Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 181 - 240 of 602
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:39
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I did with regard to part 3, at the risk of repeating myself, I recognize that LIB-16 is a step in the right direction, but nothing more. I think it is essential for the bill to clearly indicate that it is prohibited to obtain or convey information that may have been obtained by torture. As I said earlier, this goes beyond the ministerial directions mentioned in the Liberal amendment, but it must be firmly established in the legislative framework.
I will not reread the amendments because they are nearly identical, as is Ms. May's amendment, to the ones I proposed earlier today regarding the CSE.
I would like a recorded division.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:43
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 12:44
Expand
Thank you. It's to align this with CSIS's fiscal year and with amendment LIB-44, which is coming.
The subamendment would be removing, in the first line of the amendment, the part that reads “not later than September 30 in each fiscal year” and replacing it with “within three months after the end of each calendar year”. This is consistent with the rest, and it's clear and coherent.
Again, it would be removing “not later than September 30 in each fiscal year”—the part between the commas—and replacing that part with “within three months after the end of each calendar year”.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
I would like you to clarify something. We are talking about September 30, but the amendment says “within three months after the end of each calendar year”. So that is before March 31.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:45
Expand
It's the calendar year, the civil year.
So it is December 31.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:45
Expand
Yes, and that is consistent with various other provisions, including the subsequent amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:46
Expand
Could I anticipate my colleague's question and ask the experts what the technical points are concerning this?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 12:48
Expand
I wonder whether he could read it once again for the benefit of our experts. We want to change “calendar” to “fiscal” to be in line with everything. Was that your comment?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:50
Expand
Thank you, Chair. This just seeks to have greater clarity in the list of measures that CSIS can engage in.
When we speak of interfering with the movement of any person, we want to exclude detention. There's obviously, in the legal realm, a lot of talk about the concept of detention in law versus movement. This is for greater clarity in an instance such as that.
I have had a collegial offline conversation with Ms. Dabrusin and she would propose a more workable way of bringing this forward—another amendment to an amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:52
Expand
Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this is in order. I could perhaps withdraw my amendment and then move from the floor what Ms. Dabrusin has just proposed, or she can move it regardless.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-24 12:52
Expand
Would it be easier for her to just move this as its own amendment from the floor?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I understand it, the amendment withdraws certain powers from CSIS officers. I would like to know first whether CSIS officers detain people. I do not think that is part of their mandate or their approach. We often debate these issues, and I think the work of agents is misunderstood.
With regard to CSIS, do you think this amendment is relevant?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, in light of what happened today in Toronto, I would ask that we observe a minute of silence in memory of the victims.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:33
Expand
Thank you.
This is an amendment that seeks, after testimony we heard both from the Citizen Lab and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, to give more powers to the intelligence commissioner to allow him to rule on the legality, reasonable necessity, and proportionality of any activities undertaken by CSE.
Once again, it gives order-making powers. Given the real-time oversights that the office will have again, I think it should be more than a rubber stamp or a yes or no and have some meat on the bones, and that's what this amendment seeks to do.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 15:34
Expand
We are opposed to amendment NDP-17, given that the mandate is already in place for the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. The powers granted to the commissioner would be stronger outside the mandate that is intended for him.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:36
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
Amendment NDP-18 seeks to have the commissioner again undertake reviewing the conclusions that the minister has reached due to the accountability mechanism, and adds that the minister can only provide authorization after the intelligence commissioner has concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe the relevant criteria have been met for cyber operations.
Again, it's adding more meat on the bone and ensuring that we're not giving a blanket rubber stamp to activities that the minister is authorizing.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 15:36
Expand
The bill already provides for a review by the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians on CSE's activities. So I don't see the need to add others.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:37
Expand
Mr. Chair, for the record, it seems pretty clear that we've decided we've done something that's never been done before with having real-time oversight and that we have it perfect on the first try.
I'm not sensing very much openness.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:37
Expand
This amendment seeks to allow the intelligence commissioner to impose his or her own additional conditions on top of what is already prescribed by the bill before us in order for the ministerial authorization to be valid. It's pretty straightforward. It's fair in the context, again of real-time oversight, that sometimes there may be conditions that are required beyond the scope of what's presented in the bill. I think this is an important thing. For those who might be concerned about the notion that we're binding the commissioner, it is specifying this is something that the commissioner may do.
