Account Share

 

Thread by @timmcsorley: "10 minutes late to SECU and it's moving fast. Catching up. For those following, clause 109 of c59 cdnpoli Conservative motion, similar to wi […]" #SECU #C59 #cdnpoli #CSE

118 tweets
10 minutes late to #SECU and it's moving fast. Catching up. For those following, clause 109 of #c59 #cdnpoli
Conservative motion, similar to with #CSE, asking #CSIS to report annually on the costs incurred due to oversight. Both #NDP & #Liberals argue that this creates a new administrative burden. #NDP argues could be used to try & undermine new review & oversight bodies
Motion fails
Lights flash/bells sound for House vote. Chair unable to get unanimous consent to continue, so the meeting is suspended. Not certain for how long. So maybe they committee won't get through #C59 tonight...
Anyone got tips on what to do while you're waiting in Parliament for a vote to happen & committee to resume?
And we're back. We're onto #SCISA/#SCIDA First up: NDP motion to change definition of activities that undermine the security of Canada to threats to the national security of Canada. #c59
Greens proposing similar motions. Arguing for the need to restrict definition of threats to Canada's national security, which were seen as incredibly over-broad in #C51, which introduced #SCISA
Liberals arguing that because "threats to the security of Canada" appears in CSIS and are defined there, cannot have it in two places. Official says that #SCISA definition applies not just to #CSISbut government-wide #c59
(However, this Liberal argument to me misses the point: the goal is in fact to bring the definition of threats in #SCISA in line with the definition of threats in the CSIS Act)
Greens and NDP make a similar argument: we need consistency.
Motion is defeated. Definition of activities that undermine the security of Canada remains the same #SCISA #c59
(or, at least, the wording "activities that undermine the security of Canada" remains. They may yet be motions to amend what those actually are #SCISA #C59)
NDP moving another consequential amend as part of efforts to repeal #SCISA. Ruled inadmissible. #C59
NDP continues to move amendments to repeal #SCISA/#SCIDA, which @MattDube describes as being problematic for being the least changed part of the previous Bill #C51. #c59
Another Green motion in the similar direction is defeated. #c59
CPC motion regarding the exception for protest/dissent in #SCISA. Motion is defeated (not clear what it's exact wording was)
All motions on #SCISA/#SCIDA being voted down pretty quickly (or ruled inadmissible). #c59
CPC motion to bring an amendment that a public servant MUST share information, instead of MAY share information (Clause 118). Motion fails #C59
NDP motion to change the threshold for disclosure of information to "necessary" (instead of "will contribute to"). Again on Clause 118 (pp. 116-117) #c59.
Liberals argue it goes too far. Motion defeated. #c59
Liberal motion: To add a necessity threshold only to the disclosure of personal information, and to allow for its destruction once the receiving organization deems it unnecessary (from what I understand). #C59
NDP arguing that it doesn't go nearly far enough to reflect the testimony of the @PrivacyPrivee, @cancivlib, @bccla, @ICLMG and others.
Liberal motion passes #c59
Liberal motion: To bring SCISA in line with privacy act as being an entity able to disclose private information. Motion passes. #c59
NDP to allow the Privacy Commissioner to obtain documents shared via #SCIDA. Liberals argue that this falls to #NSIRA. #c59
Reminder: #SCISA = Security of Canada Information Sharing Act (#C51) and #SCIDA = Security of Canada Information DISCLOSURE Act (#C59).
Liberals have passed a few technical motions to bring the rest of the act in line with the "necessity" requirements for disclosing private information. #c59
Greens & NDP taking principled stand, moving all motions to rescind SCIDA/change language to "threats to the security of Canada", despite them all being voted down or ruled inadmissible. #c59
And we're onto the Secure Air Travel Act (#SATA), better known as the #NoFlyList.
Oh, hold up. Greens are moving a motion to rescind a change to security certificate hearings in IRPA made with Bill #C51 that limited access to the information made available to special advocates #c59
Liberals are now arguing in favour of these changes from Bill #C51.
Motion fails. Truly disappointing that the Liberals did not vote in favour of a change in line with recommendations of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Onto #SATA: NDP motion to change the threshold to add a person to the no fly list to "reasonable grounds to believe" (from reasonable grounds to suspect). #c59
Official states that while "reasonable grounds to suspect" is a lower threshold, is still rooted in fact and is used in other pieces of legislation.
Motion fails #c59
We've seen more than 500 people send letters to #SECU members asking them to take action on the lack of due process in the #NoFlyList. But it is looking like Liberals (and Conservatives) will not take this opportunity to further protect our rights & liberties.
