Evidence of meeting #104 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I see no further wish to debate, but we're still not clear on the wording itself. I would ask Mr. Davies and Ms. Beecher for your proposed wording, so that Mr. Motz can either agree that this is a friendly amendment, or not.
12:55 p.m.
Director of Intelligence Policy, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The issue here is that we have a frequent use of the word “investigation”, referring to two types of investigations. We just need to be precise.
Perhaps it would be, “if, in the agency's opinion”, as a start to the subamendment followed by “and in consultation with the agency leading the criminal investigation”. Then I refer to the committee to work out the exact reference between the two mentions of criminal investigation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Or “proceeding”, because we have to keep that same language in there, right?
12:55 p.m.
Director of Intelligence Policy, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Or “proceeding”.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Right. I would accept that as a friendly amendment.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, but I want to be absolutely clear as to what we're voting on.
Ms. Beecher, can you give that to the clerk so that Mr. Motz can read it? If he deems it to be a friendly amendment, then we'll be voting on Mr. Motz's amendment as amended by a friendly amendment.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We're out of time here anyway, but I really don't like making amendments like this on the fly. I don't sense a lot of confidence from the officials that this wording is the right wording to have. Mr. Dubé brought forward amendments in which he said that it's standard practice, so we voted against your amendments because that's what the agency is already doing. I'm hearing that it's standard practice. My preference, I think, is to vote against the subamendment rather than trying to draft something quickly that's going to stay in legislation forever. I'm just not comfortable doing it like this.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Given the time, I propose that our subamendment be reviewed and properly drafted and that we start with a clear proposal at the next meeting. We could adjourn the meeting on this note.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I can seek a consensus around the table for that. It is after one o'clock; therefore, we are now adjourned. We'll see you back for another round on Thursday and then maybe after that again.
The meeting is adjourned.