I also want to mention that this is something that was proposed by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Jean-Pierre Plouffe, who is the current CSE commissioner; the Canadian Bar Association; and Citizen Lab. Clearly, there is a lot of support for this specific amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 15:38
Expand
The commissioner's role is to carry out a review; a more invasive measure would go against his mandate.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:39
Expand
The authorization in the amendment is a ministerial authorization, so the minister still has responsibility to issue those authorizations.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the commissioner to request additional information rather than settling for a “yes” or a “no” basically. That could go both ways. It actually could be a “no” if the additional information showed that, at the end of the day, it is not appropriate to undertake the activities that the minister authorized.
Conversely, if the “no” is because of lack of information, the commissioner could ask for additional information that would reassure him and would allow the activity that the minister authorized to take place. Let me remind you that this amendment was suggested by Jean-Pierre Plouffe, the current CSE commissioner.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:45
Expand
Chair, I'm just wondering about this. The word “must” was being evoked as the one that gave no flexibility, and perhaps the officials can guide me here, but my reading of the bill is that with this amendment there are three options. There are currently two options. It says:
...the Commissioner, in a written decision,
(a) must approve the authorization...; or
(b) must not approve....
Those things obviously can't happen at the same time, so I don't see what harm there is in adding a third option saying “or can go back for information”.
To the point that was made following the questions from my Conservative colleagues, I'm wondering if, for the sake of efficiency with real-time oversight, it is not more efficient for the commissioner to be able to ask for that additional information, rather than to say no and send it back to the minister. While this whole ping-pong is going on, national security is at play and, on the other side of the coin, potentially peoples' rights as well.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Amendment CPC-16 asks that the commissioner provide the decision to the person whose conclusions are being reviewed within 24 hours.
We ask that the 30 days proposed in the bill be replaced with 24 hours. We want it to be fast, because national security issues require intervention in real time and we don't have the privilege or luxury to wait 30 days to receive a decision.
Raymond Boisvert and a number of other experts have said that the time frame is paramount when making decisions related to security. That is why we are asking that the decision be made within 24 hours. I would like to know what the experts before us think so that I can figure out if it makes sense.
Mr. Davies, what do you think?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
I'm trying to understand.
I imagine that the intelligence commissioner will be informed daily or a number of times per week. We feel that 30 days is a long time to make a decision since, technically, he has already been informed.
Could you tell me what the connection with the National Defence Act is when we are talking about the intelligence commissioner. Why did you start by making a connection with National Defence?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 15:57
Expand
In a desire for the transparency of information, the amendment proposes that an annual report be produced for Parliament specifically containing statistics.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 15:58
Expand
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, since I consider that preparing more reports is always a good thing.
However, I would like to clarify that the report would be submitted first to the Prime Minister, who will have the right of censorship on it. Perhaps we should think twice, given that parliamentarians will not necessarily know all the facts.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:02
Expand
I don't know. I didn't know if that was it, or if we were just adding in....
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:03
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This report would be provided by the commissioner and submitted to Parliament by the minister, as in the amendment proposed by Mr. Picard. Once again, the goal is to have an accountability mechanism in Parliament. Such a mechanism will help us find out the number of interventions and authorizations granted and have a picture of the work that the commissioner does.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 16:04
Expand
Personally, I much prefer amendment LIB-21.
On a more serious note, there is no mechanism to avoid the publication of confidential information. As a precaution, I will vote against it, since amendment LIB-21 is along the same lines.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to hear what the officials have to say. We will discuss amendment CPC-17 after amendment NDP-21. Can they tell us whether they see a major difference between those two amendments and, if so, what the difference is?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:05
Expand
Would it not be understood that the commissioner would have the capacity in his functions...? In the drafting of the report, would it not be understood that the commissioner is not going to be divulging all this stuff, but simply statistics and things of that nature, the number of authorizations?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:06
Expand
Chair, if I may, as part of the debate on the amendment, I do want to state that it's disappointing that we would prefer having the Prime Minister's Office vet these reports than have faith in the commissioner's ability to do that job and to provide the information to parliamentarians.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
I feel the same way as my NDP colleague. You are saying that amendment LIB-21 is more robust, but it allows information to be controlled at the same time.
