Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 180 of 602
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 9:53
Expand
Mr. Chair, with this amendment, we want to strengthen the definition of democracy by adding the words “including in relation to any judicial proceeding or electoral process”. We want to make sure that the Communications Security Establishment will have the same limits on what it can do in a country that we don't think is a democracy. By adding these words, it's clear whether it's a democracy or not. We are making sure that we don't interfere in the activities of another country.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:54
Expand
I agree with my colleague about the importance of specifying what a democracy is. However, I will make a bit of a zany comparison.
At this time of year, we have to file our tax returns, and I encourage everyone to do so. We don't say that tax returns are taxes because it is obvious that it is. The same is true when we talk about democracy. Judicial proceedings and the electoral process are democratic processes. So it isn't necessary to repeat in detail what the general term already includes. At this point, it doesn't seem necessary to repeat it in an amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 9:57
Expand
Not being a lawyer myself, I was just wondering how democracy is defined in law. When we use the words “not subverting democracy”, how is “democracy” defined?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 9:58
Expand
In the context of the things enumerated in my amendment, what would be included? Would there be any harm to the work that you do in having greater clarity in the legislation?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 9:59
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
Here we were inspired by the CSIS Act and sought again, for greater clarity, to have an exhaustive list of prohibited activities.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:59
Expand
In the same vein, we must realize that paragraph 33(1)(d) suggested by my colleague has already been approved in the context of amendment LIB-16, which contains measures against torture.
With respect to paragraph 33(1)(c), unless the experts can confirm otherwise, I have difficulty in seeing how the physical and sexual integrity of an individual can be achieved when a telephone communication is intercepted. This situation does not affect the physical aspect of people.
I would point out that subclause 35(1) deals with the reasonableness of the measures to be taken and the fact that it would prevent that kind of activity. I would also point out that the entire bill is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore not conceivable to put these provisions into effect.
For those reasons, I will oppose the amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:00
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Although I supported and appreciated amendment LIB-16, I think the bill still needs many clarifications regarding the use of information acquired through torture. I hope that, on the pretext that an amendment that talks about departmental directives will inevitably become the law, we won't feel obligated any longer to include in an amendment explicit provisions such as the following, which seeks to prohibit “subjecting an individual to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture”.
I hope this won't be used as a way out every time such wording is proposed. In the case of such an important issue, I think there is a huge difference between departmental directives and the fact that these provisions are specifically expressed in the legislation.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:05
Expand
Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to ensure that the authorizations and extensions for CSE activities as defined in the bill and the commissioner's authorizations are for six months rather than one year, and that any extension or change to what has been requested is also reviewed and approved by the commissioner.
This is a recommendation of several witnesses who wrote to us or who appeared before us, including, again, a suggestion from Jean-Pierre Plouffe himself who will most likely be the person who will occupy this position and who currently occupies the position most resembling what is proposed here.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:06
Expand
My first concern is operational. I think it is a misnomer for foreign intelligence field work. Reducing the period by six months would be more difficult than anything else in the day-to-day operations because the operations sometimes take time, meaning that the information does not arrive on a regular basis. This administrative game that interferes in the process seems to be more like sand in the gear of the current operations of the organization.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:07
Expand
Yes, I would simply like to reply that it is possible that I, myself, don't serve the operational needs on the ground well, but that it can't be presumed that Mr. Plouffe does not serve these needs well, given that he occupies a very similar position right now as CSE commissioner. I think that not considering his recommendation—it's my amendment, but it's his recommendation and not mine—would be disappointing to say the least.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:08
Expand
Thank you.
It says:
The Minister must, as soon as feasible, notify the Commissioner of any extension of an authorization.
This amendment seeks to ensure that communication with the commissioner is done in a reasonable time frame, given the practical context that an adjustment can sometimes require. This ensures that communication with the commissioner occurs within a reasonable amount of time.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:10
Expand
My amendment is for proposed subsection 37(4) instead of proposed subsection 37(3).
