Evidence of meeting #104 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think we would have to deal with it as a motion first. We would table it and then, in effect, postpone the date, which I would think takes precedence over this. Is there any appetite?
If you move the motion, we could debate that motion, then vote on the motion and move from there.
Just before I get too far down that path, I want to check with the people who actually know what they are talking about.
Mr. Motz, your motion has actually been ruled out of order. We cannot move that at this time.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Is there a reason for that? Is it because we already have a similar one?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It may have been ruled out of order because we have already started to deal with the clause. My theorizing would be that you would have had to move that motion at the beginning, before we started to deal with this clause. Is that somewhat correct?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Isn't that counterintuitive? It's the conversation we were having that brought up the issue. We don't know. Anyway, I didn't write the book so....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You are able to move a motion that postpones consideration of the entire clause but not of this section alone.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Obviously it's inadmissible so I withdraw my motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The motion is withdrawn, so we're back to the amendment. Is there further debate on the amendment? I saw Mr. Picard waving his hand.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
As Mr. Motz said earlier, this is a matter of national security, as confirmed by experts. The legislator's intention with this bill is to focus exclusively on national security.
However, customs' responsibility goes well beyond national security, especially because of the commercial nature of the agency's activities. It would be unrealistic for the review agency to also be in charge of all the complaints related to customs, as that has absolutely nothing to do with its mandate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on LIB-3.
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I'm going to mention some testimony that supports this amendment. We heard from Micheal Vonn who said that national security activities in general are plagued with the problem of having words in a statute or directive interpreted in sometimes obscure or deeply troubling ways that may not be unearthed for years.
This amendment requires the national security and intelligence review agency to review and report on new and modified ministerial directions. It also strengthens departmental accountability by requiring the NSIRA to review how departments implement ministerial directions.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I support the amendment. I think it's a good idea. I do want, however, to point out that it's interesting that we propose amendments on the Liberal side to increase the mandate and vote down amendments that would make the chair full time.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
That is exactly what I was thinking. Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Liberal
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
To clarify, we didn't vote down an amendment to make it full-time. It can still be a full-time position. It's optional. We're not saying it won't be full-time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there other debate on LIB-3?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On CPC-7, we have Mr. Motz.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair. This particular amendment requires the minister to table for Parliament a clear outline of how these organizations work together—the NSIRA, the CSE, CSIS, and the new parliamentary committee—and the powers, duties, and functions of the minister. It's intended to address the committee's confusion on the bill and how all these organizations work together. That's the motivation behind this.
We heard repeatedly throughout testimony on Bill C-59 that how the government will structure the new parliamentary committee and the NSIRA remains unclear. We still don't have a clear idea of how they will work together. That hasn't been clarified yet. Therefore, we should have the minister provide that clarity as soon as possible. Perhaps the officials can provide us some clarity on that today, if possible, in terms of how these bodies will work together.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
In my view this amendment isn't necessary, because under Bill C-59 the NSIRA expert staff already have the authority to obtain ministers' national security intelligence responsibilities or information. Why place an additional formal burden on the ministers? Equally, the NSIRA would already have the authority to publish general background information in its annual and special reports. My submission to the committee is that this amendment is not in fact required.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I understand what my colleague is saying, but, like Mr. Motz just mentioned, a number of witnesses have told us that they had doubts about the effectiveness of the relations. Our goal was to include an element that would clarify the minister's mandate. Even Richard Fadden and other witnesses told us that a problem existed. I don't know how people from the public service see this, but based on the testimony we have heard, we felt that it should be added to the legislation.
Mr. Davies or—
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would just say, as was already said, that the mandate of the review body already allows it to ask for whatever it wants from any department or agency, whenever it wants. Presumably you'd already be staffed by experts who are very much familiar with the mandates and so on. There are already many annual corporate reports and annual reports, and so on, published by the agencies, and things on websites and so on, that explain the powers and duties of these agencies. It's not clear what else you would get. Maybe this is how we're reading how these words are drafted, but it's not clear what additional information you'd get from this amendment.