SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 76 of the Bill.
John Davies, Scott Millar, Charles Arnott, Cherie Henderson, Merydee Duthie, Sophie Beecher and Douglas Breithaupt answered questions.
(a) by replacing line 5 on page 62 with the following:
“ance of the defensive cyber op-”
(b) by replacing line 10 on page 62 with the following:
“tion issued under subection 30(1).”
(c) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 66 with the following:
“31 (1) No Active Cyber Operations Authorization is to be issued by the Minister to the Establishment that authorizes”
(d) by deleting lines 3 to 9 on page 67;
(e) by replacing line 11 on page 67 with the following:
“tion issued under subsection 30(1) may authorize”
(f) by replacing line 27 on page 67 with the following:
“tion issued under subsection 30(1), the Estab-”
(g) by replacing line 2 on page 68 with the following:
“subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1) only on the”
(h) by deleting lines 13 to 16 on page 68;
(i) by replacing line 18 on page 68 with the following:
“subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1) only if he or”
(j) by replacing line 2 on page 70 with the following:
“section 30(1) only if he or she concludes that”
(k) by replacing line 11 on page 70 with the following:
“or (2) or 30(1) must specify”
(l) by replacing line 2 on page 71 with the following:
“28(1) or (2) or 30(1) may be valid for a period not”
(m) by replacing line 13 on page 71 with the following:
“under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1), the”
(n) by replacing line 22 on page 71 with the following:
“section 30(1), the Minister must notify the Re-”
(o) by replacing line 25 on page 71 with the following:
“der subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1) at any”
(p) by replacing line 28 on page 71 with the following:
“under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1) if the”
(q) by replacing line 14 on page 72 with the following:
“der subsection 30(1).”
(r) by replacing line 31 on page 72 with the following:
“is authorized only to the extent that it is carried”
(s) by replacing line 8 on page 75 with the following:
“37(2), 40(1) and 41(1).”
(t) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 75 with the following:
“tion issued under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2), 30(1) or 41(1) or who aids, in good faith, a person who”
(u) by replacing line 29 on page 75 with the following:
“28(1) or (2), 30(1) or 41(1) or in relation to a com-”
(v) by replacing line 2 on page 76 with the following:
“(2), 30(1) or 41(1); or”
(w) by replacing line 7 on page 76 with the following:
“27(1), 28(1) or (2), 30(1) or 41(1), the Chief must”
(x) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 76 with the following:
“out under an authorization issued under subsection 30(1).”
(y) by replacing line 19 on page 76 with the following:
“or (2), 30(1) or 41(1) and orders made under sec-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing line 10 on page 62 with the following:
“tion issued under section 30 or 31.”
(b) by deleting lines 30 and 31 on page 66;
(c) by deleting lines 3 to 9 on page 67;
(d) by replacing line 11 on page 67 with the following:
“tion issued under section 30 or 31 may authorize”
(e) by replacing line 27 on page 67 with the following:
“tion issued under section 30 or 31, the Estab-”
(f) by replacing line 2 on page 68 with the following:
“subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31 only on the”
(g) by deleting lines 13 to 16 on page 68;
(h) by replacing line 18 on page 68 with the following:
“subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31 only if he or”
(i) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 70 with the following:
“(4) The Minister may issue an authorization under section 30 or 31 only if he or she concludes that”
(j) by replacing line 11 on page 70 with the following:
“or (2) or section 30 or 31 must specify”
(k) by replacing line 2 on page 71 with the following:
“28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31 may be valid for a period not”
(l) by replacing line 13 on page 71 with the following:
“under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31, the”
(m) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 71 with the following:
“significant and the authorization was issued under section 30 or 31, the Minister must notify the Re-”
(n) by replacing line 25 on page 71 with the following:
“der subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31 at any”
(o) by replacing line 28 on page 71 with the following:
“under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or section 30 or 31 if the”
(p) by replacing line 14 on page 72 with the following:
“der section 30 or 31.”
