OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 4 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.

Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.


The Chair: I would like to indicate that we are dealing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51 for the purposes of the final hearing of the committee.

Before we begin, I would like to make a couple of comments. I think that the hearings have been very comprehensive and complete. We have had well over 50 witnesses before this committee, bringing different points of view as far as the bill is concerned and dealing with a real national issue that Canada faces, which is the issue of terrorism in Canada.

In respect to the bill itself, it has been a very interesting process to go through. As part of the political process, one of the major concerns about the bill was the fact that the financing that was being made available by the government was thought by some to be inadequate. Since then, of course, we've had substantial commitments made by government so that our intelligence community, as well as our law enforcement agencies and our oversight organizations, can do the job that we've asked them to do.

Secondly, a number of amendments were put forth in the other place prior to the bill coming over to us for consideration, which dealt with, in part, the question of privacy, which I think is a very important issue, and also a clarification in respect to peaceful demonstration in this country so that there is no misunderstanding of the principle of the bill.

With that, I will ask for permission to move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and then members can speak.

Senator Runciman: Mr. Chair, I wonder if officials are present in case there are some issues that are technical in nature that need addressing.

The Chair: Yes.

Senator Runciman: Could we bring them forward?

The Chair: My understanding is that there are 16 officials.

Senator Mitchell: If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have a gallery.

The Chair: If there's a requirement on a section of the bill to have some expertise, then we will call for witnesses. Those with the expertise will identify themselves and come up to the table, if that's suitable and acceptable.

Senator Runciman: Thank you.

The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts?

Deputy chair, you had some comments prior to putting the motion to the floor.

Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me this chance to make a few brief comments. I do that to clarify what it is that I will be doing throughout this process of clause-by-clause.

First of all, I want to say thanks to the chair for his leadership in what has been a very intense study. I want to thank each of the members of the committee. I think we've worked together. Although we don't necessarily have the same perspective all the time, we certainly have worked together with great respect and great intensity. Thanks to Senator Runciman for his dignified role in presenting the bill.

I will not be supporting the bill. It isn't because I think that there isn't a problem in terrorism. There is a problem that we need to confront. It isn't because I think that everything about this bill is categorically wrong. I think that isn't the case. I think that in fact the sharing of information, for example, is extremely important. There are other features of this bill.

My concern is that I think the bill has been unable to find that critical balance between police, national security and intelligence powers, on the one hand, and protection of civil liberties, on the other hand. I will at various times throughout clause-by-clause consideration of the bill be presenting an explanation for why I'm not accepting a given section.

I will be presenting four relatively technical amendments because this committee is more a technical venue for amendment. Then I will be presenting other amendments at third reading, which will require more nuance to explain and are of a more general nature, based in broader principle, which lends themselves more appropriately to a third reading kind of presentation.

Having said that, I would be prepared to proceed. Thank you.

Senator Day: Mr. Chair, before you go to the motion, I will be speaking in favour of proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration, notwithstanding the fact that we've only had one day of hearings on the bill since the bill arrived. I'm sure you didn't intend to mislead those who heard your remarks earlier about the number of witnesses. A good number of those witnesses were here when we were doing a pre-study of the bill before it was amended, and that's always a problem. I always stand firmly on the side of this body, the Senate, conducting sober second thought after we have received a bill from the House of Commons.

In this instance, I understand the urgency and the requirement that the government has to request that we move forward more quickly. Although I expressed my views earlier in relation to pre-study, I was prepared to and did participate fully. I think we had a very civil, effective and helpful series of hearings on the pre-study, and then the one day with respect to the bill as amended that we did yesterday.

I just wanted to go on the record to make it clear, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, senator.

Agreed for the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Prior to going into clause-by-clause consideration, I want to also put on the record that once we've completed clause-by-clause deliberations of the bill, we will be going in camera to discuss whether or not we will have any observations in respect to the bill, if that's agreed.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

With leave, is it agreed that the committee be allowed to group clauses by part, when appropriate?

Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, that means that you want to do all the provisions with respect to the proposed secure travel act as one vote, and the other CSIS amendments as one vote, as opposed to going into the various clauses?

