Public Safety Committee on April 17th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'd like to call this meeting to order, please.

Colleagues, please take your seats. We have an enormous amount of work to go through here. The sooner we get started, the sooner we end. Right now, there is no end date on this. Let's hope we can get it done before Parliament dissolves.

We welcome, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, John Davies, director general. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Cherie Henderson. From the Communications Security Establishment, we have Scott Millar, and from the Department of Justice, Douglas Breithaupt. We also have Ms. Beecher, who is with Mr. Davies.

We also have officials in the room available to the committee. Feel free to step up as you feel the need to. We have with us super clerks and super analysts who will move us through this agenda.

Pursuant to the standing order, consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and the preamble are postponed. The chair calls clause 2, and amendment Liberal-1, moved by Mr. Spengemann.

(On clause 2)

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much. I'd like to welcome everybody to the discussion.

The first set of, I believe, four Liberal amendments deals essentially with the application of the Public Service Employment Act. This first Liberal amendment removes a reference to section 48 from the definition of the term “department”. It is a purely technical amendment. A later amendment will be proposed to remove the entire section 48, therefore making the reference here unnecessary.

Section 48 provides the employees of the review agency with the right to move to and from other departments. The next set of Liberal amendments, as I mentioned, will cover that as well. It deals with employee mobility. The change that is being made here is purely to resolve incompatibilities between section 48 and the Public Service Employment Act, which governs most other government departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is NDP-1. I've been given a note on the chair's ruling. This amendment aims to increase the number of members from the review agency from six to eight. Therefore, it's inadmissible as it infringes on the financial prerogative of the crown and requires royal recommendation. The same ruling applies to PV-1.

I got ahead of myself.

Matthew, could you move your amendment so I can rule it out of order?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

That is what I thought.

The amendment seeks to allow the body to review in a more robust capacity by establishing the membership more clearly and is so moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You've heard my ruling.

Madam May, welcome to the committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to put on record my habitual objection to the process that this committee and every other committee adopted of forcing me to come to committee with amendments, rather than enjoying the rights I would have otherwise to present such amendments at report stage, because of the peculiarities of the motion that was originally drafted by the Harper PMO. Strangely, the same wording was applied in the next Parliament by the new PMO.

In any case, my motion has been deemed moved before I got here because I don't have any powers on this committee other than to appear with my amendments per your request.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Your objection is noted.

NDP-2 is next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Given that the intelligence commissioner is the first real-time overseer and not just the reviewer of national security in this country, I believe it is important that the position be filled much like the Auditor General's with a vote in Parliament and not just on the recommendation of the Governor in Council and the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I will make note of a ruling with respect to CPC-1. If NDP-2 is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved.

Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

A requirement that both houses of Parliament approve appointments to the NSIRA is not necessary and is inconsistent with established practice. We suggest members vote against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

If NDP-2 is defeated, so also is CPC-1.

Next is CPC-2 and Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment requires more detail and specific background for members of the review agency when they are being considered for membership. Common sense requires individuals with national security backgrounds to sit on the review agency, the same agency that reviews national security matters.

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

It's quite a lengthy and complex system that is set up by this proposal, but perhaps the part that concerns me the most is the fact that it would involve senior intelligence officials in selecting members of the review committee. It creates a conflict as the individuals who are participating in the selection are the very people who are going to be reviewed by this organization. I actually am very concerned by this proposal and I oppose it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On CPC-3, we have Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'm reading right now seems to indicate that the position of vice-chair is optional, but it is unclear. We recommend that this vagueness be dispelled and the position of vice-chair be clearly mandatory, as that is important. If we have misinterpreted that aspect, I invite the officials in attendance to explain the situation a bit better to us.

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

It's an interesting suggestion, but it really takes away the flexibility for NSIRA to manage its own affairs. Ultimately, it might not always be necessary to have a vice-chair. It may not be a necessary part. That would be my objection.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support this amendment because the bill does seem to prevent the appointment of a vice-chair and allow the chair to appoint their alternate as needed, instead of a vice-chair automatically taking the chair in the chair's absence. I think the vice-chair should be appointed when the review agency is created, instead of waiting for each of the chair's absences.

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

I would like to have expert opinions on that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Who were you directing that to?

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

My question is for the person in charge of the file.

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I'll take a crack at it.

On page five of the act, proposed subsection 5(1), there is a process for an acting chair, the vice-chair. There's no vice-chair formally appointed. There already is a section in the act to cover that.

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

You are talking about subsection 5(1), which pertains to the acting chair, correct?

[John Davies]

In proposed subsection 5(1), if the chair is not able, or if there is no vice-chair, there is a process to nominate an acting chair.

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

Okay. But I want to make sure that I have the correct provision in front of me.