Foreign Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The reality is there is some common ground in here somewhere.

I think the government's and the Liberal caucus's position is that we think the bill as written is dangerous. We don't think it's neutral. We think it endangers lives. It's no less than that. That comes from our officials, who are professionals in this field. It comes from members of civil society who have cautioned us. Frankly, it comes very personally from my work in this, which I've been doing now for four years, working and negotiating with other countries—with like-minded and not like-minded countries—to save people's lives. In fact, we did that very recently with two non-Canadian citizens. Well, one was a permanent resident of Canada who was in a difficult, life-threatening situation. If that name had been published, we would not have saved his life. I am 100% sure of that.

We will do everything we can to find a way to enable transparency, but for us, the issue is not Parliament feeling good about what it's doing. That is absolutely offensive to some of us. It is absolutely trying to save people's lives. It's not about us.

I will go on at length about this. I think there is a way we could probably find a solution to this situation. I was very much open to a real amendment to G-1 and to find a way, but substituting NDP-1, which is out of scope, for G-1 is not the way to do it.

If we're now at the point where we've not yet defeated G-1, I think there is a way to appropriately amend G-1. That would be my first goal—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We did defeat G-1.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Oh, yes, I'm sorry. We've defeated G-1. We can't go back to that one. We now have an out-of-scope amendment. Maybe there's another amendment that could be presented that we could find common ground on, but I also think that it is incumbent upon us to listen to experienced legislative counsel. The legislative clerk's job is to tell us those things.

I get a bit passionate about this because I do believe there are lives at stake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Before going to Mr. Bergeron—which we will—I just want to advise the members that should the members deem it necessary, we can rescind our decision on G-1. That's one thing for everyone to consider. I'm not saying we should do it; I'm saying that's one thing to consider.

Now we go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Oliphant, I genuinely believe that everyone around the table agrees that we shouldn't just put out a list of names without applying any parameters or safeguards. That would put lives in danger. I think all the members around the table want to find a solution.

The easiest thing to do may be to ask you whether you see a suitable option between CPC‑1 and BQ‑1. If so, we can vote right away. I think there's a willingness among opposition members to adopt one of those two amendments. Does one of them work for you? If so, I don't think it would take long to agree on the language for the necessary safeguards. That way, the government wouldn't have to list the names of people who shouldn't be named for their own safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I believe it's still on the question of whether or not NDP-1 is in order. I'm going to be completely transparent on this now. Of all the amendments, G-1 is obviously our favourite, but we could support NDP-1, most likely. We may offer an amendment to it, but as a starting point, among NDP-1, CPC-1 and BQ-1, the one that we would find the most similar to our values would be NDP-1.

The only way to get there—you can tell—is to have the chair's ruling overturned and allow NDP-1 to be moved. Then we would work to amend NDP-1 to try to get to a position where we could all agree with it. That would be what we would do. I'm not advising you to overturn the chair. I'm just saying that this is probably our way through this.

Let me be clear and say that I've been a chair of a committee for many years. The reality is that the chair doesn't write those decisions; the legislative clerk writes those decisions. They're based on years of experience.

We still agree that it is out of scope, but if the ruling is overturned, we would find a way to work with that one to try to get consensus on how we have a better clause 2.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

As a point of information, Chair, is this a dilatory motion that was put forth around the challenge to your ruling? You said that this amendment was out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It was out of scope.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Sorry; it was out of scope. Then there was a challenge put forth to that.

[An hon. member]

No, there was wasn't. We were discussing whether or not [Inaudible—Editor]

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

We were discussing it. Okay.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Can I ask that we suspend for a few minutes to have a little conversation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Before we suspend, I will go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Clerk, you obviously know the challenges we're facing. I don't think any of us are being very secretive about this.

If we were to change back the “prisoners of conscience” and reword the obligation to communicate with families, would there be a way, or could you recommend a way, to make NDP-1 in scope?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That question would be more for the legislative drafter. I can look at it once I have the final product in front of me. What you're saying as an option could possibly work, but then, if I had the text, I would feel more comfortable than having to provide you with the text in itself.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Just to clarify, we would then need to present you with another text.

Is it possible, Mr. Chair, that we could perhaps leave this clause, move to the next one and come back to this at a subsequent time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Will you provide the text by the end of today?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

The clerk has indicated that, yes, that is possible. He will make every effort to bring it within scope.

Can I actually suggest or recommend, because it's important that we do provide him the text for this, that we still suspend? We'll give everyone about five to 10 minutes to work something out. Then we'll come back and just skip clause 2 and go to the next one.

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

On a point of order, I just want to clarify whether the legislative clerk said that he would do what was required to put it in scope, as you just said. I think his job is to read what we have written, or what members of the committee have written, and then to evaluate whether it's in scope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That's correct, but just to accommodate that process, knowing how members' schedules work, I'm just saying we should try to get it figured out here today, if that's okay with the members.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think it might be more useful to leave this. Because this is an omnibus bill, it is not an act that is amending one bill. It's an act that's amending several bills. It does—even though I hate these kinds of bills—give us the chance to leave a section and go to another section quite independently because it's about another whole piece of legislation.

I think Ms. McPherson's suggestion of moving to another section of the bill makes some sense right now, because then I think we can have some discussion. We have some wording about how perhaps to help NDP-1 to be, in principle.... I still don't know whether it's in scope, because we haven't worked on that. We would actually ask the clerk to help us with an evaluation of scope later, but I think we need to work on some wording here to get that done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I completely understand everything that you have outlined, Mr. Oliphant. I'm just wondering if you want to do it here today, or did you want to leave it until after one o'clock?