The Chair: We'll go to the parts, and you're correct in that respect. If there's a clause within that part for which there is a proposed amendment, then that's the clause we'll deal with. That was the process that the deputy chair and I agreed to.

Senator Day: Otherwise, it gets a little bit out of control. There are only 61 clauses, 62 in total.

That's fine. I'm happy with that.

The Chair: Is it agreed that we will group clauses by part, where appropriate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 2 of Part 1 carry?

Senator Mitchell: Chair, I have concerns with Part 1 entitled "Security of Canada Information Sharing Act." My concerns generally are that while sharing between and amongst agencies is important, I believe that there are not sufficient protections for how that information is defined, for how it might be used and reused, and for, among other things, the delineation of memorandums of understanding that would accomplish some of that, and also that there is inadequate supervision or review of oversight of that process.

With that in mind, I propose an amendment that would strengthen and limit, but in a way that would protect people's rights and liberties when it comes to privacy, to some extent at least. I move:

That Bill C-51 be amended in clause 2, on page 5 —

— which happens to be proposed subsection 5(1) of the new act —

— by replacing line 9 with the following:

"delegate, if the information is necessary to the"

I am replacing the word "relevant" to the recipient institution's jurisdiction with "necessary" to the recipient institution's jurisdiction. This is a more delimiting and refining word that would limit the breadth of information that might be shared, if it were shared more broadly, in a way that could be detrimental to people's privacy or civil liberties. I am replacing "relevant" with "necessary."

Senator Day: I'm trying to follow this, Mr. Chairman. We're at page 5, and I have at page 5, clause 5 on my copy.

Senator Mitchell: It is a proposed subsection of the new act. It's actually confusing, and we went through that. If you go back to page 1, all of this is clause 2 of the bill. On page 5 is proposed subclause 5(1). It's a long story. I went back and double-checked that. In fact, this is an amendment to clause 2 ultimately. It's amending proposed section 5(1), but it's clause 2 of the act. So it's line 9 on page 5. Can you see that?

Senator Day: I found it. I'm just wondering if somebody who wasn't sitting here today with this discussion would be able to find it.

Senator Mitchell: I double and double-checked it.

The Chair: I guarantee they won't, Senator Day.

Senator Mitchell: I agree with you. I caught it, went back to the lawyers, and we were told this is the way it is in the bill.

Senator Day: Well, who are we to question lawyers.

Senator Mitchell: But I can also move it.

Senator Runciman: I'm just curious. This sounds wrong-headed to me, but we may want to have an official come forward to talk about what it accomplishes. It currently says if the information is "relevant" to the institution's jurisdiction. What Senator Mitchell is suggesting is if the information is "necessary" to the institution's jurisdiction. It just doesn't strike me as an appropriate amendment. I'd like to have a view from one of the officials with respect to what that really means.

The Chair: Could we call up an official or officials to comment on this particular section of the bill? Could we provide them with a copy of the amendment?

Mr. Davies, are you prepared to comment?

John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, National and Cyber Security Branch, Public Safety Canada: We just received this ourselves a few minutes ago.

In terms of the proposed amendment, I think first the important thing to point out is that information can only be shared under the act if it relates to something specific, a specific activity that undermines the security of Canada, and if it's relevant to the recipient’s mandate. So I think the effect of the amendment to go up to a higher threshold of "necessary" would likely make the act unworkable. You would be asking non-experts in national security to become much more familiar, much more like experts on what it would take to meet a "necessary" threshold before it was passed over to a recipient's organization.

I think the standard of relevance — and I'll let Ms. Beecher comment more, if you like — is an accepted standard in law. It includes the concept of proportionality and so on. So we think the proposed amendment would create some severe difficulties for the act.

The Chair: Senator Runciman?

Senator Runciman: Convinced me. With respect to making the act unworkable, I don't think we have to go further than that.

Senator Mitchell: I'm not to be debating Mr. Davies, but in fact I think that explanation, Senator Runciman, actually underlines a further deep concern about this bill. If I didn't misunderstand Mr. Davies, he's saying "necessary" would require a certain level of expertise "to determine," one that would be less intense or less rigorous than the expertise required to determine relevance. Remember that it's a department other than the department that's receiving the information that is determining relevance and/or, in my case, necessity.

