Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

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

Thank you.

Just for the record, I will read the quote from the McDonald commission:

To ensure that the Committee has the confidence of the recognized parties in Parliament,

—I would add, on my own personal note, “and the public”, which is a key objective of this bill—

the leaders of opposition parties should personally select members of their party....

“Making Parliament work” is what the House leader said, I believe, in her testimony. While understanding that the Prime Minister does have some prerogative, I'm sure he would consult anyway with those leaders, so I don't see how it hurts to include it formally in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or comments?

Hearing none, I will call the vote on CPC-1.

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on amendment LIB-3.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

This amendment is to ensure that the committee is reconstituted within 60 days. I think that's fairly straightforward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just so long as you moved it.

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

I moved it. You didn't hear that part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff has moved amendment LIB-3, an amendment to clause 5.

Are there other questions or comments or concerns?

Seeing none, I will put the question. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

This would be the opportunity, if Mr. Mendicino wished to move amendment LIB-3.1.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, I would like to move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any questions about it?

Would you like to explain why we are entertaining such an amendment?

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

What amendment LIB-3.1 would do is amend clause 5 by replacing lines 10 to 12 on page 3, for those who wish to follow along, with a subclause 5(2), which would read as follows:

(2) A member of the Senate may be appointed to the Committee only after the Prime Minister has consulted with the persons referred to in paragraphs 62(a) and 62(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act and the leader of every caucus and of every recognized group in the Senate.

I believe the reasons for putting such an amendment forward are self-evident. They reflect the changing dynamics of the Senate. They also expressly require the Prime Minister to consult with both the Leader of the Government in the Senate as well as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I believe that is an enhancement that is not currently reflected in the plain language of the bill.

I would also suggest that the latter part of my proposed amendment, which reads, “and the leader of every caucus and of every recognized group in the Senate” is reflective of a recommendation in the modernization report for the Senate, which takes into account new and emerging caucuses within the Senate. It would require the Prime Minister to consult with the leaders of these caucuses in attempting to constitute this new parliamentary oversight committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other questions or commentary?

(Amendment agreed to)

We would entertain amendment CPC-2.

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

I move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Clement moves a change to clause 5. Would you like to comment on it?

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

It is fairly self-evident, involving consultation with leaders of the House of Commons to ensure that this has the support of the House and is recognized for its oversight role by having that consultation take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments?

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will now move on to the next amendment, which is from the Bloc Québécois.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a whole, the bill provides a mechanism whereby the appointment of members is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, there is a restriction that excludes members of parties that are not recognized and independent members.

The proposed amendment is essentially intended, in a very liberal spirit of statutory interpretation, to allow the nomination of third party members while retaining the Prime Minister's decision-making mechanism under the bill. Technically, this should not be a problem because it respects the letter and the spirit of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Any other comments?

Mr. Miller?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to vote against this motion. When the voters of Canada elect a government, there are rules in place for the numbers required to constitute a party. In this case, I don't believe that I can support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we consider the whole of the fifth clause at this point.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 6)

We'll move now to clause 6, designation of the chair.

I will just note that there are some line conflicts in the amendments as presented. If PV-1 is adopted, then NDP-2, BQ-2, and CPC-3 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines. NDP-2, BQ-2, and CPC-3 would not be eligible to be moved because they are essentially the same as PV-1. Well, they amend the same line, but they're not the same.

If it's defeated, we can move to the next one.

All right, that is deemed moved. Ms. May, would you like to comment on it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee.

I'll just take a moment to say that on November 18, under your deadline, I submitted to this committee a brief on the substance of what was formerly known as Bill C-51, in which I made commentary on this piece and particularly on how Bill C-22 is a much-appreciated bill. However, in and of itself it is insufficient to remedy the damage done to our security system by Bill C-51. You may not have that in your inboxes yet because I didn't submit it in both official languages. I hope you will take the time to consider it.

This amendment is very straightforward, and as you noted, Mr. Chair, it's similar to that put forward by other committee members. It deals with the current version of Bill C-22, which says that the Governor in Council is to designate the chair of the committee. As you will know from evidence before this committee, the committee process of the Parliament of Westminster, upon which Bill C-22 is based, does not have the appointment of the chair by the government of the day. In fact, based on a revision of their committee in 2013, the chair of the committee is elected by members of the committee. That is entirely the purpose of amendment PV-1. It is to ensure that the chair is elected by the members of the committee, and of course, the members of the committee, as you've previously approved in clause 5, are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to mention that we don't think the amendment goes far enough.

Once again, according to paragraph 38 of the McDonald report, we see that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is used as an example. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics also comes to mind. Both of these committees have chairs from opposition parties.

Since this is an oversight committee, I find it much more relevant to have a chair from the opposition, which isn't specified in the amendment before us at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other thoughts?

Shall this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Let's move then to NDP-2, which may be moved.

Mr. Dubé, do you move that?

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

Yes, I do move it.

One of the reasons we are creating this committee is that we need to regain the public's trust in our national security and the various institutions. I would like to reiterate that many witnesses, including the chair of the committee in the United Kingdom who appeared before us, explained how much electing the committee chair was positive and boosted public confidence in the committee.

We believe that electing the chair is a step in the right direction, obviously, but it would be even better to elect a chair from the opposition. We know that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, namely, two oversight committees among others where the chair is from the opposition, work very well. The members understand their mandate very well.

That's why we think it's important to have an elected chair, but from an opposition party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Mendicino, go ahead.