SNAS Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on National Security

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Á

1130

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.))

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Á

1135

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Á

1140

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt

The Chair

Á

1145

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Á

1155

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Philip Rosen

The Chair

Mr. Philip Rosen

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Philip Rosen

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Â

1205

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on National Security

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Order. Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

    Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, I would move that Derek Lee be elected chairman of this committee.

    The Clerk: All right. Are there any other nominations?

    Since there are no other nominations, I'll put the question.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: We will proceed now to the election of the two vice-chairs. Pursuant to the standing orders, one vice-chair will come from the opposition and one from the government. I can take either one first.

    Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: I move that Ms. Marlene Jennings be elected vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: Now is the election of the second vice-chair, an opposition member.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I'll move Mr. Sorenson.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: Thank you.

    I'll now invite Mr. Lee to take the chair.

    The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Thank you, colleagues.

    The clerk suggests that we deal with the issue of the steering committee for the subcommittee. How did we do this the last time? The proposal is that the chair and two vice-chairs comprise the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Will somebody move that?

    Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We'll move to number 4, meetings without a quorum. In the draft, that's a quorum of at least three members.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, are there any differences in any of these from the...?

    The Chair: I'll just ask the clerk.

Á  (1135)  

    The Clerk: We didn't pass most of them last time, but they are not different.

    The Chair: We've completed number 4. Next we have number 5, distribution of documents, authorizing translation and reproduction.

    This is the official language issue, which we've dealt with, and it's in the same format as previously.

    Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We'll move on to number 6, in regard to 48 hours' notice for a notice of motion. Can someone move that?

    Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Number 7 is regarding the Library of Parliament.

    An hon. member: Yes--as long as it's Phil.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: The chair agrees. Let's just put Mr. Rosen's name in there.... No.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: On future business, colleagues, you have a future business document in front of you. There are a few suggestions on it.

    Madame Venne has a comment or question on the subject.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Chair, I would like to come back to item 3. I am sorry to have to do so, but you went a little fast regarding procedure. I understand that you are very, very used to this; I am as well, however, I missed something there. Regarding item 3, the steering committee, you said that it comprises the chair and two vice-chairs. Given that the Bloc Québécois does not hold a vice-chair position, it would seem to me that we can surely be represented on the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure. Do you think that would be possible? Couldn't we get consent on that here?

[English]

    The Chair: The chair takes no objection. We don't want to unduly encumber the steering committee by numbers, but one more might simply make it merrier and not cumbersome.

    So, colleagues, do we agree with that?

    Okay, then, we'll revise number 3, on the steering committee, that a sitting member....

    Are we mentioning names or status?

    The Clerk: The party.

    The Chair: So a sitting member from the Bloc Québécois will also sit on the steering committee.

    Agreed...?

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Are you not going to ask if there's discussion on that issue?

    The Chair: All right, is there any discussion?

    Ms. Jennings.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: I think it's a problem. We do have two other opposition parties who are not present, so what I would do is add an additional member from one of the opposition parties, someone who doesn't sit as vice-chair. Once we adopt that, we can agree, given that Madame Venne is here, that she'll be the representative. Otherwise, the Conservatives are going to come and they're going to say, well, we want to be on the steering committee too; the NDP can do the same.

    What we should do is reformulate it, saying “and one additional member from an opposition party not represented as V-C”; once we adopt that, we can say we want Madame Venne to be on the steering committee.

    The Chair: Your concern is that we'd set a precedent that might ultimately see us having six members on the steering committee.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.

    The Chair: Is Ms. Jennings' suggestion acceptable to members, that we allow for another member of an opposition party and that then the committee will select that person?

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Maybe the chair could answer a question. Did the steering committee do anything in the last year? There hasn't been a time when the steering committee was called together to discuss anything. Basically, are we going to tie our hands in any way if we do decide to have a steering committee and make some suggestions where all of a sudden we have to get all four in rather than three? Is there a problem foreseen in any manner?