It has been argued before us that the very essence, the very issue of the department that needs to make a determination to send the information may not have the expertise to make that determination properly, and that again further undermines my confidence in this piece of the act specifically and, more generally, the act. If we don't have the expertise in the department to consider necessity, then there's something seriously wrong with allowing that department to make the judgment as to what it should share.

Mr. Davies: But they could have the expertise to determine whether it was relevant. What I'm suggesting is if you ask a non-national security department to understand the concept of "necessary" before the information is shared and whether that would undermine or help mitigate any threats to the security of Canada, that is likely too high for non-experts. They could understand and work and be trained relevant to the concept of "relevant," though.

Senator Mitchell: I would say if you can be trained to relevancy, you can be trained to necessity.

Not to prolong this debate, but I would say, for example, the difference for me would be that information on a charity going from CRA to CSIS could be relevant to CSIS's work on charities but may not be necessary given the specific charity about which the information was being sent, or may not be necessary about the specific activity that charity had done. It would be relevant because it was relevant to that charity, but not necessary for the kind of issue.

But I make my case and I rest my case.

The Chair: Colleagues, Senator Mitchell has moved the amendment, so I'll put the question to the floor. Shall the amendment carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated, on division.

Shall clause 2 of Part 1 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed, on division.

Senator Mitchell: Yes, it’s all on division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 3 to 10 of Part 1 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Mitchell: Where are we now?

The Chair: We're moving to clauses 3 to 10 of Part 1 to carry. Is it carried or on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 11 to 14, which form Part 2, carry?

Senator Mitchell: Can I make a comment? I don't have an amendment to Part 2. I'm opposed to Part 2 to the extent that I think the process of creating an appealing inclusion on the no-fly list, which this covers, really skews disproportionately against the individual who might be included on that list and skews for the ministry and the minister in a way that I think is inconsistent with due process. This could be corrected easily by having provision for a special advocate, but this provision is not in the bill.

It also happens that this section covers access without warrants to phone and computer information by ministry of transport personnel.

I'm not moving an amendment. I'm just saying that's why I would oppose this section.

The Chair: Colleagues, shall clauses 11 to 14, which form Part 2, carry, on division?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 15 to 39, which form Part 3, carry, on division?

Senator Mitchell: I want to make a couple of comments about that, too.

These are changes to the Criminal Code. Again, I will be opposing Part 3 of the bill largely because I think that the definition of "terrorism," in general, is too broad. There is no specification of defences outlined here, as is the case in hate crimes law. While there can be an argument for lowering the threshold on preventive detention recognizance and peace bonds, I believe the government and others did not adequately make the case that the powers that already exist in those areas had been utilized or exploited adequately by the police and national security forces that have them at their disposal at this point. That would be my point.

The Chair: Colleagues, shall clauses 15 to 39, which form Part 3, carry, on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 40 and 41 of Part 4 carry, on division?

Senator Mitchell: This is the CSIS section that amends the CSIS legislation. Again, I will be opposing that legislation, largely because of the warranting process that which will allow CSIS to undertake disruptive activities that could conceivably convene the Charter of Rights in a way that warranting processes to this point in our law haven't been done, and there are those who would argue this is tantamount to a notwithstanding clause by stealth.

I'm also concerned that the process is without direct provision or requirement for a special advocate who could lower some of the concerns that I feel and others feel about this warranting process.

Ultimately, the problem is that this warranting process for disruptive activities could result in activities that are a direct contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My amendment would address that specific thing.

The Chair: Senator, can we carry clauses 40 and 41 and then deal with clause 42?

Senator Mitchell: Sure.

The Chair: Shall clauses 40 and 41 of Part 4 carry, on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Shall clause 42 of Part 4 carry?

Senator Mitchell: I move:

That Bill C-51 be amended in clause 42, on page 49,

    1. by replacing lines 21 to 23 with the following:

      "measures will be contrary to"; and

    2. by replacing line 29 with the following:

"enforcement power or authorizes the Service to take measures that will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.".

