Public Safety Committee on April 24th, 2018

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

Proposed new paragraph (g) says that we won't:

engage in activities that are likely to undermine the integrity of supply chains, telecommunications, equipment and services used by the public, including by weakening or interfering with security standards and protocols.

Now, that might apply to Canadian soil, but CSE's mandate is anything off Canadian soil. So, it goes back to my question.

I guess you can't answer if there will ever be a time, but do you think there will be a time or condition when it would be in Canada's best interests to engage in activities that could undermine the telecommunications system of another hostile government or entity?

[Scott Millar]

You're getting at an important point there, which is the difference between us and CSIS in terms of CSIS being able to direct their activities at Canadians. They operate more in the physical world than the online world. They are an investigatory body. There is a prohibition proposed in Bill C-59 that says we cannot target Canadians or Canadian infrastructure. That prohibition is already proposed in Bill C-59 right now.

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

For CSIS....

[Scott Millar]

For CSE, there is a prohibition.

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

As we know, CSE does all of their work, according to the current and proposed bill, on people outside of Canada, entities outside of Canada. My question is on not targeting Canadian infrastructure. It is focusing on a hostile environment in a government or entity outside of Canada.

[Scott Millar]

That's right, in a reasonable and proportionate way and in a way that couldn't be achieved by any other means. Both are required under the ministerial authorization.

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

Then this amendment might limit that potential.

[Scott Millar]

It could, from an interpretation perspective, absolutely do that. It would depend case by case, and each operation would have to be looked at.

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

It could be a disadvantage to Canada to have proposed new paragraph (g) in this amendment.

[Scott Millar]

Yes, it could be.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are on NDP-38

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to ensure that the authorizations and extensions for CSE activities as defined in the bill and the commissioner's authorizations are for six months rather than one year, and that any extension or change to what has been requested is also reviewed and approved by the commissioner.

This is a recommendation of several witnesses who wrote to us or who appeared before us, including, again, a suggestion from Jean-Pierre Plouffe himself who will most likely be the person who will occupy this position and who currently occupies the position most resembling what is proposed here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Is there debate?

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, do you want to speak?

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

Yes, I would simply like to reply that it is possible that I, myself, don't serve the operational needs on the ground well, but that it can't be presumed that Mr. Plouffe does not serve these needs well, given that he occupies a very similar position right now as CSE commissioner. I think that not considering his recommendation—it's my amendment, but it's his recommendation and not mine—would be disappointing to say the least.

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

I would suggest that ministers are responsible to Canadians through Parliament and need to be accountable. The commissioner shouldn't authorize these things. I don't see any need for the amendment, to be honest with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on LIB-32.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I will not withdraw this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Under any circumstances.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before we commence debate, take note that if LIB-32 is passed, NDP-39 cannot be moved.

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to propose a subamendment to my colleague's amendment. After discussion with him, we came to the conclusion that he actually doesn't want to delete proposed subsection 37(3). He wants to add to it. My subamendment would be that LIB-32 be amended by substituting the following, for reference to proposed subsection 37(3), and it would be proposed subsection 37(4). It's creating a new subsection.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're adding that. What does proposed subsection 37(4) say?