    The Chair: No, I don't recall a formal meeting of the steering committee, but the members of the steering committee did communicate informally in the last session on the kind of business the committee would deal with, so it does have a function. The chair really can't fly solo in planning future business, and consulting with the steering committee was how we operated in the last session. We did not have any formal meetings, so for purposes that may mature it's very useful to have the steering committee in place. The only question is, who is on it? We'll continue our discussion.

    Mr. McKay first.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Sorenson asked a blindingly obvious question, which is, why have a steering committee? I know that on the justice committee we operate without one. The committee itself is the steering committee. Because there are so many parties, by the time you get representation and you get weighted representation, you might as well have the committee meeting as is. For the last couple of years, I think, we've operated without a steering committee on the justice committee and have seemed to fumble our way along quite adequately, so I would question the need for a steering committee here.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Ms. Minna.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that while we voted initially but are discussing it, by changing it as Madame Venne is suggesting where the chair, the two vice-chairs, and an opposition member will comprise the steering committee, the government will actually be matched by the opposition. You'll have two and two, and if you have a tie vote, what are you going to do? In essence, you're going to have to call it, but it makes it more complex. I'm not quite sure that you need to go to that extent, but you may want to add another, and then you end up doing what Mr. McKay just said, that there would be four, five, or six people on the steering committee.

    The Chair: Rather than trying to figure out how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin here, the chair has suggested that he found the existence of a steering committee useful in projecting future business. In the absence of one, Mr. McKay indicates that the justice committee has for flown a couple of years without having a functioning steering committee.

     But I'm sure the chair of the justice committee knows who is on the steering committee, and he probably operates informally, the way this chair did previously, at being in touch with those who are on the steering committee.

    It would be useful. We don't want to spend too much time on this, but a steering committee operates normally by consensus, and in my experience, the issue of a vote really doesn't matter. So unless there are violent objections, I'd like to dispose of this.

    The existing proposal, other than the ones that say we don't need a steering committee, is that we add one more person to it. And if we never have a formal meeting, everybody will be happy.

    If we can fly with that, we'll get through this.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We have sufficient clarity?

    The Clerk: I think so.

    The Chair: I guess we have gender balance as well now, so hallelujah.

    Now to future business. These are items culled from the dusty files of your chairman. You'll see number one is the SIRC annual report recently tabled. That's really a must for the committee, in my view. If possible, although we only have two and a half weeks remaining to us here, I would like to look for a window for SIRC to appear here.

    I don't know whether SIRC is getting together. They are actually short of members, SIRC itself; I think they're down to two or three. But if it's okay with members, the clerk and I will try to arrange that between now and when we break for the holiday.

    Two, over all of the years and even right up to the present, there is a continuing issue of mandate clarification as between the RCMP and their national Security Offences Act function and CSIS. It's still an issue. It shows up on the SIRC report again. I think on a public policy basis, this could use some more clarification, so if I may, we'll keep that on the list. It will come up with SIRC, but we may need some dedicated discussion with CSIS and the RCMP on this.

    Mr. Pratt.

    Mr. David Pratt: Presumably, Mr. Chair, that'll touch the whole issue of information sharing?

    The Chair: Yes.

    There are other details that have cropped up since clarification of rules and expansion of rules after 9/11. It's an interesting evolution.

    Number three, the inspector general has been reappointed. If we were to ask Mr. Rosen, our researcher, we would find that there are issues involving the inspector general. The inspector general, unfortunately, plays things pretty close to the vest when he or she appears at the committee, but they are the eyes and ears of the minister, whoever he or she is from time to time, on the service. That's an important function, and in my view, we should look at that but not until the new year.

    Yes?

Á  (1145)  

    The Clerk: Mr. Chair, on the re-examination of the order in council appointment, the 30-day window that the committee has expires tomorrow. However, as you suggest, perhaps under a different rubric we could call him.

    The Chair: This is a reappointment, though, is it not? It's not a new person?

    The Clerk: Right. It's a reappointment.