What this would amount to is a prohibition of any warranting of any justification or approval by the courts or anybody else to allow activities that would contravene the Charter of Rights, either by actions taken in Canada or outside of Canada.

Senator Runciman: Senator Mitchell may want to elaborate on the amendment, and then I can respond.

Senator Mitchell: This says that the service, CSIS, can't take measures that will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Senator Runciman: We've been over this territory extensively, and I don't believe it gives CSIS the right to violate the Charter. What it does is gives them the ability to go before a Federal Court and get a warrant to undertake activity that would, in the absence of judicial authorization, violate the Charter. As we've heard in testimony from a number of witnesses, that's exactly how police forces have a wiretap to search an office. If they didn't have a warrant to undertake those activities, they would be in breach of the Charter.

I'll put a partial quote on the record. This is from Donald Piragoff, the assistant deputy minister of Public Safety, when he appeared before the committee. He said:

This scheme provides that judges are to look at the activity and determine whether it can be undertaken in such a manner — reasonable, proportional, maybe subject to conditions such — that you would be consistent with the Charter. That's what happens every day in court. Every time a judge issues a search warrant, the judge is essentially saying "But for this warrant, that search would violate the Charter." Every time a judge issues an arrest warrant, but for that arrest warrant there would be an unlawful detention, which violates the Charter. Every time a wiretap authorization is made, it’s the same thing.

The Chair: Do officials have anything further to add to what Senator Runciman put on the record?

Mr. Davies: No. Mr. Piragoff is correct. Essentially it's a ruling in advance.

Senator Day: I'm trying to follow the proposed amendment as to where it would fit in. I wonder if Senator Mitchell could help me.

Senator Mitchell: Replace line 29 on page 49, which is subsection (4), and it says "enforcement power."

Senator Day: Am I looking at the wrong act here? My line 29 says "to the nature of the threat." Perhaps I am studying an earlier version.

We spent all of the time working on the original bill that was passed and not with the amendments. I'd marked up the bill that came to us in the pre-study. Can you believe that? I should have switched yesterday when we got the final bill.

Senator Mitchell: Would you like me to take you through it?

Senator Day: No. I understand the concept. I was just looking for where it fit in. I now know where it fits in.

Senator Mitchell: All I would say in answer to Senator Runciman is that in fact a huge portion of warrants that are administered by the courts today fall under the Charter, which allows for search and seizure on reasonable grounds, and so they are consistent with the Charter. The argument is made, and it will be made in the courts. It will be made ultimately probably at the Supreme Court level.

I think neither you nor I are lawyers — not to prolong that debate — but the other side of your argument, the opposing side, is that this provision, as written in the bill now, does contravene the Charter or would lead to contravention of the Charter.

Senator Runciman: If judges are not comfortable with it, if this request isn't consistent with the Charter, then it's not going to happen.

The Chair: Colleagues, if there's no more debate, shall the amendment carry?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Defeated, on division.

Shall the clause carry? On division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Shall clauses 43 to 51 of Part 4 carry? Carried, on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 52 to 56 of Part 5 carry?

Senator Mitchell: I'd like to intervene there. Sorry, on division.

The Chair: Shall clauses 52 to 56 of Part 5 carry, on division? Carried.

Shall clause 57 of Part 5 carry?

Senator Mitchell: This is with reference to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. My concern is that overall it once again shifts the balance of due process from being fair, I would argue, more balanced, to giving an advantage to the minister in the case of security certificate hearings, particularly with respect to secret information that would normally go to a special advocate who would represent the applicant or the appellant in these processes, who can't be present because there could be information of national security. The special advocate would normally be there and would normally get all the information the judge gets.

Under this bill, the minister will have much more authority to define what information will go to the special advocate, who is there, with the highest level of national security clearance, to represent the party who can't be there because of this security issue.

My amendment is simply to vote against clause 57 and take it out of the bill.

The Chair: Shall clause 57 of Part 5 carry? Carried, on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Shall clause 58 to 60 of Part 5 carry?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Shall clause 61 of Part 5 carry?

Senator Mitchell: I have just one amendment for the transitional provision section of clause 61. My amendment would be, and I will —

The Chair: For the purposes of order here, since this is going to be a new addition to the bill and not an amendment to an existing section, I would ask that we carry clause 61 of Part 5 first and then deal with your amendment separately, as it's a separate clause.