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:10
Expand
The purpose wasn't to remove subsection 3, but to add that the notification to the commissioner be done in a timely manner. This confusion means that we can't add this to subsection 3, but instead have to create a subsection 4.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:11
Expand
I want to clarify this. I just want to make sure. For the sake of NDP-39, I would propose that the previous ruling would no longer apply, because my amendment seeks to change proposed subsection 37(3). If we're creating a new proposed subsection 37(4), then I can still move my amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:13
Expand
It would just guarantee full communication between the minister and the commissioner.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 10:14
Expand
I won't call that courtesy in the legal system, but you can call it that. Why not?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:14
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to support the sub-amendment again because I think it's a small step in the right direction, but I must still express my disappointment that we didn't want to ensure, through amendment NDP-38, that this isn't just the minister's opinion, but that extensions or any change to an authorization be approved directly by the commissioner.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:15
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We can see that extensions of the validity period don't need to be reviewed by the commissioner. Several groups, witnesses and experts have told us that, on the contrary, this should be the case.
There is the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Professor Wesley Wark, Commissioner Jean-Pierre Plouffe, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and so on.
I think that's entirely appropriate, especially since the amendment to reduce authorizations to six months instead of a year has been negatived. This means that, if there is an extension, it will go more than a year without review by the commissioner.
This amendment is appropriate, and it responds to what the experts proposed.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:17
Expand
I'd just like to add to that point. Certainly, while CSE's activities would be subject to review, it's important to remember that the commissioner is operating in real-time oversight. At least having the ability to review an extended, off-period validity for an authorization, as I said, means that, by the time the review agency gets the opportunity to deal with whatever authorization might be in question, we're talking way down the road. We're already keeping authorizations at one year, plus this extension without review, which is specifically exempt from review by the commissioner. This means that we could be talking years down the road by the time the review agency has the opportunity to review this type of authorization. To me, there is no blurred line there. I think it's pretty clear that the intelligence commissioner has a different role, to make sure that he's able to keep an eye on these types of authorizations that are clearly extending in this particular provision over a lengthy period of time.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:20
Expand
I support my colleague's amendment. I proposed the next amendment, which, depending on the fate of this one, sought to, at the minimum, have review. My colleague's approach is just as appropriate and comes from a number of testimonies. She mentioned Mr. Plouffe. We also had Professor Wark and the Citizen Lab share the same concerns. I think that an emergency authorization without review is a pretty big loophole. When does that end? How many activities can be undertaken without review under this, on top of having extensions, as we were discussing in the previous debate, not being subject to review? There are quite a few loopholes suddenly that exist here with what the intelligence commissioner can approve and review, which is quite problematic.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:23
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
I don't want to repeat the great points that were just made my colleague, but this is indeed the point, understanding that national security does require quick action, at times, in emergency situations. The fact that the commissioner would be reviewing and not authorizing gives that nimbleness, if I may, to the minister in the types of situations that are being alluded to in this section of the bill. Again, if we want to talk about how we're listening to the experts and such, this is something that was raised repeatedly and is not something that would infringe in any way on the minister's ability to authorize, in emergencies, certain actions. This would simply make it reviewable after the fact, and I think, for the rest, Ms. May put it quite succinctly and appropriately.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:28
Expand
I'm just wondering why then we would specify that there's no review by the commissioner.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:29
Expand
If my amendment says “subject to review”, isn't it a review after the fact anyway? It's not real-time oversight.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:30
Expand
Hypotheticals can be a dangerous exercise in this line of work, but if the minister is going forward with authorizing an emergency action or operation and then the commissioner gets the chance to review it afterwards, before authorizing other activities that would be subject to his authorization but that may be connected, would there not be a need for that narrative to stretch out, potentially, with connected activities?
As a follow-up question to that, how long would we be waiting before NSIRA would be reviewing it? It could potentially be far down the road, depending on what's on their plate.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:31
Expand
At the end of the day, there's no harm in this amendment having the subject to review. It just codifies something that's already doable anyway.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Some of the amendments are sometimes more difficult to read because we get into language about subsections and deleting lines and such. However, I think this one is worth reading into the record for those following along, since the folks who follow us don't see the text of all of the amendments. That can make the process challenging.