    The Chair: Number four, we have supplementary estimates in, and to be disposed of. None of the committees seem to be too excited about them, but if members want to deal with that, we could. And more money for CSIS; not a surprise.

    Were there any other items there, Mr. Rosen, in estimates that attracted your attention?

    Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): If I may, the only one that came to my attention that would be of interest to the subcommittee would be the item under Solicitor General. It's an additional $5 million to CSIS. What it's for, I don't know, and I don't know if it's part of the budget announcements.

    Nothing else looked directly relevant. The problem with the supplementary estimates, if I may, is that we don't have very much information other than the figures, so it's hard to tell.

    The Chair: Yes. I would suggest that we...how do I say this? It's only $5 million--I know I'll be misquoted on that--and we can roll the issue into the main estimates that we'll be taking up in March.

    Is that okay?

    An hon. member: I mean, $5 million here, $5 million there. Sooner or later it adds up to real money.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Number 5 lists the main estimates, which will come down the pipeline in March.

    You then have item (b), and this needs some explanation. Last spring I was contacted by the chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, who advised me that he had been in touch with the police services board chairs of several other large cities. I'm not sure whether it was only in Ontario or whether it was in all of Canada.

    The issue that he brought to my attention was that large city municipal police forces have been asked to take on a lot of extra policing functions as a result of the response to 9/11. Although Ottawa, the RCMP, and the Solicitor General are not giving marching orders, there is a new bundle of work for municipal police forces. If it's to be coordinated in any way, then some of the procedures, functions, and work will have an Ottawa or national focus. I believe the issue was money and not only function.

    Do members here have an interest in canvassing the issue of the rollout of new, post-9/11 policing functions, whether it's intelligence or operational, on large city municipal police forces in connection with the protection of infrastructure?

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: I think this subcommittee needs to put down a marker fairly smartly with respect to Bill C-36. It is easily the most significant piece of legislation I've seen, as a parliamentarian.

    There are certain reporting functions that CSIS and RCMP security people generally have to adhere to in terms of reports to Parliament. I think it's an annual report to Parliament on the frequency of the use of the interdiction sections. And I would know it better if I had anticipated that this might come up.

    Mr. Gardner may well have a particular take that is driven by his budgetary inadequacies. There is a larger issue here on how many times the sections are used for arresting people without the normal provisions of due process, etc. If you phrased it in terms of those kinds of markets, which I think is the proper purview of this committee, then it may well be appropriate to invite Mr. Gardner to give us some indication of how Bill C-36 operates on the ground, practically, in a city like Toronto.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Mr. McKay, you may or may not be aware that was the last issue before the committee before we broke for the summer. We have had an ongoing monitoring of the evolution of the Bill C-36 special provisions from this committee. In any event, I think you're saying Mr. Gardner and the other cities represented--not knowing now precisely which ones are represented--might be able to make a useful contribution to a meeting on the subject of what they want to talk to us about and what you and others may want to ask them about on Bill C-36 connections.

    Is that right?

    Mr. John McKay: I think there's a logical connection there.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: On the same point, perhaps the head of the Canadian Police Association or even one of their reps could come. They represent most of those municipal and provincial associations, and given a little time, they would be able to better explain what the role of a policeman would be throughout the country. So not only the Toronto group but also the CPA would be....

    The Chair: We sometimes get into differences between the management of the municipal police forces and the representatives of the police officers themselves. Maybe we can work that out in the informal steering committee, if we are to have a meeting. We'll try to get that targeted properly, if that's okay.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: On a related issue dealing with resources, I noted that in the news media a number of weeks ago there was a concern expressed about the lack of appointment of judges related to the enforcement of this act. Those were Federal Court judges. The position I took in public is that judges need to justify their resources just like anyone else, and I'm simply not going to say that government should give them an increase in resources. I think they were looking at 15 judges, which means for some of those benches an increase of 68%. That concerns me. But if this is necessary in order for them to enforce the law, I think that's one thing we should be looking at. I don't know who would be the representative of the judges, but if there is a concern, this is one place they could certainly come to raise the issue. But I want to make it clear here, on the record, that they need to justify their resources just like anyone else.