(q) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 72 with the following:
“an amended authorization issued under section 30 or 31 is authorized only to the extent that it is carried”
(r) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 75 with the following:
“that are set out in subsections 27(1), 28(1) and (2), sections 30 and 31 and subsections 37(2), 40(1) and 41(1).”
(s) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 75 with the following:
“tion issued under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2), section 30 or 31 or subsection 41(1) or who aids, in good faith, a person who”
(t) by replacing line 29 on page 75 with the following:
“28(1) or (2), section 30 or 31 or subsection 41(1) or in relation to a com”
(u) by replacing line 2 on page 76 with the following:
“(2), section 30 or 31 or subsection 41(1); or”
(v) by replacing line 7 on page 76 with the following:
“27(1), 28(1) or (2), section 30 or 31 or subsection 41(1), the Chief must”
(w) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 76 with the following:
“out under an authorization issued under section 30 or 31.”
(x) by replacing line 19 on page 76 with the following:
“or (2), section 30 or 31 or subsection 41(1) and orders made under sec-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Blaine Calkins and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing line 13 on page 62 with the following:
“must not contravene any other Act of Parliament or involve the acquisition of information in respect of which a Canadian has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless”
(b) by replacing line 19 on page 62 with the following:
“Parliament or involve the acquisition of information in respect of which a Canadian has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless they are carried out under an autho-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 76, be amended
(a) by replacing line 13 on page 62 with the following:
“must not contravene any other Act of Parliament and must not have for their objective the acquisition of information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by a Canadian or a person in Canada unless”
(b) by replacing line 19 on page 62 with the following:
“Parliament and must not have for their objective the acquisition of information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by a Canadian or a person in Canada unless they are carried out under an autho-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
(a) replacing line 13 on page 62 with the following:
“must not contravene any other Act of Parliament — or involve the acquisition by the Establishment of information from or through the global information infrastructure that interferes with the reasonable expectation of privacy of a Canadian or a person in Canada — unless”
(b) replacing line 19 on page 62 with the following:
“Parliament — or involve the acquisition by the Establishment of information from the global information infrastructure that interferes with the reasonable expectation of privacy of a Canadian or a person in Canada — unless they are carried out under an autho-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
(a) by replacing line 15 on page 62 with the following:
“subsection 27(1) or 41(1) nor allow the acquisition of information for which there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
(b) by replacing line 20 on page 62 with the following:
“rization issued under subsection 28(1) or (2) or 41(1) nor allow the acquisition of information for which there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“24 (1) The Establish-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“(a) acquiring, using, analysing or retaining”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
(a) by replacing line 27 on page 62 with the following:
“electronic information or infrastructure information for the purpose of research”
(b) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 62 with the following:
“ance activities in accordance with section 18; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
“bilities, after obtaining the consent of all persons whose products, software and systems are concerned.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing line 21 on page 63 with the following:
“(4) The Establishment is not to acquire information relating”
(b) by adding after line 24 on page 63 the following:
“(4.1) In the event that information relating to a Canadian or a person in Canada is incidentally acquired under an authorization referred to in subsection (4), the information must be destroyed without delay upon its discovery.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
(a) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 66 with the following:
“29 (1) An authorization issued under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2), 30(1) or 31(1) is valid when – if it is approved by the”
(b) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 66 with the following:
“an authorization issued under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2), 30(1) or 31(1) is authorized until the authorization is valid under”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“tion issued under subsection 27(1), 28(1) or (2) or 30(1), the Estab-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“or defeat the course of justice or democracy, including in relation to any judicial proceeding or electoral process.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(c) violate the sexual integrity of an individual;
(d) subject an individual to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture;
(e) detain an individual;
(f) cause the loss of, or any serious damage to, any property if doing so would endanger the safety of an individual; or
(g) 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.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
(a) by replacing line 1 on page 71 with the following:
“37 (1) An authorization issued under subsection”
(b) by adding after line 3 on page 71 the following:
“(1.1) An authorization issued under subsection 27(1) may be valid for a period not exceeding six months.”
