Bill C-22 (Historical)

An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts

This enactment establishes the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and sets out its composition and mandate. In addition, it establishes the Committee’s Secretariat, the role of which is to assist the Committee in fulfilling its mandate. It also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

[David Elder, Executive Member, Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thanks very much, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is David Elder. I am an executive committee member of the privacy and access law section of the Canadian Bar Association. I also co-lead the privacy and data protection practice at Stikeman Elliott LLP. I was formerly the chief privacy officer for a major Canadian telecommunications company, and I have been practising privacy law for over 20 years.

Thank you for the invitation to present the CBA's view on the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act.

The CBA is a national association of over 36,000 lawyers, law students, notaries, and academics. An important aspect of the CBA's mandate is seeking improvements in the law and the administration of justice, and it is that perspective that brings us to appear before you today.

Our submission to the committee on SCISA was prepared by a CBA national security working group, with contributions from the privacy and access law section as well as other sections. The section's membership represents lawyers with in-depth knowledge in the areas of privacy law and access to information from every part of the country, drawn from private practice, industry, and government sectors.

Our section also worked on the CBA submission this past fall in response to the government's national security green paper, and the year before that on the CBA submission to the public safety and national security committee respecting Bill C-51, part of which contains SCISA.

I'll now address the substance of our submission.

The CBA supports information sharing for the purpose of national security when that sharing is necessary, proportionate, and accompanied by adequate measures against potential abuse. However, sharing too much information or sharing information for unrestricted purposes can lead to harmful consequences. Moreover, such oversharing is contrary to the principles underlying privacy laws in Canada.

SCISA has significantly expanded intragovernmental information sharing for national security purposes in Canada, including the sharing of potentially sensitive personal information, without precise definitions, basic privacy protections, or clear limitations on the purposes for sharing. While some helpful changes were made to SCISA before its final passage into law in 2015, the statute still causes concern on several fronts.

The CBA has four main concerns with the law as enacted.

The first is independent oversight. SCISA includes a number of useful guiding principles for information sharing, including the principle that originators should retain control over shared information and the principle that information should be disclosed under the act only to institutions carrying out responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada.

However, to be meaningful, SCISA must include a robust oversight and accountability mechanism to enforce these principles. In the CBA's view, any oversight body should have independence from the government institutions that will be sharing information under the act in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

There may be several oversight models that could work in this regard. The committee of parliamentarians that was proposed in Bill C-22 could be one such option. Existing institutions, such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, might also work.

Whatever oversight mechanism is pursued, in order to better facilitate the review of activities carried out under SCISA, the CBA submits that regulations should be introduced requiring disclosing institutions to keep a record of all disclosures made under SCISA and requiring receiving institutions to maintain records of subsequent use and disclosure of information received pursuant to SCISA. If such records do not exist, it will be nearly impossible for any oversight body to determine whether the guiding principles of the act are indeed being respected.

The second concern is balanced information sharing.

The CBA notes that subsection 5(1) of SCISA permits disclosure among the 17 government institutions listed in the schedules of the act if the information is relevant to the recipient institution's jurisdiction or responsibilities under an act of Parliament or another lawful authority respecting national security. In the CBA's view, mere relevance is a very low standard for what should be an exceptional sharing of information between government institutions, and this could allow for unnecessary and overbroad sharing of information, undermining the privacy rights of Canadians. The CBA agrees with the previous submissions of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and others that a test of necessity would better balance the objectives of SCISA with privacy rights and principles. In other words, in order for information to be shared with another institution, such sharing must not only be relevant to the receiving institution's mandate respecting national security, but also have to be necessary in order to allow the receiving institution to fulfill that mandate.

The CBA is also of the view that the existing schedule 3 to SCISA, which lists the institutions with which information may be shared under the act, should be expanded to include references to the specific sections of the statute supervised or implemented by those institutions that might relate to national security concerns. Greater specificity would assist both disclosing and receiving institutions, as well as any oversight body, in assessing whether disclosure to another institution might be appropriate.

Our third concern with SCISA is the lack of restrictions around subsequent use and disclosure of information disclosed to an institution under section 5 of SCISA. More specifically, the current provision seems to allow for the subsequent disclosure by a recipient institution to other non-designated government institutions, to individuals, to foreign governments, or even to the private sector, and for purposes unrelated to national security.

In the CBA's view, the information sharing between government institutions contemplated by SCISA should be seen as an extraordinary measure designed to fulfill an explicit narrow purpose. Accordingly, SCISA must be designed to eliminate what is sometimes called “purpose creep”, including potential disclosure to third parties.

