Public Safety Committee on April 17th, 2018

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Obviously, I'm not a bilingual expert, but I'm curious to know from those officials who are here whether they encountered anything similar in legislation where we would have this disparity between “and”, “but” , or “or”. Maybe now they could weigh in on our suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. I'm happy to do that. I think the suggestion that we work this out off-line for a couple of minutes is a good one.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm not disputing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

First of all, I'll ask if you're directing it to Ms. Beecher or Mr. Davies.

Ms. Beecher.

[Sophie Beecher]

In my experience in legislative drafting, it does happen that the French and the English are not direct translations of one another but rather, the operative words are not the same to achieve the same effect. In the case of the “mais” as opposed to the “et”, I think we have less to say on that. It's for the committee to make a choice on that particular word.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Let's suspend for a couple of minutes. Don't wander too far away.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, let's return, please.

The meeting is back in order.

We think we have a procedural fix and a linguistic fix.

Mr. Picard will move a subamendment to the amendment. Then we'll vote on the subamendment and then the amendment.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Before I propose my subamendment, I would like to make a comment.

We all agreed on the importance of having an identical translation that does not lead to confusion. We all agreed that the legislator must first have an inclusive approach. I think that previous expert testimony went in that direction. So I propose a subamendment to amendment LIB-5.

I propose that the English version remains as it is and that, in the French version, the word “mais” be replaced with the word “et”, so that it would correspond to the French version of amendment CPC-10, but would bring consistency and similarity of statements in English and French in amendment LIB-5.

In short, the subamendment aims to change the word “mais” to “et”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In order that we all understand the subamendment being moved, in English it'll be “and” and “and”,

and in French, it will be “et” and “et”. Is that correct?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Yes, “et” and “et”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

In spite of my pronunciation, people understand what has been moved?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

It sounded good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Picard has so moved. Is there any debate?

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I will make a quick comment, as I don't want to delay things more than necessary.

I just want to respond to Mr. Picard's comments on the importance of the translation for a parliamentarian who may be working only in French. There must be consistency.

I also want to say that I support the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Those in favour of the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Again, such harmony.

That deals with amendment LIB-5.

We are now on LIB-6 and that would be Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just before I start, I want to say to my colleague, Mr. Paul-Hus, good catch on that one. Thank you.

On this amendment, it is something that, certainly, I feel very strongly about. We've heard a lot of testimony about the need for the ability to coordinate the review agencies involving the Privacy Commissioner. However, I do believe that Ms. Dabrusin's amendment, LIB-7, is better written than mine, so can I withdraw my amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You are the mover of the amendment. Therefore, you can withdraw it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I will withdraw mine to support LIB-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We don't need any debate or vote.

Thank you.

On LIB-7, we have Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

As Ms. Damoff started, this amendment goes to coordinating reviews with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. It would prevent an unnecessary duplication of work, but also, even though the Office of the Privacy Commissioner isn't a national security review body, it does, sometimes, have some things that would cover the same ground as the review agency, so this allows for that coordination.

I would propose that we support LIB-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I tentatively support it. I just have a few questions. I don't know if Ms. Dabrusin can answer or perhaps the officials could, but it was mentioned that the Privacy Commissioner's mandate is different and perhaps larger in the sense that it's not only about national security. It's about some of these things where there's overlap and such, and the fact that the findings of the commissioner and the review agency may be different.

I'm just wondering if by putting in place a legal framework to avoid duplication we also potentially push out conflicting but necessary reports and findings from the two bodies while respecting the spirit. As Ms. Damoff said, it is something we heard a lot of concern about. I just want to make sure we're not hamstringing one body or the other in trying to achieve this objective, especially when there's overlap outside of the realm of national security with regard to the Privacy Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you directing your inquiry to Ms. Dabrusin or...?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It's to whomever could provide the information that will help.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to respond at all?