Debates of Feb. 4th, 2014

Opposition Motion--Communications Security Establishment Canada

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I ask all members to keep their questions and comments and responses to a minute or so.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder at times whether the members of the Conservative Party have hearing blockages or whether there is something fundamental causing them to just not get it. I thought I started off my speech by recognizing the good work that CSIS and CSEC do. I repeated over and over again that the core responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. I do not argue that point. I am arguing the point that there is nobody looking after the shop. I do not know why the hon. member does not get it.

He asks if all I have got is Judge Mosley. You and I have been reading judgments for a long time, Mr. Speaker, and we know judges are generally more circumspect in how they put their ratio decidendi and their judgments. This is one very upset judge, and these are the only ones to which we actually get access.

I want to point out that, yes, he is right. We did start CSEC when we were in government. That was the idea. I understand that. That is why we put it in place. However, if he was listening, and I do not think he was, the time at which that agency was created was in the last millennium, and technology has moved way beyond our legislative capacity to supervise.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his speech, and especially for his comments regarding the minister's response. Many questions were asked by the NDP and the Liberals in question period and he always answered that Canadians were not targeted.

I do not know to what extent MPs understand how the collection of metadata works. Metadata about 100 million people in one room can be collected without targeting anyone. However, information has been collected that could reveal many things about a particular person.

The answer given leads us to believe that the government is not very concerned about protecting Canadians' privacy. We have seen that on a number of occasions. For example, the Conservatives voted against my Bill C-475 on personal information protection. Furthermore, they have failed to put in place transparency mechanisms for CSEC.

Consequently, what are the risks of casting a large net to collect metadata about so many Canadians? What risks does this pose to Canadians' privacy?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I say that the hon. member is from a generation that probably understands this better than I do. Her core question is, what happens when all of this data starts to get collected and how will that be used? In asking that question, she asks something very profound because we actually do not know how this data is going to be used. We do not know how it will be used and abused.

I will give an example of the abuse of power. I come from a multi-ethnic riding, and from time to time people come to my office who have had trouble at the border based upon the similarity of their names with others'. They just try to get those problems cleared up. It takes months and years, and sometimes it just cannot be done.

That is on a minor issue, but how this data is used and abused is yet to be discussed; hence, the reason for a parliamentary committee sworn to secrecy to act as a supervisory entity.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand why my hon. colleague thinks that the Conservatives are not going to support what we are talking about today. They did back in 2005. They recognized that parliamentary oversight would be a good thing.

In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, more recently in talking about the long form census questionnaire, said that he was so concerned about the privacy of Canadians that he felt government had absolutely no business knowing how many bathrooms one had in one's house, which was one of the questions on the long form census. That certainly led me to believe that the Conservative government actually cared about the privacy of individuals, enough to actually kill the long form census.

I am curious as to the member's thoughts on why the government is now suddenly no longer so concerned about the privacy of individuals, because metadata tells us where one is calling from, who one is calling and how often. It is very privacy-invasive information.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point. However, it is way beyond me to speculate on the logic of the Conservative government. That is a bridge too far. There is no rationale, rhyme or reason, certainly when juxtaposed against the long from census.

The federal government killed the long form census because it intruded into private lives. The same government has an airport grab, and we do not know whether it has stopped, which means that Ottawa was not getting a snapshot of our lives every five years, but it was in our pocket and purse, following us on vacation and to the car rental agency and gas station and washroom. Apparently, the Conservatives are not interested in how many washrooms one has, but they are interested in whether one went to the washroom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we also have to remember the context in which this information comes to us. It is from Edward Snowden, who has been releasing information. I have seen reports from the German media of an interview he did today, which was completely blacked-out so that citizens in the United States and Canada could not see his interview, wherein he describes what he has seen as a security officer misrepresented by intelligence forces. This reminds me of what Count Münster said years ago in describing Czarist Russia as “Absolutism tempered by assassination”. I wonder if we are looking at “Big Brother tempered by leaks”.

