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 648
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 16:04
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you for being here.
I want to go back to the question Ms. Dabrusin was asking in terms of the time that this took. The fact is, there was a Senate report prior to the last election in 2015, legislation by Senator Segal in the previous Parliament and a recommendation from this committee in 2017.
Also, for anyone who wants to take a minute to google it, you can find articles from at least the last three years with you promising this legislation—it's coming, it's coming. Also, most of the bills you enumerated in responding to my colleague, if not all, were tabled in 2016 or 2017.
I'm wondering about this mechanism. You called it simple and straightforward, faster and cost-effective and said it builds on existing infrastructure. I'm having a hard time with this, especially in knowing that the legislation is only going to come into effect in 2020, if I'm understanding correctly, with regard to the ability of Canadians to make complaints.
I'm still not quite understanding why, with all those pieces on the table and at the very least two or three years in the lead-up.... To me, it doesn't seem to wash that you sort of dropped your arms and said, “Oh well, the senator's proposal won't work in Bill C-59.” That seemed to be what you were implying in response to the question.
I want to ask again why it took so long when there continue to be incidents with work relations for those who work at CBSA—allegations of harassment and things of that nature—and obviously, of course, the issues that some Canadians face in the way they are treated at the border.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 16:07
Expand
I think maybe three of those bills were tabled after 2017 or early 2018. I mean, for the C-20s and the single digits, we're talking days after your government was sworn in. I think there needs to be some accountability, because you've been on the record strongly saying that this needed to be done, and so I don't want to leave it being said that.... For example, with Bill C-59, why not make the change then?
I just want to understand, because my concern, Minister, is that I want to make sure there's no, for example, resistance internally to this issue. I can't understand, if this is a simple and straightforward mechanism in BillC-98, why it took years to come to the conclusion that this was the way to go.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-06-17 17:23
Expand
That's fine.
In terms of paragraph (b), not only in the context of the proposed subclause 18(2), but in general, Mr. Graham spoke earlier about the risk of stepping on the other agency's toes. That's interesting. As part of our study of Bill  C-59, we met with representatives of your commission. Forgive me, I don't remember whether the information came from you or other representatives, but we were told that there was no issue with regard to the RCMP, since the functions weren't national security functions. However, during the presentations and debate on Bill  C-59, some people pointed out that, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, the issue still concerned national security, given that we're talking about border integrity.
Are you concerned that, in terms of the agency, it may be more difficult to determine what falls under the different oversight mechanisms for national security issues? For example, in the case of the committee created by Bill  C-59 or the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, there's a clearer and more obvious distinction with respect to the RCMP.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Minister Goodale appeared before this committee during the hearings on Bill  C-59, I believe. At that time, he told us that he could not answer certain questions because it was a matter of national security. After that, in the House of Commons, Minister Goodale said the opposite. Daniel Jean also testified before our committee that it was not a matter of national security.
In your opinion, is it a matter of national security?
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Your notes mention Bill  C-59. You make recommendations involving the Department of National Defence, DND. I know that the bill is being studied in the Senate at the moment, but I no longer recall which stage it has reached. Do you think that amendments will be proposed by the Senate or the government? Have you heard anything about that?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-05-13 15:56
Expand
Right, thank you.
I have another question on National Defence and the recommendation to amend Bill  C-59 as well as on the definition of the mandate that would be given to the new committee.
Is your committee concerned about the resources that this new sister committee would have to do this monitoring? The resources are already rather limited. If the mandate is expanded, are you concerned about whether the new committee will be able to carry it out each year? I would like it to be and I agree with the recommendation, but the question is whether it will be able to do so adequately given current or planned resources.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-03-18 17:29
Expand
So, my question becomes this: If we look at Bill C-59, for example, where you're giving CSE defensive and offensive capabilities—and part of that is proactively shutting down malware that might be...or an IP, or things like that—is there concern about escalation and where the line is drawn?
Part of this study.... The problem is that we're all lay people, or most of us anyway—I won't speak for all—when it comes to these things. My understanding of AI—because I've heard that, too—is that it's not what we think of it as being from popular culture. Does that mean that if, due to employing AI to use some of these capabilities that the law has conferred on different agencies, AI is continuing...? How much human involvement is there in the adjustments? If that line is so blurry as to what the rules of engagement are, is there concern that AI is learning how to shut something down, that the consequences can be graver than they were initially, but the system is sort of evolving on its own? I don't want to get lost. I don't know what the proper jargon is there, but....