(c) by replacing line 5 on page 71 with the following:
“authorization issued under subsection 28(1) or”
(d) by adding after line 7 on page 71 the following:
“(2.1) The Commissioner may, on recommendation by the Minister, extend the period of validity of an authorization issued under subsection 27(1) by a period not exceeding six months following the day referred to in paragraph 36(h), if he or she is satisfied that the conditions for issuing the authorization are still met.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(3) The Minister must, as soon as feasible, notify the Commissioner of any extension of an authorization.”
Pam Damoff moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words "replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 71 with the following: (3)" with the words “adding, after line 10, page 71, the following: (4)”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“is subject to review by the Commissioner under the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 76, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 12 on page 73.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
“subject to review by the Commissioner under the In-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
At 10:32 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 10:40 a.m., the sitting resumed.
“der an authorization issued under subsection 27(1) or 41(1), if the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 0.
“tion relating to a Canadian or a person in Canada that has been acquired, used or analysed in the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
“47.1 (1) The Establishment is prohibited from
(a) disclosing information obtained in the performance of its duties and functions under this Act, or requesting information, if the disclosure or the request would subject an individual to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of mistreatment; or
(b) using information that is believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained as a result of mistreatment of an individual.
(2) For the purposes of this section, mistreatment means torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed at New York on December 10, 1984.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé — 1;
NAYS: Luc Berthold, Blaine Calkins, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michael Levitt, Glen Motz, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 8.
(a) by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 76 with the following:
“Establishment's for the”
(b) by adding after line 29 on page 76 the following:
“(1.1) The entities referred to in subsection (1) include entities that are institutions of foreign states or that are international organizations of states or institutions of those organizations but do not include entities that subject, or are suspected by the Establishment to subject, individuals to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed at New York on December 10, 1984.”
(c) by adding after line 34 on page 76 the following:
“(3) The Minister must not approve an arrangement described in subsection (2) without the approval of the Commissioner.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé — 1;
NAYS: Luc Berthold, Blaine Calkins, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michael Levitt, Glen Motz, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 8.
“its activities during that fiscal year that includes the number of defensive cyber operations and active cyber operations that were carried out, as well as the number of instances in which the Establishment provided technical and operational assistance and whether the assistance was provided to federal law enforcement or security agencies, the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“60.1 (1) Within the first four months after the commencement of each fiscal year, the Establishment must submit to the Minister a report on the administrative costs of meeting the requirements imposed on the Establishment under the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act for the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The Minister shall, within 15 days after a report is submitted under subsection (1), publish the report on its Internet site.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Luc Berthold, Blaine Calkins, Glen Motz — 3;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Michael Levitt, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Luc Berthold, Blaine Calkins, Matthew Dubé, Glen Motz — 4;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michael Levitt, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 5.
Clause 76, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 77 to 81 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 82,
Sven Spengemann moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 82, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 82 the following:“(1.1) Unless the context requires otherwise, every reference to the former department in any Act of Parliament, other than an Act referred to in subsection (1), or in any order, regulation or other instrument made under an Act of Parliament is deemed to be a reference to the new department.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Clause 82, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 83 to 88 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 89 to 91 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 92,
Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 92, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 85 the following:“And whereas the Government of Canada, by carrying out its national security and information activities in a manner that respects rights and freedoms, encourages the international community to do the same;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 92, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 93 carried on division.
Clause 94 carried on division.
On new Clause 94.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 86 the following new clause:“94.1 The portion of the definition threats to the security of Canada in section 2 of the Act after paragraph (d) is replaced by the following:
but does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic expression unless it is carried out by an individual or a group whose intent is to threaten the security of Canada in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
On Clause 95,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 95, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 86 with the following:“95 (1) Subsection 6(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) Directions issued by the Minister under subsection (2) are not statutory instruments for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act. However, they must be published in the Canada Gazette.
