Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Look for the Liberal government to devote more time and energy to national-security issues in 2017. Not out of choice, but in order to fulfill a long list of campaign promises.

The most imminent issue is the centrepiece of the Liberal party's reaction to Stephen Harper's controversial anti-terrorism bill (C-51). While still in opposition, the Liberals promised to meet any new security and intelligence powers with enhanced accountability. In particular, they pledged to create a new Parliamentary capacity to scrutinize the work of Canada's spy agencies. This promise was reiterated in the party's election platform, and spelled out in the mandate letters for the ministers of Public Safety and Justice.

In June, 2016, the government acted on the commitment by introducing Bill C-22. It will create a National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians with special access to classified records and briefings. This was not business as usual but represented an unprecedented step for Parliament and added an important missing piece to the historically ramshackle structure of review of Canada's security and intelligence system.

Story continues below advertisement

Widely applauded in principle, Bill C-22 was also contested. It attempted to juggle many competing concerns: how to ensure a prudent degree of executive control, and protect secrets, including those of our allies. It tried to give the committee enough powers to do its job and achieve legitimacy, while at the same time recognizing that the committee would move into uncharted waters and face growing pains. It was a complicated balancing act to be sure.

The writers of this article were all invited to give testimony on the original bill before the Standing Committee on Public Safety. What united us was a concern that the government, in pursuing a laudable objective, had simply gone too far in restricting access by the Committee to secret information and in attempting to control the kind of reporting it could do. We were concerned that the committee's effectiveness and legitimacy could be imperilled by the executive of the government vetoing the release or even the investigation of certain activities because of over-caution about secrecy.

Members of Parliament from all parties appeared to share some of our concerns. The Public Safety committee's hearings on the legislation exemplified, in our experience, a new style of Parliamentary activism – the members of the committee were professional, engaged, knowledgeable and operated in a collegial and non-partisan fashion. They set, in fact, a good precedent for the work of the new committee, once in place.

After hearing from government and non-governmental witnesses, the Public Safety committee has issued a new version of the bill. Some elements of the original legislation remain, particularly around membership on the committee, the committee's broad mandate, and the secrecy provisions that would surround its work.

But the revisions are highly significant. They narrow the circumstances in which the new committee would be excluded from access to sensitive information and provide a more robust set of rules around reporting of its findings. What is now at stake is the contest between a government with a mind to proceed cautiously, and a Parliament that is prepared to go more whole hog.

The government has to decide whether to accept the amendments proposed by the Public Safety Committee, or insist on retention of the Bill's original stipulations with its multiple executive vetoes based on secrecy.

Should the government choose to force a return to the restrictive original bill, it risks potentially undermining a new and historic Parliamentary ability that it has enthusiastically championed. Failure to reach agreement with Parliament on this issue also imperils non-partisan support for future national-security reforms and changes to other elements of the review system for national security.

Story continues below advertisement

We urge the government to follow its better angels and give the new Parliamentary committee the proper powers and access to sensitive information to do its job. The risks of allowing the committee to fully enter the secret world and report on its findings are, in reality, few. The corresponding gains are potentially great. One of the things we should have learned in the long years since the 9/11 attacks is that better knowledge is one of the key governmental and public counter-terrorism tools.

Wesley Wark is visiting professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; Ron Atkey is adjunct professor, Osgoode Hall Law School; Craig Forcese is professor of law, University of Ottawa; Kent Roach is professor of law, University of Toronto

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies