Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

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

But I didn't hear the same undertaking from the NDP.

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

Okay, but—

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

No, but with the votes, I just want to make sure that we're not removing it in one place and not adding it in, so if both parties have agreed to that, it's fine.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

You have the numbers.

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

That's true. Okay.

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

Just in response to that, I don't want to get into the weeds here, but I did say I would support the amendment. The point I'm trying to make is...I'm debating our amendment and I feel that I'm not going to fall into this trap, in supporting Mr. Erskine-Smith's amendments, of not making a point that for us is the key to this issue.

The problem is when we're moving.... We're going to try to improve the bill, but when you want full access, it's difficult to think of what a compromise could be. All we're asking is the same thing that Joyce Murray proposed, the same thing Hugh Segal proposed, and the same thing as the other review bodies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Let's keep to the current amendment for now.

I think the reality is that this committee is better than average, frankly, at working our things out as we go. Parliamentary procedure is helpful to keep order, but it's not always helpful in making logical sense of what you're trying to do.

We're going to stick to it, but I think you've had an undertaking. We know we have a long life ahead of us in this Parliament, and that would not be forgotten quickly.

Go ahead, Mr. Di Iorio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's look at clause 14.

Paragraph (a) involves confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, which includes Cabinet. Everyone here agrees on excluding this.

Paragraph (b) involves information about ongoing activities. In the English version, it appears as “information respecting ongoing”. Every witness, aside from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, agreed that the committee did not need such information.

Paragraph (c) concerns witnesses and identity. All witnesses, even the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, said that we did not need information of this nature.

Then, paragraph (d) again concerns identity. The witnesses gave the same answer.

Paragraph (e) uses the words “renseignements qui ont un lien direct avec une enquête en cours” in the French version. The English version reads “ongoing investigation”. Again, almost all witnesses unanimously agreed.

I'd like to make you understand that the government, as we will see a little later, has amendments that will respond to the concerns that have been expressed. Basically, it's important to keep in mind that this is a committee that oversees organizations that gather information and that, from the outset, both ministers promoting this bill have clearly indicated that we also need to find a balance.

I would suggest that the balance has been found. There may be a number of ways to find a balance, but the model we have here finds the balance, and restores it. It may even be perfect a little later after a few more amendments.

I don't think we should adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm sensing that we've come to the end of the discussion on amendment NDP-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It is defeated.

Because it was presented, Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-5 cannot be moved.

We will move now to amendment CPC-6.

Would you like to move it?

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

I would.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Would you like to speak on it?

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

No, I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're good? All right. I'm sensing that we could call the question on amendment CPC-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move to amendment LIB-6. Who is moving that? Would you like to speak to it?

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

I so move.

I would simply reiterate what I've said with respect to Mr. Dubé's motion. I agree that more access in necessary. Full access sounds great. I think this is a middle ground that I hope the government will maintain, especially if there is agreement from members of all parties who will be supporting this. Again, as discussed, it's to import paragraphs 14(b) to 14(g) into clause 16 through amendment LIB-11.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any other discussion?

Before we vote on it, I want to note that it will apply to amendment LIB-16, which is an amendment to clause 47, which we might get to sometime later this year.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

(Amendment agreed to)

We don't need to do amendments LIB-7 and LIB-8. Shall clause 14 as amended carry?

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15)

Amendment NDP-7 would be ruled inadmissible because it would strike a whole section. You would be voting to delete clause 15.

We now have amendment CPC-7.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

This is the one that was implicated in clause 2. Am I right?

No, it doesn't affect clause 2. We'd have to go back to clause 2 as well.

Okay. It has been moved by Mr. Clement. Is there any discussion?

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

Chair, this goes to the evidence we heard at committee from people who wanted the bill to be a better bill, including people who had direct knowledge of how security agencies operate. I'm thinking of Mr. Atkey. I think it's a reasonable amendment that is consistent with the testimony we heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there other comments? Not seeing any, I call the question on amendment CPC-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment LIB-9 may be moved.

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

Chair, I so move.

It is an amendment that would narrow the scope of the information that is requested to that of identifiable persons. It's consistent with the government's intent to have the broadest possible access to government information relevant to the mandate of the committee. It's also important, Mr. Chair, to protect the personal information of law-abiding Canadians from unnecessary disclosure. It's relatively straightforward amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there any comment? All in favour?

(Amendment agreed to)

I love unanimity.

On amendment LIB-10, go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.