(2) Section 6 of the Act is amended by adding the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“95 Subsection 6(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(5) The reports shall include, in respect of the Service’s operational activities to reduce threats to the security of Canada during the period for which the report is made, a general description, for each of the paragraphs of the definition threats to the security of Canada in section 2, of the measures that were taken during the period in respect of the threat within the meaning of that paragraph and the number of those measures.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé — 1;
NAYS: Blaine Calkins, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Michael Levitt, Glen Motz, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 7.
The Chair ruled that the following twelve (12) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 87 with the following:“96 Subsection 7(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) The Director or any employee who is designated by the Minister for the purpose of applying for a warrant under section 21 or 23 shall consult the Deputy Minister before applying for the warrant or the renewal of the warrant.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 103, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 109 to line 34 on page 110 with the following:
“103 Section 21.1 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 110 to line 2 on page 111 with the following:
“104 Section 22.1 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 105, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15 on page 111 with the following:
“105 Section 22.2 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 111 the following new clause:
“105.1 Subsection 22.3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
22.3 (1) A judge may order any person to provide assistance if the person’s assistance may reasonably be considered to be required to give effect to a warrant issued under section 21.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 111 the following new clause:
“105.1 Section 23 of the Act is replaced by the following:
23 (1) On application in writing by the Director or any employee who is designated by the Minister for the purpose, a judge may, if the judge thinks fit, issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom the warrant is directed to remove from any place any thing installed in accordance with a warrant issued under subsection 21(3) and, for that purpose, to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing.
(2) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (1) the matters referred to in paragraphs 21(4)(c) to (f).”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 106, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 29 on page 111 with the following:
“106 Section 24.1 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 111 the following new clause:
“106.1 Paragraph 25(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) the use or disclosure in accordance with this Act of any communication intercepted under the authority of a warrant issued under section 21; or”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 111 the following new clause:
“106.1 Section 26 of the Act is replaced by the following:
26 Part VI of the Criminal Code does not apply in relation to any interception of a communication under the authority of a warrant issued under section 21 or in relation to any communication so intercepted.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 111 with the following:
“thorization, an application under section 21 or 23 for a warrant, an application under section 22 for”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 108, be amended
(a) by replacing line 31 on page 112 with the following:
“that may be issued under section 21 or 23;”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 35 on page 112 with the following:
“warrants that may be issued under section 21 or”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 113 the following new clause:
“109.1 Subsection 53(2) of the Act is repealed.”
Clause 95 carried on division.
Clause 96 carried on division.
On Clause 97,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 97, be amended
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 88 with the following:
“der sections 12 and 16.”
(b) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 93 with the following:
“formance of its duties or functions under sections 12 and 16; and”
(c) by replacing line 14 on page 95 with the following:
“tions under sections 12, 15 and 16; and”
(d) by replacing line 8 on page 97 with the following:
“its duties and functions under section 12.”
(e) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 97 with the following:
“performance of its duties and functions under sections 12 and 15.”
(f) by replacing line 31 on page 97 with the following:
“der section 15; or”
(g) by replacing line 31 on page 99 with the following:
“12, 15 or 16; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
The Chair ruled that the following six (6) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 98, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 100 to line 11 on page 101 with the following:“98 Section 12.1 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 99, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 22 on page 101 with the following:
“99 Section 12.2 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 102, be amended
(a) by replacing line 7 on page 109 with the following:
“of its duties or functions under sections 12 and”
(b) by replacing line 15 on page 109 with the following:
“tions under sections 12 and 16, the judge may, in a”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 36 on page 111 with the following:
“thorization, an application under section 21 or 23 for a warrant or an application under section 22 for the renewal of a warrant shall be heard in private in accordance”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 108, be amended
(a) by replacing line 31 on page 112 with the following:
“that may be issued under section 21 or 23;”
(b) by replacing line 35 on page 112 to line 2 on page 113 with the following:
“warrants that may be issued under section 21 or 23 and for renewals of those warrants;”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 113 the following new clause:
“108.1 Subsection 38(1.1) of the Act is repealed.”
