Thread by @timmcsorley

Back at #SECU for the next round of votes on Bill #C59, in time to see the #NDP motion to give the Intelligence Commissioner powers to go beyond simply saying "yes" or "no" on authorizations be voted down. #cdnpoli

Next Liberal motion, also proposed by Greens, is to ask the #IC to publish decisions not only when rejecting an authorization, but also in approving it (something @ICLMG is in favour of). Passes.

NDP motion that would allow IC to ask for additional information, rather than saying "yes" or "no" to an authorization. Notes that the current #CSE commissioner suggested this amendment #C59 #secu

Public Safety official states that with the current wording, #IC could reject an authorization, and state why (ie, need more information), and Minister could modify and send it back. #C59

Motion is defeated

Conservative motion:That instead of giving the #IC 30 days to render decision, that it must be made in 24hrs. Argue that decisions must be made in real-time.

#PubSafety: Most authorizations will be made on an annual basis, so not necessarily need to make real-time decisions and need more time. There are also provisions for faster authorizations/action in exigent (urgent) situations, in the bill. #c59 #cdnpoli

(Issue with this amendment would be that, regardless of urgency of an authorization, #IC would only be given 24hrs. There doesn't seem to be a need - and could even be harmful - to rush an authorization) #cdnpoli #secu #c59

Motion is defeated

Liberal motion: include additional information/statistics in the #IC annual report (not specificed what kind of information). Motion carries #c59 #secu

Liberal amendment that would allow #IC access to information privileged under the law of evidence (to avoid any confusion with Bill #C58 - access to info law).

Pub Safety official says it was a drafting error, and menat to ensure appropriate access to information for the #IC. Motion passes #c59

Another Liberal motion meant to address a drafting error regarding access to information for the #IC (came to light after bill was introduced). #c59

Motion passes

NDP amendment: to include further information/details in the #IC annual reports that the Minister will submit to Parliament. Liberals and Conservatives apparently have similar motions coming up

Apparently Liberal version explicitly states that confidential information would need to be removed, which NDP and CPC motion would not.

More details on NDP motion: would mandate IC reports to include greater statistics about approvals and rejections of authorizations. Motion defeated #C59 #secu #cdnpoli

Similar CPC motion is defeated.

In an odd twist, NDP is moving a Liberal amendment that they wanted to withdraw, arguing that it is stronger than an upcoming, similar motion. NDP & CPC vote in favour. Liberals vote against their own motion. #secu #cdnpoli #c59

And it's happening again on Liberal 26 (not sure what the wording is). Again, all CPC and NDP members vote in favour of a Liberal motion, that the Liberals vote down #secu #c59 #cdnpoli

(I believe these Liberal amendments would have added greater details to the #IC annual reports. Will try to get details. #c59)

Conservative motion on intelligence to evidence. Glen Motz says that this is to fill a gap between how intelligence can be used as evidence in criminal courts (don't have the exact wording, but believe that it would enter special advocates into criminal trials) #c59 #cdnpoli

Justice official clarifies that it would insert special advocates in section 38 proceedings (of the Evidence Act). Currently, judges are allowed on a case-by-case basis to appoint an 'amicus curiae' to play this role. #c59 #secu

Liberals ask whether it is in order, but chair rules that it is in order. However, motion is defeated. #c59 #secu

Another CPC motion on intelligence to evidence. It would allow the adjudicating judge to make decisions under s.38, and not just a federal court judge (bifurcation vs. non-bifurcation, for you wonks out there). #secu #c59

Motion is defeated.

And we're on to the new #CSE Act! This promises to be a long section, given the complexity and controversy around many of the elements in this part. #c59 #cdnpoli

NDP amendment to add a preamble to the CSE Act to explictly state that the CSE must follow the rule of law and respect the charter or rights and freedoms (similar to what is found in the CSIS Act) #cdnpoli #c59

Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin speaks in favour, proposes a sub-amendment that the NDP supports. #c59 #cdnpoli #SECU

NDP motion passes. First opposition motion to pass in this clause-by-clause review of #c59. MP Dubé quips that he should buy a lottery ticket #cdnpoli #secu

NDP roll seems short-lived. Propose a motion to include clearer definitions of "intercept." Liberal member speaks against. And motion is defeated #c59 #cdnpoli

