Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to meeting number 114 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters.

Use only the approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference referred to the committee on Wednesday, May 29, 2024, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 27, 2024, the committee resumes its study of Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference.

I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-70. This will take a couple of minutes, so grab a cup of coffee.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may then explain it.

I would like to remind committee members that pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Thursday, May 30, all amendments had to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4 p.m. on Friday, June 7. As a result, the chair will only allow amendments submitted before that deadline to be moved and debated. In other words, only amendments contained in the distributed package of amendments will be considered.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package of amendments.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Approval from the mover of the amendment is not required. Subamendments must be provided in writing. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first and then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 6:30 p.m., the chair shall allot each party no more than five minutes for each of the remaining amendments and clauses. The committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

Finally, if members have any questions regarding the procedural admissibility of amendments, the legislative clerks are here to assist the committee. However, they are not legal drafters and cannot respond to legal questions.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-70, no matter how long it shall take.

I would like to now welcome the officials who are with us.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Sarah Estabrooks, director general, policy and foreign relations.

We also have Maria R., senior analyst, strategic policy.

From the Department of Justice, we have Jennifer Poirier, senior counsel; Mark Scrivens, senior counsel; Karine Bolduc, counsel, and Kieran Dyer, counsel.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Richard Bilodeau, director general; Saskia Van Battum, director; David McIntyre, acting director; and Fenton Ho, acting director general, who is in the public gallery, apparently.

We're at clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), on the consideration of clause 1, the short title is postponed.

The chair calls clause 2.

There have been no amendments submitted for clauses 2 through 33. Do we have unanimous consent to group them?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we do.

Shall clauses 2 to 33 carry?

(Clauses 2 to 33 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 34)

That brings us to clause 34.

The amendment is BQ-1.

Mr. Villemure, do you wish to move it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move this amendment, which is more semantic than anything else. In the English version, we use the word “contravention”, whereas in the French, we find the word “infraction”. It's simply a matter of correcting the French so that there's a more accurate correspondence between the two versions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

We agree on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Okay. Shall BQ-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That brings us to CPC-1, which I guess would be in the name of Mr. Shipley.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but that would be in my name. I will move that amendment, and I'll leave any commentary to my colleague Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, this doesn't change the substance of the intent of the clause but simply clarifies that the person being briefed may be told of personal information as it relates to themselves, allowing them to be briefed. That amendment comes out of testimony that the committee heard from CSIS officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Gaheer, please go ahead.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Chair, I'd like to move a subamendment, if I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Have you submitted a subamendment in writing?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes. I think it has already been submitted. It's going to be submitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Gaheer.... This is going to be a long night.

If you would move the motion, we will then suspend, and the analysts can have a look at it.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Chair, I move the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Can you read it?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes.

The proposed language, which I'll propose in a minute, would still include a general prohibition on the disclosure of personal information about Canadians and persons in Canada, but it would add an exception to ensure that CSIS could disclose an individual's personal information to that individual as part of a disclosure to build resiliency against threats.

In terms of the actual edit to the language itself, in proposed paragraph 2.1(b), after the comma at the end of the last sentence, I would change it to “other than personal information of the individual to whom the information is disclosed.” In proposed paragraph 2.1(c), I would change it, after the sentence that ends with “entity”, by adding “other than the name of the corporation or entity to which the information is disclosed.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Chong, please go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, could he repeat that, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

In proposed paragraph 2.1(b), the final sentence, after the comma, would be changed to “other than personal information of the individual to whom the information is disclosed.”

In proposed paragraph 2.1(c), after “entity”, at the end of the sentence, I would put a comma and add “other than the name of the corporation or entity to which the information is disclosed.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we get squared away here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll start with the amendment.

What is shown as proposed paragraph 2.1(c) in this amendment is not admissible because it messes up the rest of the bill. What is written in the actual text of this is acceptable.

What is shown here in this summary.... The subamendment, which does not affect proposed paragraph 2.1(c) here, is acceptable.

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

We would still want the edit for proposed paragraph 2.1(b). Is that right?