The CBA is particularly concerned about subsequent use and further disclosures by a receiving institution when the information has been obtained by the disclosing institution through the exercise of extraordinary powers, such as powers to compel production of information or enter premises. It would be inappropriate for a receiving institution to be able to leverage, for purposes unrelated to national security, any investigation and enforcement powers not conferred on the receiving institution by Parliament. SCISA should not allow receiving institutions to obtain indirectly that which they cannot obtain directly.

Fourth, the CBA is concerned about reliability of information.

The CBA is concerned that SCISA includes few effective checks and balances on information sharing or safeguards to ensure that shared information is reliable. The Arar commission stressed the importance of precautions to ensure that information is accurate and reliable before it is shared. Omitting safeguards in SCISA ignores lessons learned through the Arar saga and the recommendations of the Arar commission, and risks repeating the same mistakes.

In conclusion, once again the CBA appreciates the opportunity to share our views on SCISA. We support balanced information sharing for the purpose of national security when it is necessary and proportionate, and is accompanied by safeguards that are adequate to protect individual privacy rights and to ensure the reliability of any information shared pursuant to the act.

I'd be pleased to respond to any questions the committee members may have.

Public Safety and National Security

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to be here today particularly on supplementary estimates (B).

I'm very pleased to be joined by most of the usual cast of characters: my deputy minister Malcolm Brown; Michel Coulombe, the director of CSIS; Commissioner Paulson from the RCMP; and Caroline Xavier, who is vice-president of operations at the Canada Border Services Agency.

I would point out that the former president, Linda Lizotte-Macpherson, has retired as of last Friday, and her replacement, John Ossowski, is in the process of arriving. He will no doubt have the pleasure of appearing before the committee on future occasions. In the meantime, Caroline is representing CBSA today.

Fraser Macaulay, assistant commissioner with Corrections Canada is also here, as is Harvey Cenaiko, the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada.

As you will note from studying the supplementary estimates (B), the department portfolio of Public Safety is requesting adjustments that result in an increase in our spending authorities of $256.3 million. I would like to run through very briefly what the items are that add up to that total.

Canada is, as you know, a safe and peaceful country, but we also know that we are not immune to threats, including natural disasters, terrorism, and other crimes and acts of violence. The women and men of the public safety portfolio, including the department itself and all of the various agencies that you see represented here today, do the essential and often dangerous work of protecting Canadians, and for so doing they deserve and I believe they have our admiration and our gratitude. It's up to us as parliamentarians to support them and their work so that they can continue keeping Canadians safe and protecting the rights and freedoms that we all hold very dear. The items included in the estimates are directed toward that end.

First of all, let me deal with Fort McMurray. As you know, we faced a terrible fire disaster there earlier this year, probably the worst in Canadian history. In coordinating the federal response to that disaster, I got to see some pretty remarkable things, including the courage of the people of Fort McMurray, the determined leadership of local, provincial, and federal officials, the skill and the selflessness of firefighters, police officers, and other first responders, and the tireless efforts of the Canadian Red Cross, and of course, from coast to coast, Canadians gave generously to support those who were so seriously affected.

The Government of Canada has transferred $104.5 million to the Canadian Red Cross, honouring the Prime Minister's commitment to match the individual charitable donations that were made by Canadians in support of Fort McMurray. That accounts for a large portion of the total authorities that are being requested today, those matching funds for the Red Cross.

Also, under the disaster financial assistance arrangements, we made an advance payment to Alberta of $307 million as a down payment on what will be the ultimate obligation to assist Alberta in dealing with this disaster. That amount of money is not in these estimates because it is covered in the main estimates. Every year there's an allotment for the DFAA, and the amount that's required for Alberta is covered in the allotment in the main estimates. The supps deal with the matching money for the Red Cross of $104.5 million.

The second topic is HUSAR, the heavy urban search and rescue teams. That capacity in Canada is something we mentioned in our election platform saying that we would reinstate federal funding to support the HUSAR teams across Canada. They are absolutely indispensable in responding to such emergencies as ice storms, floods, wildfires, building collapses, and so forth.

The previous government made a decision at one point to eliminate this funding. We decided it was of sufficient priority that it needed to be reinstated. In October I was pleased to deliver on the commitment we had made by launching the heavy urban search and rescue program, which will provide $3.1 million annually in funding for these heavy urban search and rescue task forces. This program will not only support and strengthen the four existing task forces in Vancouver, Calgary, Brandon, and Toronto, but they will also help to develop new capabilities in Montreal and re-establish capabilities in Halifax. To this end, $3.1 million is being sought through supplementary estimates (B).

