Public Safety Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Can you just refresh my memory again as to where those prohibitions are listed?

[Charles Arnott]

Yes. They're on page 67, proposed paragraph 33(1)(b).

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's what we're talking about.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

That's the amendment we're talking about. Someone had mentioned previously that this act already prohibits these activities outside of this section.

[Scott Millar]

This is a new thing that has been proposed with respect to the CSE's legal authorities. It has only been proposed in the Bill C-59 context, given that the two new elements of our mandate around defensive and active cyber operations would be present. From a charter perspective, these prohibitions were viewed as necessary prohibitions to limit the impact upon those charter rights.

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

Not being a lawyer myself, I was just wondering how democracy is defined in law. When we use the words “not subverting democracy”, how is “democracy” defined?

[Scott Millar]

I'm not a legal expert or a charter expert. I'm an enthusiast.

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

So am I.

[Scott Millar]

I've been told that, at the end of the day, the kinds of things that are being proposed in this amendment would be included within that definition, but I don't have any information or analysis to further unpack that.

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

In the context of the things enumerated in my amendment, what would be included? Would there be any harm to the work that you do in having greater clarity in the legislation?

[Scott Millar]

No. It would make explicit what is already implicit there.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll go back to Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

If I understand it, these activities are currently prohibited in law, are they not?

[Scott Millar]

For organizations within Canada that would undertake activities that would engage this charter right, I would assume that the prohibition is there. This is new for CSE, in that these are new elements to our mandate that have been added on active and defensive. That provision is not in the National Defence Act that reflects CSE.

We do intelligence collection, and that's collection that's not affecting an outcome. It's by virtue that we are affecting an outcome that two prohibitions have been added around not wilfully or by negligence causing death or bodily harm, or obstructing the course of justice or democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see no further debate.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to NDP-37.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Here we were inspired by the CSIS Act and sought again, for greater clarity, to have an exhaustive list of prohibited activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé is first, Mr. Motz second.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I supported and appreciated amendment LIB-16, I think the bill still needs many clarifications regarding the use of information acquired through torture. I hope that, on the pretext that an amendment that talks about departmental directives will inevitably become the law, we won't feel obligated any longer to include in an amendment explicit provisions such as the following, which seeks to prohibit “subjecting an individual to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture”.

I hope this won't be used as a way out every time such wording is proposed. In the case of such an important issue, I think there is a huge difference between departmental directives and the fact that these provisions are specifically expressed in the legislation.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I think that in the amendment, (c), (d), and (f) are prohibitions that I believe are already in the legislation, and are prohibited. I am intrigued with (g) and whether the officials can tell us if these sorts of activities would be of value to us as a government, as Canadians, and if there's ever a time or condition when we might actually attack a hostile government's telecommunications system.

[Scott Millar]

If there were a threat actor targeting a Canadian electoral process using the computer, I think this might make it tricky, in terms of this prohibition, for CSE to be called upon to take actions to thwart that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm confused by that.

[Scott Millar]

Maybe can you repeat your question, just to make sure I'm...?