Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Read it to us again, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Perhaps we can take those rulings as read into the record.

Amendments NDP-14 and LIB-5 are inadmissible for the royal recommendation reason given previously. Is there any discussion on clause 225?

Mr. Côté, go ahead.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, the ball is in the court of the members of the governing party. They could very well take the initiative themselves, as I understand your decision very well. We at the NDP would be happy to have this proposal stolen from us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

(Clause 225 agreed to)

I do not have any amendments on clauses 226 to 229.

(Clauses 226 to 229 inclusive agreed to)

We'll thank our official from Veterans Affairs. Thank you very much, Mr. Butler.

We will now go to division 18. On division 18, Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, we have clauses 230 and 231.

We'll bring officials forward from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Welcome back to the committee, gentlemen.

(On clause 230)

On clause 230, we have three amendments, PV-49 and PV-50, which are identical, and LIB-6.

We'll go first to Mr. Hyer for PV-50.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

It might make sense for me to do them together, those being PV-50 and PV-52.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure. You can absolutely do that, yes.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

This is on PV-50. This is a quote from Brent Rathgeber's blog:

Amazingly, Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to state that they do not apply to records and copies of records that were destroyed under the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. This provision is made retroactive to October 25, 2011 (the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament).

This is quite extraordinary. It is alleged that while Parliament was debating ending the long gun registry, the RCMP proactively began destroying documents. If this provision passes, the RCMP members would be immune from prosecution based on the retroactive enforcement provision.

According to Mr. Rathgeber he was and still is totally opposed to the long-gun registry, but this disregard and disrespect for Parliament is infuriating.

This amendment changes the date for coming into force to the date of royal assent, instead of first reading.

Bill C-59 tries to make anyone who destroys the records from the long-gun registry immune from prosecution. This amendment adds “the lawful“ to only make those who did it legally be immune. It also deletes the section granting immunity to people who destroyed the records between first reading and royal assent. On this one, Mr. Rathgeber and I are in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. Van Kesteren on PV-50, and you can respond on PV-52 as well, if you want.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, these amendments should not be supported. The government's intent in the ending of the Long-gun Registry Act is to ensure the long-gun registry is destroyed. These changes to the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act would help the government to fully recognize this long-standing commitment.

In regard to PV-50, the government made known its intent to destroy the long-gun registry records on the date the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was tabled, being October 25, 2011.

In regard to PV-52, we have the same reasons that this should not be supported. The government intends in clause 231 to ensure that the crown and the crown servants do not face potential liability for carrying out the will of Parliament to destroy the long-gun registry records required in subsections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, nor should they face potential liability for actions they may have taken during the period when the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act would have been understood to have applied.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll do the vote on PV-50.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to LIB-6.

Mr. Brison, do you wish to speak to that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, I'd like to speak broadly to clauses 230 and 231.

At the briefing for parliamentarians which took place on May 11, an official was asked explicitly what the motivation was behind this division. The response was that it was “in response to recent developments”. Only when the official was pressed on the nature of these recent developments did the official admit that it was related to an access to information investigation. It took two more days before we learned through a media report that the Information Commissioner hadn't just undertaken an investigation, but she had found evidence that suggested the RCMP had broken the law, and referred the matter to the Attorney General.

Why weren't officials more forthcoming about these events in the briefing to MPs on May 11?

[Mark Potter, Director General, Policing Policy Directorate, Law Enforcement and Policing Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question.

As I believe Mr. Brison knows, I was the one who made those comments on that date.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Then why weren't you more forthcoming? I'll reword that.

[Mark Potter]

The intent there was to be entirely transparent with parliamentarians and to share with them the exact reasons as to why this omission had been identified, and that it was in respect of an access to information request and that was conveyed to parliamentarians on that day.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

This morning I asked the RCMP whether they expected division 18 of Bill C-59 would effectively terminate the OPP's criminal investigation into the RCMP. The RCMP suggested we ask Justice officials. Can you answer that question?

