Evidence of meeting #106 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 charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That way we'll have to vote on the subamendment before we vote on the amendment.
You're going to have to get some colleague to move the subamendment, Mr. Fragiskatos, and I see the enthusiasm.
Ms. Dabrusin.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I move the subamendment that we add the word “et” into this, located exactly....
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It would be between the words “preuve” and “sous”.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I don't know. I didn't know if that was it, or if we were just adding in....
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
So it's “de la preuve et sous réserve”.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have debate on LIB-24 as amended.
Mr. Motz.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Was this also considered to be a drafting error?
Okay.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-21, Mr. Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This report would be provided by the commissioner and submitted to Parliament by the minister, as in the amendment proposed by Mr. Picard. Once again, the goal is to have an accountability mechanism in Parliament. Such a mechanism will help us find out the number of interventions and authorizations granted and have a picture of the work that the commissioner does.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Personally, I much prefer amendment LIB-21.
On a more serious note, there is no mechanism to avoid the publication of confidential information. As a precaution, I will vote against it, since amendment LIB-21 is along the same lines.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to hear what the officials have to say. We will discuss amendment CPC-17 after amendment NDP-21. Can they tell us whether they see a major difference between those two amendments and, if so, what the difference is?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As mentioned, LIB-21 includes the provision to net out classified information. That would be clear in law. That's not as clear with NDP-21 or CPC-17. There would be no provision in law to net out classified information of the report. I would call that the main difference.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Would it not be understood that the commissioner would have the capacity in his functions...? In the drafting of the report, would it not be understood that the commissioner is not going to be divulging all this stuff, but simply statistics and things of that nature, the number of authorizations?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Well, yes, you would hope. Obviously, with NSIRA, the NSICOP, and so on, a lot of that was made to legislate that netting out of classified information. You would want some consistency there with public reporting in that regard.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Chair, if I may, as part of the debate on the amendment, I do want to state that it's disappointing that we would prefer having the Prime Minister's Office vet these reports than have faith in the commissioner's ability to do that job and to provide the information to parliamentarians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On CPC-17, we have Mr. Paul-Hus.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I feel the same way as my NDP colleague. You are saying that amendment LIB-21 is more robust, but it allows information to be controlled at the same time.
In a nutshell, our amendment lacks substance. Is that the explanation I'm hearing?