Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have to dispose of CPC-11 one way or another. I should advise you—

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

It's adding a reference to proposed section 17.1 to it so we can then deal with CPC-12 as an amendment.

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

We all simply have to vote for it, and we can continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll deal with the debate on CPC-11 and CPC-12 as if they are one.

But bear in mind that when it comes to the vote, if CPC-11 is defeated, CPC-12 is also; and if CPC-11 is adopted, so also is CPC-12.

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

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Why don't you make your debate points with respect to both CPC-11 and CPC-12?

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

What we're really asking for in CPC-12 is that it require the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to outline the roles and responsibilities of multiple national security agencies and departments after one year of C-59 coming into force. This will help identify overlaps and duplicated work and may potentially lead to further consolidation or disbanding of agencies or departments.

Mr. Fadden told us that this bill is beginning to rival the Income Tax Act with sub-sub-subsections in its complexity. There are excluded subsections of subsections of subs, and there are exempted ones. If there's anything the committee can do to make it more straightforward, Mr. Fadden and others have encouraged us to do so. That's why the creation of proposed section 17.1 is in this particular subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

We're talking about CPC-12 and CPC-11 at the same time, just because it makes sense?

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

Yes.

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

NSIRA staff already have the authority to obtain information on national security relationships. We don't need to add the burden to create these reports onto ministers as well, because NSIRA already has access to the information that it needs.

I would suggest that this is duplicative of what we already have in the statute as it has already been built out.

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

As I understand it, this would be like a one-time requirement because it's in the first year of C-59 coming into force, and it's setting up the rules around what that should look like. It's about making clear for Parliament and for agencies what the outline will be and what the prospective relationships and responsibilities would be because we don't exactly have those clearly defined yet throughout C-59.

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

Mr. Chair and dear colleagues, Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill. So there are already a lot of stages and steps. I don't think we can accept the argument that it adds something. It's already complex. As my colleague mentioned, when Mr. Fadden, the former national security advisor, came to testify before the committee, he confirmed that it was really complex and difficult to understand. I think we should take into consideration the fact that a man like him is telling us that it isn't clear and that he hopes the committee will try to find solutions to make things better.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Were you directing your comment to Mr. Davies, or was that just a comment on your part?

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

It was a general comment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

I would imagine there's no shortage of complex legislation on Canada's books. I'm wondering if Mr. Davies could inform the committee if there's a standard practice or what the best practice would be for an organization, potentially including a new organization, to figure out and delineate its reporting relationships.

[John Davies]

It is a new organization, but it's going to be built on the foundation of existing review bodies, which already have a high degree of expertise. The assumption here is that there would be a lot of initial briefings. We just saw that with the new committee of parliamentarians on national security. There are a lot of initial briefings to make sure everyone's familiar with mandates, how they work, reporting structures, and so on.

It's up to the committee whether you need to legislate that in, but it's kind of an obvious first thing you would do after royal assent.

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

Mr. Chair, let me add that, at the moment, all these interactions remain unclear. The problem is interactions between agencies. The purpose of our amendment is really to allow the Minister of Public Safety to clarify these interactions by providing accurate descriptions. Once Bill C-59 is in effect, we will be a bit like the Tower of Babel.

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

I thought it was actually quite helpful to hear from Mr. Davies on that point, which is about how much you have to have specifically written down here, and how much we know can happen as it is, and already does happen with other pieces of complex legislation. I stay by my position that this is an unnecessary burden, given the responsibilities and the access that NSIRA already has. From what we heard from Mr. Davies, that gives me extra comfort to stay with my position.

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

I actually was hoping that our colleague Mr. Picard could weigh on in this, given his background in this particular area. Unfortunately, he's gone. I ask too late. I don't know if, sir—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You'll have to ask him afterward.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As I indicated earlier, with CPC-11, CPC-12 is also defeated.

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 4 to 17 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 18 to 37 inclusive agreed to)

Next up is CPC-13.

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are seeking this amendment because it allows the Privacy Commissioner to refer information to NSIRA when he or she believes national security is a concern. When the Privacy Commissioner was here, and it was recommended and requested by him. I'll try to paraphrase what he told us. He stated, “However, there is no ambiguity on whether my office would be able, with Bill C-59, to share confidential information with the NSIRA and the new committee of parliamentarians. We would not have that authority, and actually we would be prohibited by existing provisions in the Privacy Act from sharing such information.”

We believe that this amendment, then, at the request of the Privacy Commissioner, would actually properly deal with that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I'm halfway there because I actually agree with you about the need to allow for that information exchange with the Privacy Commissioner. If you remember, we had started setting that up in amendment LIB-7, and there's another amendment that follows yours directly, LIB-12, which closes the loop with the LIB-7 amendment to allow for that information exchange between the two.

I know we're considering that one after yours, but I submit that the wording of LIB-12 is quite comprehensive and would in fact address what you're talking about, allowing the information exchange back and forth.