Shall clause 61 of Part 5 carry, on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried.

Senator Mitchell: My amendment is as follows. I move:

That Bill C-51 be amended, on page 59, by adding after line 18 the following:

"61.1(1) This Act ceases to have effect on the day that is five years after the day on which it received Royal Assent unless, before the end of that day, its application is extended by a resolution — the text of which is established under subsection (2) — passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (3).

(2) The Governor General in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution providing for the extension of this Act and specifying the period of the extension, which may not exceed five years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(3) A motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended. At the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of the House of Parliament shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in.

(4) The application of this Act may be further extended in accordance with the procedures set out in this section, with the words "the day on which it received Royal Assent" in subsection (1) read as "the expiration of the most recent extension under this section."

Essentially what this calls for is this bill dies five years after the day that it receives Royal Assent unless it is reaffirmed by both Houses of Parliament. It's a sunset clause.

Senator Day: It's a great idea.

Senator Runciman: It seems to be premised on the notion that the fight that we're involved in now is a temporary thing. With ISIS and al Qaeda, I think their intentions are that they're in this for the long haul. The threat will remain, and the question we have to answer is whether we are in this for the long haul as well. I think this will be a continuing challenge for Western nations and perhaps beyond.

I'm a little concerned about having a drop-dead date. I think a review is appropriate. Senate committees obviously have the ability to undertake a review at some point in the future when they deem it appropriate, as do house committees. I think that would be my preferred option, namely to look at it from that perspective and make a commitment on the part of this committee. A lot of the members sitting here now, if the Senate is still around, will be in a position to undertake that kind of review at the appropriate time in the future.

Senator Day: This type of sunset clause is not here because we don't recognize or understand or appreciate the seriousness of the situation at hand in relation to terrorism. It is a recognition that we're dealing in an area that we're not accustomed to be dealing in, and that is a balancing, a proportionality issue, between security and the importance of security and privacy. It's a balancing that goes on not one time, but it's an ongoing issue.

That's why I think it's important to build into the legislation a look-back after it has been in existence. With regard to some of the additional rights that we've given, do 27 different departments really all need that information? Are they treating it with respect? Most of us will still be sitting around here in five years, and I think it's important to build in this sunsetting given that many other things will require our attention.

This sunsetting was in the original terrorism legislation. I served on that committee, 9/11, 2001. That was an important clause that caused us to refocus, and we did refocus and it went well. I think it was only for three years. This one is for five, which makes much more sense. Three years was too soon. But it was the very first time we did it.

A lot of this is overreaction, and we'll find that out as time goes on. This is a very quick — we've done Bill C-44. We've done Bill C-51. A lot of these things that we're putting in here will not stand the test of time, and we know that. So I would urge honourable colleagues to support this proposed amendment to the bill.

Senator Stewart Olsen: I have to disagree with my colleague on this one. Sunset clauses are good in some instances. In this instance, I hesitate on it. I like the idea of the sponsor of the bill of perhaps a review, but I don't want to add any uncertainty at all as to our commitment to countering terrorism in our country and providing our security forces with the tools they need, which is what this bill does. I don't want Canadians to have any uncertainty that we are not confident in our legislation. I think that would send a very bad message in this instance.

Senator Runciman: I think Senator Stewart Olsen hit the nail on the head. What Senator Day was indicating pretty clearly is that this amendment is premised on the idea that this isn't balanced and solid legislation, and we believe it is. The expanded powers are balanced by the need for judicial authorization. So I will be voting against this amendment.

Senator Mitchell: To address the issue of balance, that's really what it comes down to. One of the frustrations I feel is that most of my concerns with this bill, and I think many of the public's concerns, could be addressed by measures that wouldn't be inconsistent with the desired effect of this bill but would still maintain a balance in the protection of civil liberties, certainly oversight and review mechanisms, and certain kinds of powers to special advocates to represent ex parte individuals in various processes, and certain wording that would limit and give more protections to privacy and to Charter of Rights for Canadians. Thank you for the debate.


