Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

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

I would point out that while I am mindful of the comments of both Mr. Dubé and Ms. May regarding the U.K. experience, it did take roughly 20 years for that jurisdiction to evolve from an appointment-based committee to an elected model. Obviously this bill, once passed, will have a review provision. I don't think there's any assumption that in perpetuity the committee will always remain as it is right now.

The second thing I would point out is that based on the language put forward by Mr. Rankin, as articulated through Mr. Dubé, the chair of the committee would be disqualified by virtue of membership in one party, which seems to run also contrary to the spirit of having an inclusive committee of parliamentarians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We are disappointed in the government's position on this. The idea that the U.K. advanced that way shows that there's a closed-mindedness to learning lessons from our Five Eyes allies in something that has worked very well. Lessons from our own committees, including the public accounts committee, as I mentioned....

I'll read in for the record the quote from the McDonald commission. It says:

If the parties are represented on the Committee roughly in proportion...

We've already defeated that amendment.

...the Committee should be chaired by a member of an opposition party . We understand that the combination of a government majority and an opposition chairman has worked well with the Public Accounts Committees . We think a similar balance would contribute to the effectiveness and credibility...

Those are two things that we believe are key to this, and it's unfortunate that the government doesn't seem to think so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, shall this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Moving now to the Conservative Party amendment CPC-3, who would like to move that?

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

I so move—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm sorry; it's BQ-2. It is deemed to have been moved.

Are there any questions or comments on the the Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-2?

Go ahead, Mr. Di Iorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A legislative scheme has been developed here, and it is important to remember that this amendment does not fit the scheme that was put forward.

It's important to keep in mind that this is a committee of parliamentarians that performs an oversight function in relation to executive functioning, and so falls under governance.

Since this runs directly counter to this concept, I would suggest that we should vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, shall this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now comes CPC-3, the moment we've been waiting for.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It has been moved. Would you like to...?

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

Well, it just improves the language to indicate that there's a vacancy. If the chair is vacant, there is a provision for designating another member, and it must be done within 90 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It's good construction to look at all the contingencies. I'm sure Mr. Mendicino feels the same way about it.

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

I doubt it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any comments? Seeing none, shall this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

We will move now to clause 8, which has a number of competing motions.

We will begin with BQ-3, and then, just for your knowledge, we will go to NDP-3, CPC-4, LIB-4, and Green Party 2. If BQ-3 is adopted, then NDP-3, CPC-4 and LIB-4 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line. If BQ-3 is defeated, the next amendment that can be moved would be NDP-3, and so on.

First, it is deemed that BQ-3 has been moved. Are there any comments on BQ-3?

Go ahead, Mr. Di Iorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we look at the suggested amendment, we see that it is inconsistent with the intent of the bill. The amendment seeks to remove the proposed committee's mandate to review, at its discretion, government-wide activities related to national security and intelligence.

I also note that the amendment would reduce the committee's capacity to ensure that the activities of our national security agencies respect the legislation and Canadian values.

I'd also like to point out that adding an obligation to report to the public is unnecessary, since the bill already sets out detailed requirements in this respect. In fact, the committee must table public reports to Parliament at least once a year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay. Are there other comments? Hearing none with respect to BQ-3, shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That would move us then to NDP-3.

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

It is so moved, and I'll leave the honours to Mr. Rankin to explain.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think members will remember that Craig Forcese, among others, called the access provisions in this bill a “triple lock” that could “make the committee...stumble.” This is right in the middle of the mandate, giving any appropriate minister the ability to simply unilaterally determine that any review would be injurious to national security. I am pleased to see that an identical amendment has been moved by the Conservatives as CPC-4.

The objective of this amendment is to try to provide more credibility to this committee. It would grant the oversight committee essentially the same powers that the Security Intelligence Review Committee has had for many years and that the CSE commissioner enjoys today.

The issue of oversight interfering with operations is, indeed, a real concern—that's acknowledged—but it is hardly a new problem. SIRC and CSIS have testified that they resolve these disagreements routinely and have done so for decades. I am simply proposing that this committee conduct itself with the same powers and discretion that SIRC has had.

I just want to remind the committee of two key points of witness testimony. Ron Atkey, who was the first chair of SIRC, said that this ministerial veto “reflects a reluctance to have the committee...act as a true watchdog.”

Second, the Information Commissioner said this: “This override essentially turns the committee's broad mandate into a mirage. It will undermine any goodwill and public trust that may have been built up towards the committee and, by extension, the national security agencies it oversees.”

Mr. Chair, I would urge members to heed her warning and adopt this amendment, which is endorsed by Kent Roach, Craig Forcese, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Next is Mr. Clement, and then Mr. Mendicino.

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

Thank you.

It's eerily similar to my amendment, so we were obviously thinking the same way. As a consequence of that, I would support Mr. Rankin's amendment and merely add to the record that if we are going to go ahead and have an oversight committee, which was a Liberal campaign idea and something they pursued in the election campaign as part of their response to Bill C-51, then let's make sure it is actually capable of doing its job.

Mr. Mendicino or anybody else can say, “When you were in power, you said this or did that.” That's all ancient history. They ran on this platform, Mr. Chair, and they were elected, and now I think they have been turned away from their own campaign pledge by the skittishness of the advice they are getting from bureaucrats. It's kind of sad to see, really.

I would encourage members on the other side to remember their campaign pledges and the principles upon which they sought election and were elected, and to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Mendicino, go ahead.

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

Let me just begin by saying that in short course I will be moving an amendment that I think does reflect some of the testimony we heard from the likes of Professor Forcese and Mr. Atkey.

I had an exchange with Mr. Forcese about his use of the metaphor of the “triple lock”. I think it really misconstrues a proper understanding of what ministerial discretion is, and it conflates discretion with automatic exclusion.

You can't have an automatic triple lock if there is some proper exercise of ministerial discretion. I think he acknowledged that in our exchange. As public trust and confidence are enhanced over time as this committee get its footing, even Professor Forcese did take a moment to say, in evidence, that he understood the minister would have the ability to exercise his or her discretion, under clause 8 or clause 16, in a manner consistent with the purpose and the broad mandate of this committee as drafted.

The other thing I would say is that in the evidence given by Professor Forcese and Mr. Atkey, there were moments.... We wouldn't want to see an ongoing national security activity potentially compromised by sharing this information with the committee. I don't see that as necessarily interfering with the mandate of the committee, although I accept that the committee will be security-cleared.

If we are going to be referring to the stated evidence saying that it has to be balanced, certainly completely deleting any ministerial discretion under clause 8 would not be consistent with what this committee heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Watts is next.

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

To that point, we heard over and over again, and from the Canadian Bar Association, citing the same thing:

In our view, the parliamentary committee should be able to set its own agenda, with input from Ministers...8(c) is problematic partially because it allows Ministers to influence the agenda and the priorities of the Parliamentary Committee.

I think we heard that over and over again from testimony.

I sit here and wonder why we spent the time going across Canada, having witness after witness read into testimony the very things that we're trying to put in place here, only to have it thrown out the window. It's a colossal waste of everybody's time.

I'm not sure what the intent was through this entire exercise. I don't know that there was one person who gave testimony that we heard contrary to this. I'm at a loss, Mr. Chair.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Rankin.