.@ElizabethMay now moving a motion on "publicly available information," one of the more controversial aspects of this bill. Concern is that #CSE would be allowed to collect a huge swath of information about the public, including Canadians. #c59 #cdnpoli

Green motion would modify the definition of publicly available information to remove information obtained illegally, among others. NDP moves to amend to include language about "reasonable expectation of privacy." #cdnpoli #c59

Liberal member speaks against, questioning wording but also saying that review bodies could judge if there is a problem hear. (Problem with that is that collection could take place, and then need to be rejected in eventual review). #c59

At the heart of this debate is that new powers for #CSE to collect publicly available information would allow them to, for example, buy information from data brokers & other companies (ie, Cambridge Analytica), from social media sites, etc. #c59 #cdpoli

CSE official states that the current wording would not broaden what CSE collects or allow them to collect information about Canadians. NDP disputes that (as have many groups - including @ICLMG - who submitted briefs to the committee) #c59

NDP asks if this #C59 would exclude CSE collecting information like what was shared by Cambridge Analytica. CSE official says that it would not allow them to collect information with a "reasonable expectation of privacy." NDP counters that this doesn't allay concerns #cdnpoli

May states that we cannot rely on the opinion expressed in the charter statement published with #C59 and need to have it explicitly included in the bill. #C59 #cdnpoli

NDP: its true that digital information is rapidly changing, agencies need to be nimble, but doesn't justify the broad definition of publicly available information. #c59 #cdnpoli

NDP subamendment is defeated. And the main Green motion is defeated. #cdnpoli #c59 #secu

Next NDP motion is essentially identical. Dubé expresses his incomprehension about why there is this lack of flexibility on the definition of publicly available information.

Argues that, as he has been told, nothing in his amendment would stop the #CSE from carrying out the work as intended with the current clause, why not make the definition more specific? #c59 #cdpoli

Liberals and Conservatives all vote against the amendment. Definition of publicly available information remains unchanged. This is highly disappointing, given the sheer number of concerns that have been raised at committee. #c59 #cdnpoli

It is made even worse since the revelation of the breadth of the #CambridgeAnalytica scandal. Liberals and Conservatives had an opportunity to protect our information, and didn't #c59 #cdnpoli

Next up, Liberal motion that would place more rules around use of information related to CSE's mandate to protect cyber infrastructure (from what I understand). #c59 #cdnpoli

This one is a little hard to follow, without the text of the amendment in front of me. #c59 #cdnpoli

Amendment passes #c59

Chair just gives out news that nine dead and 16 injured in Toronto this afternoon. Absolutely horrific.

NDP moves motion that all ministerial directions to CSE be made public (building on the Liberal amendment last week specifically on directions related to complicity in torture). Liberals speak against, stating that these directions often contain info injurious to #natsec #c59

Motion is defeatd

Liberal motion to again make the bill in accordance with the Public Service Act. Passes. #c59 #cdnpoli

NDP motion to add another specific statement that CSE actions cannot violate the charter of rights and freedoms. Liberals state that it is too specific, and Liberals will attempt to address later on #cdnpoli #c59

NDP argues that this exact wording is being proposed in changes to the #CSIS act, so why is it inappropriate for the #CSE #c59

Liberal amendment pares down the language, but NDP asks why the language shouldn't be consistent with what is being proposed for the CSIS Act #c59 #cdnpoli

CSE official arguing that there could be unintended consequence, based on the differences in mandate and activities between CSE and CSIS #cdnpoli #c59

CSE states that in CSIS act this applies to warrants for threat reduction powers, which isn't a power granted to the CSE. #cdnpoli #c59

Lots of back and forth about why there needs to be more limited wording in the NDP motion. Have to admit, I'm not clear on it, either. #c59

However, the Liberal subamendment passes, changing language of NDP original motion. NDP & Conservatives vote against the subamendment #c59 #cdnpoli

However, unanimous consent on the original amendment (as amended). I'll try and get the final language to share (phew). #c59 #cdnpoli

And that's a wrap for today's #SECU meeting on #C59. Tomorrow they are back at it, from 9am to 1pm. Not sure I can afford to sit in for all four hours, but will try and get some updates out. #cdnpoli

unroll