Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #8 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #8 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:35 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
7:35 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
7:35 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
7:35 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
7:35 p.m.
Voices
Agreed.
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
So we have come back to paragraph (f), where I was 45 seconds ago.
As I was saying, Mr. Chair, I didn't want to necessarily repeat myself, but the basic notion with respect to paragraph (f) alone is that here it's talking about the documents being deposited and it speaks to which entities. There's a reference to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the Senate, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House, and any legal counsel that the committee may appoint.
It is my proposition that we strike that language that I just read out and replace it with “shall be deposited with the committee”. It would then continue on the second to last line in both official languages, “within one month of the adoption of this order”.
The words “Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons and any legal counsel which the committee may appoint” are all struck. That is the proposition.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Virani.
Is there any discussion or does everyone agree?
You have the floor, Mr. Green.
7:40 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Just to be crystal clear, it's that it will be one month from the adoption today, should it be adopted. Thank you.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Yes, but the one month deadline isn't stated in paragraph (f).
Mr. Virani's proposal is to delete the words “with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons and any legal counsel which the Committee may appoint” and replace them by “with the committee”.
Does everyone agree to that?
7:40 p.m.
NDP
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Wait, I think Mr. Green is right: it actually does say “within one month”.
I apologize, Mr. Green, I had misunderstood. So we will keep the last part, that is, the words “in both official languages, within one month of the adoption of this Order”.
I see that everyone agrees.
Mr. Virani, you have the floor.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
With Senator White's permission I would actually propose to jump (g) and go to (h), because it's basically the same amendment. I think it's very clinical and can probably be done—
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
If you want to jump over paragraph (g), that means we agree to it.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
There are a few amendments here.
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
The first part of the amendment would be to strike the language that again deals with documents being provided to law clerks and any legal counsel. These are the first four lines in their entirety on my copy, with the words, “a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the law clerks and any legal counsel which the committee may appoint, in both official languages, within one month of the adoption of this order, with any proposed redaction of”. Strike all of that.
It follows logically from what I just recommended.
In the remaining portions—I apologize if this is getting complicated, but I can provide you with a copy—it would be to insert the words “information which, in the public service's opinion”—not the “government's opinion”—“could reasonably be expected to compromise national security”.
Then I would propose inserting—