Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2018

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

I was going to make the same comment.

I would like to know what my colleague Ms. Dabrusin's objective is with amendments LIB-7 and LIB-12. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if the powers granted by these amendments would be the same as what is proposed in amendment CPC-13.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Can we take a short break to validate this information?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm very hesitant to get off track. It's not as if people haven't had an opportunity to look at these amendments.

Mr. Dubé asked a question about the legal implications, which I think is legitimate. If there is some consultation that needs to go on with our Conservative colleagues, maybe you could have it while Mr. Davies is responding.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, to have us just go talk among ourselves for one minute at the same time as you're suggesting the committee hear from one of the witnesses who is here is counterintuitive to my privileges as a parliamentarian.

I don't suspect any ill will here. We're trying to just sort it out, and we have two amendments before the committee, one proposed by the government side and one by us. We're simply trying to sort out in our opinion which one is going to serve the best interests of Canadians. I don't think we're being unreasonable with that. We're not trying to filibuster or stall anything, and to suggest that we need to go talk in the corner while somebody is here to testify to something else that is currently before this committee is not really conducive to my rights as a parliamentarian. I'd ask you to reconsider that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We all have to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Having said that, I am open to a one-minute adjournment, which will be strictly one minute, after Mr. Davies responds to Mr. Dubé's question.

[John Davies]

The main issue here is that CPC-13 includes exchanging information related to complaints. It's setting up a system whereby the Privacy Commissioner can share complaint-related information with NSIRA. LIB-12 does not.

As we mentioned the other day, sharing information related to the complaint process could create problems for procedural fairness.

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

What about with regard to LIB-7, which was already adopted?

[John Davies]

It's the same thing. LIB-12 and LIB-7 are similar in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, we are suspended. Do you still want your suspension?

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

I have a follow-up for Mr. Davies.

Were you consulted on LIB-12? Were you consulted on that language and whether it would be substantially different from CPC-13?

[John Davies]

Yes, I believe the policy intent was to make sure the sharing of information related to complaints would not be included.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. At the request of our Conservative colleagues, we will have a one-minute suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, could we resume, please?

I recognize Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity for us to have a quick chat about this.

I'd like to ask Mr. Davies about this. I'm looking at the proposed amendment in CPC-13. Mr. Davies suggested that the Privacy Commissioner would have the ability to share information pertaining to complaints, which is different from the amendments proposed by my colleagues across the table, yet I don't see where that is.

Could Mr. Davies please explain to the committee where that is so that we could potentially propose an amendment or a change to it? If that's a concern that we happen to agree with, we could amend our amendment accordingly.

[John Davies]

I would have to talk about amendment LIB-5. You'll see that the mandate in proposed paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c) is what they're allowed to share information on. Proposed paragraph 8(1)(d) is the complaint mandate. It's not included in LIB-12. Complaints are not part of LIB-12. That netting off doesn't appear in CPC-13.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Our amendment is actually hinging now on an amendment previously adopted here at the committee. If we're going to deal with it, then we would need to make that provision.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

While you are thinking about that, Mr. Calkins, I'll get Ms. Dabrusin's comment.

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

Ultimately, it seems to me that what we are talking about is this: do we favour the approach taken by LIB-12 or the approach taken by CPC-13? To me, it just comes down to a vote on that point. It's just a matter of which approach the committee favours.

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

I do agree with the officials. I don't have that act in front of me, where we changed it to include complaints. We do not want to include complaints in this sharing of information. We agree with that 100%. If it's easier to accept LIB-12 and have ours defeated, I'll just have hurt feelings. That's it. At the end of the day, we'll be fine.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We are now on to LIB-12 with Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I believe that most of the discussion we were going to have about LIB-12 has already happened. This was the preferred method of allowing the Privacy Commissioner to work with the agency. I say that we should just get to that vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before we get to that vote, colleagues should know that if LIB-12 is adopted, so is LIB-13, because it's consequential. Similarly, if it's defeated, so also is LIB-13.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to)

(On clause 41)

On clause 41, we have NDP-10.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is related to the testimony we heard from the RCMP complaints commission. It seeks to add proper clarity with regard to who has the authority over complaints made with regard to the RCMP when it's of national security in nature and when it's not. This was a concern they raised on their ability to do their work. I think it's important clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, my concern is that this could lead to an inefficient back-and-forth. The topic itself will make clear if the issue is a national security matter. That's also my concern, by the way, for NDP-11. I realize we're not there, but I raise it now.