Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Maybe you could leave that request with me until I have a chance to speak with the clerk and with our researchers in terms of whether we can provide that or not.
So if I understand correctly—I just want to be clear—based on the fact that the ministry officials will be here tomorrow, you are removing the first part of your motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Okay, so we're dealing with just the second part.
Madam Jennings.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes.
Further to discussions with our colleague Mr. Ménard, the Liberals will be proposing the following amendment:
That the Department of Justice be asked to
—and then we add on—
provide on a confidential/in camera basis, which protects advice to the minister, opinions in its possession relating to the constitutionality of Bill C-2 by 3:00 p.m., Friday, November 16, 2007.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'm actually pretty surprised. I knew Mr. Ménard's motion was going to be here, but with regard to the amendment put forward just now by Ms. Jennings—I mean, of all people, she should know that it is so inappropriate that we would have that type of evidence put forward at committee.
Number one, the advice that's provided by the Department of Justice is provided to the government and provided to the minister. It's not for that type of disclosure. The department officials are more than happy to appear, and they have appeared in the past, to speak to the legal position of the government, the government's position on bills, but not to produce legal opinions. This is what galls me a bit. The opposition has every opportunity to call whomever they would like as a witness to render a constitutional opinion as to the constitutionality of this legislation, but Ms. Jennings and I'm sure Mr. Lee both know that this wouldn't happen under any prior government and it's certainly not going to happen in our case—that privileged information will be disclosed to committee. It's highly inappropriate, actually.
November 14th, 2007 / 5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
I did not have a chance to speak to my own amendment when I moved it, so I appreciate the chair's providing me with that opportunity.
The issue of client-attorney privilege is well-known. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is quite correct when he says that previous governments formed by both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada—I don't believe another party in Canada ever formed the Government of Canada—have not waived the client-attorney privilege.
However, that privilege can be waived. The committee does have a right to call for the tabling of documents. Because of our concern that the confidentiality of the information continue to be protected, the Liberals have brought this amendment.
In the same way, when a committee hears testimony in camera or receives in camera documentary evidence, that evidence is not public. Every single person who assists in an in camera meeting and has access to the information is bound to keep it confidential. If there's a transcript, there is one transcript that remains in the office of the clerk, and members have to go to a specific office, sign in, and are only able to consult there.
If this committee determines that it supports this amendment, those would be the conditions under which the minister would be required to table all legal opinions on the constitutionality of Bill C-2, which he has received in the course of his responsibilities as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and that information would be kept confidential.
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, I think we must first situate debate in its appropriate context.
We are parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to make law, and we must do so in an informed fashion. I could have presented another amendment whereby we would not have begun clause-by-clause consideration before having ourselves first called upon experts and legal advisers who could advise the committee. We could have gone to the House, asked for a budget and hired experts. However, given that we do not want to delay analysis of the bill and that the leaders have pledged to ensure that the bill is sent back to the House by November 23rd, I did not table this amendment.
I was a member of the subcommittee that studied organized crime. Indeed, a subcommittee had been created at a time when, in the presence of the Hells Angels, bombs were exploding in our communities. We had sworn under oath not to make certain information public. We are parliamentarians. I feel that if I take an oath and promise to respect the confidential nature of information provided in camera, then I am going to honour that promise.
Unless the government fears—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Sorry, Monsieur Ménard, I don't want to take away your train of thought, but I need unanimous consent from the committee to continue for another five or seven minutes leading up to the vote so we can work through this issue. We need to get consent, as the bells are ringing.
Is that agreed?
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I hereby notify you, Mr. Chair, that we will begin with this question tomorrow and that we will not allow any other witnesses to be heard until such time as this question has been voted upon.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I appreciate your thoughts on how we're going to move forward. We will deal with this motion tomorrow morning when we meet.
I did not get unanimous consent, so we're adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine.