Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the invitation.
I am accompanied today by Justin Dubois, executive director and general counsel at my office.
Bill C‑22 gives my office a new and significant function. I want to explain how this function would fit into my existing duties.
My quasi-judicial function as intelligence commissioner, or IC, is to approve or not approve certain national security and intelligence activities proposed by CSE and CSIS, and authorized, respectively, by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety.
My independent approval is necessary because the activities that the ministers authorize may be contrary to the law or breach the reasonable expectation of privacy of all Canadians. I have 30 days to render my decisions, but I adapt to much shorter timelines when urgency calls for it. Only with my approval can the activities be conducted.
When I approve a ministerial authorization, I assess whether the minister's conclusions are reasonable in light of the factors the legislation requires the minister to consider, including the impact on privacy interests and cybersecurity. For most of my decisions, my primary concern is how the proposed activities impact the privacy of Canadians. I apply the legal principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and I ensure compliance with the charter, including section 1.
In this regard, when I look at the factors the minister must consider when issuing an order under this bill, I am confident that these orders are similar to the ministerial decisions I currently oversee, and raise legal issues my office is well versed in.
In my experience as intelligence commissioner, I understand how certain orders could only be effective if they are confidential. Although I operate in a classified environment, my oversight role calls for me to be as transparent as possible with Canadians. I share my decisions with the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, presided over by Ms. Deschamps, for post-facto review purposes. I publish redacted versions of my decisions on my office’s website. Decisions rendered under this bill would likewise be published.
My annual report, which was tabled in Parliament last Friday, also provides information on the impact of the activities that I oversee and on the significant legal issues at stake.
Would my office require additional resources for this new function? I have no control over the number of ministerial orders that I would review, nor how complex or voluminous each file might be. Another consideration is the potential effect of judicial reviews. These considerations could impact the resources my office needs. My role is on a part-time basis, and I adapt my work and my life accordingly. My expectation is that if my office requires additional funding, this will be provided in a timely manner. I would certainly appreciate a firm commitment from the minister to that effect.
One element I would raise for your consideration relates to the minister's extending, or not, the validity period of an order. Currently, there's no limit to the validity period or to the length of any extension. Under my existing jurisdiction, maximum validity periods are specified, and renewals require a new approval by the IC. I suggest a similar approach in this bill.
I will be happy to answer your questions.