    The Chair: You're suggesting as a future business item that we look at the capacity of the Federal Court to handle post-9/11 judicial procedures.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Yes. The court has indicated that they were promised a number of judges, 15, as Ms. Jennings indicated. Those appointments have not been made. Are those appointments in fact necessary? If the subcommittee or the steering committee hasn't been meeting, I'm wondering if there have been any judicial hearings on the same issue. I understand that there have been some. We need to look seriously at this issue.

    The Chair: That's fine.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: In order to actually apply the new provisions that have been adopted under Bill C-36, it's going to require new resources or a diversion of existing resources to new areas. Justice normally is supposed to have done some kind of study that would determine that in order to implement these new provisions, it's going to require, say, x number of new police officers at the RCMP or new judges or whatever. So I would suggest that we start off by finding out what, if anything, Justice Canada or the Solicitor General have done to evaluate what kinds of resources are actually going to be needed to implement these provisions. Then we would look at whether or not the government has added the resources. Before calling, say, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to appear before us and say why he thinks he should have 15, we should see what in fact Justice Canada said was going to be needed in order to apply the provisions.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: That's a subject that could easily fit under estimates, rather than having a special meeting.

    I think Mr. Toews was looking at just a judicial capacity.

    But we all know that as of last June--

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but it fits with the law enforcement capacity, because it's a whole; what's the point of looking simply at the judicial capacity if you don't have the capacity at the law enforcement level?

    The Chair: Okay. The knee bone is definitely connected to the thigh bone.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Frankly, Mr. Chair, I don't care how it gets done. I think it's an issue we need to attend to.

    The Chair: Okay. That's fine.

    We've gone through our list. The only other thing I would place before you is that a number of post-9/11 public safety, anti-terrorism bills and provisions are in the pipeline. These bills appear to be going to different committees involving different ministries. That's one of the difficulties with national security, that it does cover a number of envelopes. The Americans have addressed this, and they're calling it Homeland Security, with everybody under the same umbrella. We really haven't done that yet, I don't think.

    These bills that have, if I may use the term, national security roles and implications are now winding their way through Parliament and the post-parliamentary regulatory process. If members want to look at any of that, we should get at it. In terms of our committee's mandate, it is not clear, but I can't imagine anyone taking strong objection to this committee looking at an anti-terrorism provision under the national security umbrella. However, there may be mandate issues if we tackle something specific that somebody else out there doesn't like. But I'll leave that.

    So if you have suggestions, please let me know as chair, or pipe it through to the informal steering committee.

    Mr. McKay, and then Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. John McKay: There's been some controversy in the paper, stimulated by the Privacy Commissioner, as to the provisions of Bill C-17. I don't know what else Bill C-17 is, but it is clearly a security bill, and I frankly can't fathom why it's been directed to another committee. I also can't fathom why this committee wouldn't choose to seize itself of at least the security provisions of Bill C-17, and sooner would be better than later.

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: That's a good comment, and I was going to make mention of that as well.

    The other thing is the process for listing of entities on the terrorism list. I'm not sure who we would get to, and whether it would be our job to hold them accountable. We've talked about that in the past, but what is the process?

    In question period we've asked the Solicitor General and the government how much of a process they go through in listing those entities, and about the tardiness in coming out with a list initially. Those are some of the questions we would ask. There's the fact that we have 7 on the list and other countries have 30 and 40 on the list.

    Is there someone who could come in and explain that to this committee?

    The Chair: Certainly Mr. Rosen could explain it. Your chairman has had difficulty keeping track of the process and the changes. I think I have a handle on it now, but it would be useful to all of us to understand how that works now. The only issue is whether we bring somebody in from....

    Here we go; which department is it? It's probably the justice department, but--

  (1200)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It's the Solicitor General. And I think that would be for future business.