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-01-30 16:14
Expand
I wanted to quickly touch on the cyberwarfare piece with Bill C-59, for example, and CSE having the active cyber capabilities. My understanding is that there is not really any clarity in international law. Some would argue that when you attack a country's sovereignty.... Is data a part of sovereignty? I think that's the uncertainty we're at now.
There's a risk of escalation, but does it go both ways? Even with the announcement today, for example, on fighting foreign interference, if there's any kind of disruption that's being done proactively or pre-emptively, is there a risk there that we might antagonize while trying to protect ourselves if there's no action from a foreign state actor prior to whatever action our agencies are taking?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-01-30 16:58
Expand
Just really quickly, with the 15 seconds I have left, would that structure and who's taking the lead look different if Bill C-59 receives royal assent today?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-09-20 17:00
Expand
The other piece I want to ask about is the vulnerabilities equities process that exists within the NSA in the U.S. On the same topic of transparency, I'm wondering about this. More and more, especially with the existence of the centre, I'm assuming that there's going to be more work done to identify these vulnerabilities.
In Bill C-59, a lot of the pieces involve working with the private sector to identify the vulnerabilities and to, in some cases, even study them to a certain extent. I don't want to rehash the debate that we've had quite extensively at this committee, but is there a specific protocol that exists here, in the same way that the NSA has developed one, in order to disclose to the public and parliamentarians, etc., the existence of vulnerabilities in software and such?
Collapse
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Don Davies Profile
2018-05-10 12:33
Expand
Actually, I was scrumming behind the minister, and he proved the adage that one should never use 10 words when a thousand may work.
The government has announced $81 million over five years toward the passenger protect program. Part of that is to implement a redress system like the one Canadian airlines already use for flights between Canada and the U.S.
I have two questions. First, how much of these funds will be directed toward the redress system? Second, how much is the establishment of the appeal process referred to in Bill C-59 expected to cost?
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 17:43
Expand
I just want to reiterate the point I made on this amendment, or on a similar one in the previous meeting, that I believe this could go a multitude of ways. There could be a burden on the agencies as well from the lack of response time from the agencies. At the end of the day, I think it creates a problem in terms of trying to undermine the credibility of these agencies as they're getting up and going.
There's no such thing, in my opinion, as an administrative cost to accountability and review and oversight mechanisms.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, I often find that I do not have the time to react. I have to wait until the interpretation has been provided. In a lot of cases, you start speaking again before I have had the time to jump in.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:39
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This is an amendment that seeks to change the definition of “activities that undermine the security of Canada” to “threats to the security of Canada”. This is a recommendation that came from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, among others, and from Professor Roach as well. It's obviously something that's been at the core of this debate for a long time, and with regard to former BillC-51 as well.
We believe this definition still gives the service the ability to do its work but will do more to protect rights and certain types of activities such as protests and things like that. There are a few consequential amendments to that as well.
It is so moved.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you've accurately predicted, my amendments touch every single place where the quite novel definition of “activities that undermine the security of” is replaced with the definition more consistent to other acts within the Government of Canada: “threats to the security of”.
If I may, I've picked a very short excerpt from the testimony of Professor Roach, which is that if this goes ahead as written, this definition will remain, “the broadest definition of...national security in the law books”. He went on to say:
This distinguishes this approach from a similar approach to protest taken in the CSIS Act which is indexed not to the overbroad and relatively novel concept of “activities that undermine the security of Canada”, but the more limited and traditional definition of “threats to the security of Canada”, [as] in [section] 2 of the CSIS Act.
I would put to my friends the Liberals in this committee, as well as my friends the Conservatives and New Democrats—obviously Monsieur Dubé and I agree on this—that there's no policy rationale that's been put forward and there's no explanation for having this quasi-sedition section, with language that is so overbroad that it can't be found anywhere else in legislation that accomplishes the same purpose, in security legislation or anti-terrorism legislation.
I hope my amendments will meet with success here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I appreciate the view of the officials, but with all due respect to Mr. Fragiskatos, Professor Roach and the Canadian Bar Association aren't pikers, and this isn't, as we like to say, their first rodeo. Professor Roach is one of the country's leading experts in security law, and the same departments and the same Justice officials in the previous government gave us completely dangerous broad definitions such as “terrorism...in general” in part 3 of BillC-51, which made no sense, but they defended them just as vigorously to a committee then.