Senator Dagenais: After hearing from a number of witnesses, I would like to point out that the objective of Bill C-51 is, of course, to give law enforcement tools to fulfil their mission. Whether we are talking about CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other law enforcement agencies, they will have to undertake procedures under this bill. Five years from now, if the bill becomes obsolete, it may cause problems for law enforcement agencies that will have been working in compliance with this legislation and will have undertaken procedures pursuant to Bill C-51. It could negatively affect law enforcement agencies. That is why I cannot support this amendment.


The Chair: Does any other senator have an observation to make?

As the chair, I'd like to take the liberty of making a couple of comments on this amendment to the bill. I disagree with some of my colleagues in that this legislation will not be held up over time. I believe very strongly that the legislation is required to meet the threat that Canada is presently facing. No other committee, either on the House of Commons side or in the Senate, has better knowledge of the threat that Canada is facing at the present time.

If you recall, last October, when we had our first hearing, we sat in this very room. We had witnesses from the various agencies before us. We were being reassured that we had full control of all imminent threats that were facing Canada; and the moment those words were being spoken, Warrant Officer Vincent was being murdered in Quebec. Two days later, we had the attack on Parliament, and that in itself was so symbolic for us as Canadians. As one senator said that day — and we were all together in one manner or another that day — that was the day that Canada lost its innocence.

We have lost our innocence, and since that day, every week there's been a new revelation. The latest one was last week in Montreal, where we had 10 young Canadians attempting to leave this country and eventually fight against our country.

I just want to say that the practicality of the sunset clause does not bear scrutiny when you take a look at the bill before us, because it amends five different acts, five different statutes. To have a sunset clause for five different statutes for the purpose of reviewing maybe one particular issue that comes up over five years I don't think warrants a sunset clause.

I will say this: I agree with Senator Runciman that a review will be in order within the next five years — I have no doubt — whether it's initiated by the standing committee of the Senate or by legislative measures to be taken by the next future government in respect to this area of concern. The threats that face Canada are not going to go away. If anything, they're escalating. The information brought to us yesterday indicated that the threat has not diminished, but it has been increased. We don't know to what agree. The point being is that I don't think that a sunset clause is required because, quite frankly, I think in one manner or another we'll be dealing with this issue in the next number of years, unfortunately.

With that, I will ask members: Shall the amendment carry?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Disagree?

Senator Mitchell: Yes.

The Chair: Disagree. Do you want a vote?

Senator Mitchell: No, we don't need that.

The Chair: Okay. Disagreed.

We move on to the next order of business. Shall clause 62 of part 4 carry?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Shall the schedule carry? Carried on division?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

Senator Day: That's the 17 departments?

The Chair: Yes.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?

Carried, on division.

Shall the title carry?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Shall the bill carry?

Senator Mitchell: On division.

The Chair: Carried, on division.

Colleagues, does the committee wish to consider observations in camera? If so, I will ask that we go in camera.

Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, if it's already been agreed amongst the steering committee that the wording is roughly as some of us have received, do we need to even go —

The Chair: There have been minor changes as well. One might consider them minor, others might think it's major. I thought it would be an opportunity to go through the observations in camera to see if there is a consensus. If there is, then we'll deal with it in the committee.

Senator Day: It seems a shame. The climactic end to all of this work we've been doing, we're excluding all of these people that have helped us a tremendous amount if we go in camera.

Senator Mitchell: Sixteen of them won't mind going.

The Chair: The committee will go in camera?

Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.

The Chair: I move that we go in camera.

(The committee continued in camera.)


(The committee resumed.)

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order and will put the question to committee members. Is it agreed that I report Bill C-51, with observations, to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Are there any more comments?

Senator Day: The observations have been discussed and such changes as steering feels appropriate based on the discussion that took place.

The Chair: Prior to adjourning, I would like to put this on the record. When the observations are tabled in the house, I think that the general public and those who have an interest in the legislation will see that there has been a great deal of work done during the deliberations on the bill over the course of our hearings, giving further recommendations to the government on how to go about implementing the bill in a way that protects the privacy of Canadians while at the same time giving the tools to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Thank you, colleagues.

(The committee adjourned.)

Back to top