NDP motion so that people who are placed on the list are notified when they are placed on the list, rather than only finding out after they are stopped from flying. #c59
Conservatives are arguing that if you are on the list, you are already a threat to national security - and that you know you're a threat to national security - so do not need to be informed that you are a national security threat. #c59
NDP motion to reduce the period for the Minister to give an answer to someone challenging their listing to 30 days (from 120 days) #c59
Green's will also be proposing a motion to keep the delay at 90 days (as it is in #c51) instead of the #c59 increase to 120 days.
The Liberals are arguing that there would be disclosure and back and forth between the minister and the person challenging their listing during these 120 days, and that 90 days (let alone 30 days) is too short
NDP motion fails. Vote on Green motion (for 90 days): motion fails. #c59 #SATA
NDP motion to change the current wording of SATA to say that if a judge finds the Minister's decision unreasonable, they "must" remove the person from the list, as opposed to "may".
Official says the wording is to give the judge the discretion to find another remedy other than removing a person from the list (if other infomration is presented that gives reason to keep them on the list, say).
NDP motion fails
NPD motion for an annual report that would include how many people are on the list, etc. Liberals argue that this could cause national security concerns.
We've always argued that it is unfathomable that we cannot know how many people are on the No Fly List.
Liberals argue that other review bodies exist for accountability. NDP expresses concern that Liberals are constantly referring to review bodies as opposed increasing directly accountability and transparency of #natsec agencies #c59
Motion defeated.
Green Party motion (part of a series) to add a special advocate into the #NoFlyList process to represent the public interest in secret hearings. #c59 #sata
Liberals say they have four amendments themselves coming up regarding special advocates. Asks officials for their stance: that judges always have discretion to add an amicus (as opposed to a mandated special advocate). #c59
Oh, it turns out Pam Damoff misspoke. There are *NDP* amendments coming up. I thought we had a shocking turn of events! But no. #C59 #SATA
Aaaaaand, Green Party amendment on special advocates for #NoFlyList secret hearings fails. As does their follow-up motion. #C59 #SATA
NDP (not Liberal) special advocate motion. Fails. #C59 #SATA #NoFlyList
NDP follow-up amendment fails. #C59 #NoFlyList
And we're done with the #NoFlyList. But Greens have a motion to amend those sections such that special advocates have access to all information that the government has on record regarding security certificates. #IRPA #c59 #c51
Motion fails
NDP motion to make changes to the Terrorist Entities Listing, based on arguments presented by @cforcese and #KentRoach. Making strong argument about the dubious constitutionality of the list, and leads to costly litigation. #c59
Liberal argument that ideally the protection of national security would be more straight forward. But it isn't. US has a similar list, Canada isn't only one, and that it's an important tool. Asks officials what the impact of these changes would be.
Official says that this process is the way Canada has chosen to comply with UN List 1267. Hard to keep up with all arguments, but essentially listing safeguards attached to the listing process. #c59
Liberals argue that this tool puts us in line with our allies in the fight against terrorism. #c59
NDP states that their amendments do not remove the ability to freeze assets, just that it must go through the courts (and not a list created by Minister of Public Safety). Now quoting from the @cforcese & #KentRoach article
The article is: "Yesterday’s Law: Terrorist Group Listing in Canada" from Feb. 28, 2018, online here: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108… #c59 #cdnpoli
Justice Dept. official pointing out that "listed entity" is worked into other parts of the criminal code. So changing that would have impact on various parts of criminal code meant to comply with List 1267
NDP motion on terrorist entities listing is defeated. #c59
Liberal motion: On a decision to not de-list entity, it is proposed that the Minister does not need to seek the Governor in Council's approval to keep the entity listed.
In normal terms: if an entity on the terrorist entities list challenges their listing, and the Minister rules that they should stay listed, they would currently need to get the Gov in COuncil's approval to keep the entity listed.
Amendment means that the minister would not need to go back to Governor in Council.
Amendment passes.
Ugh. Just lost a string of tweets...
NDP amendment that would mean that an entity that is withdrawn from the list, that notice is given immediately. With #C59, notice would only be every 5 years. #c59
Here's the relevant section:
Concern is that after a decision to delist, if it is not published right away, a) is the entity considered listed until the new publication? b) HOw would public know that this entity is no longer listed? #c59
In any case, fails. #c59
NDP motion to have special advocates in terrorist entities process. Liberals argue judges can appoint amicus curiae. Motion is defeated. #c59
NDP amendment that seeks to allow a listed organization to use it's assets (which would otherwise be frozen) to appeal their listing. #C59
Liberals argue that their is a section that allows for the liberation of funds for legal representation. NDP amendment fails #C59
NDP motion to eliminate the redundant "counselling terrorism offences" in C-59. Greens support: #C51 provision was unnecessary, and #C59 amendment is redundant, so should simply be rescinded.
The provisions in question:
Liberals apparently have a counter-amendment. NDP amendment needs to be voted on first.