With all due respect to our officials here, there is no justification for having a different definition. It doesn't add confusion to the law to be consistent. It adds confusion to the law to use a novel definition that's found only in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:45
Expand
I agree with Ms. May entirely and I would simply add that it's even more dangerous, to my mind, in this context, because information sharing is at the heart of one of the most problematic elements of former BillC-51, now being modified through Bill C-59.
I think the wording that both Ms. May and I are proposing here is far more appropriate and, as she so eloquently pointed out, is what is proposed by many experts who clearly have expertise in the field.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:50
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This will be brief. This is another consequential amendment to what I presented in the first meeting that seeks to fully repeal what was SCISA, now SCIDA, the information sharing regime brought in by former BillC-51.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:50
Expand
Chair, there are several amendments, NDP-9.8 and so forth, which I believe, since they seek to repeal the SCIDA, will be ruled inadmissible. However, it was important for me to move these amendments to make the point that this is probably the most unchanged element of former BillC-51. These are cosmetic changes at best.
I won't speak to and move all of them, but I want that on the record as the reason for presenting these amendments today. That is a key point for New Democrats with regard to Bill C-59.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I thought that was defeated with amendment PV-27. It's again to replace “undermine the security” to the test of “threats” to the security of Canada.
I'm perfectly happy to put forward an argument in favour of it.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
That's wonderful. Let me then put it forward. I thought it was caught under the same argument.
At page 114, it would amend the clause so that the language would be replaced with the more traditional definition of threats to the security of Canada in order to strengthen the act.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As this was already in Bill C-51, we intended to withdraw this amendment from Bill  C-59. However, there may be some confusion about it.
Could the officials tell us what the situation is?
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Again, Mr. Chair, this is to restore the language that is more traditionally used as to threats to the security of Canada as opposed to undermining the security of Canada. I would hope that in this instance, perhaps, we could restore the CSIS definition.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 18:59
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is intended to change the current wording about sharing information. So our proposal is to replace “the disclosure will contribute to the exercise” with “the disclosure is necessary to the exercise”.
This is on the recommendation of several witnesses who appeared before us—the Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and Professor Roach, who, with the committee's indulgence, I will quote:
...the breadth of security information disclosure and sharing under Bill C-59 remains almost as large as it is in Bill C-51. This will provide challenges both for the Privacy Commissioner and the new review agency asked to keep an eye on this system.
As the Privacy Commissioner suggested, the use of the word “necessary” limits the sharing of information to the form that is the most essential for the exercise of the functions that the various organizations have.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I do believe that the evidence from many witnesses, as Mr. Dubé said, was that the disclosure requirements with the low threshold of “will contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction” is far too low a threshold. For this kind of provision, the information sharing should be required to be necessary for the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction. The testimony is very clear on this point, and this was one of the worst sections—although it's hard to pick the worst section of BillC-51, but this is one of the least improved in C-59. I would hope that this amendment would meet with approval at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
No, I've spoken to this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:03
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
This is not an adequate amendment, compared to the amendments that Ms. May and I proposed, for a variety of reasons.
First of all, it's not placed in the same part of the bill, so with it placed farther down, the information can still be shared. The amendment that's before us calls on the government agency to destroy the information as soon as possible after it is deemed not necessary, which is very different from establishing a necessary threshold before the information is even shared in the first place. Moreover, it continues to use the definition “activities that undermine the security of Canada”, which as you know from previous amendments.... I don't want to speak for Ms. May, but both she and I—
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:04
Expand
I may speak for Ms. May, and I will say that we both attempted to change that definition, so for both those reasons, I believe this amendment is inadequate to achieve the objectives that witnesses asked us to achieve.
Collapse
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Could the officials provide us with some explanations about this? There are points that we find difficult to understand from a technical point of view.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:08
Expand
Yes. I will propose the amendment, once again with the objective of rescinding the points about sharing information.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:09
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The objective of this amendment is to allow the Privacy Commissioner to obtain the documents prepared as part of the information-sharing system. This was requested by the commissioner, as well as by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This again pursues consistency in my efforts to remove the new language “undermine the security of Canada”, and revert to a more traditional, understood, legislatively predictable, and less murky threshold with “threats to the security of”. It would be wonderful to see it change in one place in the act, even as we go along.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This moves to a completely different area. This is to repeal the changes that were brought in by the previous government in BillC-51, which removed protections for named persons in security certificate proceedings. This was adopted following a 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in Charkaoui v. Canada.