In a nutshell, our amendment lacks substance. Is that the explanation I'm hearing?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:08
Expand
No, I was wondering if I could move it, because I find it is different than LIB-21. If it wasn't, you would have ruled it out of order.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:09
Expand
I'll move this, because a report to Parliament from the commissioner detailing his activities—in this case even better than my amendment—and making recommendations for updates to the act is a great idea.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:10
Expand
I will move it from the floor as well for the same reason as the previous one.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:16
Expand
I'm seeking some clarity because the issue of special advocates will come up again. I'm just wondering, for this amendment and its specific context, whether it's with regard to all activities in this bill.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:18
Expand
Perhaps, because I'm not clear what the interplay is with any upcoming amendments that deal with special advocates further down the road on the study of the bill.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:26
Expand
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This exercise may seem symbolic, but it is extremely important, especially in light of the Canadian Bar Association's suggestion to explicitly include in the preamble to part 3, the restrictions related to any action that may be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a reminder of the importance of the establishment's actions, including the fact that it must act appropriately while honouring its responsibilities to Canadian society.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:29
Expand
I'm happy to support the amendment to clean up the language. As the public safety critic, I have a bit of tunnel vision. This is the wording that I propose was related to the CSIS Act. CSE is for, all intents and purposes for this committee and for my work as a critic, a relatively new thing. The wording being more in line with the CSE act is consistent, appropriate, and makes sense.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Could you tell me the wording in French, please?
I listened to the interpretation, but I want to make sure I have the exact information.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:30
Expand
Of course.
We replace the words “exerce ses attributions” with “mène ses activités”.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:31
Expand
My fingers are crossed that the unanimity continues to persist.
Thank you, Chair.
My amendment seeks to clarify what the word “intercept” means in the CSE act, to give it the same definition as in part VI of the Criminal Code. This is a recommendation from Citizen Lab following the fact that there is no set definition. We've seen some debate with foreign intelligence agencies arguing what is or isn't part of this activity of intercepting. Since we already have a definition in the Criminal Code, my amendment seeks to match that up and be consistent with an already existing definition in Canadian law.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:36
Expand
With respect to my colleague, I would add as an amendment the last component of NDP-24, which also seeks to address the definition of publicly available information. It's my belief that the proposed wording that I have put forward is closest to what the B.C. Civil Liberties Association was recommending, so after “purchased illegally” on PV-5, we would add “or information in respect of which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:36
Expand
That's correct, which would make PV-5 identical, for all intents and purposes, to NDP-24.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:38
Expand
On the point of information purchased illegally, it's simply seeking to add greater clarity, but when it comes to information that has been published or broadcast only to a selected audience, I think we have a great example in the news lately, which is Facebook. We heard officials from CSE confirm that the information obtained by firms like Cambridge Analytica would be included under the current definition of “publicly available information”. I think it's important to add that clarity to the definition.
A lot was made by officials—and we get to that later—of this concept of the reasonable expectation of privacy. Speaking to my subamendment, I think that's why it's important to have it as part of the definition. In this era of social media, when we're talking about information that could arguably be publicly available, but where the person had no intent of broadcasting it to a larger audience and then scooped up in the activities carried out under part 3 of the bill, it's pretty fair to say that, if we want to take the privacy of Canadians seriously, this is the type of robust definition that's required.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:41
Expand
Perhaps just for the record as we debate the subamendment and the amendment, there are a few points that I again remain unconvinced on.
Proposed subsection 24(1) says that despite the subsections which lead to the prohibitions on obtaining Canadians' information.... Then, obviously we go to proposed paragraph 24(1)(a), which says “acquiring, using, analysing, retaining or disclosing”. The word “disclosing” is important, because the information-sharing regime, which has changed names from C-51 in the last Parliament, but which still remains in place, uses the word “disclosing”. When the minister appeared before our committee, he specifically said that disclosing was meant to narrow the amount of information that would be shared, under the previous wording, between departments.
I'm wondering, if you say “acquiring, using, analysing, retaining, or disclosing publicly available information”.... We've been down this rabbit hole a few times with this committee, and I'm understanding that I will no doubt lose my fight—I apologize for my cynicism—to fix that part of the bill.
In the meantime, I think the least we can do to protect Canadians' privacy is to have the most robust definition possible. I know, at least in my experience as part of this committee process—and I of course say that with all due respect to officials who come—the tendency is to be averse to change and robust definitions. Again, I say that with all due respect.
