Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to explain my reasoning and to state the reason why I will be voting against clause 10. It is quite similar to the one I gave when I voted against clause 9.
Although I am pleased that the government will be withdrawing this clause, I nevertheless have a problem with the fact that a bill was introduced that permits this kind of attack on agents of Parliament.
We have not had a chance to hear testimony from the Information Commissioner of Canada because the process of hearing evidence was conducted very quickly. I therefore want to share with you what she told us about clause 10 that we did not have a chance to hear here.
She wrote this:Report will be made public even if there was no basis for the allegation.
Someone's reputation could therefore be tarnished even if there are no grounds for examination or investigation.
She also noted:Privacy concerns in the requirement to submit a report to Parliament following an examination; the necessity for such report making public personal information may not be reasonably justified in every circumstance.
She is obviously still talking about privacy issues. This is something that we raised. We wanted to bring forward amendments. Unfortunately, they have been negatived to date.
Lastly, she emphasized this:Issuing a report would likely lead to a breach of confidentiality obligations of the Access to Information Act in relation to ongoing investigations.
If she has concerns about the Access to Information Act, she is really the person to be listened to on the subject since she is the commissioner responsible for this matter.
All in all, we are looking at a clause that would make witch hunts a possibility. It shows a lack of respect for agents of Parliament, whereas they are the ones who are supposed to report members' breaches of the rules. We have seen situations in which agents of Parliament have been attacked without justification. That was the case of Mr. Poilièvre, who attacked Marc Mayrand because the latter did not support a bill. We want to limit these kinds of attacks.
I am really disappointed with this bill, which the Conservatives supported on second reading in the House of Commons. However, I am pleased because we will nevertheless be limiting, even if only slightly, the harm the bill will cause to agents of Parliament, their offices and all their employees. However, our amendments requiring that the clause would apply only to people in positions of power were rejected.
The mere fact that these two clauses were put before our committee and adopted by the Conservatives in the vote at second reading is a great shame and a major problem for our agents of Parliament.
We heard that from several witnesses and read it in the letters we received. Remember that not everyone had a chance to testify because we simply went through the process very quickly.
That is what I had to say on the subject. I will be voting firmly against this clause.
Thank you, Madam Chair.