The framework in place at the time allowed for non-disclosure of evidence in certificate hearings, and the court found that this did not impair the rights of people named in certificates. The legislative move by BillC-51 was to reduce those protections for named persons in security certificate hearings. You'll recall that there was evidence for this from Alex Neve of Amnesty International and from Professor Kent Roach of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The effect of my amendment—and I'm certainly not going to read it because it is quite long and extends over several sections—is to repeal the entirety of the changes made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in BillC-51 of the previous Parliament, and to restore important protections to people who are affected by security certification proceedings.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I appreciate that, Sven, but I think that's the wrong interpretation of Harkat. The Supreme Court of Canada found that these very changes were contrary to a charter guarantee. I will read from an interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to these very changes. It said:
The preservation of Canada's national security interests is of critical importance. At the same time, the Charter's guarantee of a fair hearing and due process before an independent and impartial tribunal is a non-negotiable condition of a free and democratic society. The delicate balance struck by the courts to protect those rights prior to the Anti-terrorism Act of 2015 should be restored.
So the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada is in favour of my amendments, which I'm putting forward right now.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:18
Expand
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to take this opportunity to thank advocates like, obviously, No Fly List Kids, who are parents of children who have found themselves on this list among others who have fought against this very broken system that is colloquially referred to as the no-fly list.
This amendment seeks to change the wording from “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”, believing that the word “suspect” is a very low threshold, it has created a “better safe than sorry” mentality when it comes to listing folks, and obviously there are also the risks of profiling that exist with a list such as this.
By having reasonable grounds to believe, we believe we're creating a threshold that requires actual evidence to be in hand before a decision is made to put someone on this list.
Lastly, Chair, this was recommended by the BCCLA, as well as the CCLA.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:21
Expand
I think the results that real people on this list have faced speak for themselves.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:22
Expand
Thank you very much, Chair.
This amendment follows recommendations by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group as well as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which require, as does amendment NDP-84, that the minister provide individuals with written notice immediately once they have been confirmed to be on the list, rather than having them find out when they are arriving to travel. This is something that would allow any kind of appeal process to take place at a more opportune moment and not wait until the person is unable to travel, especially if they are on the list mistakenly. In this way they can begin to undertake the process immediately.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:23
Expand
I think the argument I'm hearing implies that the only people who are not deserving of being on the list are false positives. There are plenty of people who are actually being put on the list and who deserve to go through the appeal process and who perhaps aren't meant to be on that list. I think it's important to bear in mind that the assumption that we're not notifying those who are victims of false positives, while certainly an issue, I agree with my colleague, is separate from the issue we're trying to address here.
It's worth mentioning that with regard to no-fly lists, essentially you have Canada and the United States operating in this way. I also think, given the information sharing that we see, with low thresholds for being put on the list, with that type of mechanism, we're not talking about the kind of high-level situation that wouldn't allow someone to engage in an appeal process, which, by the way, is also quite broken, much in the same way the list is.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:26
Expand
Thank you very much, Chair.
The current wording of the bill is as follows:
If the Minister does not make a decision in respect of the application within a period of 120 days after the day on which the application is received—or within a further period of 120 days, if the Minister does not have sufficient information to make a decision and he or she notifies the applicant of the extension within the first 120-day period— the Minister is deemed to have decided to remove the applicant’s name from the list.
We are talking about people contesting the fact of finding their names on the list. Clearly, given the objective of the list, 120 days is extremely long for people who certainly have travel plans. So our objective is to reduce the period to 30 days.
If the information obtained is enough for a person's name to be put on the list, I do not see why the minister could not deal with cases of that kind in 30 days. It's a reasonable deadline.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
If this amendment carries, then it would affect mine, but if it doesn't carry, it doesn't affect mine. Is that correct?
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
If you'd like me to speak to PV-37 now I will, which is to say that my amendment affects the period of days that are currently referenced in clause 134 in proposed Bill C-59 as 120 days. My amendment would return it to 90 days.
I think Mr. Dubé's is better, but I went with a compromise.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:29
Expand
For a party that made great hay during the hearings on this bill of supporting people who are wrongly affected by this list, it is important to note, for the record, that the bill actually increases the number of days that the minister has before notifying someone.
Let's be clear here. The way the bill is drafted, even without Bill C-59, if individuals are not receiving a response in an adequate period of time, their names are removed, so essentially what the changes in Bill C-59 do is allow another month, another 30 days for individuals to wait in limbo while they potentially may want to travel.
