Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

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

One of the disciplines on the process.... The committee could certainly do this, but if you think we need to make it explicit, empowering the committee to report on the number of times they've run into a difficulty with a minister, simply that public exposure would draw public attention to whether or not there's a chronic problem.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Can I now turn to the role of the announced chair of this committee, to Mr. McGuinty? I'm not sure which one of you wants to take this on.

First of all, when the member for Ottawa South was announced, he was reported to be receiving a bump-up in his salary of about $42,000. Has that started yet?

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

No.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

He's not being paid right now?

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

No. At this stage there is no committee, therefore there is no chair, and therefore there is no payment.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

But I note that I seem to know that there is a chair, because it was announced by the government. I'm just wondering what his role was when he visited London, for example. I believe there was a meeting with MI5 or one of the British organizations. Can you elaborate a little bit on that?

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

He participated in discussions, both in London and here in Ottawa, with various representatives of the U.K. committee and their security organizations, just to assist in the work of consulting in advance of this legislation.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

The other thing is about meaningful consultation with the parties and with Parliament. I would put it to you, sir, that appointing or declaring a committee chair before the bill has even been put before this committee or before being voted on by Parliament is a fairly unusual and curious procedure.

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

The point of the consultation, Mr. Clement, was to get going as rapidly as possible. There was a window of time back in January-February, when I had the opportunity, some space on the calendar, to engage in the consultation. I wanted to be sure that in that process, whether the consultation was here or in London, I had the benefit of another set of eyes and ears and someone who could participate with me in that process. It all helped to refine the detail that went into the legislation.

There was no special remuneration for that. A committee chair only gets paid when the committee exists and the chair is officially in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you to Mr. Clement, our newest member of the committee.

I also want to point out that Ms. Watts is the second-newest member since you were here last, and is adding great value.

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

Is that great value in comparison to Tony, or...?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[A voice]

That goes without saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Monsieur Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thanks for being here.

I want to quote what the Prime Minister said when we were debating Bill C-51:

An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.” That is crucial and must be amended, if we are giving CSIS the new powers proposed in Bill C-51.

That's not necessarily what this committee is doing, but I want to go back to Mr. Clement's point about the information that's available, because, Minister Goodale, you quoted Craig Forcese. Professors Atkey, Forcese, and Roach said in The Globe and Mail that they were very concerned about the Prime Minister's ability to redact reports, but also about how much information is shared.

You and Mr. Clement had an exchange over law enforcement investigations, but there is also defence intelligence and special operational information which, as defined by the law, is very broad and leads to a web of instances whereby you basically find yourself in a situation where anything that can even be inferred from the information being given to the committee could be considered off limits to the committee.

Without that information, how can the committee be expected to do its job? That's the first part of the question. Second, if we have a concrete amendment for you to allow that information to be shared, would you accept that?

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

To answer the latter part of the question first, we're prepared to look seriously at all amendments and give them a fair consideration.

On your reference to redaction by the Prime Minister, again, referring to my answer to Mr. Clement, if the language in clause 21 is—

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

Minister, I don't mean to interrupt you. I did mention that in one of the quotes, but specifically about the information that's accessible to committee, those three categories and how broad that is.

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

What we want to have here is a committee with a broad mandate and narrow limitations. If there is some part of clause 14 that you think is expressed in too general a set of terms, we're prepared to look at possible amendments to tighten it up.

On the point about redaction, the purpose of that is solely to protect classified information. If the language in clause 21 is thought to be too broad, we can also look at tightening that as well.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is about the election of the committee's chair. According to the current wording, the chair is appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Of course, we share Mr. Clement's concerns about the fact that we knew the identity of the chair before we even knew the bill.

Actually, the U.K. committee chair feels that, in order to earn the public's trust, parliamentarians must be granted more powers, including the power to choose the chair of the committee. That's one of the ways the U.K. has dealt with that.

Is that something you would be ready to consider?

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

I think the issue of electing the chair is something that might be preserved to the five-year review when we get there.

I think we have to recognize that, at the moment, where the buck stops in Canada on national security is with the Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be at any given moment in time. The Prime Minister is now in the process of creating a committee of parliamentarians to assume a portion of that responsibility. As this process gets started and established and the authorities are devolved and so forth, the Prime Minister still retains, ultimately, that onerous responsibility. I think it's reasonable, in the first instance, for the selection process to be handled in the way described in this legislation. That may change in future, but we have to walk before we run.

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

If the chair of the U.K. committee is saying that, for them, they realize that having that independence—or at least the perception of independence, because perception is important, as we all know in politics—to perceive that the committee is really on its own, and not having someone leading it who is named by the Prime Minister, what stops us from doing that now when we already have that example we can follow of how important that is for the public trust?

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

First of all, you have to build the public trust, and—

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

Isn't that one way to do it—by electing the chair and not having a chair hand-picked by the Prime Minister?

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

Remember how the U.K. experience started. As Senator Segal described in the quote that I read into the record, it started with a different structure, with more prime ministerial responsibility that was gradually devolved over time.

The advice from Senator Segal, but also the advice from the U.K. committee, is to start prudently, start cautiously, and allow the committee the time to earn its credentials, both in the public arena and among the security agencies that it needs to oversee. Gradually, as that credibility grows, then structures can be changed.

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

My question then would be to the government House leader.

If we're okay with electing chairs for these parliamentary committees, like the one we're at now, what would stop us from doing it at this committee, where it's so critical to gain the public trust and have that perception of independence?