Conservatives arguing in favour of maintaining "promotion" wording from #C51 as opposed to Liberal version of #C59 of "counselling" #c59
From what I'm understanding from Justice official: change to counselling was based on feedback from Green Paper/consultation. And that the overlap of counselling with other criminal code provisions was on purpose, in order to give flexibility in choosing what to apply
However, govt has also discovered that existing section (83.221) interferes with sentencing provisions of another criminal code article (464), so there will be another amendment after this.
This is getting a little more technical than I can follow without the list of the amendments and a copy of the Criminal Code, so apologies for any confusion. I think we'll need to refer back to.
We've strayed pretty far from the NDP amendment, so chair getting us back on track. NDP makes one last argument to strike section 83.221, which under #C51 was too vague and broad, and under #C59 would become redundant w/ other criminal code provisions.
Some procedural complications. If the NDP motion is defeated, a motion from the Liberals on this section would die too, so it seems NDP will withdraw their motion in favour of getting something changed on this section.
Too much confusion. 5 minute suspension to figure it all out. #C59
Vote called on this NDP amendment. Motion is defeated.
Liberal motion to amend the current proposed #C59 change to section 83.221 of the Criminal Code, to bring it in line with section 464 of the criminal code in regards to counselling an offence that is not committed.
Here's section 464:
For the exact wording of the amendment, I'll need to see the transcript (or, if they finish tonight, the soon to be published amended version of C-59 that will go back to the House). #c59
Conservative motion to adjourn to allow them to study the current amendment and come back to finish #C59 clause-by-clause tomorrow.
Motion fails, so meeting continues.
Liberal motion passes.
NDP motion that the Liberals support (although I don't have the wording). NDP motion passes. I'll need to get the text... #c59
Conservative motion to repeal the changes in #C59 to recognizance orders. #C51 set threshold as "likely to prevent"; #C59 raises threshold to "necessary". Here's the section in question:
(The NDP motion supported by the Liberals was to remove reference to the criminal code from the definition of "terrorist propaganda". Goes along with another upcoming Liberal motion) #c59
Conservative motion fails.
NDP amendment to add to the right to retain counsel to the section on recognizance with conditions. Official say this is unnecessary, as it is already guaranteed under the charter. #c59
Motion fails
NDP motion to have sunset clause on preventative detention remain the same (as opposed to changing it to the "fifth anniversary of the day on which the National Security Act, 2017 receives royal assent"). Motion is defeated.
Missed a Liberal motion (but appeared to be a fairly technical amendment). #c59
Conservative motion to bring back a private members bill moved by Tony Clement in 2017, known as C-371, the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, and which was defeated at second reading.
Full text of original private members bill (my understanding is that this amendment is identical to Clement's private member's bill): parl.ca/LegisInfo/Bill…
We, along with other organizations (including @CCCICCIC) expressed our concerns at the time, and were glad to see it defeated. #c59
From second reading, back in February:
Motion is defeated. #c59
And we're almost done clause by clause of #C59!
NDP moves its final amendment, to shorten the review period of #C59 to 4 years. Cites several witnesses (including @ICLMG). Motion fails.
Liberal amendment that the Governor in Council set the date on which the Prevention of Complicity in Mistreatment Act comes into effect. Motion is adopted #C59
Liberal motion: to add to the preamble of #C59 that Canada urges international community to follow-suit in protecting rights in their national security legislation. #c59
Motion is adopted.
Motion on whether the bill as amended carries. Recorded vote: Liberals vote in favour, CPC and NDP vote against. #C59
The chair @JohnMcKayLib pulls out a bottle of wine for @MattDube, in reference to Dubé's consistent reference to having to put "water in his wine" throughout this process. #c59
Chair @JohnMcKayLib thanks committee members, staff, and officials for their collegiality and hard work on this bill.
Final motion: shall the version of the bill as amended be printed? Motion passes. #c59
And that's it. Now the job of reviewing & analyzing changes to #C59 starts. But can say clearly that while there are some minor improvements, much of what we & other civil liberties & national security experts proposed during testimony was left out. There's work left to be done.
unroll
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
This content can be removed from Twitter at anytime, get a PDF archive by mail!
This is a Premium feature, you will be asked to pay $30.00/year
for a one year Premium membership with unlimited archiving.
Don't miss anything from @timmcsorley,
subscribe and get alerts when a new unroll is available!
This is a Premium feature, you will be asked to pay $30.00/year
for a one year Premium membership with unlimited subscriptions/alert.
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com
Using crypto? You can help too!
Trending hashtags
Did Thread Reader help you today?
Support me: I'm a solo developer! Read more about the story
Become a 💎 Premium member ($30.00/year) and get exclusive features!
Too expensive?
Make a small donation instead. Buy me a coffee ($5) or help for the server cost ($10):
Donate with 😘 Paypal or  Become a Patron 😍 on Patreon.com
Using crypto? You can help too!