Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Before moving this amendment, I have a question to you.

Should this also be stood, along with the clause 2 amendments that we have decided to postpone for a later discussion, because it is really implicating them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will do it now, and it would be then okay to go back to clause 2. We won't go immediately back to clause 2, but that's why we allowed clause 2 to stand.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I move this amendment, then.

It's essentially extending the scope of the committee's reach to parent crown corporations, just to make sure that we are consistent with the government's intent to have a whole-of-government mandate for this committee. As we discussed, there are several subsequent technical amendments in clause 2 that go to that same point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(On Clause 16)

Moving to clause 16, again I would rule NDP-8 as inadmissible because it strikes a whole clause.

Moving to amendment CPC-8, just a note that if it were to be adopted, Liberal-11 could not be moved, as it amends the same lines.

Would you like it to be moved, Mr. Clement?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any discussion?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Again, Chair, the purpose of this amendment is to continue our so far failed assault on the triple lock that restricts the amount of information that is withheld from the committee. That's consistent with the testimony we heard. It's also consistent with the committee being useful and playing the role that certainly the rhetoric on the Liberal side wishes it to play.

For those reasons, I'm happy to move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any further comment?

All those in favour? Opposed?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I think that was a tie, wasn't it, Chair? It was a tie. I declare a tie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I don't believe that Mr. Miller voted either.

I just want to make sure I have all the votes counted that want to be counted on CPC-8.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It is defeated.

Okay, now—

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

It's official that Mr. Clement is more Liberal than Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

We have living proof.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, amendment LIB-11 may be moved because amendment CPC-8 was not adopted.

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

This follows on from my previous proposal to remove paragraphs14(b) to 14(g) and to import them into clause 16.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think we've had much discussion on that. Would you like more discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

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

I'm going to try my luck and move a subamendment that would delete subparagraphs i, ii, v, vi, and vii from the amendment. The reason is that it brings it in line with the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner, who said, and I quote:

I would also recommend that exceptions to access in sections 14 and 16 should be reduced extensively, so as to potentially include only the identity of sources and witnesses who require protection.

There's obviously much more witness testimony, but it feels at this rate, given how unanimous witnesses were.... We've spent our time quoting and quoting ad nauseam, so I think the public can see the forgone conclusion that I feel the witnesses presented. However, I will nonetheless use that particular quote for this subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any other comment?

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will repeat what I said earlier, but I will add something. In terms of paragraph 14(b), to which we are now referring here, there is no proof that it was presented before the committee. It's important to have this in mind. No one from the military came to explain how this worked or anything. Some people speculated about the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Seeing no other comments, all in favour of the subamendment, which deletes a whole bunch of things?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to amendment LIB-11, which would transfer paragraphs 14(b) through to 14(g) to clause 16 for ministerial discretion.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That carries, with one abstention.

We can still do Green Party amendment PV-5, amending after line 17. It is deemed moved. It's similar to an earlier motion, I believe, binding people to secrecy.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we are looking at clause 16 in its totality. Clause 16 has been amended by LIB-11. Shall clause 16 as amended carry?

All in favour? All opposed?

Let me check this again: all in favour?

I honestly can't tell how people are voting, because they've changed their votes.

All in favour? Any opposed?

(Clause 16 as amended negatived)

The clause is defeated. There is no clause 16.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That wasn't me. That was those guys. Don't look at me.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay. We're going to then....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

No, no, I undertook to vote for the amendment. I didn't say about the clause—and I didn't vote against it, either.