The third major topic is RCMP class actions. Another part of the mandate that I received from the Prime Minister was to take action to ensure that all parts of the public safety portfolio are healthy workplaces, free from all forms of harassment. I've been working on this from the very beginning of our mandate, notably inviting the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of RCMP policies and procedures on harassment, and also appointing Sheila Fraser as a special adviser to examine the RCMP's complaints process and the treatment of complainants. That work is ongoing. I expect to hear from both of those processes sometime next spring.

I was also very pleased to join Commissioner Paulson on October 6 for the announcement of a $100-million settlement between the RCMP and a large number of plaintiffs in two proposed harassment-related class action lawsuits, of which $40 million is being sought through these 2016-17 supplementary estimates (B). The remaining $60 million will be accessed in the following year. In addition to the $40 million for actual payments for settlement, there is another $17 million for class action counsel and claims assessment being sought through these estimates. The total amount required to deal with the class actions is $40 million plus $17 million, for a total of $57 million.

I think we should be encouraged by this development and by the eloquent apology that was offered by the commissioner. We continue to advance other initiatives on this very important front of safe workplaces. This is an important step in helping us move forward from a deeply troubling aspect of the history of our national police force to a much different future.

In terms of the claims process, I think it's important to highlight that, totally separate and apart from government, totally separate and apart from the force, an independent process has been set up to actually adjudicate the claims. The RCMP will have no involvement except to make documentation available. The government will have no involvement except to provide the funding. The decisions will be made by the Honourable Michel Bastarache, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who is the independent assessor. He will make the determinations of the appropriate amounts, case by case by case.

On national security, the government continues its work to ensure that Canada's national security framework keeps Canadians safe while safeguarding our rights and freedoms. I'm pleased to report that the unprecedented engagement with Canadians that we have launched right across this country has been very successful, including a series of town hall meetings, round tables, public hearings, personal discussions, and meetings with subject matter experts, as well as quite literally tens of thousands of contributions coming in via email in our online consultations. That consultation remains open until December 15, but already the total number of participants is in excess of 45,000 Canadians. It's a very encouraging number.

Once again, let me thank the committee for the hearings that you held and the report you will make about the advice you would offer the government in relation to the national security framework. We are analyzing all of the input, and we will be putting forward a set of measures that will be designed to achieve two objectives simultaneously: protecting the public, keeping them safe and secure, and at the same time safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Canadians in a free, inclusive, and democratic society.

I also want to note the work the committee has done on Bill C-22. I understand it's now in the process of being reported back to the House, and I will be very anxious to consider that report.

One other matter under national security which involves an estimate in these supplementary estimates (B) is the creation of the office for community outreach and counter-radicalization to violence. That item was earmarked in the budget last spring, and to this end, you will note in these estimates that my department is seeking $2.3 million in 2016-17 to establish and staff the office as well as support the domestic programming and research initiatives through a newly established grants and contributions program called the community resilience fund.

The office will provide leadership on Canada's response to radicalization to violence, coordinate domestic and international initiatives, support programming and research, and enhance our expertise. We simply must become very good at this initiative if we want to retain that fundamental character of Canada as an open, inclusive, democratic society.

Immigration detention is another item I want to mention today. We are requesting $22.7 million this fiscal year to support the Canada Border Services Agency in its implementation of our new national immigration detention framework. A total of $138 million for this initiative was announced in August, spread over a number of years. In this first year we're asking for $22.7 million.

The goals of the new framework include: first, expanding practical, workable alternatives to detention; second, significantly improving conditions at immigration holding centres, including better mental and medical health services; third, reducing our reliance on provincial facilities; and fourth, reducing the number of minors in detention to the greatest extent possible.

Of the funding that's being requested for this year, $21.3 million is being directed to the construction of new immigration holding centres in Laval, Quebec, and in Surrey, British Columbia. These facilities will help reduce the reliance on provincial correctional facilities for immigration detention.

The balance of the funding this year will be used to begin enhancing medical services within our immigration holding centres and to implementing alternatives to detention so that, as much as possible, immigration detention remains a measure of last resort and not first resort.

A great deal is under way. A good many things have been achieved, but there is, of course, always much more to be done. My officials and I are happy to try to respond to your questions today. We look forward to working with the committee on a whole array of national security issues for the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You'd like a recorded vote? Absolutely.

(Bill C-22 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

[Heather Sheehy]

I would also just point out that I slightly misspoke. I want to be very clear that, in Bill C-22, at subclause 21(5), where I said “injurious to national security”, I should have been more accurate in saying:

the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege

Then the clause goes on, but I just want to clarify that I had misspoken on that point.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Good afternoon, members of the committee, witnesses, and officials who are here to help us as we continue, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 4, 2016, our 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.