This amendment proposes that Bill C-59, in clause 76, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 75 the following:
47.1 (1) The Establishment is prohibited from
(a) disclosing information obtained in the performance of its duties and functions under this Act, or requesting information, if the disclosure or the request would subject an individual to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of mistreatment; or
(b) using information that is believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained as a result of mistreatment of an individual.
(2) For the purposes of this section, mistreatment means torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed at New York on December 10, 1984.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:47
Expand
I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. As I said, I supported the amendment because it is a nice preamble and it's good to have it in law, but at the end of the day, LIB-16 also says with regard to directions—because that's what is being talked about, ministerial directions—that:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the appropriate minister, issue written directions to any deputy head in respect of
It then goes on to enumerate the circumstances under which information may have been obtained through the use of torture.
Again, I support that amendment because I'll support any effort of the government that is moving in that direction, but clearly NDP-41 is much stronger and more explicit that there is in law no way that CSE can neither obtain nor share information that has any connection to the mistreatment of people.
I would also ask to have a recorded vote on this, please.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:50
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
If I may, I will read parts of this amendment, which seeks to amend proposed section 55 so that CSE is prohibited from knowingly entering into arrangements with institutions of foreign states or other entities suspected of engaging in torture and require approval of the IC to do so, and so we say:
The entities referred to in subsection (1) include entities that are institutions of foreign states or that are international organizations of states or institutions of those organizations but do not include entities that subject, or are suspected by the Establishment to subject, individuals to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture
And so forth.... The other piece that's important is, “The Minister must not approve an arrangement described in subsection (2) without the approval of the Commissioner.”
This is obviously complementary to NDP-41 in a way, where again we're seeking to maximize the legal protections and legal framework around the comportment of CSE and to ensure that we're not in a situation where we might be party to other state actors or organizations whose standards for human rights are far less great than our own.
I would also ask for a recorded vote on this, as well, please.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:55
Expand
I want to make it clear that I do understand what LIB-16 is. It's great for definitions and preambles but at the end of the day, it concerns ministerial directives and allows wiggle room for another government, or even this government, to change those ministerial directives that are still permitted. My support is on the fact that it's a good first step, but if it's only going to be one step, with no other follow-up and no other legal framework around it, then it's not good enough. When we support things on good faith, hoping that we're going to keep going in that direction, that's one thing. When we use these things to pat ourselves on the back and say the job is complete when clearly more needs to be done with this expanding national security apparatus, and the fact that many of these situations involve state actors who—not to inappropriately paraphrase them but as Mr. Motz was alluding—have less than stellar reputations on the international stage, I think it is absolutely appropriate.
Again, I would happily put my amendment side by side with LIB-16, in front of anyone in the Canadian public, and be very comfortable with the fact that these go even further and do more than LIB-16 to protect Canadians' rights, and quite frankly, human rights, more generally speaking.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 10:58
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment simply seeks to require the CSE to include in its annual report the number of defensive and active cyber operations conducted and the number of times that it has offered assistance to other entities. Once again, this is in the spirit of transparency. It's even more interesting because active cyber operations are a very new concept, as I said earlier. So it is important to understand the frequency of these cyber operations. It would be a great help to parliamentarians in their future work, in particular.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to be here, dear colleagues. You work very hard in this committee. The bill you are studying is quite extensive and a number of amendments have been proposed, all in a spirit of goodwill. For someone who is beginning, I admit that it's quite difficult to dive into this all at once.
I'm a little surprised by the answer from my colleague on the importance of knowing how much the amendments and this new oversight mechanism will cost.
Ms. Dabrusin, if as you just said, it won't cost anything, we will have the opportunity to see that in the first report and to see the importance of the numbers. It's perfectly legitimate to add that to the act. We'll see how these new measures will affect the budget.
We want to improve national security, but it's important not to do the opposite by devoting the money that could be used to protect us from these threats to the surveillance of people who are working so that we don't face various threats. So I'm very much in favour of the amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Motz.
