Public Safety committee  That's a pretty big question. I think, generally speaking, you're giving them the tools. It's like a lot of other areas: until they're actually out there in the field trying them out, it's hard to say. I haven't counted, but the number of times that the words “protection of privacy” are mentioned in this bill is really quite astounding.

Public Safety committee  It's hard to answer that question. Ultimately, only experience will show whether that's the case. On the whole, I would say no. I agree we should slightly raise the basic level required to enable the agency to act, but I think it gives us enough room to manoeuvre.

Public Safety committee  That's hard to say. In espionage and foreign interference—this won't surprise you—I would say it's China and Russia. Those two countries are not really comfortable in the current international equilibrium, which they want to change. They also employ tools that we would never consider using.

Public Safety committee  For example, they use their cyber capabilities without any control, as we discussed with your colleague. We assume that China has more than 200,000 persons operating in cyberspace in one way or another. Some are in government or in the armed forces, while others are in the private sector.

Public Safety committee  I think that's rather more difficult. I was about to say that they could use existing powers, which enable them to try to protect federal institutions. The big difficulty in dealing with cyber, of course, is identifying where the problem is coming from. It may seem simple, but it is in fact very difficult, and in most cases anybody trying to affect elections uses cut-outs.

Public Safety committee  Broadly speaking, I would, although we have to acknowledge that it's often done under the cover of religion. A lot of people use the tenets of Islam to justify what they want to do. I fundamentally believe that a large chunk of the Muslim world believes that they're under attack by the west.

Public Safety committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said in my preliminary remarks, I would change the powers granted to the commissioner. I think those powers are more than what is necessary and are too similar to the powers or basic responsibility of a minister. Let me be very clear: Mr. Goodale is not in question here.

Public Safety committee  Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I generally agree that the authorities that are being proposed for CSEC are a good thing. I would put it somewhat differently. Monsieur Boisvert said that a good defence involves an offence. I would say that in the area of cyber, it's actually difficult to distinguish offence from defence and that, for example, you can sit in Canada and build up firewalls.

Public Safety committee  I don't agree with that. I think that under international law, states are restricted in what they can do to other states, but there's a big exemption to that. One of those exemptions is self-defence, which is defined very broadly. I think most of what would be envisaged under the provisions that we're talking about would fall under the exemption in international law relating to self-defence.

Public Safety committee  I'm going to take less than 10 minutes. If I could, I'd just like to make five points. First, if I were a member of the House—and I'm well aware that I'm not—I would have quite happily voted yea at second reading. I think this bill goes a long way toward simultaneously dealing with security issues and concerns as well as charter and legal rights concerns.

Public Safety committee  I start from the premise that whatever you do, please don't add another definition of “terrorism”. From an operational perspective, that would be terrible. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that when Bill C-51 was being worked on, the definition in the CSIS act wasn't adopted because there was a view at the time, by some, that it really didn't cover a couple of things that should be covered if you were worried about national security.

Public Safety committee  Absolutely. There is always a risk of a foreign power trying to, in one way or another, set up Canadians, be they public servants, parliamentarians or politicians.

Public Safety committee  Yes, absolutely. The approach would be slightly different. If there is one thing I can say with certainty, it is that countries that try to obtain information or influence people use those people's specific situation to get information from them. I don't know what else could be done, but it would be very important for the committee members to be briefed in detail on the risks they will be exposed to.

Public Safety committee  I'm not here as a lawyer, and it is a bit difficult to contradict a former judge. All I can say is that, in Canadian legislation, there are a number of cases where the protection of professional secrecy is nearly absolute, but there also others where it is less absolute. In my opinion, it will depend on how people try to apply that provision.

Public Safety committee  No, I think it's pretty good, but I would also say that while most of the hearings of the committee should be in secret, I could conceive of circumstances where they might want to have some open hearings. I would hope, as well, that circumstances would allow the chair of the committee to periodically be able to make statements or hold a press conference when the report is tabled or things of that nature.