Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 119
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 19:47
Expand
My concern is the lack of flexibility given to judges who might, if necessary, want to exempt the minister from fulfilling his obligations in all circumstances. I would like to retain some flexibility for the sitting judge that the amendment does not provide. So I will be voting against this amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 19:55
Expand
This is a tricky and very important issue.
I would like the fight against terrorism to be crystal clear; I would like the information that we have in the field to be easy to sort out, and everything to be black and white. Unfortunately, in reality, our agencies constantly have to be working with shades of grey. The bill does not contain make-do solutions. On the contrary, it is an instrument in response to a United Nations Security Council resolution. So this is no isolated initiative with no basis. It is also an important instrument that gives us the legal framework we need to seize the assets to which my colleague referred.
I would like our expert witnesses to talk to us about the negative consequences that amending the proposed definition would cause.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 19:58
Expand
The goal of Bill  C-59 is to have modern legislation that corresponds to the new realities and brings us closer to our allies. That is the reason we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We actually had to make up for some shortcomings in order to be at the same level as our allies.
So I feel it is ill-advised to remove this kind of list and to take a step backwards in relation to our allies, with whom we want to collaborate in the fight against terrorism. I am therefore going to vote against this amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:10
Expand
I would like to ask our experts one or two questions.
If an entity remains on the list, it remains there after the review, but if it is removed from the list, does the de-listing take effect at the moment of the decision or when it is published in the Canada Gazette?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:12
Expand
Does this amendment have any impact on any other amendment coming?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:13
Expand
I'll rephrase my question, and maybe that will get me the answer I'm looking for.
What is the legal power of a publication in the Canada Gazette? Is it just confirming what has been done in the past, as information in an official way?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:14
Expand
You are quite right. But the question is that, if we confirm that it is an information instrument, the deadline should cause no prejudice in cases when entities are removed from the list. The fact of it being immediate would only add more administrative work. In fact, if there were a number of reviews, it would have to be reviewed each time and republished each time. That administrative exercise is useless, given that, in actuality, the delay causes no prejudice to the entity removed from the list. So I am going to oppose this.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:20
Expand
Mr. Dubé has his wish. Section 83.09 of the Criminal Code already talks about exemptions to freezes and says that it does not prevent people from hiring a lawyer.
So, in my opinion, the amendment is not necessary.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 20:39
Expand
I would invite my colleague to keep his questioning relevant to the part that is coming to us shortly, since the amendment under discussion is about whether or not we have to repeal what is in the act.
Can we proceed with the exact amendment under study and then keep on going on this subject?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 21:29
Expand
The purpose of this amendment is to have section 83.3 come into force after Bill  C-59 receives royal assent. I won't read the entire amendment because it is explicit.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-25 21:44
Expand
A little bit, yes.
Since the whole Bill C-59 is looking at improving our national security framework and legislation, I think we should encourage the international community to do the same. I move that the preamble be amended by adding after line 12 on page 1 the following:
Whereas the Government of Canada, by carrying out its national security and information activities in a manner that respects rights and freedoms, encourages the international community to do the same;
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:31
Expand
In the interest of transparency, which our opponents ask of us quite often, we want to keep this provision as it is. I therefore oppose this amendment.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:37
Expand
I'm going to ask the department for help because I have a hard time figuring out what it would be like to ask permission from everyone. It seems physically difficult to me.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:48
Expand
I would like to ask our panel two questions.
When we acquire foreign information and it concerns Canadians, isn't there already a procedure in place to destroy or not to retain this information?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:48
Expand
I will now go to my second question.
When we intercept a communication, is it possible to establish immediately, as soon as the information is captured, that one of the two people involved is Canadian?
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:49
Expand
But at the time you get the information, you are listening to the information and you don't have two speaker icons that this one is foreign and this one is Canadian. You have to—
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-24 9:50
Expand
My conclusion is that it's not feasible, so we'll vote against that.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-23 17:26
Expand
I think the idea is to make sure we don't work against the Charter of Rights. Everyone agrees with that.