I sincerely invite the Liberals to reconsider their thoughts on this amendment because it is legitimate and perfectly relevant when we are changing so much in a national security bill.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:09
Expand
Mr. Chair, I find it dangerous and in bad faith to call the accountability and review requirements an administrative burden. In my opinion, it is instead a burden that comes under our national security. We always say that we must also protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and it is in that context that these mechanisms are imposed.
Since I have been a member of this committee, I have noticed that the representatives of the various agencies are always ready to have their activities subjected to more scrutiny. Obviously, we can't expect them to say anything other than that. This is the exercise to regain public confidence, which has been much undermined in recent years.
This amendment worries me. We don't do the opposite, meaning that we don't ask to understand the financial burden imposed on the review agency because of a lack of cooperation from the other side.
We need to be consistent. I think this amendment paves the way for a potential witch hunt, where we look for ways to undermine the credibility of these agencies. I find this extremely problematic, dangerous even. I won't support this amendment.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think this amendment is very simple and very easy to understand. When new measures or provisions are put into effect, it's important to know what costs and what repercussions are involved. I don't really understand my colleague's position on this. In recent days, I have heard that border measures have been reduced and slashed everywhere. I must remember that we haven't created problems everywhere, at the borders. If the needs are so serious today, it means that you should perhaps look at your Prime Minister's statements on Twitter. The needs might not be so big.
I know it's not the same issue. I don't mind going back to the past, but you have created different situations that, of course, require different obligations. That's what we are facing now. The act is amended, new measures are adopted, and we want to know how much it will cost. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and Canadians expect this level of transparency. If I remember correctly, you talked about an open and transparent government in your election platform.
This is a transparency measure that is absolutely necessary. Again, I say that I will support my colleague's amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:16
Expand
Thank you, Chair. Hopefully, you've given me some good luck to work on here with your comments.
My amendment seeks to remove proposed paragraph 61(c) on page 80, which says:
amending the definition of any term defined in section 2 or subsection 24(5) or 45(3) to respond, directly or indirectly, to any technological change.
I should add that's in the context of regulations. Regulatory power is always a funny thing when we have these debates. It has its place. It can be particularly frustrating, at times, for opposition MPs. We don't necessarily like to see things being put into regulation, although we understand the need for it at times.
However, we have heard numerous times throughout this study that the definitions are already designed in a way to be as nimble as possible with regard to things like technological change. I think that kind of change is far too substantive for it to simply be left up to regulation. I think that—“respond, directly or indirectly, to any technological change”—is crazy, as far as I'm concerned, with all due respect, and apologies for my choice of words.
It could be a very slippery slope. I think that type of change should be one that is legislative and voted on by parliamentarians. We've heard enough testimony from officials, and from experts, and from all sides of this debate, agreeing that if there's one thing that's close to a consensus from folks on both sides of this debate, it's that the definitions are relatively good when they come to addressing the needs of this. I don't think it's appropriate to have it as a regulatory change. I move to remove that proposed paragraph.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:28
Expand
Not to fuel any cynicism, but I think it's fair to say there's a big difference between a publicly available change to regulation and a debate on legislation. I think Mr. Calkins explained it well with regard to being technologically neutral. However, I'm also looking at something like the Justice Noël decision from 2016 where you have CSIS gathering bulk metadata. Metadata is a concept that was fixed in this legislation. Would that be considered a technological change, directly or indirectly?
I ask that question rhetorically because I think everyone agrees on this. Every piece of legislation has something built in for regulatory changes. There's a reason for that, as Mr. Motz explained, but at the end of the day there's the reasonableness of it. I think this is so vast.
It's funny how hearing Mr. Spengemann's intervention makes me even happier to have this amendment. With things like AI coming forward, I certainly don't want the ability of national security agencies to operate with that rapidly changing technology to be subject to the whims of regulatory change. Let's not forget that the person ultimately making the regulatory change is the minister, who, while he gets good advice, is at the end of the day a political actor.
There are grave concerns about this. In this study and our framework review, the tone, the narrative, and certain ideas we were dealing with changed on the fly because of things we were learning on the go. If we can't even get through a study of a bill without being faced with these kinds of changes, then I don't see how we can give this all-encompassing term and then leave it for decades to come. I think that's irresponsible and dangerous.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:32
Expand
If we're envisioning it being taken on at the judiciary, then that's a legal question, not a regulatory one. That is an acknowledgement that it would require legislative changes.
