Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, for the record, it seems pretty clear that we've decided we've done something that's never been done before with having real-time oversight and that we have it perfect on the first try.
I'm not sensing very much openness.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-19, Mr. Dubé.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
This amendment seeks to allow the intelligence commissioner to impose his or her own additional conditions on top of what is already prescribed by the bill before us in order for the ministerial authorization to be valid. It's pretty straightforward. It's fair in the context, again of real-time oversight, that sometimes there may be conditions that are required beyond the scope of what's presented in the bill. I think this is an important thing. For those who might be concerned about the notion that we're binding the commissioner, it is specifying this is something that the commissioner may do.
I also want to mention that this is something that was proposed by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Jean-Pierre Plouffe, who is the current CSE commissioner; the Canadian Bar Association; and Citizen Lab. Clearly, there is a lot of support for this specific amendment.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
The commissioner's role is to carry out a review; a more invasive measure would go against his mandate.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If I'm hearing correctly, it would seem to be the suggestion of this NDP-19 that we're going to have the commissioner in charge so we really don't need a minister. That's how it appears, unless I'm missing something.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
The authorization in the amendment is a ministerial authorization, so the minister still has responsibility to issue those authorizations.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On PV-3, Ms. May.
3:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm aware—and I don't know how you'd like to handle this—that my two amendments, Green Party 3 and Green Party 4, if they were to pass, would basically, in one motion, be the same as LIB-19 that Julie Dabrusin has brought forward. Julie and I had a little chat about this in the last session.
I know we're moving rather slowly through this. I'm in your hands. If you want to remove Green Party 3 and 4, and in preference just work on Liberal-19, that might be efficient. As a non-member of the committee, I want you to know that I'm dedicated to your efficiency.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I wish the members were as dedicated to my efficiency as the non-members are. Thank you, Ms. May.
The ruling had been that PV-3 and LIB-19 were identical, but LIB-19 has a secondary clause. By passing LIB-19, you actually get PV-3.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes, and PV-4. The chair is always interested in efficiencies, so if that suits the committee, PV-3 and PV-4 are withdrawn, and we will move to debate on LIB-19. Is that fine with everyone?
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
(Amendments withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On LIB-19, we have Ms. Dabrusin.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I would like to thank Ms. May for talking to the same point, which is that the commissioner should be providing reasons not only when a decision is made in the negative but also when there is an affirming decision. That way, we have a record of what the subject was and the reasons why approval or consent was given. I would suggest that this is an addition that performs very well, and I am very happy that it goes well with the Green Party amendments.
I should add, by the way, that when the witnesses came forward they specifically said that this would not be an onerous addition as far as the responsibilities go.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The requisite PV-3 and PV-4 changes will be made.
On LIB-20, we have Monsieur Picard.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Picard.
LIB-20 is withdrawn. I tend to think that Ms. May's speech has had some effect on committee members.
Next is NDP-20.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the commissioner to request additional information rather than settling for a “yes” or a “no” basically. That could go both ways. It actually could be a “no” if the additional information showed that, at the end of the day, it is not appropriate to undertake the activities that the minister authorized.
Conversely, if the “no” is because of lack of information, the commissioner could ask for additional information that would reassure him and would allow the activity that the minister authorized to take place. Let me remind you that this amendment was suggested by Jean-Pierre Plouffe, the current CSE commissioner.
April 23rd, 2018 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair. Through you to our officials, notwithstanding the arguments that Mr. Dubé just made, is there any reason to suspect that if the legislation passes without this amendment the commissioner wouldn't be able to do what's being laid out here?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No, none at all. I guess if the commissioner did not feel that he or she had the right information or needed more information, they would just reject the authorization and send it back to the minister with reasons. Given that, the minister could make a new decision in light of that. In that sense, it's akin to judicial review.