Maybe the expert will explain why we use different verbs. When you read the paragraph Mr. Dubé refers to, using the verb.... In the paragraph, we say “limit” in CSIS, “limit a right”, where, I guess, in English—and I'm a French-speaking person—you cannot limit a charter. You can limit something of a charter, like limit a right, whereas in our case, we just say “infringe”. We don't cause prejudice to a charter, which is the sense of what she says. Maybe that explains why we have a bit different wording. The use of the verb is not the same. But the idea, at the end of the day, is to prevent infringement against the charter. Maybe the expert can confirm if this makes sense.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-19 12:00
Expand
With all due respect, blind trust plays no role here. These institutions, which I have some experience with in the field, have improved and developed over the years. The exchange of information in this type of file is in the common interest. So, the understanding of how these agencies operate in the field is not the result of blind trust, but rather of long practical experience.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-19 12:11
Expand
If I may, Mr. Chair, because this amendment is a bit more sensitive and sensitive, I will take a little more time to explain it.
Torture is still a very sensitive issue in Quebec. All the consultations I've done for the government show me that this is true in the rest of Canada as well. In the last two years of this process, I have never heard of stories of torture in Canada. It is therefore certain that torture is envisaged in the context of exchange of information between countries.
In September 2017, Minister Goodale issued new departmental guidelines to avoid complicity in cases of abuse by foreign agencies, guidelines which have been warmly welcomed by the security community.
In committee testimony, professors Craig Forcese and Peter Edelman of the Canadian Bar Association, both wanted the 2017 departmental directive to be enshrined in legislation. That's why today I am proposing an act to prevent complicity in cases of abuse by foreign entities, to make it very clear that Canada will not be an accomplice to torturers around the world.
More technically, the proposed legislation requires the Governor in Council to issue instructions for the disclosure, request and use of information that would result in a serious risk of ill-treatment of an individual or is likely to result from ill-treatment inflicted on an individual by a foreign entity. Instructions must be given to the chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister of National Defence, the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the president of the Canada Border Services Agency and the chief of the Communications Security Establishment.
Micheal Vonn from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association also appeared before the committee to discuss the problem of secret legislation and directives. Professor Wesley Wark said it was very important that departmental directives be made public. That's why the last component of this legislation is that its instructions are made public. There is no reason for guidelines on torture to be decided behind closed doors.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-19 12:31
Expand
I would like to thank all my colleagues for their comments on this amendment. The content and the seriousness of the thing demonstrate the importance of this subject.
It's important to remember that the amendment is part of Bill C-59. And the amendment has a dual purpose: the protection against torture and the assurance that we must protect rights and freedoms.
With this amendment, the government is reiterating its position and intention to be an international leader and a model for the protection of rights and freedoms. This amendment therefore has its place, and it has been long awaited. I invite everyone to vote for it.
Thank you.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-19 12:48
Expand
The function itself requires complete independence and being both a judge and a commissioner would create a conflict of interest, which wouldn't be appropriate.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-17 11:09
Expand
A requirement that both houses of Parliament approve appointments to the NSIRA is not necessary and is inconsistent with established practice. We suggest members vote against this.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-17 11:37
Expand
As Mr. Motz said earlier, this is a matter of national security, as confirmed by experts. The legislator's intention with this bill is to focus exclusively on national security.
However, customs' responsibility goes well beyond national security, especially because of the commercial nature of the agency's activities. It would be unrealistic for the review agency to also be in charge of all the complaints related to customs, as that has absolutely nothing to do with its mandate.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-17 12:07
Expand
I ask for a five-minute break so we could discuss the nuance of gray on this one and agree on one version. The idea of the legislator is there; it's just the word. With the help of the expert, we'll manage to find the proper wording for something that seems to be the exact same thing.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-17 12:19
Expand
Before I propose my subamendment, I would like to make a comment.
We all agreed on the importance of having an identical translation that does not lead to confusion. We all agreed that the legislator must first have an inclusive approach. I think that previous expert testimony went in that direction. So I propose a subamendment to amendment LIB-5.
I propose that the English version remains as it is and that, in the French version, the word “mais” be replaced with the word “et”, so that it would correspond to the French version of amendment CPC-10, but would bring consistency and similarity of statements in English and French in amendment LIB-5.
In short, the subamendment aims to change the word “mais” to “et”.
Collapse
View Michel Picard Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Michel Picard Profile
2018-04-17 12:28
Expand
The reference to the commissioner speaks to the faith in his decisions. I think that the same faith can be put in the person in charge of the review agency. Their ability to judge what is appropriate or not appears sufficient and is surely just as serious as an evaluation the commissioner may make.
To avoid any slowdown in the analysis of complaints, I will vote against the amendment. I think that it is unnecessary because their judgment will surely be appropriate to decide when the human rights commissioner needs to be consulted or not.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 119 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data