Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Until the chair receives a direction from the House, the chair will proceed with the meeting as scheduled here. If the chair receives a direction from the House as to whether or not this committee should hear more witnesses, suspend, or carry on.... The chair has no other obligation but to continue, without the direction of the House, in the manner in which we were.

We will now go to clause 2 as amended.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I wish to speak on clause 2.

We've gone through a large series of amendments, so for anyone who is not at this table, trying to keep track becomes very difficult. What I would like to draw to everyone's attention is that we're now dealing with the information sharing agreements.

With only two very small amendments from the government side, while welcome—taking out the word “lawful”, and a welcome change to clause 6, which would have allowed sharing with anyone—the basic, broad definition that caused concern not just for the Privacy Commissioner but also for nearly half of the witnesses who appeared before the committee remains the basis of a new information sharing arrangement.

We have a definition that includes infrastructure and includes the economic security of Canada, so there is no doubt that the passage of Bill C-51, without the amendments we presented on the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner, does not strike a proper balance or does not accomplish both tasks, as I would prefer to put it, of protecting Canada against security threats and at the same time making sure that the privacy rights of those who have nothing to do with violence or terrorism aren't inadvertently restricted or lost as a result of this bill.

It's for that reason that we will continue to vote against this clause, and I look forward to hearing comments of my colleague Rosane Doré Lefebvre as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Now we will hear from Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank my colleague, Mr. Garrison, for his contributions to this debate and to the many amendments presented. It is no secret that the majority of the amendments were presented by opposition members from the House of Commons.

With respect to the amendments, I am a bit sad to see that the government chose not to work with the official opposition and the third party or with Mr. Patry and Ms. May, who are here at this table and who presented amendments.

All parliamentarians need to contribute if we are to improve a bill like Bill C-51. Clause 2 of the bill is rather important in the sense that it has a lot to do with what the Privacy Commissioner said. I think that everyone made a substantial effort to improve this clause. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said a number of times that freedoms and public safety were important and that one must not be put above the other.

I therefore have a hard time understanding why the Conservative government is not trying to improve the problems associated with clause 2 of Bill C-51. I am sad to see that the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouths with respect to the issue of privacy. It is extremely important for Canadians to retain their fundamental rights and freedoms. We do not achieve that by ignoring the testimony we have heard in committee and ignoring the amendments that were presented in response to the testimony we heard over the course of the marathon sessions we have had these past two weeks.

A number of witnesses expressed concerns about privacy. I would have liked to see the government be more open. I always hope that it will prove itself to be more open. It would have been very important to make some substantive changes to clause 2, in order to improve Bill C-51 and to better protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That's all I wanted to say about clause 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Madame Doré Lefebvre.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was certainly quite a series of amendments to this clause of the bill. It is an important clause.

I do welcome the amendment to take the word “lawful” out. We've heard a lot of expressions of concerns from civil society on that issue, and I think that is a fairly substantial step forward. The other amendment that changed the wording of information sharing for any person for anything, by narrowing such information, I think, is also a good amendment.

I certainly would have welcomed the government accepting some of the amendments, not just from the Liberal Party but also some of the very reasonable amendments by the other parties on this side relating especially to sunset clauses and further review of the bill within a limited period of time.

I will say that I have been somewhat assured by the personnel from the Department of Justice on the fact that quite a number of privacy protections do exist. On that basis, I will be supporting this clause of the bill.

I would hope, though, that in moving further throughout the bill, the government will be more open to amendments that are put forward in good faith by opposition parties. However, in this clause of the bill, I'm at least given some assurance. I think when we go back and look at the words from the Department of Justice officials on how privacy issues are protected, I think that will be beneficial to us, and probably to society.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

If there are no further votes then, we will now vote on clause 2 as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

Colleagues, the chair will look for your guidance going forward, in that we have clauses 3 to 10 in which there are no amendments. Of course, I will be looking for an unanimous opinion as to how we would proceed; otherwise we will continue in the exact format that we are now doing.

We could either group them—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, wasn't clause 6 amended? Clause 6 was amended, I believe, by the government's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It was proposed section 6, in clause 2. Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

We can either take clauses 3 to 10, and deal with them in total, or we can take them one at a time, or we can group them.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I would have no objection to grouping clauses 3 to 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Do I have any thoughts on grouping clauses 3 to 8?

If that's the case, I will call the vote on clauses 3 to 8 inclusive.

(Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to)

Thank you, colleagues, for your consideration.

We will now go to clauses 9 and 10. Are there any speakers?

(Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to)

We will now go to the proposed new section 10.1, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois in amendment BQ-6.

Mr. Patry, I've been advised that it is inadmissible due to the requirement for a royal recommendation, similar to the last one. Are you comfortable with the clerk's ruling?

Thank you very kindly.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

As I understand, a royal recommendation requires spending by the government. This motion proposes something in terms of Parliament, not the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The legislative clerk has advised the chair that if dollars come out of the consolidated revenue fund in any way, it requires royal recommendation. In a case like this, it allows for the chair of the committee to be paid, and for the committees to be reimbursed for their expenses in establishing a national security committee.

As such then, because of that it requires a royal recommendation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, because we have other upcoming amendments. That's the reason I'm asking the question at this time.

If it's simply to establish a committee of Parliament, then that would not require a royal recommendation. It's because this one includes provisions for paying salaries and expenses that it requires a royal recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's the chair's understanding, yes.

Thank you very kindly.

I'm sorry, Mr. Easter. You have the floor, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's much the same question as Randall's. One of our concerns, Mr. Chair, with the government's attempt to prevent oversight, which—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James, on a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That is clearly not the case. We actually have sufficient oversight, and for Mr. Easter to state and imply that in this committee is completely out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, we are dealing with the admissibility due to the requirement for a royal recommendation. That has nothing to do with the discussion on relevancy of the issue.

I would ask you to keep your comments to that, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chairman, what this recommendation calls for is a national security committee of parliamentarians. I know your point is that there is money spent for staff under this.

I would submit, though, on this amendment as in others coming forward, that probably about 90% of our witnesses called for such a body as is in this recommendation to do proper parliamentary oversight, which the government is opposed to. I understand that. They shouldn't be.

In any event, my point, Mr. Chair, is that whether it's out of scope, whether it's because it requires a royal recommendation, the fact is that at this committee we heard a lot of evidence calling for such a body, and the government in its own—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, Mr. Easter.

The chair's been very lenient. As you know, there is no opportunity for debate on the chair's ruling on this. The chair has been considerate to try to allow you to make your point and I appreciate that, but we're getting a little off kilter with that point. The decision was made to accept the clerk's definition of a royal recommendation on the issue and that will now stand.

We will now go to Green Party amendment 12.

Ms. May, I can read the recommendation, should you wish, but I also have a similar recommendation from the legislative clerk as to the admissibility due to a royal recommendation. It is not up for debate. If you would like the chair to read the ruling I would be prepared to do so.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Could I summarize quickly what it is I was trying to do with creating oversight through this amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, no. That is off for debate, but you can certainly hear the ruling should you wish to.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'd like to hear the ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes.