SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
John Davies and Sophie Beecher answered questions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, and of the Preamble was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
On Clause 2,
Sven Spengemann moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 3 with the following:“department means, other than in subsection 42(2), a department named in Schedule I to the Financial”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“five and no more than eight other members.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“4 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint the members of the Review Agency on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and after the approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing lines 13 to 25 on page 4 with the following:
“4 (1) Subject to section 4.1, the Governor in Council is to appoint, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the members of the Review Agency.
(b) by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“4.1 (1) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must establish a selection committee consisting of the following members:
(a) a person named by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;
(b) a person named by the Communications Security Establishment;
(c) a person named by each recognized political party in the House of Commons;
(d) the Deputy Minister of Justice;
(e) the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and
(f) a person named by the office of the Intelligence Commissioner.
(2) The Minister must submit to the selection committee a list of candidates whom he or she considers suitable to be appointed as members of the Review Agency. The committee shall assess the candidates and recommend those candidates it considers suitable to the Minister.
(3) The Minister must, from among those candidates, select those whom he or she considers most suitable for appointment to the Review Agency.
(4) The candidates selected by the Minister must be referred for approval by a committee designated or established by the House of Commons for that purpose.
(5) A candidate approved by the parliamentary committee may be recommended by the Minister for appointment to the Review Agency or, if the parliamentary committee does not give its approval, the Minister is to refer to the committee other candidates recommended under subsection (2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.
“(6) The Governor in Council is to designate, on the rec-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“(7) The Chair is to hold office on a full-time basis and the Vice-chair may be designated to hold”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“(7) The Chair and Vice-chair are each full-time members. Every member of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“as the Chair for more than 30 days without the approval”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.
“7.1 Subject to this Act, the Review Agency may determine the procedure to be followed in the exercise of its powers or the performance of any of its duties or functions.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
(a) by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following:
“17(1), 17.1(1), 17.2(1) or 18(3),”
(b) by adding after line 33 on page 7 the following:
“(b.1) in relation to a complaint made under subsection 17.1(1), any information that relates to the complaint and that is in the possession or under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development;
(b.2) in relation to a complaint made under subsection 17.2(1), any information that relates to the complaint and that is in the possession or under the control of the Canada Border Services Agency;”
(c) by adding after line 14 on page 10 the following:
“17.1 (1) Any person may make a complaint to the Review Agency with respect to any activity carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Agency must, subject to subsection (2), investigate the complaint if
(a) the complainant has made a complaint to the Department with respect to that activity and the complainant has not received a response within a period of time that the Agency considers reasonable or is dissatisfied with the response given; and
(b) the Agency is satisfied that the complaint is not trivial, frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith.
(2) The Review Agency must not investigate a complaint in respect of which the complainant is entitled to seek redress by means of a grievance procedure established under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.
17.2 (1) Any person may make a complaint to the Review Agency with respect to any activity carried out by the Canada Border Services Agency and the Review Agency must, subject to subsection (2), investigate the complaint if
(a) the complainant has made a complaint to the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to that activity and the complainant has not received a response within a period of time that the Review Agency considers reasonable or is dissatisfied with the response given; and
(b) the Review Agency is satisfied that the complaint is not trivial, frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith.
(2) The Review Agency must not investigate a complaint in respect of which the complainant is entitled to seek redress by means of a grievance procedure established under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.”
(d) by replacing line 12 on page 11 with the following:
“in subsections 16(1), 17(1), 17.1(1), 17.2(1) and 18(3) that are submitted”
(e) by replacing line 17 on page 11 with the following:
“21 A complaint under subsection 16(1), 17(1), 17.1(1), 17.2(1) or 18(3)”
(f) by adding after line 18 on page 13 the following:
“(b.1) on completion of an investigation in relation to a complaint under subsection 17.1(1), provide the appropriate Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development with a report containing the findings of the investigation and any recommendations that the Agency considers appropriate;
(b.2) on completion of an investigation in relation to a complaint under subsection 17.2(1), provide the appropriate Minister and the Canada Border Services Agency with a report containing the findings of the investigation and any recommendations that the Agency considers appropriate; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(2.1) The Review Agency must review the implementation of significant aspects of every new or modified ministerial direction that is issued to any of the following:
(a) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;
(b) the Communications Security Establishment; and
(c) any other department if the ministerial direction relates to national security or intelligence.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
“8.1 (1) Within one year after the day on which this section comes into force and on request thereafter, the appropriate Minister must provide to the Review Agency an explanation of the Minister's powers, duties, and functions — under legislation for which that Minister is responsible — that relate to national security or intelligence.
(2) The Review Agency may publish or otherwise make available the information received under subsection (1) in the manner and form it considers appropriate. ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“8.1 The Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians are to provide mutual assistance and take all reasonable steps to cooperate and avoid any unnecessary duplication of work by the Agency and the Committee in relation to the fulfilment of their respective mandates.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.
“any department and to any foreign intelligence, within the meaning of section 2 of the Communications Security Establishment Act, provided to it by foreign entities and that is relevant to its reviews.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“to have access to information that is subject to any privilege under the law of evidence, solicitor-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
“10 Despite any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, but subject to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
“10 Despite any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence, and subject to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
“10 Despite any other Act of Parliament and any privilege under the law of evidence and subject to”
Debate arose thereon.
At 12:09 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:18 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Michel Picard moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing, in the French version, the word “mais” with the word “et”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“Coordination
15.1 (1) When fulfilling its mandate under any of paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c), the Review Agency may coordinate its activities with those of the Privacy Commissioner under subsection 37(1) of the Privacy Act to avoid any unnecessary duplication of work.
(2) The Review Agency may, to the extent that it considers it necessary for the purpose of subsection (1), provide the Privacy Commissioner with information concerning its reviews under any of paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(2) The Review Agency must, in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, establish in which cases it is appropriate for the Agency to ask that Commission for its opinion or comments under subsection (1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“(d) to make orders to ensure that a department's activities that relate to national security or intelligence are carried out in compliance with the law and any applicable ministerial directions.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“27.1 Despite any provision of this Act, the Review Agency must suspend an investigation if, in the Agency’s opinion, continuing the investigation would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 12:51 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:53 p.m., the sitting resumed.
“27.1 Despite any provision of this Act, the Review Agency must suspend an investigation if, in the Agency’s opinion, continuing the investigation would compromise or seriously hinder an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding.”
The debate continued.
At 1:02 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.