Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, let's get started. By the powers vested in me, I see that it is 3:30. The power of the chair is amazing.
(On clause 50)
My notes tell me that we left off at LIB-17.
Mr. Paul-Hus, the floor is yours.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, 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.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there consensus on that?
[A moment of silence observed]
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus, for that suggestion.
Mr. Spengemann.
April 23rd, 2018 / 3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Chair, thank you very much.
Liberal amendments 17 and 18 go together. In fact, they go back to the theme of amendments 1, 9, and 10 from the Liberal side. Colleagues will recall that these have to do with the employment mobility of employees of the various offices and the security intelligence establishments. The logic is that the Public Service Employment Act, PSEA, should be the legislation that addresses these mobility rights.
The rights are substantively unchanged, but technical amendments are required to remove parallel prohibitions from the various pieces of legislation in front of us or embodied in Bill C-59. This one deals with the office of the intelligence commissioner, and section 9 of that act is going to be removed entirely in amendment LIB-18. LIB-17 renders the entire PSEA applicable to employees of the office of the intelligence commissioner, removing the exemption that existed previously.
Again, these are technical amendments, substance unchanged, rendering the PSEA applicable to the entirety of the provisions with respect to mobility of employees into and out of the office of the intelligence commissioner.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On LIB-18, Mr. Spengemann.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, it's the very same thing. LIB-18 is the amendment that removes section 9 from the intelligence commissioner act, thereby rendering the PSEA applicable to employees of this office.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-17, Mr. Dubé.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
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.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
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.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Could the officials comment on whether this is in line with the current role of the commissioner in his responsibility?
3:35 p.m.
John Davies Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The amendment would not be in line with the mandate of the intelligence commissioner. The mandate of the intelligence commissioner is really to make determinations on reasonableness of ministerial authorizations, and not about review, looking at lawfulness, relative ministerial direction, and legislated authority. You have the national security intelligence review agency and the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and their mandate is review.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This certainly changes the nature of the role of the commissioner.
3:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Fundamentally, yes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The minister needs to be responsible, like you said, and not the commissioner.
3:35 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no debate, I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-18, Mr. Dubé.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
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.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
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.