Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I would agree with my colleague across the way.

I'm not sure this needs to be legislated. It seems to me that a matter of simple professional courtesy between government agencies would take care of this. The amendment, frankly, assumes that some of that common sense or professional courtesy is lacking in the administration. When we try to legislate common sense, sometimes we get into more trouble than we need to, legislatively, with our agency.

I wouldn't be in favour of this.

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

The way it was described to us by the head of the complaints commission was that, if the commission sends a complaint that is national security in nature to NSIRA, and NSIRA deems that your evaluation is incorrect, that it's not national security and it's not part of their mandate, then the complaint is dead in the water after that.

I understand points that are being made about professional courtesy and efficiency, but at the end of the day, accountability is not always as efficient perhaps as we would like. I certainly don't doubt the intentions of these bodies, but I think that, by codifying a proper back-and-forth in the event the complaints commission deems it to be of national security in nature and NSIRA has an opposing view, the complaint can still be handled by the complaints commission in the appropriate fashion.

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

I'm curious whether the officials can weigh in and tell us how the process works now and how that information is shared in this circumstance, because we don't know. How do you see it?

[John Davies]

As you mentioned, agencies and departments figure out ways to talk to each other, and common sense prevails. If something looks like a national security complaint, it would be referred and dealt with. There's no indication, though, that the complaint would be dead and that it would just go nowhere. If, after some other information was revealed, it should go back to the CRCC, there's nothing preventing that.

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

I just find, as we go through these amendments, that a lot of things are being taken on blind faith, and there's a hesitancy to codify things. Again, this is something that the head of the complaints commission raised as his concern about his ability to do his job. I think it speaks for itself that an esteemed head of a commission testified before the committee and raised this concern.

Once again, while I have no doubt about common sense or intentions on the part of these different bodies, I think that making sure that the official channel is there for that information to go back to the complaints commission and be dealt with appropriately is proper. There are times, when we're looking for accountability and transparency, when codifying things in law can be appropriate and not just taken on blind faith.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

With all due respect, blind trust plays no role here. These institutions, which I have some experience with in the field, have improved and developed over the years. The exchange of information in this type of file is in the common interest. So, the understanding of how these agencies operate in the field is not the result of blind trust, but rather of long practical experience.

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

I'd like to circle back to Mr. Davies one more time to ask the question of best administrative practice in the Canadian public service. If the head of the complaints commission makes a referral to another commission, and that referral is denied on the basis of lack of substantive jurisdiction, that does not extinguish the accountability of the head who initially referred it. It is still her or his file to dispose of as administratively regulated. Is that correct?

[John Davies]

That is my understanding.

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

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, do you want to weigh in further?

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

I want to raise the issue that, without questioning the ability of public servants and so forth, I've been doing this long enough to know that there are certainly many times when departments don't communicate effectively. Again, I just don't see the problem in making sure that it's there in the law. If everyone believes that it's something that's going to happen anyway, then I don't see the harm in codifying it to make sure that what everyone around this table seems to believe will happen anyway will happen. This is part of the law. At any rate, it seems to already be a foregone conclusion.

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

We heard from national security experts that the sharing of information has been a problem. Mr. Davies, what assurances do we have that C-59 will take care of that?

[John Davies]

How will information be moved in the context of complaints related to CRCC? I'm not sure how to answer your question. Another part of the act, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, is about how information moves within the federal government. It's different from the complaints process, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to refine your question or are you satisfied with that answer?

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

Yes, it is specific to complaints and what NDP-10 is talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of the amendment?

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

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will have a recorded division.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 41 agreed to)

(On clause 42)

Go ahead on NDP-11, Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The debate is the same as the one we just held. Once again, we want to make sure that the legislation clearly dictates what everyone seems to take for granted. The logic we followed is based on the testimony of the commission head. He said very clearly that he wanted to see this provision in the bill so that he could work as best as possible with this new body.

I will add one point that I did not raise during the debate on amendment NDP-10. During the debate on Bill C-22, for example, we were told that there were a lot of things to study, that it was difficult, that it was a new entity, that best practices should be included, and so on. But I think, with respect to the creation of this new body, that by codifying as much as possible, we make sure that no complaint will be inadequately handled because the new organization has not been sufficiently well grounded to do its work with the commission.

Again, I think it's appropriate, but given the fate of amendment NDP-10, I imagine NDP-11 amendment will be the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

NDP-12 is consequential to NDP-11. If NDP-11 is defeated, NDP-12 is also defeated. If NDP-11 passes, NDP-12 is also adopted.

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move on to LIB-14.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The amendment is intended to require the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to notify both the RCMP and the complainant when it refers a complaint that is closely related to national security to the new review agency. It goes to the RCMP first to mitigate harm to any possible operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Dubé will go first, and Mr. Paul-Hus second.

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

I'm intrigued that a member who just told me my amendment would create inefficiencies is now proposing amendments that would have the notifications being required, which essentially would also arguably be an efficiency. Essentially we're asking the same thing, but going only one way and far less stringently. I'm having a hard time following the logic, but at any rate I'll support the amendment with a lot of water in my wine.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus, how is your wine?

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

My remarks are close to those of Mr. Dubé. We have the impression that this will only add a layer of paperwork and documents to complete.

Can the merits of that be explained to me?

We do not necessarily oppose this idea, but we would like to know if this will generate more paperwork.