House of Commons Hansard #150 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was languages.

Topics

Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training ActRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training ActRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

(Motion agreed to)

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Organ DonationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-316, which was submitted by Teresa DeGusti of Calgary. The petitioners are calling on the House to improve the organ donation system in Canada by making the process to register as an organ donor easier. This would be achieved by adding a simple question to our annual tax returns.

Becoming an organ donor is the easiest way to save the life of a fellow human being. Teresa collected pages and pages of signatures, and these are signatures of Canadians who want our organ donor system to work better so that we can save more lives every day.

Land Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from the community of St. Charles in the riding of Nickel Belt.

This petition requests that the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development engage with Bell Canada to find a solution for the St. Charles community's unreliable land-line telephone service, considering the poor coverage of the area for cell mobiles.

It is an honour for me to present this on behalf of more than 200 residents in St. Charles who signed a petition concerning the unreliable land-line service and the impact this has had on the community, families, and businesses in the area. It is unacceptable in 2017 that residents in Canada do not have a reliable dial tone for land-line service for daily interactions, emergency services, and economic development.

Organ DonationLand Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to table petition e-642, my first electronic petition, signed by 2,252 people in support of the member for Calgary Confederation's private member's bill, Bill C-316.

I want to take a moment to thank Shauna Rivait, who is the initiator of the petition. She worked extremely hard to get this many people to support her and to support the member for Calgary Confederation by signing this petition. It is very important. She has a personal connection to this, as do many people who signed the petition. Her father lived for 10 extra years thanks to a double lung transplant. Her sister, unfortunately, passed away.

I want to thank Shauna and all those who signed it. I also want to thank the government members for giving consideration to this bill. I will be going back to every single person who signed this petition to thank them for supporting my colleague in this endeavour.

PesticidesLand Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this petition in the House. The petitioners are concerned about the use of the herbicidal chemical glyphosate, and they are asking the government to make public all data proving that the chemical is safe for use in Canadian agriculture.

PesticidesLand Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.

The first petition is from residents throughout my constituency as well as a number from Alberta calling for the government to take action on neonicotinoid insecticides, which threaten pollinator populations.

Genetically Modified FoodLand Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the issue of genetically modified food, and it comes from petitioners in Toronto. They add that consumers be given the right to know and that GMO products be labelled.

150th Anniversary of ConfederationLand Line Telephone ServiceRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, commemorative medals have been issued by the Government of Canada on significant milestones in our country's history to recognize the contributions of everyday Canadians to their communities, contributions that mean so much to so many but too often go unnoticed and unrecognized. A medal was issued for our Confederation in 1867, the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation in 1927, the centennial in 1967, and the 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992, but as part of the Liberal war on history, there will be no medal honouring the country-building contributions of Canadians on the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The tradition is being ignored, and community-leading Canadians are being forgotten.

Petitioners from Armstrong, British Columbia, call upon the Government of Canada to respect tradition and recognize deserving Canadians and reverse its decision to cancel the commemorative medal for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-22.

The Chair has received a letter from the government House leader arguing that Motion No. 6 could not have been presented in committee, as the changes it proposes arose out of a decision of the Supreme Court rendered very shortly before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security began clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. A similar argument was made in relation to part (b) of Motion No. 3. The court decision in question was rendered on Friday, November 25, 2016, and clause-by-clause consideration began on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. The government House leader contended in her letter that there was not sufficient time to analyze the consequences of the decision and prepare amendments accordingly. For that reason, she has asked that they be selected at report stage.

The hon. member for Victoria has also sent a letter to the Chair arguing that these amendments should not be selected, as he believes they should have been presented in committee. He also argues that there are cases in the past where the Chair has refused to select motions presented by the government.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented or were defeated in committee.

However, there have been exceptions. On September 22, 2014, the Speaker was faced with a similar case in relation to a motion at the report stage of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The hon. member for Charlottetown submitted a motion arising out of a court decision rendered after clause-by-clause and, in that case, the motion was selected.

The circumstances in the present case, although not identical, are sufficiently analogous to satisfy the Chair that the motions in question should be selected for consideration at report stage.

The Chair has examined the remaining motions submitted and is satisfied they meet the criteria spelled out in Standing Order 76.1(5). Motion No. 1 could not have been presented in committee, as it requires a royal recommendation. Part (a) of Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4 further amend changes made by the committee. Motion No. 5 restores a clause deleted by the committee. Motions Nos. 2 and 7 propose to delete clauses. These motions will all be selected.

Motions numbered 1 to 7 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 7 to the House.