There aren't a million people on this list. There are obviously thousands who are affected as we've seen in the last number of years, but it's safe to say that if the information is truly accurate, there is no reason why the minister can't address this type of injustice in 90 days. I am calling for 30 days. I appreciate Ms. May's notion of a compromise, which is actually returning to what is currently in legislation prior to Bill C-59.
It is pretty important to note that we're increasing the amount of time the minister has, while individuals are stuck in travel limbo.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
l wish to remind you of the testimony of Kent Roach. He said that four months is a long time to be a wrongfully listed person.
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
That would be appropriate at this point.
Think about the no-fly kids groups you heard from. Think about why the Liberals want to add more time to Stephen Harper's 90 days and go to 120 days. Just think about it, and please vote for my amendment.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:32
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-80 seeks to add a clause that uses the wording, “a judge must remove an appellant's name”. The wording would be, “If the judge finds that a decision made under section 15 is unreasonable, the judge must order that the appellant's name be removed from the list.”
This contrasts with the current wording, that the judge “may” remove the name from the list. It's my belief, and I'm sure many others, that if a judge is deeming that the person is on the list in an unreasonable fashion, there is no reason why they must not order the immediate removal of that person's name.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:34
Expand
Thank you, Chair.
One thing the no-fly list succeeded in doing was creating a consensus. I hope that in that consensus we can also all agree that this is a very broken system. In that spirit, I think it's important there be more accountability instead of some nebulous backdoor mechanism that exists. Acknowledging that there are national security concerns, we believe the minister should be tabling an annual public report that contains the number of names on the list, the number of requests for appeals, and the results of the appeals, to actually have a proper notion of how many injustices are being caused by this type of list, and how many people are being affected and able to successfully appeal that.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:36
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it interesting that you bring up national security. Some people have the same name as others whose names are on the list. Those individuals complain in public about the fact that their names are on the list. We know the names, but we do not want to disclose the number of those names. In my opinion, this information has a very minor effect on national security.
I would just like to add one thing in reply to my colleague's comments. Despite my trust, despite the fact that the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is a step in the right direction, I find this to be a concern. Each time we encounter pitfalls with the accountability of national security agencies and the various associated mechanisms, we are told that the committee of parliamentarians is going to look into the matter. This habit is becoming more and more troubling, especially when the time comes to get political answers from the minister
Collapse
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We're still within the sections that deal with the no-fly list and appeals against being on the no-fly list. I'll speak to both of my amendments at the same time, just to advance things for committee. They both speak to the same issue that was put forward by Kent Roach, by Alex Neve from Amnesty International, and by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The goal here is to appoint a special advocate so that during a no-fly list appeal hearing, where secret evidence is heard, there is an advocate for the public interest. Green Party amendment 38 sets out that there must be a special advocate. Green Party amendment 39 sets out the content of the responsibilities of the special advocate.
Again, this doesn't make any information public. It just ensures that the public interest is well represented. The use of special advocates, as I mentioned in yesterday's review of other clauses, stems from the post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation of the Chrétien government, that if you're going to have security certificates, there be somebody there in the room who represents the public interest, because these hearings are extraordinary. They're secret. The rights of the individuals whose lives are being affected can't be represented by them in the room, so the special advocate's role is terribly important for protecting civil liberties in this country.
I hope you'll give full consideration to including both Green Party amendments 38 and 39, when the time comes. I know that Mr. Dubé will speak to one of these as well. To have a special advocate in that hearing room to represent the concerns of inappropriate use of information or inappropriate denial of rights is a safeguard—it does absolutely no harm—to ensure that we are consistent with what we do with security certificates, with what we do when we're impeding people's rights to travel into other countries.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:42
Expand
Just in terms of the merits of the amendments themselves, I have the same amendment, so I would echo the points that Ms. May has already made.
I just want to ask something. Ms. Damoff talked about Liberal amendments coming up related to the Secure Air Travel Act and special advocates, but I don't see those amendments.
Just for the sake of understanding the back and forth of debate, I'm perhaps wondering what was being alluded to.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:43
Expand
You said there were amendments coming up dealing with special advocates.
Collapse
View Matthew Dubé Profile
NDP (QC)
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2018-04-25 19:43
Expand
—I heard wrong.
I misunderstood. I thought the Liberals had some, but they....
Collapse
Results: 1 - 60 of 648 | Page: 1 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