Look at the situation with cellphones at the border. The access to information and ethics committee studied that issue. One consensus there is the notion of the suitcase. You have a reasonable expectation of giving up your privacy at the border, but that has changed in the advent of cellphones. As Ms. May and I pointed out yesterday in debating the definition of “publicly available information”, right now the courts are trying to sort out that notion. There have been several cases of people being asked to unlock their cellphones at the border.
I think this is relevant to the issue before us, this amendment, because at the end of the day, the solution to that issue is legislation, just as it would be with this bill. I don't want the minister deciding through regulation whether or not CBSA...and the same issue on the other side. I don't want the president—he has anyway but that's another discussion—signing executive orders that allow the searching of cellphones. That kind of purview should be in the hands of lawmakers and parliamentarians, and not decided through regulation.
I would say to Mr. Spengemann's point that, despite the expertise around ministers, it has been known to happen in the history of this country and other places that they don't always listen to those people around them. At the end of the day, they have political considerations to account for as well.
This is too much of a slippery slope and I think there are a multitude of examples that illustrate that.
Collapse
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a quick comment.
Isn't this why we are here, in committee? We study bills precisely to make good decisions and not to let another institution make them in our place. I'm a little surprised that we are proposing to allow judges to rule on this issue. It's up to us, parliamentarians, to make the right decisions right away and to ensure that we maintain our legislative autonomy.
If I've understood correctly, hypothetically, we would refer this situation to a judge who would eventually ask Parliament to rule on a piece of legislation. Obviously, this argument doesn't hold water.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 11:42
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment amends the preamble. Essentially, it emphasizes respect for rights and freedoms and includes a commitment by Canada to encourage the international community to do the same. This is similar to LIB-16 in particular, which says that Canada must be a leader in countering torture. This also shows that Canada also wants to be a leader on rights and freedoms and wants to influence or have a positive impact on other countries around the world.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:44
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment seeks to drop the word “lawful” from what's called “lawful advocacy” in the CSIS Act, the reason being that when there are “on the fly” determinations being made, we feel that “advocacy” protects more rights, as opposed to having CSIS make the determination of whether the advocacy is lawful.
Moreover, it also protects groups that may have certain individuals associating themselves with said groups and comporting themselves in an unlawful way. It would not have the group be targeted that way for what is lawful advocacy with perhaps individuals committing unlawful behaviour.
By removing the word “lawful” and keeping it as “advocacy”, there is a more robust rights protection. This was a recommendation by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:48
Expand
Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is the same as that of the similar amendment I presented regarding part 3 of the bill, that is, the publication of ministerial directions.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:48
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
There may be some amendments that are consequential, so I'm seeking clarity as to whether we're dealing with this one individually or...?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:49
Expand
Yes, I'm okay with that, Chair. They do all deal with the same topic. At the end of the day, as much as people think that people in our profession like to hear ourselves talk, I'm okay making the point once.
Obviously, this amendment and the others you mention deal with the threat reduction powers that were given to CSIS by BillC-51 in the previous Parliament. This is obviously one of the most controversial elements, in particular because the raison d'être of CSIS was initially to separate intelligence gathering and law enforcement from the RCMP after a number of scandals and problematic situations, which have been debated quite extensively in the different commissions that followed. This is one of the key points—which is why I'll ask for a recorded vote—on which the bill fails to correct the problems that were brought forward by the former bill, Bill C-51.
As to the powers of interference, while the purpose is clearly to protect national security through a wide range of existing mechanisms, including security certificates and police resources—or lack thereof, if I may say so—, there is a role for the police to play in that.
