Public Safety Committee on April 23rd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think this is a great amendment. I'm happy to see it coming forth.

I've spoken to Mr. Dubé about this before, but the only thing was a suggested amendment to the wording, which would be, after line 27 on page 53, where we would replace the words, “exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions” with “carry out its activities”. That would make it more consistent with other legislation that we have in the CSE act. It's in the third paragraph of the proposed amendment, the third line down.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to read that whole paragraph as you would propose it?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The whole paragraph as I would propose it would read:

And whereas it is important that the communications security establishment carry out its activities in accordance with the rule of law and in a manner that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I just want to make sure that our clerk has that.

Do you have it? Is there a copy?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Not really.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

As Bismarck said, there are two things you shouldn't see in life: the making of sausages and the making of legislation.

I just want to make sure the clerk has it correctly.

For debate on the subamendment, we have Mr. Dubé and then Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, 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.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Chair, I have the wording in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to read it into the record for Mr. Paul-Hus and others?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Of course.

We replace the words “exerce ses attributions” with “mène ses activités”.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Is there any debate on the amendment?

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It passed unanimously. Thank you.

We will see how much of a roll you're on here, Mr. Dubé. You're up next with NDP-23.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I won't make a joke about lottery tickets, but I don't think it's necessary to go down this road. In clause 51 the bill already states that part VI of the Criminal Code does not apply to the interception of private communications under ministerial authorization.

On top of that, where the CSE act uses the term in reference to information sharing in clause 45, that section already refers back to the definition of private communications in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Is there other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

So much for that harmony.

We'll turn to PV-5.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We're moving to the area, and I know there's another grouping of amendments dealing with this issue of what to do about publicly available information. What we have on this in the language of the bill is found at page 55, which is that “publicly available information means information that has been published or broadcast for public consumption, is accessible to the public on the global information infrastructure or otherwise or is available to the public on request, by subscription or by purchase”.

I think members will remember quite clearly that we had testimony from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association Jean-Pierre Plouffe, commissioner for Communications Security Establishment, as well as Daniel Therrien as Privacy Commissioner, that the definition in the act is overly broad and doesn't attend to the concerns of information that might be publicly available and thus meet the definition, but is only publicly available because it was obtained illegally or was otherwise purchased in ways that violate the privacy of Canadians.

My amendment attempts, as you can see, by amending it to say with the preventative clause, “It does not include information that has been published or broadcast only to a selected audience or information that has been purchased illegally”.

I know there are a number of similar amendments coming from both Liberals and the NDP, but I don't think they're exactly the same, so it will be up to this committee to decide whether the language I'm presenting covers things off adequately. I do think Mr. Dubé's amendment is also very strong, so it's really for the committee to find a way forward. As much as I know Pam Damoff's amendment tries to limit it to reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think that's as strong, with all due respect. I don't think it covers off all the possible ways—and we're certainly much more aware of this than we used to be—that information about Canadians online can be mined. It's not really publicly available. There was no intention to make it publicly available or it was purchased in ways that allow it to be purchased or obtained illegally.

If you're not taking mine, I prefer Mr. Dubé's, but please take mine.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Before I call on Mr. Dubé, it should be noted that if PV-5 passes, NDP-24 and LIB-27 cannot be moved.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Chair, I can amend the...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's effectively the last three lines of your NDP-24.