Public Safety Committee on April 17th, 2018

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think Mr. Davies can respond.

[John Davies]

I would just say that the system doesn't prohibit duplication. It's really legislative changes to encourage co-operation ideally with the intent of avoiding duplication. You may still want to do studies on similar topics, but it's to ensure that it's not the same group going the same week to talk to the same staff.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

When we say to avoid any unnecessary...that's the safeguard to allow them to do the work nonetheless while pushing them in a direction of collaboration.

[John Davies]

That's correct.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, great. Thanks.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Far be it for me to pit my two Liberal colleagues against each other on this amendment, but I'm curious, from the officials' perspective, in terms of the intent of what we're trying to do with the amendment, which language they believe fits better with the intent. Which one do you think is better in your opinion between LIB-6 and LIB-7?

[John Davies]

We believe that LIB-7 and LIB-12, together combined, very helpfully encourage a good two-way flow of information with the view of instilling co-operation. It allows them to share classified information to the extent necessary to avoid duplication and also takes out of the equation the complaint process so they're not tripping over each other or sharing information related to complaints given this quasi-judicial angle to the complaints process.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on NDP-5.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Right now, the provision requiring the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be consulted uses the wording “if appropriate”, and so my amendment seeks to have the review agency consult with the commission to outline guidelines that would codify the way in which they consult them and not have it more ad hoc with the “if appropriate” wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It depends who you listen to. There are some who might suggest that there have been some questionable decisions by the Human Rights Commission and they've made some great ones as well. I'm wondering whether they have the expertise to deal with these sorts of issues and to make decisions with respect to what this act is about.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I would submit that they would be establishing in which cases it's appropriate, so it would not be something binding and there would be for “opinion or comments under subsection (1)”. The Human Rights Commission wouldn't be having any kind of veto or whatnot. It would just codify the way in which they would be consulted by the review agency to offer that expertise, but it obviously wouldn't have the kind of consequence that Mr. Motz might be alluding to in his remarks.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The reference to the commissioner speaks to the faith in his decisions. I think that the same faith can be put in the person in charge of the review agency. Their ability to judge what is appropriate or not appears sufficient and is surely just as serious as an evaluation the commissioner may make.

To avoid any slowdown in the analysis of complaints, I will vote against the amendment. I think that it is unnecessary because their judgment will surely be appropriate to decide when the human rights commissioner needs to be consulted or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Is there any other debate?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

If I may, before we move to the vote, I just want to say that, on the contrary, I find that doing it on an ad hoc basis, judging if it's appropriate, is what would become cumbersome, whereas I think establishing it in advance and consulting with the Canadian Human Rights Commission would allow for that process to be properly delineated as the review agency moves forward with its mandate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are on NDP-6.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point of the amendment is simply to give the review agency the power to make orders to require appropriate and legal conduct from the departments related to national security that come under their jurisdiction.

That was raised in some of the briefs we have received, as well as in the testimony of certain civil liberties groups. I think it is appropriate in order to be able to require more accountability in terms of the actions taken by departments related to national security.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I think it is tricky to increase the agency's powers, since, when an agency starts to intervene or potentially intervene in operations, its view of those activities, and surely the knowledge of potential consequences, may not be adequate. It can already report suspicious or illegal activities, but intervening to a larger extent would jeopardize the operations under way. So I think that the agency's capacity should be limited.

I will oppose the amendment.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

As for Mr. Dubé's proposal, is it not more the responsibility of the minister than the agency to issue directives on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you directing that question to...?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question was for Mr. Dubé, but Mr. Davies can answer it. My question is about figuring out whether that role does not belong more to the minister.

[John Davies]

Ministerial discretion to do what? I'm not following what the minister would be doing here.

In terms of issuing a report to the agency, ministerial direction is essentially orders to their department or agency, so if the review body's findings conclude in a certain area, the minister could issue a ministerial direction to change internal procedure, reporting to him or her, and so on. Normally the minister would retain accountability here.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'd just like to address a few of the points that have been made. There's nothing here talking about any of the specificity that Mr. Picard alluded to about operations. Too often we hear ministers, even though our parliamentary system requires ministerial accountability, whether it's an Auditor General report or any watchdog's report, saying that they accept the recommendations. We hear that day in and day out every time reports are tabled, and so, in keeping with our tradition in the NDP of asking for some of these watchdogs like the Privacy Commissioner and others to have more teeth, I believe that the ability to make orders requires that there would be follow-up in keeping with findings that might be less than advantageous to the different agencies in the event that there would be a serious breach of Canadians' rights.

I think giving the watchdog the ability to make orders to follow up on that is appropriate. They're not getting involved in the day-to-day activities; they're simply requiring compliance with laws and applicable ministerial directions. I don't think this comes into contradiction with the minister's ability to also require the same things, but as I said, I think that giving these watchdogs more teeth is better for Canadians.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I guess the concern I have with how this is worded is that we have the appearance that maybe the oversight committee is actually in charge of the agencies. I'm concerned about that, because they are not. They are an oversight body. An oversight body reviews the activities of an agency for compliance. That is already in the act. However, to then make recommendations back, or “to make orders to ensure”, to me says that now we are directing that agency. I don't think that's the role of NSIRA at all. I don't think that was how it was ever intended to be.

That's how I would take this, and I would certainly defer to our experts on how they might interpret that.

[John Davies]

The phrase “to make orders” definitely brings you into real time and into oversight, versus the review body's mandate set up now in the act that is looking backwards, looking at performance relative to ministerial direction and compliance with the law. The concept of orders puts you more into an oversight entity.