Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have Mr. Picard, then Mr. Spengemann.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I'd like to bring conclusion. I'd like Mr. Spengemann to go first.

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

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank colleagues around the table for their expression of support of this amendment.

I had the privilege of serving in Iraq as an official of the United Nations between 2005 and 2012. During that time, the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. Nothing flies in the face of human dignity as does torture. This is a practice where really the only answer is the one that's been echoed by colleagues here, which is to stand up and to take a position that is firmly against the practice and all its aspects. There is nothing to gain here, and we're working towards the elimination of torture globally, so we have no choice but to follow Mr. Picard. I'd like to congratulate him on the amendment. I support it wholeheartedly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I call on Mr. Picard, is there any other wish to debate?

Mr. Calkins.

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

I've received no assurances from any of my colleagues on the other side to the question that I had that, if this bill or when this bill passes through this committee and gets reported back to the House, we will have good opportunity for good and fulsome debate on this bill at second reading, hopefully without the notion of time allocation being brought in so that we can thoroughly investigate the addition of another piece of legislation into this legislation, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been people talking about it.

No formal witnesses were called specifically to testify at this committee prior to the second reading on this amendment, which is a new piece of legislation. I'm very concerned about the precedent of parliamentary procedure being set. With this, I know that it's in order or else we wouldn't be discussing it, but I haven't received the assurances from my previous intervention on this.

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

That can't be guaranteed in the same way that a Conservative filibuster on Bill C-59 can't be guaranteed. Robust debate will take place, and we'll have it out there.

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

That's simply not true, Mr. Fragiskatos. The government controls the actions that happen in the House. While I can't guarantee that we won't filibuster, I can't guarantee that you won't filibuster, but your party can guarantee that this bill will be accepted back into the House prior to second reading and we'll have an opportunity to have that debate. That is totally within the purview of the government.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I just want to answer Mr. Calkin's question. It will be reported back to the House, and there will be debate at second reading.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Picard, do you want a final word?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I would like to thank all my colleagues for their comments on this amendment. The content and the seriousness of the thing demonstrate the importance of this subject.

It's important to remember that the amendment is part of BillC-59. And the amendment has a dual purpose: the protection against torture and the assurance that we must protect rights and freedoms.

With this amendment, the government is reiterating its position and intention to be an international leader and a model for the protection of rights and freedoms. This amendment therefore has its place, and it has been long awaited. I invite everyone to vote for it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus, I'm assuming that's the end of the debate.

Mr. Paul-Hus has a subamendment to delete proposed paragraph 3(1)(c). Would you move your amendment, please?

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

Given what I mentioned, I propose that paragraph 3(1)(c) be removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The vote will be first on the subamendment. Do you want a recorded vote?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We have a recorded vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

The subamendment is defeated. We are therefore voting on LIB-16 as presented.

Do you want a recorded vote again? Yes, you asked for it, that's right.

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

Do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I've already called the vote.

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

(On clause 50)

We are now on clause 50, and NDP-13.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is similar to the one I proposed for the first part of the bill to allow Parliament, that is, the Senate and the House of Commons, to approve the appointment of proposed members for the review agency. In this case, I am proposing the same thing, but this time the appointment of the intelligence commissioner.

In that context, I think it's even more important than for the first part of the bill because the commissioner will, for the first time, conduct real-time monitoring of transactions and approvals. It is therefore a matter of having the approval of the House of Commons, and not just an appointment by the Governor in Council of the person recommended by the Prime Minister. I think it is entirely appropriate given the importance of this position.

As I said during the debate on this other amendment I had proposed for the first part of the bill, Parliament must already approve a number of important posts, including those of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to apply the same principle to the equally important position of the intelligence commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I ask for debate, I note that if NDP-13 is adopted, NDP-14 and CPC-14 cannot be moved.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Chair, thanks very much.

The concern with this amendment is that it requires parliamentary approval as a precondition of appointment of intelligence commissioners. It's inconsistent with established practice. It's a concern for another reason, which is basically that intelligence commissioners would be retired judges, women and men with a lifetime of impartial service upholding the law. The introduction of a parliamentary process could not only dissuade candidates from serving; it could also risk politicizing the appointment process. It should be focused on the rigorous application of the law or the candidate's qualifications with respect to sensitive national security considerations. It's not a place for politics, in my view.

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

I suppose the Prime Minister making a recommendation of who's in the position is inherently political. If the Prime Minister has that purview as a politician, an elected one—not directly elected mind you, but I think folks understand my meaning—then I don't see why we couldn't do this. As I said, all these other positions are normally filled with such candidates. Unfortunately, that's not been the practice lately, as we saw with the debacle around the official languages commissioner.

Chair, you'll recall, you were a member at the time, the Liberal Party staged a walkout on the vote on the Auditor General in the last Parliament, the candidate that was put forward. Certainly I don't think this type of thing besmirches the ability of the person to do their job. I think it's an accountability mechanism on the Prime Minister and the selection that he's making for this unprecedented but important position. Contrary to the point that was made, I believe it is in line with existing practices with regard to how many of these types of watchdog positions are filled. Again, I think that falling back on the fact that we've seen less accountability should not be a reason for rejecting more accountability in the context of an amendment such as this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-13 is defeated; therefore, NDP-14 can still be moved.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This conflicts with NDP-13, but the objective of course was to have other options out there in the event that it failed.

Based on some of the testimony we heard, in order to have a larger pool of candidates this would allow current judges to be appointed to the role of the intelligence commissioner as well. Again, I think there is no harm in having a larger pool, given the importance of this role. Again, not to be critical or cast any aspersions or doubt on the ability of retired judges, but as I said, it is something that was brought up and I think it does not force the selection of someone who is active but simply brings them into the pool.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

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

I appreciate my colleague's effort to put an alternate option on the table with respect to the Prime Minister's appointment.

The concern about this amendment, in my view, is the fact that it leads to the option of appointing a sitting judge. The intelligence commissioner is expected to function independently, but she or he is nonetheless serving the executive branch and not the judiciary. There is a risk of conflict of interest with respect to sitting judges, particularly if dealing with cases involving conduct on the part of CSIS or the CSE. It is problematic also with respect to conduct related to authorizations that could come before a judge that were approved by the intelligence commissioner.

In my view it is not a good idea to involve sitting judges as candidates.