[Mark Potter]

I think it is for the courts to make their own decisions as to when they review the laws in place at any time to determine whether a process should continue or not.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Does the government have an opinion? You can certainly offer an opinion as to whether or not the passage of Bill C-59 would result in the termination of the OPP's investigation.

[Mark Potter]

I wouldn't speak specifically to that particular investigation.

I think the intent of this set of amendments is very clear, to comprehensively address the second core objective of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, which is to ensure its destruction in the privacy interests of those individuals who possess long guns, and that these amendments attempt to comprehensively address that objective by ensuring that no other act of Parliament would undermine that core objective.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, when the government, the Conservatives, wrote the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, there was an error in that they seemed to ignore, or forget, the Access to Information Act. That error in drafting meant that the registry couldn't be destroyed as quickly as the Conservatives wanted it to be destroyed.

Instead of going back to Parliament to fix the mistake, someone actually in the government seems to have ordered the RCMP to break the law and destroy the records. The RCMP is now under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police for this. Maclean's has reported, for instance, that the OPP has confirmed to reporter Aaron Wherry that the investigation is active as of Tuesday of this week. The Information Commissioner, an officer of Parliament, is taking the matter to court.

The Conservatives are using this bill to stop the police investigations, stop the court action, and effectively retroactively make legal that which was illegal at the time. They are destroying any evidence of actions which at the time may have been criminal. So we will never know potentially who ordered what directive or who provided a directive to the RCMP to do what resulted in potentially breaking the law.

It's possible for, for instance, Mr. Rathgeber among others who have a position of opposition to the long-gun registry, to be concerned about this abuse of power, this cover-up. It's not a question of whether one supports or does not support the long-gun registry. It's a question certainly of transparency, certainly of the public's right to know and access to information, which is pretty fundamental to our Parliament, to our Constitution. It also speaks to a pretty flagrant abuse of power.

I have three amendments to allow the criminal investigation to continue so that Canadians can find out what happened and who potentially broke the law.

My first two amendments would stop the destruction of evidence and would protect records from being destroyed “if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”

My third amendment would delay the coming into force provision of this division so that the OPP investigation could continue. Again, it's aimed specifically at an ongoing police investigation of the OPP. I think it's very reasonable.

Again, it's frustrating because among members of this committee our expertise tends to be around fiscal framework issues and we're asked to opine and participate in debates and ultimately vote on measures in an omnibus bill on issues outside of our typical daily expertise.

I believe that this amendment makes a great deal of sense and would restore some semblance of respect for the law and our proceedings. I don't think any member of this committee, including Conservative members, would want to be complicit with what would appear on the surface to be a pretty flagrant abuse of power. They would probably share Mr. Rathgeber's concerns, notwithstanding their position on the long-gun registry. This is quite distinct from that, so I would hope that we can count on their support as well.

This is not a vote on the long-gun registry. This is simply around ensuring that we respect access to information and that we are not complicit in the shutting down of a police investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Caron, go ahead.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few questions. The witnesses will forgive me if they have already answered them, but I am not a permanent member of the committee.

I would like to know whether you have looked at this issue or asked for a legal opinion from the Department of Justice regarding the constitutionality of a retroactive decision during an ongoing police investigation specifically on the issue covered by the amendment or the bill. Do you have a legal opinion from the Department of Justice on the issue?

[Mark Potter]

It is standard practice in introducing any new legislation by the government to engage in a process of consultation and analysis with the Department of Justice once the policy intent is established and indeed confirm with the Department of Justice that the law being brought forward is constitutional, and that happened in this case.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Could you name for us one precedent for this having happened in the past, when the ruling government decided to move forward a modification to a statute affecting an issue on which there was an investigation? Did that ever happen in the past?

[Mark Potter]

My primary area of responsibility is policing policy and firearms policy, so I would have no direct knowledge of other acts in other areas that might have involved these provisions.

My colleague may wish to comment.

[Robert Abramowitz, Counsel, Department of Justice, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I have no information about that either.