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-22, in Clause 4, be amended by

(a) replacing line 34 on page 2 with the following:

and up to ten other members, each of whom must be a

(b) replacing lines 3 to 6 on page 3 with the following:

(2) The Committee is to consist of not more than three members who are members of the Senate and not more than eight members who are members of the House of Commons. Not more than five Committee members who

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-22, in Clause 13, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 6 with the following:

to sections 14 and 16, the Committee is entitled to have access to

(b) replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 6 with the following:

ed by litigation privilege or by solicitor-client privilege or the professional

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 6 with the following:

14 The Committee is not entitled to have access to any of the following information:

(a) a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, as defined in subsection 39(2) of the Canada Evidence Act;

(b) information the disclosure of which is described in subsection 11(1) of the Witness Protection Program Act;

(c) the identity of a person who was, is or is intended to be, has been approached to be, or has offered or agreed to be, a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada, or the government of a province or of any state allied with Canada, or information from which the person’s identity could be inferred;

(d) information relating directly to an ongoing investigation carried out by a law enforcement agency that may lead to a prosecution.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-22 be amended by restoring Clause 16 as follows:

16 (1) The appropriate Minister for a department may refuse to provide information to which the Committee would, but for this section, otherwise be entitled to have access and that is under the control of that department, but only if he or she is of the opinion that

(a) the information constitutes special operational information, as defined in subsection 8(1) of the Security of Information Act; and

(b) provision of the information would be injurious to national security.

(2) If the appropriate Minister refuses to provide information under subsection (1), he or she must inform the Committee of his or her decision and the reasons for the decision.

(3) If the appropriate Minister makes the decision in respect of any of the following information, he or she must provide the decision and reasons to,

(a) in the case of information under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;

(b) in the case of information under the control of the Communications Security Establishment, the Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment; and

(c) in the case of information under the control of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-22, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 8 with the following:

is protected by litigation privilege or by solicitor-client privilege or the

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22 as we consider the bill as reported to this House by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would like to commend the standing committee for its thorough review of this important bill. The standing committee heard evidence and views from a wide array of stakeholders and experts. I was pleased to testify with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and our officials. Others who appeared at the committee included the heads of Canada's national security and intelligence agencies, our existing national review bodies, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, human rights advocates, and leading professionals and academic experts in the area.

With such a diversity of witnesses, it is not surprising that the committee heard differing views on some of the specific provisions of the bill. However, I believe one overriding theme has emerged from the debate on Bill C-22 so far. The national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, or NSICOP, is definitely an idea whose time has come.

Our government believes strongly in the importance of a well-functioning and accountable national security system that both protects Canadians while at the same time respects their rights and freedoms. Bill C-22 would fulfill a key commitment made during the last election to create a new national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

The proposed bill would establish a rigorous parliamentary oversight mechanism of national security and intelligence activities. The committee of MPs and senators would have a mandate that is distinctly broader than is the case in most other countries. It would be empowered to examine activities across the entire federal government, including operational matters.

Our government believes in the importance of those powers granted to the committee, while also ensuring that safeguards exist, so that certain classified information is not disclosed that could disrupt government operations or be injurious to national security.

Commentators have been virtually unanimous in commending the government for taking this major step in enhancing the accountability and effectiveness of our national security and intelligence apparatus. They have noted that a genuine capacity for parliamentarians to scrutinize government activity in this area has been a long-time coming in Canada.

It has been over 30 years since the McDonald Commission proposed this type of committee. During the intervening years, Canada has been left as the only Five Eyes partner that has not created a permanent structure to provide parliamentarians with access to classified national security and intelligence information.

As one of the witnesses mentioned, this is the first time that there have been hearings before a standing committee with respect to a government bill on this subject. Therefore, this is an important step that has been taken because the government made it a clear priority.

The standing committee heard several witnesses explain how the structure created by Bill C-22 is comparable to those established by other countries. In particular, Bill C-22 was often compared to the intelligence and security committee that was active for a time in the United Kingdom.

The U.K. experience is indeed an informative one, providing a relatively longstanding example of a committee operating in a Westminster system comparable to our own, and one whose mandate and structure has evolved over time. As in the U.K., Bill C-22 would seek to balance the access to highly sensitive classified information that would be afforded to parliamentarians, with protections to ensure that this information and vital ongoing operations would not compromised.

However, it is important to remember that while its development has been informed in important ways by international comparators, Bill C-22 would be very much a made in Canada approach. In particular, Bill C-22 would reflect our government's commitment to ensuring that all national security and intelligence activities of the Government of Canada would be included within the NSICOP's mandate, regardless of which department or agency is responsible for them; that is, the committee's mandate would not be limited to particular agencies, as is the case in other countries.

