Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

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

We don't know yet what we're going to be doing in part 5 because that part hasn't been discussed here. I guess that's more my question.

I understand fully what he's trying to achieve by cleaning up beforehand, but is there a way procedurally that we can park these, only because it's cleanup based on a discussion that we haven't had yet in part 5?

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

I say this with all due respect to my colleague. I think that we've studied this bill for a number of months now. I think it's fairly safe to say that members on the other side already have a sense of how they will be voting on part 5 and on the amendments that are tabled related to that. It's just that I'm following the procedural rules here that were imposed on me. I've drafted all the necessary amendments. I can assure my colleague that I will be more than happy to move all those amendments to fully repeal this problematic part of the bill, and this is just due diligence. It was the law clerks of the House of Commons who helped us put all this together, so my fate is in their hands and they were, as always, very helpful.

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

If I may, I'm actually just trying to be helpful to my friend across the way in trying to allow for full discussion about what he wants to do later on. But if we must go through this way, we must. I was actually trying to create an opening for us to have that discussion in part 5 more clearly, because there are parts that we may want to discuss.

I'm just trying to create that space.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We appreciate the helpfulness on both sides. However, I see no further debate on this, so I'll call the vote. Bear in mind, as I said earlier, if NDP-9.1 is adopted or defeated, so are NDP-9.2, NDP-9.3, NDP-9.4, NDP-9.5, NDP-9.14, NDP-9.15, NDP-9.16, NDP-9.17, NDP-9.18, and NDP-9.19.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll be then at NDP-9.6. Is that correct?

I'm advised by the clerk that amendments NDP-9.6 to NDP-9.13 are inadmissible. That takes us to—

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

Mr. Chair, even though they're not admissible, I still get to state the case, do I not?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Actually, my ruling is premature because you do get to introduce and make your case, and then I will rule them inadmissible.

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

I appreciate that, Chair. I hear the roaring train coming my way.

Once again, these are just consequential amendments related to the full repeal of all the information-sharing provisions in Bill C-59, which are just cosmetic changes to what was in Conservative Bill C-51.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The ruling is, and will be, and is now that these are inadmissible.

So there we are. We're then going on to NDP-9.14, which was defeated. NDP-9.15, NDP-9.16, NDP-9.17, NDP-9.18, and NDP-9.19 were defeated. Do we have an NDP-9.20? No.

We'll go back to LIB-9.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you.

Amendments LIB-9 and LIB-10 go together, and both are connected back to LIB-1. These are technical provisions that deal with the mobility rights of public servants.

What LIB-9 aims to do is to remove provisions that exempt the review agency secretariat from most of the Public Service Employment Act, so that under the amendment the entire PSEA would apply to the review agency secretariat, not just part 7. In the subsequent amendments, the removal of proposed section 48 of the NSIRA act, which governed these mobility provisions, is being proposed so that subsequent to LIB-9 and LIB-10, the entire PSEA would apply to civil servants under the review agency secretariat.

Once again, these are technical amendments. They would leave the substantive rights of review agency secretariat employees effectively unchanged.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Motz.

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

I'm curious to know why employees are required to be under the act.

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

It's not a requirement; it's an entitlement. They have the entitlement to move within the public service. The act essentially gives them that right. It's being moved from the NSIRA act to the broader Public Service Employment Act, or PSEA, that also governs the mobility rights of other public servants.

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

Is that a normal practice, to have that language among agencies?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I take it from the nodding of heads that the answer to that is yes.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to LIB-10, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the same vein, LIB-10 is the amendment that effectively removes proposed section 48 of the NSIRA act and thereby brings the entire mobility scheme of federal public servants under the PSEA.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

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

I would like some explanation from the officials.

[John Davies]

When C-59 was drafted, a dedicated mobility scheme was created to allow employees from the federal government to move in to NSIRA and move out. You'll see this again with the intelligence commissioner. In hindsight, that was a mistake. That should not have happened, following further legal advice, discussions with the Public Service Commission, and so on. All these amendments do is strip out the dedicated regime that was built and use the exact language in the PSEA.

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

I'm curious to know whether this will have any impact on the sharing of information.

[John Davies]

It will make it easier to hire people in NSIRA, and you'll see in the intelligence commission, it will be a lot better for them to attract the kind of people they need. There will not be any future procedural problems with people moving in or out of those agencies.

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

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have comments on LIB-11, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

To me, oversight has been one of the most important parts of this bill and what's being introduced. This amendment on page 21 goes to help that because it makes sure that despite NSIRA's scope of duties, it's clear that other bodies such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner can continue to carry out the full range of their mandate. It creates that ability. It makes it very clear that NSIRA is not taking the full space. Other oversight can continue as well. I would submit that's an important change.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, you're up to talk about CPC-11.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CPC-11 , as you'll see, is a coordinating amendment for CPC-12. It's a language change for what we want to talk about in CPC-12.