Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I would have to echo the comments made by the minister in regard to this being a step that's long overdue. It's the first of its kind. If you look at our Five Eyes allies, they all have similar committees. We're the ones who don't have one.

What we've done is we've taken, I would say, some good consultations and some good information to take a substantial first step. If you look at some of the endorsements this work is getting, they're saying it's a large step as a first step, but that's because we actually have people we can look to.

I think when it comes to, just as the minister said, the buck stopping, when it comes to national security, with the Prime Minister, appointing a chair this time.... That's why the review mechanism is so important and that's why I think improving the system is so important. Part of my mandate is doing government differently. I think when it comes to improving upon the work that's been done, not to go on—

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

Minister, if I may, we can elect chairs of these committees and that gives parliamentarians more independence, which is part of your mandate, and that's great. Are these parliamentarians less independent, then? Is this somehow the lesser parliamentary committee if they can't select their own chair and we, as parliamentarians on this committee, do so?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

This is a parliamentary committee. We're actually advancing a committee of parliamentarians. It's actually quite different. That's where I think it's important to note that there is no history to a committee of parliamentarians like this in Canada.

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

There is the U.K. example and they love electing the chair. They say that's been great.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

We don't live in the U.K., we live in Canada.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That was after 15 years; not initially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Ministers.

Go ahead, Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the ministers for appearing and for all their hard work in shepherding this legislation into law.

Minister Goodale, you spoke at some length about the committee of parliamentarians' mandate to conduct a review of ongoing operational activities. One expression you used was that the committee will be able to “follow the evidence wherever it leads”.

There are some limitations to that statement. Mr. Clement pointed out what some of those limitations are in the draft legislation. You have summarized the rationale underscoring those limitations by saying that for obvious reasons, we have to be very cautious about allowing classified information, information that would be injurious to national security, into the public realm. I think that's a sentiment that all members of this committee would share.

What I would like to ask you about, though, are what you described as the general powers of investigation of this committee. There are some other contexts from which I think we can draw. If you were to look at the legislation under the CSIS Act, which provides SIRC with its mandate, there are some statements there that describe the powers of investigation generally. If you go to the National Defence Act, the commissioner of the CSE is empowered to conduct certain investigations by being granted powers that are exactly the same as those of a commissioner of inquiry under the Inquiries Act.

Can you take a moment and talk about what kinds of powers generally that you envision this committee having? Will it have the capacity to enter the premises, to examine documents, or to summons or request witnesses to testify before that committee?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

They will have the authority to request all of that, Mr. Mendicino. The expectation here is that the agencies—CSIS, SIRC, CSEC, CBSA, all of them—will respond in a very fulsome way to anything that the committee asks. If one of the agencies has a problem with a request from the committee of parliamentarians, then they would go to the responsible minister and the minister would have to make the judgment call about whether they have a point or not.

If the minister feels that in fact there is some injury to national security that's risked in a certain set of circumstances, then the minister would need to explain that to the committee. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the bully pulpit that's available to the committee will be a very powerful tool in the court of public opinion.

The committee would also, I think, like to use the other powers of the other review bodies to make sure that the full scope of inquiry is accomplished effectively. That's where the two levels of organization need to work together.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for that. You have anticipated the second area of my questions today, and that is to help you build on your answer to Ms. Damoff about how parliamentary oversight will collaborate with existing civilian oversight.

As I understood or comprehended from your answer today, you would like to see that process develop organically rather than prescriptively at this stage. But do you see some benefit—without being overly telegraphing at this moment—that as the committee of parliamentarians reaches out to SIRC, perhaps the commissioner of the CSE, and other review bodies, they should be talking about protocols around the exchange of information, around the referral of investigations and complaints, so that we can see a robust inquiry as the circumstances may dictate?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I would think they may well want to enter into memoranda of understanding or protocols for how they will function efficiently and effectively with each other. That will take a bit of exploration. But that would be one vehicle by which to ensure that they have the ground covered, they're not leaving any gaps, and they're not duplicating.