Without citizen oversight, how do we assess the difference between legitimate inquiry and an extensive and anti-democratic invasion of our privacy?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for hitting the nail on the head.

On the conflict between the right of the citizen to be protected and the right to privacy, my answer to her is to support the motion by my colleague from Malpeque, because that would provide parliamentary oversight of all of us, governments, commissioners, and agencies alike.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Provencher will have 14 minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak against the Liberal motion before us today.

I grew up at a time when, as a youngster, I played street and ball hockey with my friends in the evening. I knew it was time to go home when the siren at the local fire hall rang at 9 o'clock in the evening and my parents expected me home. I also walked to school in the morning and my parents expected that probably sometime around 4:30 or 5 o'clock, I would again be home for dinner.

Our world has changed. Even in rural Manitoba, where I grew up, we would be hard pressed today to see groups of street-hockey enthusiasts playing late into the evening without parental supervision. Parents drive their children or walk their children to school and pick them up at the end of the day. Our world has changed, and therefore I speak against the Liberal motion before us today.

There is no task more critical for a government than to ensure the safety and security of its law-abiding citizens. Our government has a robust system of agencies and departments that, despite having separate mandates and areas of responsibility, work closely together on issues of national security to protect the safety of Canadians. Securing Canadian life and property requires a multi-partner approach and a clearly defined review structure. Our government recognizes the importance of independent reviews and ensures that Canadians feel confident in their government and know that their best interests are at the forefront.

Today we face complex and shifting threats across the globe, and we must continue to adapt and evolve how we detect, disrupt, and prevent attacks from happening. Indeed, our government's efforts to keep Canadians safe do not stop when they leave the country. We work with our international security partners to protect our citizens abroad. Indeed, Canada has in place a number of national strategies and international agreements that are founded on solid partnerships across all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, business and private sector, and community groups.

Of particular note, Canada's counter-terrorism strategy guides more than 20 federal departments and agencies to better align them to protect, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. Among these federal agencies are the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS; and the Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSEC. The mandates of these two bodies are established in the CSIS Act and the National Defence Act. They obligate both organizations to carry out their activities in strict adherence to Canadian laws. The statutes that created both CSIS and CSEC also established independent review bodies to provide external arm's-length review of those critical national security functions.

As we have heard in this debate, the Communications Security Establishment Canada plays a very important security and intelligence role, helping to protect Canada and Canadians against foreign-based terrorism, foreign espionage, cyberattacks, terrorism, kidnappings of Canadians abroad, and other serious threats with a significant foreign involvement.

Another critical national security agency I will discuss is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Governed by the CSIS Act, 1984, the service acts to collect and analyze information and security intelligence from across the country and abroad, and reports to and advises the Government of Canada on national security issues and activities that threaten the security of Canada. Again, this mandate carries great responsibility and implications for Canadians. The responsibility for review of CSIS activities rests primarily with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, which was created under the CSIS Act also in 1984.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee is an independent external review body that reports on the service's operations. To perform its functions, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has access to all information held by the service, with the exception of cabinet confidences. Furthermore, the committee meets with and interviews CSIS staff regularly and formally questions CSIS witnesses in a quasi-judicial complaints process.

The results of Security Intelligence Review Committee reviews and complaints are regularly discussed among members of the CSIS executive, and the service has adopted most of the committee's recommendations over the years.

The SIRC annual report, also tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, plays an important role in providing Parliament and the Canadian public with a broad understanding of CSIS operations.

As members of the House will see, our government takes the security of Canadians very seriously. The fact remains that terrorism is a multi-faceted phenomenon. The national security threat environment has evolved dramatically over the past several decades. Indeed, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 forced a fundamental shift in the way we think about public safety. Moreover, the exponential growth of the Internet has meant another shift in focus to protecting our citizens and interests from sophisticated cyber-criminal activity that threatens our critical infrastructure, economic growth, and public safety.

