Evidence of meeting #46 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 activity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
The final subamendment, Chair, is in proposed subclause 8(3).
Once again, after the word “Committee”, we would add the following three words: “within seven days”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay, that's pretty clear.
Are there any questions?
(Subamendment negatived)
That's one out of four. Not bad.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We were in last place, but it wasn't bad.
We are continuing with amendment LIB-4. We've had some subamendments. One has been accepted. Are there any other comments on the actual amendment?
Mr. Clement, go ahead.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I appreciate the mover's trying to be responsive. I would state for the record, however, that this is a pretty thin rule. When hearing the testimony from the deponents, from the expert witnesses.... This Liberal government seems to luxuriate in and pride itself on wanting to abide by expertise, yet after the experts came forward with legitimate complaints about how this bill was framed, they nonetheless are proposing a very limited fix, not even close to being in the spirit of the testimony that we heard. If the honourable member Mr. Mendicino or anybody else thinks that they are going to be able to go out to the public and say, because of this amendment, that they heard the expert testimony and they responded, I want to signal to them that I will be disagreeing vehemently with that rhetorical approach to this bill.
On the other hand, I will be supporting the amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I just want to build on what Mr. Clement was saying.
We have heard testimony from some pretty credible people: “This override essentially turns the committee's broad mandate into a mirage. It will undermine any goodwill and public trust that may have been built up towards the committee and, by extension, the national security agencies it oversees.” That's just one. We have page after page after page. Again, I am just astounded by this exercise in futility, and saddened. I am profoundly disappointed.
I'd vote with you guys if....[Inaudible—Editor]
November 29th, 2016 / 5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I know our officials are just now realizing what a great committee we have. I can tell by the look on their faces.
Are there any other questions or comments about Liberal amendment 4 in its entirety, as amended with the subamendment from Mr. Dubé?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have one more amendment on clause 8, and that is from the Green Party, which I believe is still eligible, because the others above it did not.... It would add a subclause 8(2) regarding the minister taking into account the fact that members of the committee are bound by the Security of Information Act.
Does anybody care to speak to that?
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I am not going to be voting for this, because it is not necessary. It's clear that this is the state of the facts on the ground. I don't think it's necessary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Does anybody else wish to speak?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are going to move to the amended clause 8.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
Okay.
We have a new clause proposed between clause 8 and clause 9, which would then become clause 8.1. This is NDP-4.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
If it's okay with the chair, we ask for that to be addressed later in the proceedings. I understand that has some better merit, as far as the government side is concerned. We would ask that it be deferred until later.
Liberal
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
If it would help you, Chair, after Liberal-15, I think, would be the appropriate placement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
The motion is to consider this after we consider Liberal-15.
All in favour with standing this?
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(On clause 9)
We're moving now to clause 9, which we have not received any amendments for.
(Clause 9 agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Moving to clause 10, we do have an amendment that has been submitted by the Green Party, which is PV-3. It causes two lines to be deleted, lines 23 and 24 on page 4.
(Amendment negatived)
That takes us to clause 10 in its entirety.
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(Clause 11 agreed to)
Moving to clause 12, we have an amendment from the Green Party, which is PV-4, deleting lines 14 to 19 of clause 12, regarding evidence.
Does anybody care to speak in favour of or in opposition to this amendment?
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
To be clear, this eliminates parliamentary privilege then. Is that right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
The mover is not here, but I would not be wanting to.... We could ask the officials to comment.
Senior Legal Counsel, Privy Council Office
What it does is make explicit that statements made that would normally be subject to parliamentary privilege could be used in evidence against them if there was, for example, a prosecution under the Security of Information Act for a person who was otherwise permanently bound to secrecy. It's not as wholesale as saying parliamentary privilege does not apply, but it is being expressed as to what use can be made of a statement that would otherwise be subject to parliamentary privilege.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Does anybody know whether there's any other provision in any other act that's similar to this, or is this groundbreaking?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Mr. Clement has raised the question around amendment PV-4, which would delete lines 14 through 19. These lines deal with evidence in connection with subclause 12(1) on parliamentary privilege.
Go ahead, Ms. Sheehy.
Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Yes. This is consistent with a body that is a committee of parliamentarians—