SECU Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security met at 3:31 p.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, Daryl Kramp, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

““human source” means an individual who resides or who is present in Canada and who, after”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Bruce Hyer for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:

“having received an explicit written promise of confidentiality, has”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 3,

“(3) For greater certainty, whenever requested, the Service must provide complete and accurate information to the Review Committee in a timely manner in order to facilitate proper oversight of the Service.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Bruce Hyer for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following:

“(3) When the duties or functions performed under subsection (1) involve security assessments provided pursuant to subsection 13(3), the Service shall ensure that the information on which such assessments are based was obtained in accordance with international law, in particular the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed at New York on December 10, 1984.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 3 carried.

On Clause 4,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Bruce Hyer for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 1 the following:

“(3) When the investigations performed under subsection (1) involve security assessments provided pursuant to subsection 13(3), the Service shall ensure that the information on which such assessments are based was obtained in accordance with international law, in particular the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed at New York on December 10, 1984.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 6,

“an employee who was, is or has been designated as likely to become”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 6 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 7,

“information to the Service when an express commitment to protect the identity of the human source has been given in advance of providing any such information.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“proceeding referred to in subsection (2) if a court, person, or body referred to in that subsection considers the disclosure necessary to the proper administration of justice.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“subsection (2), a counsel for the human source, an amicus curiae who is”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“offence or any other process where the right to the life, liberty or security of the person is likely to be endangered, an order declaring that the disclosure”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(12) In any proceedings under this section, the judge shall permit the participation of counsel for the defence who hold a security clearance.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 7 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 8,

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 4 with the following:

“21. (1) If the Director”

(b) by replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

“Director may, after having obtained”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 4 with the following:

“Director or employee may, with the Minister's approval and after consultation by the Minister with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, make an application in”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

“the Minister's approval and after consultation by the Minister with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, make an application in”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), a warrant is required for an investigation outside Canada if the investigation would use investigative procedures

(a) that, if used in Canada, would require a warrant under Canadian law; or

(b) that could be inconsistent with the rules of international law or the laws of any of the foreign states where such procedures would be used.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Wayne Easter and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(3.1) A judge”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 4 the following:

“(3.2) For greater certainty, a warrant under this section is required for any investigation outside of Canada that

(a) involves an investigative activity that, were it conducted inside Canada, would require a warrant by reason of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; or

(b) may be inconsistent with international law or the law of the foreign state in which the investigative activity is conducted.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

“(3) Section 21 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(6) At least once a year, the Director shall submit a report to the Review Committee specifying, for every application for a warrant under subsection (1), whether a warrant was issued and, for every warrant issued under subsection (3), the activities carried out under it and the results achieved.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 8 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 8.1,

“8.1 Subsection 34(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

34. (1) There is established a committee to be known as the Security Intelligence Review Committee consisting of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor in Council from among members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada after consultation between the Prime Minister of Canada, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader of each party having at least twelve members in that House.

(1.1) The members appointed to the Review Committee must have significant experience in the fields of administration of justice or national security or any other relevant field, and are not members of the Senate or the House of Commons.

(1.2) The Governor in Council may only appoint members who have been recommended by the Prime Minister of Canada and who have the support of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.”

Debate arose thereon.

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 766-767:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is not being amended by Bill C-44, the amendment is inadmissible.

Clause 9 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 10 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

Clause 11 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On new Clause 14,

“PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW

14. Within two years after the coming into force of this Act, a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament shall review

(a) the adequacy of the oversight mechanisms provided for under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act; and

(b) the impact of the abolition of the Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in June 2012.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Randall Garrison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

After debate, the Bill carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Diane Ablonczy, John Carmichael, Wayne Easter, Ted Falk, Roxanne James, Rick Norlock — 6; NAYS: Rosane Doré Lefebvre, Randall Garrison, Jean Rousseau — 3.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 5:23 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.