    The Chair: You think it's the Solicitor General? It's not clear to the chair which minister, but it may well be the Solicitor General.

    Do you have a comment on this, Mr. Rosen?

    Mr. Philip Rosen: I didn't anticipate this issue coming up, so I haven't been briefed on it. But the problem you're going to have in this area, Mr. Sorenson and members, as in so many other areas of national security, is Parliament passes the legislation, and that's essentially the most detailed look the public gets at these operations. As I understand it, CSIS prepares a fairly detailed submission, I guess it goes to the minister, and then eventually to cabinet. That's the whole process that has to be gone through.

    I don't know that there's been any public discussion or description of the process itself. But I understand it's a fairly detailed process, almost equivalent to what CSIS does when it has to secure a wiretap. It accumulates a fairly large amount of documentation, supported by statements, and then supported by an affidavit that goes to the Federal Court. I understand it's a process something like that. So documentary submissions two and three feet high could accompany an application.  I understand the listing process involves something similar to that.

    The Chair: And this is separate and apart from the UN process. Because we've been using the United Nations Act process for some time.

    Mr. Philip Rosen: Yes. In fact, it's a parallel process and that's done through the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions--I think that's what it's called--and it's done under the United Nations Act and a series of resolutions. So it's a different process.

    The Chair: Do colleagues want to get up to speed on that process, then?

    Mr. Pratt had a hand up, as did Ms. Jennings and Mr. McKay. I'll just go down the table.

    Mr. Pratt.

    Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I think we're going to probably be bumping into a number of issues, as the Subcommittee on National Security, where some of the information provided that would be helpful for the deliberations of the committee may be confidential or perhaps at a higher level of security.

    I'm wondering about what has been done in the past, and for this I would rely, as a relatively new member of this committee, on some of the institutional memory that's across from me here. I'm not aware of any process with committees, and I know we've run into this issue at the defence committee as well, in terms of security clearances for members of the subcommittee.

    Any thoughts on that, on whether or not that would be useful under the circumstances?

    The Chair: Security clearances for members? It's been addressed over the years and in every case the committees have declined to proceed with the security clearance. But in most cases we have been able to achieve our objectives, in most cases coming up short of being in possession of what would be classified information.

    That's a rolling target all the time, and we'll never deal with it today. This is a significant issue. But thank you for noting it.

    Mr. Rosen, did you want to make a comment on that?

    Mr. Philip Rosen: If I may, Mr. Chair, there are different ways of getting at it, and Mr. Lee is right that most committees and subcommittees have declined to seek security clearances, although they can do that. In the past a series of techniques has been used, which I think Mr. Lee will remember because he was on the special committee that reviewed the CSIS act in 1989-90. There was a series of different levels of briefings and meetings. It went from something like this, which is a public session, to a traditional in camera session here, where only members and staff were present, to a briefing in a secure environment, CSIS or SIRC, where committees members and staff were present. The fourth level was the briefing of members in a secure environment, without even staff. So there are different levels of security that you can go through.

    The other thing I can tell you is that your committee staff--and I don't know about Richard--is not security cleared, so we don't have level 2 or level 3, or secret or top secret, security clearance. We do know that we have been cleared for a lower level, which is the enhanced criminal liability and all the rest of that check, but we're not security cleared, as such.

    And even if we were security cleared, assuming we were, to the level 3, top secret, if we obtained information that was classified as top secret, we couldn't share it with you. So there are problems with the security clearance issue.

    The Chair: That's the reason we don't want the information, either, because we can't share it with anybody, and what good is information in the hands of politicians if you can't share it? So don't go there. No, I'm joking.

    Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. McKay.

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: I think the discussion we've been having and the subjects that this committee should be looking at, for me, constitute a serious argument for this committee to have the status of a full, permanent committee. I think the issue of national security has taken on a larger importance than it did possibly in the past when the subcommittee on national security previously existed and then was revived again.