We welcome Mr. Sutherland, Ms. Sheehy, and Ms. Miles from the Privy Council Office, and Mr. Davies and others who are with us.

Welcome, as well, to Madam May, who is joining us today.

We're continuing consideration of the bill at clause 17. As we did last week, we will proceed relatively slowly. I'm not going to repeat the instructions that I gave at the start of the bill consideration. If anyone needs any time to sort anything out, please do ask the chair for a motion to suspend, and we'll certainly entertain that accordingly.

(On clause 17)

Are there amendments to clause 17?

Mr. Clement.

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

With respect to oversight and review, we have Bill C-22, which will be in place soon enough. The committee of parliamentarians can be asked by the minister to engage in a particular review, including perhaps a SCISA review.

There was a Liberal amendment in the last session to suggest that all information shared under SCISA should be shared with the Privacy Commissioner and that the Privacy Commissioner should issue an annual report to Parliament on the nature of information sharing and identify any problems.

Perhaps if there were any problems with such information sharing, in the absence of a super-SIRC-type body, which I think both of you have referenced, would that be a palatable solution in the interim?

[Ziyaad Mia]

I will echo my colleague here. We've called for it for a long time. A committee of parliamentarians is fine. I think Bill C-22 needs some reform, but it's a step in the right direction to give some political accountability and public accountability linked to all of you who are elected.

The first thing is to have a national security review agency that unifies all the agencies, but it would not be separate agencies working together, which I think is too convoluted. You want one counterweight to the security agencies. It makes security better, makes them work better, and gives public confidence.

Second, we need well-resourced experts in the field who can build relationships with the agencies and have access to all information.

Third is that independent review of national security law and policy as they have in the U.K. That person would, in the case of Bill C-51, come and testify on that and give independent advice on it. That person would be able to have access to secret jurisprudence and legal opinions in government and be able to comment to the public and experts with some feedback on what the national security landscape looks like.

Business of the House

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to challenge our moving to the orders of the day this early in routine proceedings, a procedure that seems to be used habitually by the government when it is poised to close debate on important issues.

In this case, the government has already limited debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-26, which is scheduled today. One day is the minimum number of of days that can be allotted under the Standing Orders, and the government House leader chose as that one day, the shortest day in our calendar. I will not take up more of the House's time on that point before I get back to my procedural intervention, but I do want to say one thing. The House expected more than a minimal effort from this so-called new tone government House leader and we are very disappointed.

Back in the spring, the government moved and adopted motions to proceed to the orders of the day four Wednesdays in a row, skipping over all rubrics of routine proceedings. That was done on April 20, May 4, May 11, and May 18. Most recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons moved such a motion on Thursday, November 17, and today the government is proposing to do it again for the sixth time.

I would argue that the government House leader is continuing where her predecessor left off in misusing this procedure. I refer to a Speaker's ruling on April 14, 1987. In his ruling on a similar matter, the Speaker stated:

Routine Proceedings are an essential part of House business and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer severely.

He referred to a ruling of November 24, 1986, in which a motion having the effect of superseding a number of items under routine proceedings was inappropriate and excessive and was disallowed. However, the circumstances on April 14, 1987, were dramatically different and the Speaker allowed the government to move its motion.

I will compare those circumstances to today's circumstances and let you, Mr. Speaker, and the House draw its own conclusions. The Speaker observed that the opposition was significantly obstructing the progress of Bill C-22. He noted that seven divisions took place prior to the introduction of the bill, most of them resulting from the moving of dilatory motions under routine proceedings. Fourteen more divisions, with most of them again resulting from the moving of dilatory motions during routine proceedings, took place before the bill reached second reading on December 8, 1986. The bill was referred to committee and reported back to the House on March 16, 1987, after 24 meetings and 82 hours of debate. Numerous amendments were proposed at report stage and the House debated those amendments for four days.

On April 7, the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs gave notice of time allocation. Unlike the opposition in 1987, we have negotiated openly and honestly with the government. Since this Parliament began, only two dilatory motions have been moved by the opposition. In contrast, five such motions have been advanced by the government. Today will be the sixth. The Speaker in 1987 noted that in the British House of Commons, the Speaker has the power to refuse a dilatory motion if he believes it to be an abuse of the rules of the House. He also noted that the Speaker is empowered to allow them if he believes they are justified.

In comparing Bill C-22 in 1987 and any bill the Liberal government has proposed to the House in this Parliament, the opposition has not given the current government justification to proceed in this manner. The scale of obstruction in 1987 was extreme according to any standard, and only under those circumstances was the government permitted to move its motion. The government should not be allowed to routinely skip over all rubrics during routine proceedings without just cause.

