Evidence of meeting #107 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 debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, we're ready to begin.
We are on NDP-27 with Mr. Dubé.
(On clause 76)
9 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-27 seeks to remove any and all references to “active cyber operations”. I'm going to explain my motivation and reasoning for this.
Obviously, Bill C-59 is a response to a Liberal campaign promise, and something that the Liberals made hay of in the last Parliament, about supporting the then Conservative Bill C-51 in exchange for the promise that the most egregious elements would be fixed.
Now—and we'll get to some of those elements later—I don't believe the bill achieves that objective. That being said, in the consultations that both this committee and the minister did, and the debate on Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament, CSE was obviously never part of it, being enacted by the National Defence Act, which is something not normally dealt with by this committee. I understand that with the new cybersecurity reality and the different issues that we face on a day-to-day basis, that's become something that's necessary.
However, given that it hasn't really been part of the consultations, and as you know, Chair, you acknowledged that CSE took on a life of its own as part of this study. With all due respect to our colleagues here from CSE, that is very new. The committee didn't necessarily, as far as I'm concerned, have the institutional memory to appropriately address all those elements in this omnibus legislation. Several witnesses even made the comment saying that the remarks would have to be limited to one part of the bill given its size and scope.
For that reason, notwithstanding a position I may or may not take in the future on active cyber operations, we have just not had adequate reassurance as to the purpose of this nor have we had the chance to properly study it. I would welcome it as a stand-alone piece of legislation. In the meantime, while it's important to have the defensive capabilities, the active capabilities are a slippery slope that I don't believe this committee or parliamentarians are yet ready to be engaged on.
I move this amendment to remove that aspect from the bill.
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Before I engage debate, please note that if NDP-27 is adopted, CPC-20 and NDP-35 cannot be moved.
Mr. Spengemann.
April 24th, 2018 / 9 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
In my view, this amendment is contrary to the fundamental goal of Bill C-59, which is essentially to give our security agencies the tools they need to protect Canada and Canadians while respecting our rights and freedoms.
The amendment seems to achieve two things. It retains CSE's active cyber operations mandate under proposed section 20, but it then removes the ability of the minister to issue authorizations that would allow the CSE to undertake activities in this regard that would otherwise contravene an act of Parliament or any foreign state.
The authority to conduct active cyber operations is needed to support strategic objectives that go outside of a military or domestic threat context. The deletion of these sections as proposed in the amendment would limit Canada's options to respond to threats. It should also be noted that the authorities under the proposed bill would only take place within very strict legal parameters and approvals at the highest level of government.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's early to be agreeing with my Liberal colleagues, but I would have to echo Mr. Spengemann's comments. Mr. Fadden told us, when he testified before the committee, that he assumed there were in excess of 200,000 persons operating within China on cyberspace in one capacity or another. Some were in government, in the armed forces, while others were in the private sector. This reveals an entirely different frame of mind than what we have become accustomed to as Canadians at this point in time.
If we do not embrace the concept of offensive cyber operations, we're going to be probably way behind our Five Eyes partners. For that reason, I certainly cannot support this amendment.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I think it's important. Mr. Spengemann spoke of the purpose of Bill C-59. As I said, this stems from a discussion that was long overdue about fixing the most egregious elements of the former Bill C-51, and in none of the consultations were we engaged properly on the cybersecurity aspect.
To Mr. Motz's point, that's exactly why I'm not seeking to remove the defensive capabilities with any amendment. This is the notion of active cyber operations.
The committee will recall that I asked several questions, including to the Minister of National Defence, related to this notion of what, in this digital age, represents an attack on a foreign actor or sovereignty. How will the capability sharing in this bill between the armed forces and CSE, a civilian organization, be taking place?
It's even more problematic to me in the context that we have a budget that's announced a creation of a cybersecurity centre. The minister has promised legislation to that effect in the fall. In that context, I think it's even more important to have a proper study of these elements that are far from leading to unanimity. I believe more studies are required.
As I said, with this amendment, I am not discounting the urgency of having measures in place to protect our cybersecurity to address these threats, nor am I inclined to say that we should never have any active capabilities. Given the way in which the committee and the ministry were engaged in the public consultations and the way the debate has evolved on this particular issue, starting in the last Parliament with Bill C-51, I don't believe we're properly equipped as parliamentarians to be offering this kind of new power with so many unanswered questions.
As I said, the amendment goes along with the statement that I believe it should have been a separate piece of legislation to begin with.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment CPC-20.
Mr. Paul-Hus is not here. I'm assuming Mr. Motz is going to move CPC-20.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Good morning, everyone.
Just so you know, by the time we're done this four-hour session of the committee, Mr. Motz and I would have had time to fly home, or to Ottawa from Alberta. We're just going to set in and I'm going to treat this like a long flight and enjoy myself, so if you see me watching a couple of movies, you'll know what's happening.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I can assure you that it might actually go that way. Anyway, I digress.