    With the kind of legislation that's coming through, with the kind of new provisions, criminal and others, that are directly related to national security and to the ongoing fight against terrorism, I honestly think this committee should seriously consider whether or not we think we should be a full permanent committee, and then, if there is agreement amongst the members, that we should put it through the proper process to try to get that standing.

    I think one of the reasons why possibly a lot of this legislation is being referred here, there, and elsewhere is precisely because we are a subcommittee. So the automatic reflex is not to go to us, it's to go to a standing committee, a full committee.

    Personally, I think we should have full status. I don't know if my colleagues would agree with me, but I think we should have full status. Given all of the legislation that has come out, given the importance that national security has taken on many different fronts, I think there's more than enough justification for it.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Okay. We're getting lots of interesting comments without actually crystallizing anything. But thank you for those comments--

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: Well, it's a proposal. I'll put it in writing.

    The Chair: We may want to work something up on that. It's a good suggestion.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: In response to Mr. Pratt's security concerns, I propose that all of us undertake not to talk to Mike Scandiffio, and then we'll have solved that problem.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: We'll just let him attend the meeting.

    Mr. John McKay: The second issue is in response to Mr. Sorenson's concerns about how one gets on the list. I'm as concerned about how one gets off the list as how one gets on.

    It's of particular relevance to you and me, Mr. Chairman. As the peace process unfolds in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers are a listed entity. You see, we have them in this kind of never-never land here. Interestingly, one of the discussions the Sri Lankan government is having is whether to instruct the United Nations to be proscribed, because how can you be talking to a proscribed entity? It's a bit contradictory.

    The way it rolls out for us is that our own officials, our high commissioner and other officials, are circumscribed in their ability to enter into meaningful discussions on the peace process because of Bill C-36 and its implications—whether they're on the list, what status they have on the list, and how they might get off the list, etc.

    So while I appreciate that no one is put on the list without a full workup—and I'm fully prepared to concede to Mr. Rosen that it is a fairly extensive and thorough process, and is not to be entered into lightly—I also appreciate that there are political considerations that may well override those security considerations. The clear example is our Tamil community in Canada, which is a very significant community. They are keenly interested in the success of this peace process, and Canada, by means of proscribing...by taking on both the UN list and the implications of Bill C-36, ends up on the sidelines, unable to participate directly, when in fact they would like us to be there as a participating partner in the peace process.

    The Chair: We've had lots of good suggestions. Is there a consensus that we either get a reasonable briefing or do a meeting on the listing procedure, however it has evolved? Is that...? We'll see how soon we can put that together.

    Ms. Jennings' suggestion will wait for another day--a new sun, a new day.

    On the question of access to classified information, my experience is that if we need it, we will get it. And what we need is the real question. We must need it, fairly and objectively, for our work, and if we need it, we can get it. How we get it—the means or procedures—we will deal with as it comes up. We'll have opportunities to talk about what we need in the future, but if we need it, it's always been my view that we'll get it. It might take a little longer than buying a litre of milk, but we'll get it.

    Mr. Sorenson

  (1210)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: We've had this discussion before. The problem with getting this information, as Mr. Pratt has brought out, is that most of the time you can't ever use it, politically. I mean, it's close to classified. And you're better off not even knowing it, because you're going to be tempted to use it.

    So, agreed, but we've had--

    The Chair: That's right. Just to quote the late Mr. William Colby, he said that six months after he got the information he couldn't remember whether he got it in a confidential briefing or read it on the front page of the New York Times. So you learn it, you deal with it, you use it, and then you forget it. It's gone. This kind of information is more burdensome for a politician to carry around. So we don't want it unless we need it. But if we need it, we can get it.

    We'll talk more about it, but that's your chair's view. Hopefully the members around the table feel similarly.

    Are there any further items or clarification necessary? I think I see where we want to go. We have a good list.

    Is there a motion to adjourn?

    Ms. Jennings and Mr. Sorenson, thank you very much.

    We are adjourned to the call of the chair.