Finance Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Congratulations also go to our new colleague. Mr. Manly, welcome to the committee today.

Unfortunately, I am of the view that amendment PV-2 should be defeated. The reason is that amendment LIB-5—and I'm biased because that's the one I'll be introducing momentarily, Mr. Chair—proposes that the minister make public decisions not to initiate a special review under subsection 17(2).

In addition, though—and this is the substantive point, Mr. Chair—amendment LIB-5 also requires the minister to make public decisions to expand the scope of a re-evaluation or special review, rather than initiate a special review under subsection 17(2). This additional requirement addresses a specific concern raised by stakeholders.

What we're left with is that amendment LIB-5 would provide for greater transparency than amendment PV-2. That is why I'm of this position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion? Are there any questions for the officials?

All those in favour of amendment PV-2, please signify.

(Amendment negatived)

That will also apply to amendment NDP-4, so both are lost.

Now we're on amendment LIB-5 to clause 218.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we have with amendment LIB-5, which I have alluded to already, is that the proposed amendments here would ensure transparency of decisions made to avoid duplication when conducting special reviews. In particular, they would add text to clause 218 to clarify that the minister would make public decisions not to initiate a special review in response to an OECD member decision to prohibit a pesticide's active ingredient when such a review would duplicate the work of an ongoing review or a previously completed review.

There you have it.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 218 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are no amendments to clauses 219 to 221. Are we agreed to see those as carried on division?

(Clauses 219 to 221 inclusive agreed to on division)

Do you want to suspend for 10 minutes and have a bite to eat?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we'll suspend for a few minutes and have a bit to eat. It's pretty hard to both concentrate and eat, so we're suspended for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're starting at clause 222 in division 10.

With us as officials we have Mr. Koops, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch with Public Safety Canada, as well as Mr. Talbot, who is Legal Counsel with Public Safety Canada's legal services, Department of Justice.

First up is amendment NDP-5.

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first amendment concerns the first changes proposed further to the Royal—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm not getting the translation. It's just coming through in French. Try it again.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

All right, Mr. Chair.

If it's working, I'll continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

This amendment is further to the four amendments related to this division, all of which stem directly from the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I don't think the members wrote the recommendations, themselves, but they put forward possible amendments based on their study. We'd like to thank them for examining these clauses. They issued some very useful recommendations, which served as the basis for these four amendments.

The first amendment seeks to clarify the mandate of the management advisory board of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, established by the bill. The purpose is to ensure the transformation and modernization plans “take account of the challenges of harassment and culture change” within the RCMP.

That is highly pertinent given the recent revelations regarding harassment and culture within the RCMP. It goes without saying that the board should be able to provide relevant advice to the minister and RCMP leadership. The idea is to find solutions to the very real harassment and culture challenge within the RCMP.

I hope the committee will support this amendment and give the management advisory board a bit more flexibility in carrying out its mandate to provide advice on these matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's open for discussion.

For your information, we had farmed out this section of the budget implementation act to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. They reported back. They basically said that they recommend that the Standing Committee on Finance consider amending division 10 of Bill C-97 with four recommendations. I think that letter went out to all members.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Mr. Dusseault, for putting forward the amendment.

In reading my notes, my understanding on this amendment is I will not be supporting it for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the work of the board is much broader than just on harassment and cultural change, although those are obviously two very important aspects. They are currently two top priorities, but as identified by the RCMP commissioner in her public mandate letter, these issues have been identified, and as indicated, she will seek advice from the board on them.

It is anticipated that the provision in the legislation will outlive the achievement of the RCMP's objectives in those matters. This amendment may not always be relevant to the work undertaken by the board.

Finally, Chair, with regard to the principle involved with legislative drafting interpretation, section 10 of the Interpretation Act states that:

The law shall be considered as always speaking, and where a matter or thing is expressed in the present tense, it shall be applied to the circumstances as they arise, so that effect may be given to the enactment according to its true spirit, intent and meaning.

The proposed amendment by Mr. Dusseault does not reflect those principles, as harassment and culture change challenges are expected to be time-limited.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will be stopping there. That's why I will not be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-5?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment NDP-6, go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

This is still about the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The amendment seeks to add a subsection to section 45.18—subsection (2.1), which would follow subsection (2). It is about ensuring that the board's mission is broad enough and sufficiently representative of the legislator's intentions, including those of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which looked into the issue.

It is a matter of adding that “all advice, information and reports provided to the commissioner shall include a gender-based analysis”—the famous analysis the government is supporting so strongly in all its projects, including budgets. It goes without saying that the board, which will advise the commissioner, must include a gender-based analysis. That is what was recommended by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

So I hope to have my colleagues' support in following up on the recommendations—unanimous, I think—of the committee, which was mandated to consider this part of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Keep in mind that officials are here if anybody has any questions.

Go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to respond to my colleague and commend the intention of the amendment. In the next few minutes, I will propose amendment LIB-5, which focuses on the same issue. Amendment LIB-5 seeks to integrate into the board's work the concept and results related to gender-based analysis. Our approach is preferable to my colleague's proposal, which would impose a specific practice or instrument. I think the amendment we will propose next will be more desirable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favour of amendment NDP-6?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment LIB-6, go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned just a moment ago, this amendment reflects the recommendation that we made here, which would oblige the board to undertake gender-based analysis of the work of the management advisory board. As I mentioned, this would be the preferable approach to integrating the concepts and outcomes related to a GBA analysis into the work of the board. It's consistent with the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment NDP-7, go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Once again, this amendment follows up on a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The committee recommended to strengthen the obligation to provide the minister with copies or summaries of advice provided by the Advisory Board. The amendment I am proposing seeks to strengthen that obligation, rather than let the board decide on its own whether to submit its reports or not.

I will read subsection (3) of section 45.18: “The Management Advisory Board may provide the Minister with a copy or a summary of any advice, information or report that it provides to the Commissioner.” My argument has to do with the words “may provide” and, in French, “peut donner”. It goes without saying here that the provision needs to be strengthened a bit. As the subsection is currently drafted, this is not an obligation, and the board can do it or not. There is no obligation.

My amendment seeks to ensure that the Advisory Board must give the minister “a copy or a summary of any advice, information or report that it provides to the Commissioner”, and that it “shall provide the Minister with a copy of every report that it provides to the Commissioner.”

The introduction of the passage “shall provide the Minister with a copy of every report that it provides to the Commissioner”, means that, beyond summaries, advice or information, when a report is provided to the commissioner, the board shall provide a copy of it to the minister in charge of public safety. I hope to have my colleagues' support to strengthen this obligation to provide the minister with reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm worried that the amendment could negatively affect the reporting structure between the board, the commissioner and the minister.

The board should be able to decide when it is necessary to present a report to the minister. This amendment would require every communication between the board and the commissioner to also be conveyed to the minister, providing no discretion for the board with regard to the sharing of information. This could lead to every draft of every document possibly being shared before any advice has been finalized by the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment NDP-8.