On this point, I was pleased to see that one of the amendments reported to us by the standing committee would make it clear that NSICOP's mandate and access to information includes crown corporations. I fully support this amendment as it would further the government's objective of ensuring that the committee could review in totality national security intelligence activities across the whole of government. This is a good example of the constructive discussions that were had around the committee table.

I was also pleased to see the inclusion by the committee of a whistleblower provision which would cause the committee to inform the affected minister and Attorney General of any activity carried out by a department related to national security or intelligence which may not be in compliance with the law.

Another unique aspect of Bill C-22 is that it would provide the new committee with a clear mandate to review any national security and intelligence operation, including operations that are ongoing.

The laws of other countries place more restrictions on this type of operational review. For example, some committees cannot examine the operations until they cease or if they obtain the government's approval in advance.

The NSICOP would have the statutory right to access highly classified national security and intelligence information in any department or agency and now any crown corporation as well. Again, this would put Canada at the forefront in terms of international comparators, and certainly no existing review body in Canada has this wide scope of access. Of course, as in other jurisdictions, Bill C-22 would also include some limits to access to information. These are carefully defined to protect the personal information of Canadians, the safety of individuals, the integrity of police investigations, and other important public interests.

The standing committee made some significant changes to the bill in this area, essentially removing all limits. Although I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments were made, I believe we need to consider the potential consequences very carefully. In doing so, we need to keep in mind the unprecedented scope of the NSICOP's mandate and access to information compared to other review bodies in Canada and elsewhere.

I have moved in the House further amendments to these sections, specifically for clauses 13, 14, and 16 of the bill. The proposed amendment to clause 13 is intended to ensure that the work of the NSICOP would proceed in the reasonable manner that is consistent with its mandate and would not be bogged down in judicial procedures.

My proposal to reintroduce some of the mandatory sections to the NSICOP's access as originally set out in clause 14, would ensure the necessary protections would be in place for the safety and security of individuals, and that active national security-related police investigations would not adversely affected.

Finally, my proposed reinstatement of clause 16, as it appeared when the bill was tabled, is meant, based on a minister's discretion, to protect against the risk of inadvertent disclosure which may cause harm to Canada or Canada's partners' national security interests. These proposed amendments would seek a balanced approach between the original version of the bill and the changes made by the standing committee. We are being responsive to the standing committee's concerns while trying to maintain necessary protections.

Enhanced accountability is not a one-off initiative, but rather an ongoing effort that requires continued commitment and periodic reassessment. The NSICOP would be a major step forward in improving the accountability of the government's intelligence and national security activities. We are starting ahead of where other countries began. The committee would have a broad mandate, and would have access to extensive information. That is the best possible starting point for the launch of this new committee of parliamentarians.

As the committee gains experience and expertise in its years of operation, we would have the opportunity to reassess whether this balance can be further improved. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-22 and the accompanying amendments.

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, as far as populating the committee, as it stands today, is the bill consistent with the practices of other Westminster parliaments in their appointments to this particular committee?

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, the committee did extensive work bringing in witnesses. There was a diversity of opinions that were shared.

The amendments that we have proposed really find the balance. When it comes to the appointments, the Prime Minister will be making those appointments, and working with leaders of opposition parties to ensure that they have the ability to share who they would like to see on the committee.

This government will always work in the best interests of Canadians.

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, in respect of Motion No. 4, which would remove the committee's power to subpoena witnesses and documents, why was this change removed? Why do we no longer have, as we would have had with the public safety committee's report, the opportunity to compel information? This is something that every parliamentary committee has but this one would not.

I understand that this was proposed, the idea of a subpoena power, by a Liberal member on that committee. It was also a feature of a Liberal private member's bill, Bill C-622, which was supported by the current Prime Minister, the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the future chair of this committee, among other current cabinet ministers.

Why, therefore, did the Liberals feel it necessary to remove such a fundamental power from this committee?

Motions in amendmentNational Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his good work, and I hope we can continue to work together in the best interests of all Canadians.

The hon. member knows very well that when it came to experts, they said that this was great the way it was. If anything, these amendments take into consideration the work that the committee did, and make this legislation even better.

When it comes to subpoena powers, the committee's amendment to clause 13 of the bill has created several inconsistencies that will create conflict. For instance, clause 15 clearly states that when the committee is entitled to be provided oral testimony on an issue, the appropriate minister or officials of the department may appear before the committee to provide the information orally.

The committee is amending clause 13 to give the committee the power to send a specific individual of their choosing. Essentially, under section 13 and 15, both the government and the committee would have the power to determine who should appear to provide testimony, and yet there is no recourse mechanism to solve the deadlock.

We are working in the best interests of this committee. We have to remember that it is the first of its kind in this country, and it is important that we take this necessary step. As I said earlier, it is time that we get it done.