, I would say, because the accountability will be better.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
The breadth isn't a concern for you in the definition of “national security” in the statute for NSIRA?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
No, not really. It will be case by case. We will see how it works.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was looking at your suggestions. In your proposed amendments, you have proposal 2 on page 2. It refers to proposed subsection 9(1) and proposed section 10 of the NSIRA act, asking that they mirror the language of subsections 39(1) and 39(2) of the CSIS Act regarding the access to information by adding to proposed subsection 9(1) the following: “Despite any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence.”
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Sorry; which number are you referring to?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's proposal 2 on page 2, under “General”.
The reason I'm raising that—
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Are you talking about the quorum?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No, it's proposal 2. The numbering is funny, but it's the last proposal on that page. It refers to granting access to information and to privilege....
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I was drawing your attention to that because when the Canadian Bar Association came to speak with us last week, they raised concerns about the waiver of privilege and how this could have a chilling effect on the type of legal opinions that are given. There may be a broad range of options contained in any legal opinion. Having that privilege pierced could create a chilling effect on legal opinions. Have you thought about that as a possibility? What do you think about that concern?
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We try to have a level playing field so that the level will be the same for everybody. It's important that people who are going through national security issues in the context of being a witness.... We had problems in the past. There were a couple of cases that went to court regarding those points, and it was always a problem to deal with those matters, to decide who is entitled to some privilege and who is not. We have to be careful with that. Canadians are not always happy with having differences on this matter.
As for the access to information aspect, which is the objective here, we usually have access to everything but cabinet documents. This is where we are, and it should be this way.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
On the flip side, you say that in your experience, not having access to privileged materials has been a problem in the past.
11:40 a.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I cannot remember any case in which we were worried more about not having access to other departments than about having confidential documents. It's not really a problem. I think it's accepted that this is the law of the land.
February 6th, 2018 / 11:40 a.m.
Chantelle Bowers Acting Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Maybe I could just add something.
11:40 a.m.
Acting Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
With respect to complaints before the organization, the access to information in that regard is more narrow. Up until now, we've had access to everything, including solicitor-client privilege documentation. Now we notice that in Bill C-59, that access to information is limited. It specifically removes solicitor-client privileged information, for instance. That's the problem we were highlighting.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
Thank you, Ms. Bowers.
Mr. Dubé, are you able to point to the specific section that you're relying on?