Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Was that precedent included in the legal advice you requested from the Department of Justice?
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, that would have been the case. That would have been part of the legal analysis. But I would say that this is a unique situation in which retroactivity is required to realize the core objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act and to destroy that data and ensure that no other act of Parliament thwarts that objective.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
How do you define the will of Parliament as expressed by the government?
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
There were two key moments, as I believe you are aware. There was the introduction of the bill in October 2011 by the government. That indicated the government's intent. Then when it came into force in April 2012, it expressed the will of Parliament.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Couldn't we say that the will of Parliament was also expressed by Parliament when it voted on it, while it excluded the...? It didn't actually mention or describe the issue of the access to information request that was under way. If the will of Parliament had been to drop the request, it could have been voted upon in that way. The will of Parliament was very incomplete, in the sense that the government wants to actually proceed with it.
Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I can't speak to the perspectives of parliamentarians at that time. What I can assure the members here today is that there was the recognition of an omission. Hindsight is always 20/20.
The original intent in 2011 in drafting this bill was very clearly to ensure that no other act of Parliament would undermine the objective of destroying the data. It became clear with the passage of time that the legislation, drafted in the manner it was, which was passed in the spring of 2012, did not effectively achieve that objective, and doing so is the purpose of these amendments.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
In my opinion, we cannot extrapolate Parliament's will based on what the government would like it to be. The will of Parliament was expressed in a vote that was held in the House. Nothing mentioned an exclusion from the access to information process. If Parliament had wanted to do something in that regard at that time, it would have spoken. However, that question was not specified in what was passed by Parliament. And so we cannot presume that the will of Parliament was to put an end to this access to information process.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Chair, are we debating simply the Liberal amendment at this stage or the major point, the clause itself?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The chair is being flexible in allowing debate on the general clause.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You can always come back to it, or you can do it now.
Mr. Brison spoke to his three amendments as one.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In general, I think Mr. Brison spoke very eloquently when he used words like “abuse of power” and “cover-up”, and points out that this precedent is not about the long-gun registry at all. Our independent officer of Parliament, Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner, claims this is a “dangerous precedent" for Canadian democracy. She says that the Conservative government has created what she terms a legislative "black hole”, and she is filing a preservation order in the Federal Court against the government and the RCMP to prevent the government from destroying these records, because she has an obligation as an officer of Parliament to enforce our quasi-constitutional Access to Information Act.
This is an Orwellian attempt to do something that may be legal on its face, but is so contrary to the principles and spirit of the rule of law that I've received so many calls and emails from administrative and constitutional lawyers asking what they could possibly be doing, how could they bury this in an omnibus budget bill, and that what's going on here is simply outrageous.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
I'll go to Mr. Brison, and then to Mr. Van Kesteren.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I add further that the challenge we have is that this is a very troubling section of the bill in a committee that is...I don't want to say it's ill-equipped, but this is not our purview as a committee. Even the degree to which Mr. Caron's questions about precedents.... And this is not to be disrespectful to either of you two, but if we had more time, we could have officials from Justice who would be better able to answer those questions.
You have a provincial police investigation into the RCMP over this. You have the Information Commissioner launching action. This ought not to be treated as routine by our committee. Simply stated, these amendments simply enable, first of all, the criminal investigation to continue, which I think is really important, and stop any further destruction of evidence if there are reasonable grounds that it could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an act of Parliament and simply delay the coming into force provision of this division, such that the OPP can continue to investigate. I think there are members of this committee who may have some police experience and may understand the importance of that.
To be complicit, for all intents and purposes, in the destruction of evidence that is material to an ongoing police investigation does not seem...it's simply not right. It's disrespectful of the law. I don't think that, as Parliament, we ought to be, individually or collectively, engaged in thwarting the law.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, the member's right. There are a number of members who have previously been involved with the police forces, and they're all on the government side. There are probably about 12 of them, and I think they all agree that—
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
That's another hypothetical situation. What we're talking about is hypothetical situations; you're absolutely right, assumptions.
It is obvious what the government's intent was in ending the long-gun registry. There's never been any question about that. Furthermore, these changes to the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act will help the government to fully realize this long-standing commitment, and that is really what this is about. The government will not accept this proposed amendment that is based on hypothetical situations and assumptions of the outcome of the investigation, and therefore this amendment should not and will not be supported.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Do you want to go further, Mr. Brison? After we'll have Monsieur Caron.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I want to make the point that the OPP investigation into the actions of the RCMP is not a hypothetical situation. The officer of Parliament, the Information Commissioner, her actions are not hypothetical—they're very real—and we ought not to take action here that would deny them from proceeding. It's not respectful of the rule of law, frankly, what we seem to be en route to doing here.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Those are precisely the points I wanted to raise. We are not talking about a hypothetical situation, but about a factual situation that exists right now. With this measure, the government is creating direct interference in a police investigation. We are not talking about a hypothetical question, but rather about a matter of actual fact.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll do the vote on LIB-6, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
All in favour of clause 230?
Do you want a recorded vote on 230—
NDP