Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

First of all, it was referred at first reading. Therefore, very little is out of order because the principle of the bill has not yet been established, hence the advantage of a wider scope. That's your first point.

As to the second point, it is still subject to the rules of the royal prerogative. Had a government member moved a similar amendment, that likely would have been in order because it would comply, therefore, with the royal prerogative. I think in this instance it is out of order because it causes asking the treasury to spend money.

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

Is there technically such a thing as a government member on a committee, in a practical sense, or would that have to be a member of the executive in the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're getting well beyond my scope of expertise on that point. Let me just ask.

I'm wrong. Even a government member could not move this amendment.

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

I appreciate that clarification. All kidding aside, all members would be seen as equal on the committee.

Perhaps it's not the appropriate forum for this, but I'm just wondering whether this type of amendment would be in order at report stage or third reading.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If it's in the House it is in order because a minister could move it.

It is out of order, but I do believe that Ms. May still has the opportunity to speak to her amendment, even though the ruling that NDP-16 is out of order means that therefore PV-2 and CPC-15 are out of order. She still has the right to speak.

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

Yes, and that's because those were the terms of the motion passed by this committee. Otherwise, I'd be able to bring this amendment forward before the House at report stage. That's just to clarify things for people who might have forgotten the terms of the motion.

I just want to briefly say I'm very pleased with the creation of a commissioner. It's my belief, and I hope the government will consider, as my amendment would do, giving the option of the person's being full-time.

In the course of Bill C-51 being examined in the 41st Parliament, we had the advantage of hearing from former Supreme Court justice Mr. Justice John Major, who chaired the Air India inquiry. His advice wasn't taken by the committee at that time, but I believe that a lot of what he said before the committee on Bill C-51 is reflected in the creation of an intelligence commissioner. Mr. Justice John Major, testifying then—and I participated as actively as I was allowed in those committee hearings—said that Bill C-51 was fatally flawed because there was no “pinnacle review”, that was his term, that you needed to have someone like an intelligence czar, someone in a security position, for direct oversight of all the disparate intelligence agencies that we have within Canada so that they do not trip over each other.

He spoke to an issue that Glen Motz mentioned earlier. He said it was human nature to keep information from other agencies. He said that his experience in the Air India inquiry was that the RCMP didn't want to share their information with CSIS, and that CSIS didn't want to share their information with the RCMP. He was very clear on that.

Given the importance of this position—and I certainly support its creation in Bill C-59—I would urge the government, given the extraordinary position of studying this now, before second reading, to seriously consider bringing forward a motion before the bill reaches third reading to allow the intelligence commissioner to be full-time as well, or part-time, at the option of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for your intervention on your motion. It's out of order.

I'm assuming that you want to speak to CPC-15, Mr. Motz.

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

Mr. Chair, I am far from a procedural expert—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You and I share that.

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

—but when I look at NDP-16, and then I look at PV-2, I'm challenging the ruling on admissibility because they're different. They're different, and if they're not the same.... If they were identical, then yes, I would say they would be inadmissible, but they're not the same. There's an “and-or”. For example, “functions on a full-time or part-time basis” is different substantively from what my colleague from the NDP proposed,. I don't know if you can rule it inadmissible, just from a procedural perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

From a procedural perspective it requires spending by the crown, and that can't be moved.

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

That's the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's the issue. It's money.

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

Before the meeting comes to an end, I just want to say that we, the members of the Green Party, the NDP and the Conservative Party, ask that the government take this into consideration and that it be given second reading.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Seeing no further debate on an inadmissible motion, we'll move on. That deals with NDP-16, PV-2, and CPC-15.

My clerk points out that it is one o'clock.

I want to thank colleagues for a real and civilized debate. I thought we conducted ourselves well. I want to thank our officials for being here. We'll reconvene on Tuesday, if not earlier.

With that, we will adjourn and in a few moments the subcommittee will reconvene in camera. The meeting is adjourned.