As Speaker Fraser pointed out, routine proceedings are an essential part of House business and they should be protected as a vital component that serves the interests of the House and the public. There is no moral ground or rational reason here for the government to proceed in this manner. Speaker Fraser, in his 1987 ruling, added:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

Clearly, the 1987 case involving Bill C-22 demonstrated unreasonable delaying tactics. This House has never seen such delaying tactics, and the government has never experienced this sort of sideshow from the opposition. The government's problems are self-inflicted and are not due to the opposition. The government has had the privilege of working with a generally co-operative opposition in this Parliament and has frittered away that goodwill. It has foolishly squandered it through its mismanagement of the House, mean-spirited tactics, and its minimalist efforts to make Parliament work.

While the government house leader was marketed as new, we now discover that we did not get “new and improved”.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider my arguments and not allow the government to move its motion to proceed to the orders of the day until it has at least demonstrated that an unreasonable obstruction has taken place.

[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 (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Good afternoon. I call to order the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for 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.

We thank you, officials, for joining us today.

From the Privy Council Office, we have Mr. Allen Sutherland, Ms. Heather Sheehy, and Ms. Nancy Miles, senior legal counsel. As well, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have John Davies.

Thank you for joining us.

We also welcome independent members to the committee today; we're very pleased that you're with us.

Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are beginning our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, and I'm going to warn the committee at the beginning that I'm going to be going slowly through today's meeting and through the amendments we have received to make sure that we give due consideration to the amendments and that we're understanding the process as we go. Because the committee has only done one clause-by-clause study before, and it was somewhat less complicated than this bill with the number of amendments we have, I want to review the process.

I'll just remind the committee that we have help with our legislative responsibilities with legislative clerks—we thank you for joining us today—as well as our usual clerk, who will keep me in order.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As you would know and as the name indicates, this is an examination of each and all of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill, unless you choose otherwise.

I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing each amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

Just as a reminder, we received a package of amendments that have come in from various members of the House of Commons to our committee; however, other amendments are allowed as we proceed; we're aware of that as well.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. I as chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond its scope, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at its second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of a bill altogether, it is inappropriate to propose an amendment to the bill to remove a clause. If you want to remove a clause altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against the clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

As I said, since this is only the second time our committee has been tasked with a clause-by-clause examination, I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If you have questions, do not be afraid to ask me, and then I will ask someone who knows, who is probably our legislative clerk at that point.

During the procedure, if the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside so that the committee can revisit it later in the process.

As indicated earlier, the committee will go through the package of amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time. Amendments have been given a number—it's in the top right-hand corner of each page—to indicate which party submitted them.

There's no need for a seconder when moving an amendment. Once it has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it; however, you do not need to propose it, even if it is in the package.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be further amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is obviously voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it at that time.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will then vote on the title, the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill, which may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy to receive at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I think the most difficult thing for me in clause-by-clause examination is the fact that if we take a certain action on an amendment at one point, it has effects consequentially, down the line. That may mean that an amendment is not able to be moved later in the process because we've already dealt with something that would nullify its effect. I will be trying to signal that to you as we go, on each of the amendments. For me, when I've done clause-by-clause study before, that has always been the trickiest part. You have to pay a lot of attention to what you're voting on. You may have forgotten that there's an amendment later that we will not be able to consider because it is consequential to what has happened already in the meeting.

I'm thanking you in advance for your patience with me and for your attention as we set out to have a very productive meeting. I am hoping for a very good and thorough consideration of what I think is an extremely important bill for this House to consider.

Are there any questions about that before we begin?

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

Okay, but it is not in the language that we have before us in Bill C-22.

[Suzanne Legault]

—under Bill C-22? Not that I can see.

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

Subject to the exemptions that are enumerated later in the act.

There is no complaints or inquiries function currently listed within the mandate of Bill C-22. Am I right about that, as well?

[Suzanne Legault]

Currently on our inventory, we have 400-and-some files dealing with national security. We see everything that we need to see. Whenever there are requests for information, we see the full gamut of the information. However—and this is an interesting option for the committee being formed under Bill C-22—when we're dealing with highly sensitive information, we go on site to view and review the information. We don't actually take it out physically from where it is. The information doesn't leave it's location, if it is at CSIS or CSEC or wherever. As I said before, the fact that the committee would be provided with the information does not mean that the information would become public. I think it's very important to understand the distinction. For a review committee or a review body to have access to information to properly assess what it is assessing at the time—and, as I said, the mandate is very broad—it really does need to see the relevant information. Seeing the relevant information does not mean disclosing the information.