Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

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

I'll just finish.

If the underlying objective of the bill was not to look at oversight and independence, can you explain to me what that vision looked like?

[Nancy Miles]

I don't agree that I said it was ignoring the independence of the committee at all—

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

Oh, I didn't say you were ignoring independence.

[Nancy Miles]

—but rather, in fact, the mandate is quite large for them to deal with a review of both the framework and any activity that relates to their mandate, national security and intelligence.

[Allen Sutherland]

It's independent in lots of ways. One is just the wide breadth of information from any department or agency. It's independent as to where it chooses to focus its activities and it's independent in that it gets a vast amount of information and can come up with findings that it determines are relevant.

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

But the information is deemed by the minister, vetoed by the minister.

[Allen Sutherland]

It is, subject to some very tight constraints.

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

That's my point: it's not an independent oversight body in any way, shape, or form.

[Allen Sutherland]

It is just part of the Westminster system that ministers decide. The minister, as head of the organization, decides for the organization.

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

Okay. You took the Westminster system and just applied it for us, whether it's applicable or not.

I don't mean to be combative; I'm just trying to understand. What I hear, and what we've heard through this whole process, had to do with the oversight and independence of the committee, meaning that the committee could determine what it needs to look at, where it needs to go, who it can call before it. What I'm seeing and hearing here is that this is not the underlying objective of it at all, because the independence aspect is not there.

[Nancy Miles]

There are a number of models you could choose, and you could become very restrictive or you could go very wide. What we're saying is that in the drafting of the bill we have tried to apply the Westminster model as much as we can to provide for a large amount of information being available, but also for attaching the ministerial responsibility to that access to information.

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

Fair enough. I'm just trying to square this off because of the witnesses who came before us time and time again talking about the need for independence. We all sat through all the meetings and went across the country. That's why I'm asking you what the underlying objective was, because it's very different from what we heard.

My question has been answered. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Mr. Mendicino, Mr. Erskine-Smith, and Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I can synthesize, having answered questions from colleagues on both sides of the committee.

In drafting this legislation, there was an attempt to be faithful to the Westminster model; therefore, instead of using subpoena language and infusing subpoena powers, we went with a model that would engender public trust and confidence, with good communication between the minister and the committee of parliamentarians.

That said, a request is not just a request out of politeness. There is an underlying entitlement to that request. In Mr. Rankin's hypothetical case, you would still be able to ask to have the victim produced, and not just the janitor. You would be entitled to get the victim there. If you didn't get the victim, you would be able to use the bully pulpit to demonstrate your concern about being at an impasse through the lack of that particular individual's being produced. That is in keeping with the Westminster model.

Using subpoena powers imports all other potential consequences, including judicial review, which quite clearly the bill is attempting to avoid, for a number of reasons.

Is that a fair summary?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Mr. Erskine-Smith, Mr. Spengemann, and then, I'm feeling, Mr. Rankin.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I just want to say that this is the first time I have heard at this committee, I think, a useful explanation as to why the subpoena powers may not be necessary. All of the other testimony—and we spent a lot of time at this—has suggested that they're important. I am a bit conflicted on this now, but I will say, to Mr. Rankin's point and Ms. Watts' point, that I think it's best we err on the side of caution to say that we should empower this committee as much as possible, and so I will be voting for the amendment.

I don't know that it's the right language. It may be reversed at report stage, but take this vote as direction to go back and see whether you can find a way to empower this committee to tackle the concerns that Ms. Watts and Mr. Rankin have mentioned.

Whether a subpoena power is drafted the way this amendment is drafted or some other way, I think it is important that we empower the committee to access individuals—obviously, proposed subsection 15(3) gives access to records—in a more serious way.

That's all I'll say. I will support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the exchange between Ms. Watts and Mr. Sutherland, bearing in mind that the chair, according to the testimony of several witnesses, should have significant public communications and moral suasion powers by which to engage the public as well as colleagues and counterparts.

Mr. Sutherland, in your view, what would happen if the committee requested information from a minister or requested the attendance of a lower-level official to shine some light on an issue that official would be familiar with, and the minister declined to respond positively to that request? How would that play itself out in the context of having a Westminister model in which trust really is the essence?

[Heather Sheehy]

I'll respond, if that's all right.

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

Sure.

[Heather Sheehy]

The committee of parliamentarians is entitled to the information that it requests, and the minister under proposed subsection 15(3)....

I will read it, actually:

After the appropriate Minister receives the request, he or she must provide or cause to be provided to the Committee, in a timely manner, the requested information to which it is entitled to have access.

It's very clear.

There are provisions that we haven't reached in this clause-by-clause study that allow for statutory provisions. Proposed section 14 sets out information that cannot be provided to the committee, and proposed section 16 has some very limited discretionary provisions that allow a minister, if information is special operational information or would be injurious to national security, to not provide that information.

Those are the only two clauses, other than what I just read to you.

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

Right, though what I was getting at is not so much the clauses of the bill but whether, if the committee feels that probably the best evidence comes from a lower-level official and the minister decides she doesn't want to bring that official to the table at time X, it would be within the committee's purview to communicate that publicly or put pressure on the minister in some other fashion to make sure that the person is sent to the committee.

[Heather Sheehy]

In their reports the committee of parliamentarians can make...I'll use the word “complaints” that they're not getting access to the information they required, if that is their interpretation of it. The minister, however, does have to provide the information asked for.

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

Is it fair to say that those powers perhaps are as influential, if not more so, than a legal subpoena power?

[Heather Sheehy]

I like to think of them as a court of public opinion.

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

Thank you very much. That's helpful.