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.
11:50 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As was mentioned, CPC-9 and CPC-10 are accessing common law privilege for the complaints function, which is picked up in LIB-5. In terms of apples to apples, they're both talking about the same thing. It goes back to what we think is just clearer drafting language in LIB-5. “Despite any other Act of Parliament and any privilege under the law of evidence and subject to” is clearer than CPC-9 and CPC-10, where you're using “and”, “or”, and “but”.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just have a question.
Are CPC-10 and LIB-5 not exactly the same?
11:55 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
CPC-10 is “Despite any other Act of Parliament or any privilege” versus Liberal-5 “Despite any other Act of Parliament and”.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Just to clarify, am I right that CPC-9 and CPC-10 are in fact textually identical?
Oh no, there's a “but” in there. Never mind.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
These three amendments are very similar. I'm just wondering if the officials could say what's the best wording on this because we're talking about “and”, “or”, and “but” being the only difference between them.
Which is going to capture what we all want? We all have the same intent.
11:55 a.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
We believe LIB-5 captures the intent.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate on CPC-9?
Are you wanting to debate or wanting to vote?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have one question.
From a legal perspective, from our experts in the room, is there a difference between “and”, “or”, and “but”?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Seriously, I think we all have the same intent, so we need to determine what language we want to use that has the same intent.
11:55 a.m.
Sophie Beecher Director of Intelligence Policy, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't particularly, but I think that our drafters would probably tell you that “and” is comprehensive, so both elements are included in the sentence. “Or” maybe just parses it out, says this or that.
Honestly, I think either way you would achieve the intent, but our drafters tell us that technically an “and” is more appropriate than an “or” in such a statement.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Turning to CPC-10, again, it's Mr. Motz.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's the same as we've been discussing in LIB-4.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You were satisfied with the clarification before. You're satisfied with the clarification now.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay, good.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Moving to LIB-5, we'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I think we know what the intent is, but I can justify it if you like, since there are so many similarities with CPC-9 and CPC-10.