Canada is well positioned to meet these serious threats because we have a robust national security system in place, one that involves transparency, accountability, and strong checks and balances to keep Canadians safe while protecting their rights and freedoms.

Canadians expect and deserve to live in a country in which their government is working with its allies to create a strong and robust national security system that is ready to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to any type of emergency.

Canadians want to know that their streets and communities are safe. That is why our Conservative government passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it a criminal offence to travel overseas to engage in terrorist activity. Shockingly, the NDP opposed this important legislation. That is why we are bringing forward entry and exit information sharing.

The Liberals also continue to vote against any measures that will keep Canadians safe, which should come as no surprise from a party led by someone who said he would not rule out ending mandatory minimum sentences for anyone. Canadians know that only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep them safe from those who wish to harm us.

In a statement by the CSEC Commissioner, the hon. Jean-Pierre Plouffe, on January 30, reported by the CBC, he said the following:

Past commissioners have reviewed CSEC metadata activities and have found them to be in compliance with the law and to be subject to comprehensive and satisfactory measures to protect the privacy of Canadians. CSEC is providing full cooperation to my office in the conduct of another ongoing in-depth review of these activities, which was formally approved in the fall of 2012.

He goes on to say:

...my predecessor issued a statement referring to CSEC metadata activities. Many reviews of CSEC activities conducted by the Commissioner’s office include examination of CSEC use of metadata. For example, we verify how metadata is used by CSEC to target the communications of foreign entities located outside Canada, and we verify how metadata is used by CSEC to limit its assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies to what is authorized by a court order or warrant.

He added that as commissioner he was independent of the government and CSEC, and as such did not take direction from any minister of the crown or from CSEC. He truly is an independent review individual.

We do not comment on specific CSEC methods, operations, or capabilities. To do so would undermine CSEC's ability to carry out its mandate. It would also be inappropriate to comment on the activities or the capabilities of our allies. That being said, CSEC is prohibited from targeting the communications of persons in Canada or Canadians anywhere under its foreign intelligence and cyber-protection mandates.

CSEC is required to operate within all Canadian laws, including the Privacy Act, which has legislated measures in place to protect the privacy of Canadians. Protecting the privacy of Canadians is the law and CSEC follows the letter and the spirit of the law. As well, CSEC's activities are reviewed by the independent CSEC Commissioner, who has specifically noted CSEC's continued adherence to lawful compliance and genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians. In fact, the CSEC Commissioner praised CSEC's chiefs, who “have spared no effort to instill within CSEC a culture of respect for the law and for the privacy of Canadians”. I can say with pride and confidence that CSEC is truly being watched.

It is rich that Liberals have moved today's motion criticizing CSEC's use of metadata when it was the Liberals who first approved CSEC's metadata collection in 2005.

The chief of CSEC appeared before the Senate committee last night to answer all questions on these allegations, and provided assurances that CSEC was acting within its legal authorities. The independent CSE Commissioner reviews all CSEC activities and has never found CSEC to have acted unlawfully.

I am perplexed as to why a Liberal government that created the Security Intelligence Review Committee and then took the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service out of the hands of members of Parliament now wants to create a national security committee of parliamentarians to oversee the two bodies we are speaking about today.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member say something to the effect of “now the Liberals want to create a national security committee of parliamentarians”, but is he not aware that this is an idea that was proposed by the former Martin government, I think in 2005?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of independent review and maintaining Canadians' trust in our national security activities. National security organizations, specifically CSIS and CSEC, are subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner respectively. The review bodies have always found these agencies to work within the confines of Canadian law.

The government continues to develop options that would deliver an effective and robust review and accountability without undermining the operations of departments and agencies, or their capacity to protect Canada and Canadians, and without creating needless duplication. In addition, certain RCMP and CSEC activities are subject to judicial oversight or require ministerial approval.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #48

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—ATM Fees

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Thibault relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #49

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.