Public Safety Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

First of all, we want to acknowledge all the effort that has been made in the past week by this committee to ensure that Canada gets the robust and fair foreign interference legislation it needs and deserves.

Regarding a definition for intimidation, again, our primary concern is not that it's ill defined but that it's simply not defined. As to what we would view as a sufficient definition of intimidation, I truthfully can't speak about that at the moment. We would have to conduct a more robust review of the bill ourselves. However, our primary fear, as Nusaiba mentioned, is that if the bill were passed tomorrow, a current government could identify protest activities it doesn't agree with and penalize them under the pretense that they are aiding a foreign entity. The lack of definition opens up the doors for usage on both sides of the coin. You could have a government that would penalize convoy protesters or, as Nusaiba said, Black Lives Matter protesters.

We are happy to provide recommendations in regard to what a definition of intimidation would look like, because in our technical briefing, we didn't get a direct answer. There wasn't an outlined definition of intimidation. We would be happy to provide that later on.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I want to quickly note that most of the bill will come into force within 60 days of royal assent, which is a pretty tight timeline. Only part 4 is open to a date set by the Governor in Council. I think that speaks to your proposal to split part 4 of the bill from the remaining parts.

I just wanted to note that for the record.

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll start our second round with Mr. Motz.

You have five minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here. For most of the questions I would like to relate today, I would like a response from all three sets of witnesses.

First, this new act will give some additional powers to CSIS to share information. From your role, Commissioner Noël, and from yours, Mr. Al Qadi and Mr. Kolga, there's a different perspective.

Commissioner, do you think the information-sharing powers that have been expanded will work? Will they do the job they're intended to do?

For your community and from what you see, Mr. Kolga, would these new power-sharing proposals give more protection to the communities in this country that need that sort of protection?

I'll start with you, Commissioner Noël.

[Simon Noël]

The dataset regime has been here since 2019. It has been operational. What they're doing now is a fine tuning of the legislation.

I'll give you an example. An authorization is good for a year. They have asked for two years. Fine. My prediction is that in between, there will be amendments. As for foreign datasets, it is five years to 10 years. This is fine tuning.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I may not have explained it well. What I'm getting at is that CSIS would have new powers to share information with those who are going to be impacted by foreign interference. The question is, does that go far enough? Will it protect the communities in this country that experience the threat of foreign interference?

[Simon Noël]

With the bill, I will be involved. I will be reviewing whatever they intend to do with the transfer of information. Will that be helpful? I don't know. Until we see the reality in the field and how it's actualized, it's hard to predict.

Is it good that they can transfer information? Having an insight into that world, I can tell you that among the Five Eyes, it is most important that it be exchanged.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Al Qadi.

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

We believe sharing information with communities that are targeted is crucial. It is important to make sure that those communities are able to protect themselves. I'm not too familiar with the tragic case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, but I would imagine that had there been more communication from our security intelligence agencies, he might have been protected.

At face value, I would say that yes, we believe it would provide more safety to communities, but the devil is in the details. That's the saying. We'd have to investigate deeply how that would be done and who else information would be shared with, and ensure that there are safeguards at all times so that privacy information is not leaked.

I'll be honest. From the perspective of the Muslim community, there isn't the best relationship with CSIS. There is a need to build trust due to the problems in the past, which were made very public with the NSIRA report that was released a couple of years ago.

Does that answer the question?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Kolga.

[Marcus Kolga]

As a human rights activist and being active within communities that have been targeted by transnational repression, I think it's critically important that CSIS have the ability to have a two-way conversation to pass information that is in the interests of safeguarding our safety and democracy.

Having briefly reviewed the legislation, it's clear that safeguards have been put in place. The safety of information and privacy have been taken into account. I think this is one of the more important parts of this legislation. It's one that I, as a human rights activist, and the community I work with are very happy with.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'll go back to you, Mr. Kolga, but first—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Motz. That's five minutes. Thank you.

We go now to Mrs. Zahid.

You have five minutes.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

My first question is for Mr. Noël.

We have seen in the past that national security legislation, especially when passed quickly, can lead to unintended consequences, especially for members of minority communities. These same communities, which are most often targeted by state actors or foreign repression, have often felt unfairly targeted by intelligence and security agencies.

Could you share what the intelligence agencies are doing to build trust with these communities, especially as they seek expanded powers in Bill C-70?

[Simon Noël]

I'm not too sure that I can help you on this, because I was never within the agencies' organizations. The closest I came to that was when I was counsel for the predecessor of NSIRA in complaints. I saw a good number of complaints from communities then, because when identifying a community, they would knock on doors.... However, that goes back to 1984 and 1990. I think they've improved drastically.

There's still a long road to go. I think the process of establishing, potentially with this legislation, that they will be able to get out of their hidden little barracks and start talking to people will help tremendously. Also, I think employing more people from different groups will help tremendously. However, this is an ongoing project for CSIS, I'm sure, and they need to improve on it. It is very important.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Al Qadi.

The government has released a charter impact statement, which notes a number of protected rights and freedoms that are potentially engaged by Bill C-70, including freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, the right against unreasonable search and seizure and others. Do you feel that the charter rights of Canadians are adequately protected by this legislation? Are there any adjustments you would recommend?

You have also highlighted some civil liberties concerns that your organization is raising with the text. Can you explain that?

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

As I mentioned, we think, firstly, that this is an important bill and the study on this bill is crucial. We are in support of this bill passing. However, it would need, in our opinion, a much more robust and longer study to ensure that charter rights are not violated.

To reiterate my points, a lack of definition for terms like “intimidation”, for example, could cause problems down the line and undue harms that we might not foresee right now because of the rush in investigating this bill. Regarding people exercising their democratic right to peacefully protest, that could be infringed on by future governments, under the pretense that they're supporting, benefiting from or in association with foreign entities, just because they don't like them.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Given that protecting the integrity of the next election is important for all Canadians, would you be supportive of this bill if only part 4 were moving forward?

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

Yes. We believe that part 4 of the bill would sufficiently support an election free of interference in 2025.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Can you also speak to the concerns about the IRPA inadmissibility certificates?

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

I will pass that question to Nusaiba.

[Nusaiba Al Azem]

Thank you very much.

This goes back to the question posed by MP Genuis. We would reiterate that it's very overbroad in application and, specifically, that the insertion of “international relations” into the Criminal Code leaves a lot to be asked. What are the implications of how that's going to impact, as mentioned earlier, dissidents coming from dictatorships, especially given that international relations are subject to change? Somebody who may be friendly today could be hostile tomorrow and vice versa, and for dissidents who sit on either line, Canada's position could change. Let's be really careful of that as we're looking at how parts 1, 2 and 3 are being fleshed out. As Ahmad noted, part 4 is sufficient for now to provide transparency where foreign interference is concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mrs. Zahid.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Noël, you'll forgive me, but since I only have two and a half minutes, we'll have to be brief.

As I'm always curious, I understand that independence—yours—is very real. It's understood. I think that both independence and the perception of independence are essential characteristics for a commissioner.

I would like to ask you a question that isn't directly related to the bill, but that often raises questions when we talk about intelligence and secrecy.

At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a member, we often come up against cabinet secrecy. While I understand the use of cabinet confidence and recognize the need for it, we've noticed, in a couple of warrants and reports, a tendency to overclassify. I'm a little concerned about that. I understand the need for secrecy, but at the same time, there's still this paradox that we talked about earlier.

Do you have any recommendations on how we deal with cabinet confidence so that we can get the balance right?