Joël Lightbound

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

I think we need to look at the whole picture when comparing the proposed committee to other committees, particularly with regard to the selection process. The committee in question has more powers than the one in place in Great Britain. We are giving the committee teeth, or in other words, we are giving it the means of assessing the various intelligence agencies, not just separately but as a whole.

We need to focus on that. Even renowned academics, such as Craig Forcese, have said that this committee meets Canadians' expectations.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his question.

Indeed, we are addressing a gap that exists in Canada. It was practically inconceivable that we did not have such a committee. This should alleviate certain concerns that Canadians may have regarding these activities, and goodness knows that they are growing concerns.

The threat against us is becoming increasingly diffuse. We therefore need to give our police forces and intelligence agencies the tools they need, but we also must have checks and balances to ensure this power is being used properly and within the confines of the law.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, what is important to realize about this committee is that not only is it independent of the executive, but it is also independent of the intelligence agencies. It is a committee of parliamentarians.

That is how all our allies do it. When we think of the Five Eyes, whether the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, or Australia, they all use the same principle. It is about empowering parliamentarians to once again be able to scrutinize what is being done in secrecy for the sake of national security, in order to ensure that the legal framework is being respected. In that regard, I see it as an independent committee.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier before being interrupted for oral question period, I think that Bill C-22, to establish an independent committee of parliamentarians to oversee the actions of our intelligence agencies, is a step that should have been taken long ago.

For example, the United Kingdom has had such a committee since 1994. Australia formed one in 1988 and New Zealand in 1996. Canada is at least a decade behind. The step we are taking today is way overdue, as they say.

When Parliament was passing Bill C-51, four former prime ministers, namely Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, John Turner, and even Joe Clark, a Progressive Conservative prime minister not a neo-conservative, recommended that this oversight committee be formed. They recommended oversight of Canada's overseers and said that it would take an independent committee that would be called to review the actions of our intelligence agencies. These four former prime ministers were accompanied by a host of former Supreme Court justices and former justice ministers, including Irwin Cotler, for example.

According to them:

Accountability engenders public confidence and trust in activities undertaken by the government, particularly where those activities might be cloaked in secrecy. Independent checks and balances ensure that national security activities are protecting the public, and not just the government in power.

Consider the extent of the resources used in the name of security in Canada. Communications Security Establishment Canada, which I am more familiar with than the other intelligence agencies such as CSIS or the RCMP, has annual expenses of about $500 million and its headquarters cost us $1.2 billion. CSE's headquarters is the most expensive building in the history of Canada.

In 2010, we learned that CSE was analyzing 400,000 emails a day to mitigate risk to information technology. These were emails sent to the government.

In 2014, we learned that CSE had studied email and cellphone metadata from Canadians travelling through a Canadian airport without actually getting their consent.

Before the Spencer decision, we learned that a number of Canadian telecommunication companies were voluntarily handing over information at the request of intelligence agencies without judicial authorization.

Under the circumstances, I do not think it is an extravagance to have an independent parliamentary committee overseeing the activities of our intelligence agencies, thereby ensuring that they do not act with impunity and are accountable not only to themselves but to elected parliamentarians.

Bill C-22 also addresses people's expectations for such a committee. Professor Craig Forcese, for whom I have tremendous respect, articulated certain expectations. He talked about four essential factors.

First, efficacy must be part of the committee's mandate. The committee must be able to evaluate whether our intelligence agencies are using their vast sums of money effectively. That is part of the committee's rather broad mandate. He also talked about propriety. The committee has to review whether government intelligence agencies are acting within their legal mandates.

Mr. Forcese also mentioned that the committee has to look at the whole picture. It cannot look at just the RCMP, CSIS, or Communications Security Establishment Canada. It must take a good look at the national security activities of all our intelligence agencies. His fourth and final proposal is to have enough money and human resources for the committee to do a good job. All these proposals are within the committee's mandate.

The committee created by Bill C-22 meets all the criteria. In my opinion, we will have an effective committee and one that will be useful for Canadians. It is a first step in the right direction, the first in a thousand-mile journey towards having checks and balances on the power given to intelligence agencies.

We need to have better and more robust checks and balances, especially when it comes to the fundamental rights of Canadians. I am hopeful about the thousand-mile journey we have to travel, especially with Bill C-22 as our first step. First and foremost, we need to return to specific judicial authorization regarding legal access. Judicial authorization, that is, a judicially authorized warrant for a specific person, for specific purposes, must be the norm in Canada. It must be the basic rule, and there must be no getting around it. In fact, I think we must be very strict about that.

In that regard, I congratulate the Liberal Party for having introduced Bill C-622 back in the day, a bill that required CSE to obtain judicial authorization before intercepting any Canadians' communications. That is not necessarily required at the moment. The ministerial authorization is broader. I hope we return to specific judicial authorization for access to Canadians' private communications.

The second thing is that there is no definition for metadata in any Canadian legislation. In the 21st century, we need to define metadata, particularly in terms of private communications. That would be an additional protection, especially when we know just how useful and precise metadata are.