“(1.1) For the purposes of this section, publicly available dataset does not include a dataset that has been published or broadcast only to a selected audience, a dataset that has been purchased illegally or a dataset in respect of which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“(a) be destroyed without delay;
(b) be collected as a dataset under section 11.05; or
(c) be added as an update to a Canadian dataset if the addition is permitted under that Canadian dataset’s judicial authorization.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
“11.16 (1) The Minister may designate a person, including the Director or an employee, for the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
(a) by replacing line 32 on page 95 with the following:
“for a period of not more than one year from the date on”
(b) by adding after line 34 on page 95 the following:
“(3.1) The Intelligence Commissioner may extend the period of validity of an authorization given under subsection (1) by a period of not more than one year from the date on which the period referred to in paragraph (2)(c) ends.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“the query is likely to produce the intelligence referred to in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
“(2.1) The Service may retain the results of a query of a dataset performed under subsection (1) if
(a) the collection, analysis and retention of the results are carried out under section 12;
(b) the retention is strictly necessary to assist the Service in the performance of its duties and functions under section 12.1; or
(c) the retention is required to assist the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs in accordance with section 16.
(2.2) The Service shall, without delay, destroy the results that it cannot retain under subsection (2.1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 97, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 98,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 98, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 100 to line 8 on page 101 with the following:“(3.4) The Service shall not take measures under subsection (1) that would be contrary to Canadian law.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 98 carried on division.
On Clause 99,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 99, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 101 the following:
“(g) limit a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; or
(h) violate international human rights law.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 2.
Clause 99 carried on division.
On Clause 100,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 101 with the following:“100 Section 18.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:
18.1 (1) No employee is guilty of an offence by reason”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 100 carried on division.
On new Clause 100.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 102 the following new clause:“100.1 Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) The Service shall not
(a) disclose information obtained in the performance of its duties and functions under this Act, or request information, if the disclosure or the request would subject an individual to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of mistreatment; or
(b) use information that is believed on reasonable grounds to have been obtained as a result of mistreatment of an individual.
(5) In subsection (4), mistreatment means torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Matthew Dubé — 1;
NAYS: Blaine Calkins, Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, T.J. Harvey, Pierre Paul-Hus, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 7.
On Clause 101,
Pam Damoff moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 101, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 108 the following:“Report to Parliament
20.2 (1) The Service shall, not later than September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Service during the preceding fiscal year, and the Minister shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.”
Debate arose thereon.
Michel Picard moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “not later than September 30 in each fiscal year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Service during the preceding fiscal year,” with the following:
“within 3 months after the end of each calendar year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Service during the preceding calendar year,”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
The question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 101, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 102 carried on division.
On Clause 103,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 103, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 110 the following:“(1.2) Paragraph (1.1)(f) does not authorize the Service to detain an individual.”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(f) interfering with the movement of any person excluding the detention of an individual; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 103, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 104 carried on division.
Clause 105 carried on division.
Clause 106 carried on division.
On Clause 107,
Julie Dabrusin moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 111 with the following:“27 An application for a judicial authorization under section 11.13, an application under section 21, 21.1 or 23”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 107, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 111 the following:
“27.01 (1) The judge to whom an application for a warrant referred to in section 21.1 is made shall, after hearing representations from the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose of making an application for a warrant, appoint a special advocate from among the persons on the list established by the Minister of Justice under subsection 85(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
(2) A special advocate’s role is to protect the interests of the persons, if known, who would be directly affected by the measures proposed to be taken under the warrant.
(3) A special advocate may challenge the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of information or other evidence that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the persons who would be directly affected by the measures proposed to be taken under the warrant and their counsel, and the weight to be given to the information or evidence.
(4) A special advocate is not personally liable for anything they do or omit to do in good faith under this section.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 107, as amended, carried on division.
At 1:03 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.