But it's interesting, when you look at the resources that the committee of parliamentarians will have and add to that.... I know you can't just do a one-to-one addition here, but take into account the resources available to the commissioners at CSEC and SIRC, and the CRCC. That is quite a pool of talent, substantially larger than would be available to the British committee, for example. So I think you can be confident that the resources available combined in all of the review bodies, including this new committee, will be quite significant.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

For my last question, Minister Chagger, perhaps you could just elaborate a little bit on why you believe this legislation does support the principle of an independent committee.

Thank you.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have to say that part of the structure we have within the parliamentary system, of this legislation even coming to committee, for us to have these conversations, is only going to make this legislation better. I believe when it comes to the mandate that Canadians have given us to advance a more open, more transparent government to empower parliamentarians, this is a step in the right direction.

We know time and time again that there has not been a mechanism of such in place. That's where I have to agree that the pieces need to work together. Having legislation like this in place, and having these meaningful conversations, will allow us to arrange for those details in, I believe, a more collaborative way rather than trying to infringe upon people's territories as we've done in the past.

I think this is a step; we brought it out, we had a conversation during the campaign, we continued those discussions and engaged with Canadians, and now we're here at this table being asked these tough questions. I think that is going to put us in a very good spot to start.

I'm actually excited that we are looking to review it, because I know, as the Prime Minister says, better is always possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

I just want to talk a little bit about openness and transparency and being an independent committee.

The common thread we saw when we went across the country was around having an elected chair. It is around transparency and around openness. With a chair already picked back in January, that doesn't instill any openness or transparency or confidence, frankly.

I do want to come back to a couple of points within the context of the bill. So the committee reports to the Prime Minister. The appointments are recommended by the Prime Minister. The chair is appointed by the Prime Minister.

Ms. Chagger, you said, “How any redactions are done is decided by the committee itself and not the Prime Minister.” Well, this is in direct conflict with the bill as it's written in subclause 21(5), where it says that after consulting with the chair, the Prime Minister, if he is of an opinion...he directs the committee to change the report.

I'd like to get your comments on how that's transparent, how that's open, how that instills confidence with the general public, and how that is empowering parliamentarians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I thank you for that comment. I will echo the comments my colleague has made in regard to coming to this committee. If there's any new wording that you might like to provide, we would definitely be open to it.

When I read the same—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay, let me just jump in, because we have limited time. What I'm hearing you say is that, under this clause that I've just read, we can amend, within this committee here, this clause that would allow—and I'm using your words again—that the committee itself, not the Prime Minister, would look at redacting information.

While I get the issue around national security and the buck stopping with the Prime Minister—I totally get that, and I don't think there's an argument there—I think it's about how the structure is set up and how we're going to move forward. A bill is a bill, and the language is very important. We can offer up some amendments, but what assurances do we have as parliamentarians that this will in fact be passed?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I'm going to actually get my deputy to comment, but I just want to also say that, when it comes to the GIC appointments, and it comes to the people who will be on the committee, the Prime Minister will be consulting the leaders of the opposition and third party and so forth. This is not the approach that's intended. Sometimes the way we read things is different for different eyes. But I'll get you a clarification—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Well, the words are right here; I can read it to you. I didn't make it up.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I read the same paragraph and I got a different.... You should see my comments, actually. I took it the opposite way of it, so it's interesting.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes. Well, this is the bill. This is the actual bill that was—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I do too.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay.

[Ian McCowan, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Actually, it's the right clause in terms of the provision that has been under discussion. What I would say on that is that the intention is for the Prime Minister to make a determination with respect to the types of information that are flagged in subclause 21(5), indicate that to the committee, and then it's for the committee to determine basically how to adjust the report with respect to that information.

As was indicated by Minister Goodale in his earlier comments, there are probably a number of ways that could be done, but there's sort of a two-step process, if you will: first of all, the Prime Minister indicating that some of the categories that are flagged in 21(5) are in play; and then it's over to the committee to determine basically how to adjust the text, whether it's blacking out or some other means, in order to look after those concerns.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Right, and as I said, it's “after consulting the Chair of the Committee”. It's written right here. The pending legislation here is in black and white, and we need to make...and I think we're doing the clause-by-clause going through this to make amendments afterwards.

I just want to make sure that...because there's a difference between intent and actually making sure we have the appropriate wording. I think, as my colleague has said, this is something we want to get right. We want to move forward and make sure that everything is covered off and that this isn't just a committee that is perceived as being governed by the governing party.