That is what we said in the last Parliament during debate on Bill C-51. We said that we must give the RCMP more support so it can do its work, and increase our capacity to fight radicalization. There is a whole range of national security measures available without having to turn back the clock and give CSIS powers that go against the agency's purpose. It is an intelligence service and, with all due respect, it should not be engaged in work that, as a result of these powers, gradually becomes police work.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 11:57
Expand
NDP-51 actually acts as if the powers are still there and does not eliminate threat reduction powers, so it's like a plan B, so to speak.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:02
Expand
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:14
Expand
The depth of Ms. May's concerns is entirely justified by the need to find appropriate ways for agencies to work together in order to reduce this kind of threat. That is the very spirit of Bill  C-59, which seeks to give those people the appropriate tools, to give the agencies the right to exchange information, and for all of that to be done under the supervision of a parliamentary committee, especially the exchange of information. We already have the necessary tools to do this. We are still affected by the errors of the past and fearful of the future. That is normal. Of course, there will likely be more errors. Field work being what it is, we will have other experiences.
I would now like to digress and talk about two aspects that should not be taken at face value.
In light of recent events, it would be hard for me to convince my fellow citizens that these events are ultimately not as serious as they seem, given that threat mitigation measures are to be reduced. My fellow citizens would not accept that. In order not to react emotionally to such an event, I remind myself that all operations are conducted under the very strong authority of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Returning to yesterday's events, I would probably not have said anything if, for instance, that person had left home with two flat tires instead of four brand new tires. In short, an unfortunate event might have been avoided.
We are not aware of what has been prevented. For CSIS— and to its great credit—, the hardest thing is not taking pride in preventing situations that we are not aware of. Its role is to protect us and its success depends on the number of events it is able to prevent, with the help of the RCMP. I think the structure of Bill  C-59 addresses this kind of need on the whole.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:17
Expand
Mr. Chair, I am proposing the same definition as I proposed with regard to the publicly available information mentioned in part 3 of the bill, namely, to replace those words with “publicly available dataset”. This is in order to be consistent with what is proposed in part 4 regarding CSIS. We have repeatedly heard concerns about the definition of publicly available information in various parts of the bill.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Hello.
We are not necessarily opposed to the amendment, but we would like some clarification. We do not see why this addition is necessary.
Could you please explain?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:25
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the initial authorization, the amendment proposes a period of one year rather than the five years proposed in the bill. The commissioner could subsequently approve an extension of the authorization, but for one year only.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:26
Expand
We can keep information about criminals in databases for up to 10 years. So five years seems entirely reasonable to me, and I would not want security to be compromised because the relevant information had not been kept long enough.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:28
Expand
I was just going to ask a question in that context.
I'm wondering what the threshold is. How do we define “likely”? Are we using previous evidence from other aspects of the investigatory powers?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:29
Expand
We heard the testimony of Craig Forcese regarding the importance of keeping foreign information. The part stipulating how that data would be gathered and analyzed was missing. The document that has been provided to you fills in that gap.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:30
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This is based on the testimony of the Canadian Bar Association that said that the right to infringe on the charter, as was actually brought up yesterday by a Liberal colleague, is already built into the charter through section 1. The Canadian Bar Association argued that the ruling of the court in giving the warrant is already acknowledging a certain infringement in a way or a “reasonableness”, to perhaps use the more legally appropriate term. This amendment seeks to bring better language and avoid discussions of contravening the charter in any way, understanding that the charter allows for it within itself. Again, this is just going on the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:34
Expand
The intention is along the same lines as what Ms. May is proposing, but the bill already includes protection, and has done so from the outset. Amendment LIB-16 offers the same protection with respect to torture. The bill as a whole already includes a guarantee. In any case, the list indicates the activities authorized under special warrants. So there is no need to add an additional guarantee to the guarantee that is already in the bill.
So I do not see why the paragraphs proposed in the amendment should be added.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
My question is for our experts.
Does the inclusion of international law not conflict with our own laws? Does that not create a constitutional problem?
In my opinion, it is not admissible at all from a constitutional point of view.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:37
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This seeks to repeal certain sections of the CSIS Act to provide informer privilege and complete confidentiality as part of the accountability process. It's something that was brought up by Professor Roach when he was here. It's complementary. I don't want to wade into grouping—they are two separate amendments—but it works with amendment NDP-65 as well, which completes the work that amendment NDP-52 begins.
Collapse
Results: 121 - 180 of 602 | Page: 3 of 11

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data