Public Safety Committee on April 24th, 2018

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

I can try. The amendment as it reads right now, says, basically “That Bill C-59, in clause 76, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10”, but we don't want to do that anymore. What you want to do is add, so it should read, “by adding, after line 11 on page 71, the following”, and then the proposed subsection 37(3) would become a new proposed subsection 37(4).

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Yes.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

That's what you want to do.

If I may answer Mr. Dubé's question at the same time...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You may.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

You would be right.

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

I just want to know why that is.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Because we're changing lines. If we're changing lines, then you're in order.

Is everyone clear about what we're doing? Then we are on to debate.

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

I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have a question from Mr. Motz.

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

Currently proposed subsection 37(3) says:

The Minister's decision to extend a period of validity is not subject to review by the Commissioner under the Intelligence Commissioner Act.

I appreciate that. That makes sense. Then, in the amendment to add proposed subsection 37(4), you're saying:

The Minister must, as soon as feasible, notify the Commissioner of any extension of an authorization.

Are we saying, then, that this amendment holds the minister accountable to the commissioner?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

It would just guarantee full communication between the minister and the commissioner.

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

Basically, it's a courtesy. That's what you're doing.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I won't call that courtesy in the legal system, but you can call it that. Why not?

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

Would this be the normal practice?

[Scott Millar]

Absolutely.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to support the sub-amendment again because I think it's a small step in the right direction, but I must still express my disappointment that we didn't want to ensure, through amendment NDP-38, that this isn't just the minister's opinion, but that extensions or any change to an authorization be approved directly by the commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Any further debate?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The ruling that I initially had suggested is now incorrect, given the change of adding to the clause. Therefore, we are not amending the same line. Therefore, NDP-39 is in order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We can see that extensions of the validity period don't need to be reviewed by the commissioner. Several groups, witnesses and experts have told us that, on the contrary, this should be the case.

There is the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Professor Wesley Wark, Commissioner Jean-Pierre Plouffe, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and so on.

I think that's entirely appropriate, especially since the amendment to reduce authorizations to six months instead of a year has been negatived. This means that, if there is an extension, it will go more than a year without review by the commissioner.

This amendment is appropriate, and it responds to what the experts proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Spengemann.

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

I'd like to hear from the experts on this but my initial thoughts are the following. It basically blurs the distinction between an authorization and an extension because the purpose of an extension of a ministerial authorization is to ensure that the CSE can continue in the event of a commissioner's absence or incapacity. An extension doesn't provide CSE with any new authority. It simply continues what was already previously reviewed and approved by the intelligence commissioner. I'd just like to have the experts confirm that this is in fact a correct understanding.

[Scott Millar]

That is accurate, and I would say that under that extension CSE, of course, would still be subject to review by the new review agency in terms of the activities undertaken as well.

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

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Any further debate?