I want to perhaps go back to officials, because we're talking about the charter statement. I don't think the charter statement, or even the charter itself I dare say, would take into account some of the new realities that we're dealing with as parliamentarians, in particular the information such as the information obtained by firms like Cambridge Analytica.
I'm wondering if I can direct my question to Mr. Millar. It's the same question that I asked you last time in committee. Would that type of information from Facebook fall under the current definition, unamended, as was drafted in the bill and be obtainable as publicly available information?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:43
Expand
How do we establish that? What's the test?
Chair, we've had months of talking about this, and there is uncertainty that I feel still exists around this. We can go back and forth again—and I appreciate the committee's indulgence—but I don't see a compelling argument on why you would not want to have a more robust definition.
I think when you compare what Ms. May is proposing, what I'm proposing, and then further on, the Liberal amendment, we're basically stating things that everyone keeps telling us are going to be done anyway. What harm is it in enshrining it properly in law? I do not for the life of me understand why that would be a problem, to enshrine principles that we say are going to be respected anyway and that are found in other places here and there when we start cherry-picking through the act.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:45
Expand
Specificity is important in the context of these issues coming up in the digital world. Insofar as how consent is obtained by social media sites and so forth is rapidly changing concepts.
I understand the legislation needs to be nimble to that rapidly changing concept. I don't see anything in what either myself or Ms. May have proposed that would create some kind of unintended consequence down the road. The wording is vague enough when you look at things like the information that has been posted and broadcasted only to a selected audience. This can mean many things that you're not cutting it off.
Quite frankly, if anything, rejecting the amendments exacerbates the concerns that have been raised by many, including myself and Ms. May, over the course of the study of this bill.
If we don't want to have that in the definition, then what objective are we trying to achieve? I don't want to question anyone's intent, or the comportment of different agencies, so if everything is on the up and up as we're being reassured it is, then let's adopt wording that apparently meets the spirit of the law in the bill, as has been evoked by the other side.
I don't think there's any harm in doing that, if that's what everyone thinks is happening anyway.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:48
Expand
Thank you, Chair. Before I forget, I would like a recorded vote on NDP-24, please.
I would just like to reiterate the following points.
Not only do I want to stress how disappointed I am with the rejection of the amendment and subamendment that my colleague from the Green Party and I have proposed, but I would also like to share my bewilderment about the rigidity of the definition. We are repeatedly being reassured that there is an intention behind the use of the data and the powers that we want to grant, but in what I heard about publicly available information, nothing in the definition I am proposing is contradicted by the testimony of the officials from the CSE or by what my Liberal colleagues want to see in their bill.
I leave the question open to Canadians. They are the ones who will have to put the question to the government and us, of course. If the purpose of the powers granted under clause 24 of part 3 of the bill is to do research, analyses and studies on Canada's information infrastructure, I cannot comprehend why we could not ensure that we have the most robust definition possible to protect Canadians' privacy.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 16:51
Expand
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am going to support my colleague's amendment, by putting a lot of water in my wine.
That being said, I completely disagree: his amendment will not achieve the same objectives as Ms. May's amendment or mine. Clearly, since our amendments were rejected, we will have to make do with his today, which is better than nothing.
I would just like to draw your attention once again to Ms. May's argument, which I find extremely important. These issues are subject to many disputes in Canada and around the world. Reasonable privacy expectations have evolved tremendously, particularly in recent months.
When we draft a bill and propose amendments, I think we must bear in mind the possibility that the validity of any given definition may be challenged, especially in a rapidly changing context. That's what we have heard from many witnesses. The wording of the Green Party of Canada and the NDP amendments was the one that best matched what those witnesses recommended.
Mr. Chair, I conclude by reiterating that I am going to support this amendment because I would rather have what it proposes than no protection, but I think it is inadequate in the extreme.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-23 17:00
Expand
With your indulgence, Chair, I think it's safe to say that even those of us who aren't from Toronto are thinking of you and are certainly hoping that the situation doesn't get any worse. Thank you for keeping us updated.
Chair, the amendment I'm proposing seeks to require that ministerial directions be published. This is something that the minister is a fan of, so we would be codifying in law something that he himself brought up during his testimony.
Collapse
Results: 181 - 240 of 602 | Page: 4 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