For instance, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's former information and privacy commissioner, said that metadata were more intrusive than the contents of a communication, because they make it possible to track people's habits and create very specific portraits.

The third thing has to do with Bill C-51. I know we are reviewing the bill and that we still have some consultations to do, but the information sharing the bill allows is fairly draconian. There is a way to limit information sharing among government agencies. The Maher Arar case showed us just what kind of impact that can have.

If we want to protect both Canadians and rights, an independent committee overseeing the activities of our government agencies is not too much to ask for. It is our job as legislators to strike a balance between protecting basic rights and protecting the physical integrity of Canadians. Bill C-22 is an excellent first step in that direction, and we have been waiting for it for at least 10 years.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22, which in my opinion is at least 10 years late, if not more.

When we think about increased spending on security in response to a threat that is growing ever more diffuse and the increased authority granted to our intelligence agencies, the need to implement an effective system of checks and balances and appropriate oversight mechanisms seems obvious.

That is what Bill C-22 does. It seeks to correct that deficiency by providing seven MPs and two senators the opportunity to conduct a rather holistic review of all of Canada's surveillance mechanisms to determine whether they are effective and appropriate.

Right now, there is no such process in place. Every agency has its own mandate for reviewing its internal procedures. This independent committee of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the Senate will bring us into the modern world when it comes to the oversight of our intelligence agencies.

Four of the Five Eyes allies, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, set up independent committees of parliamentarians ages ago, so it is surprising that Canada waited this long to do the same. One wonders if the former government did anything at all about this issue.

This was one of our campaign promises. I am very proud that we are moving forward with it today, and I think Canadians will be better off as a result. Nevertheless, this is just the first step, and we still have a lot more to do.

I am also very pleased that the government has begun consultations on public safety and national security. That is a step in the right direction. We need to hear what Canadians have to say. We have to figure out how to protect Canadians' rights and keep them safe. Those two things go hand in hand, and we must not neglect one in favour of the other.

Bill C-22 and the creation of this committee represent the first step in ensuring respect for Canadians' rights while keeping them safe. This bill has been very well received by people for whom I have tremendous respect, such as the University of Ottawa's Craig Forcese.

He gave Bill C-22 and the committee it creates a high pass. Forcese is a leading academic in his field, and his endorsement is worth something.

I can see that I am almost out of time and question period is about to start. I will pause for now, but I will get into other aspects of this bill when I conclude my remarks.

[Electoral Reform, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in the House before the summer recess was to invite my colleagues to take in Quebec City's summer festival. I want to thank all those who spent time and money discovering my magnificent region.

Today, it is with the same enthusiasm that I am issuing a second invitation, but this one is a little more serious. I would like to invite everyone in my region who is concerned about the future of our democracy to participate in the consultations on electoral reform that I am holding on October 11 at the Grand Salon at Université Laval with my colleague, the hon. member for Québec. It is an opportunity for everyone to provide input to us as well as to Professors Derriennic and Massicotte from Université Laval's faculty of political science, and Florence Côté, president of the Forum Jeunesse de la région de la Capitale-Nationale.

All those who are interested in having a fairer and more modern voting system can join us at 5 p.m. on October 11 at the Grand Salon at Université Laval, at 5 p.m. I look forward to seeing a large turnout.

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. I have several questions I would like to ask him.

First, is he aware that regional representation is one of the criteria that will be considered by the committee and by the Prime Minister?

Is he also aware that we support the motion that is before us today?

Can he recognize that the process proposed by the government is far better than the process used over the past 10 years? The bar was set very low.

Can he also recognize that the process will be very open and transparent? Does he recognize that for the first time in Canada's history, we will formalize what I think is an essential criterion, the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices, which is already a requirement for the position?

Can he recognize that?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the APF, respecting its participation at the meeting of the Cooperation and Development Committee of the APF, held in Midrand, South Africa, from April 26 to 28, 2016.

[La Capitale Financial Security Insurance Company, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That Bill S-1001, An Act to authorize La Capitale Financial Security Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[Gilles Lamontagne, June 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the honourable Gilles Lamontagne passed away last Tuesday evening.

Mr. Lamontagne had a full life. He was the mayor of Quebec City from 1965 to 1977, Liberal MP from 1977 to 1984, national defence minister in the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, lieutenant-governor of Quebec until 1990, Officer of the Order of Canada, Chevalier de l'Ordre national du Québec, and Chevalier of the French Legion of Honour.

Mr. Lamontagne was a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot in World War II. The bomber he was flying was shot down, and he was detained as a prisoner of war in a concentration camp for almost two years. Mr. Lamontagne was a hero, a builder, a statesman, and for all of us in Quebec, he will always be “Mr. Mayor”.

I did not know Mr. Lamontagne personally because I am too young and I only entered politics very recently. However, I do know that, like everyone who believes in serving others and who is committed to the Quebec City region, the province of Quebec, and Canada, we are all his successors.

As he takes his last flight, I want to tell him, on my behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues, “Thank you, Mr. Mayor”.