Mr. Chair, in the discussion we had when the Minister of National Defence appeared before the committee, I and a number of my colleagues asked the question as to why we would codify. There are several examples of previous amendments where the justification was used that we shouldn't codify normal practices because it limits flexibility. I want to make a similar argument now. Why would we codify here that there is a mandatory requirement for the Minister of National Defence to consult with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when the minister said that as members of cabinet, they do this on an ongoing basis?
When it comes to cybersecurity and the cyber-attacks, where the jurisdiction ultimately falls with the Minister of National Defence, having the minister become almost seemingly a junior minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs might not be in the best interests or provide the flexibility that might be required.
We're using this amendment to withdraw those references on the assumption that the Minister of National Defence would always be in consultation with cabinet colleagues and have the ability to consult with either the Prime Minister or other cabinet ministers as may be appropriate. We don't even know if it would always be the Minister of Foreign Affairs who would need to be consulted. Threats change and evolve. We used to be worried about symmetric threats or nation threats. Now we're worried about asymmetric threats. We don't know where the future is going, what the nature of the threats might be, and which ministers might be involved in consulting with the Minister of National Defence.
I'm hoping level heads will prevail here and we wouldn't inadvertently handcuff the Minister of National Defence in any way, shape, or form.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
Before I engage debate, please note that if CPC-20 is adopted, NDP-35 cannot be moved.
Ms. Dabrusin.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, this goes to exactly the balance issue that's so important to people across this country. It's about making sure that we have checks and balances in the system. If we went ahead with CPC-20 we would be weakening the authorization regime for active and defensive cyber operations. That's not a desirable outcome. I would actually say that this is not the proper way to go. In fact, the active and defensive cyber operations would fall within issues that are related to what the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Global Affairs is working on. We need to have a proper authorization regime.
To me, keeping that in place is essential to the balance in this act.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
In an asymmetric threat perspective, the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety ought to have the same kind of consultative process. I don't see them included in this legislation. I suppose we can ask the officials for their opinions on whether the changes that are being proposed or the amendments would be beneficial or not beneficial. I don't think anybody here has a crystal ball, but the argument that this is the kind of expected inclusiveness....
Just yesterday, the Liberal members of this committee voted down several amendments that would require reports by the commissioner to be tabled before Parliament, so I'm not buying the inclusiveness and the transparency arguments for this. This should be about good governance. This is very important stuff. This is about as serious as it gets, and if we don't have the legislation right, there could be serious consequences, ramifications for our Canadian economy, our defence systems, and virtually all aspects of Canadian life, which are, as you know, Mr. Chair, readily available and online.
Can our officials weigh in on this?
9:10 a.m.
Scott Millar Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
These are serious authorities who require serious accountabilities, oversight, and review. The intent behind including the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the fact that there are international policy and international law implications to these kinds of activities that need to be considered. We are a clandestine agency acting covertly against foreign threat adversaries, not always with their permission. Therefore, the element that the Minister of Foreign Affairs can consider the international policy and international law implications was seen as an important part of that. As well, in the legislation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs can request that CSE undertake these kinds of activities, so that request, and also approving how ultimately they would be conducted, that is the reason for that provision being in there.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
Right now in terms of our intelligence collection activities, we can only collect in accordance with government cabinet-approved intelligence priorities. That involves cabinet and obviously the Minister of Foreign Affairs as part of those discussions and considers those implications at that time. But we do not conduct these active cyber operations right now. It's proposed in the legislation.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I understand that. The current cabinet process already works, as has been testified to, and I just hope that if—sadly—this amendment is defeated, there aren't consequences because of the requirement to involve an extra ministry in the case where the Minister of National Defence ought to be able to make these decisions as a full minister of the crown, as a top minister of the crown.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-28.
Mr. Dubé.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment aims to create more certainty about the constitutionality of the bill, particularly following Craig Forcese's suggestions. According to him, a better ceiling—or a better floor, that is—needs to be created for the intervention of the intelligence commissioner, in order to authorize various activities and better protect the privacy of Canadians.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
Before I ask for debate, please note that if NDP-28 is adopted, PV-6 and LIB-30 cannot be moved. With that, is there any debate?
Ms. Damoff.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We have three amendments that are all very similar. I think we all have the same intent. We've just come up with wording that's slightly different. It also dovetails on a discussion we had earlier on Green Party, Liberal, and NDP amendments. It all has to do with protecting Canadians and people in Canada when CSE is dealing with the global infrastructure. I asked a number of questions of officials, as did my colleagues across the way. In our opinion, LIB-30 does a better job of ensuring that we are protecting Canadians' rights.
I think I'll cover all three at once to say that we won't be supporting NDP-28 or PV-6 because we feel LIB-30 is the one that does the best job of addressing something that stakeholders asked for.