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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
There's some irony that we got stuck on one word here, but I guess it's reflective of the significance of the debate. I assume at some point you're going to be drawing this subamendment debate to a close, but—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Only when the debate is finished. Thank you; I will take care of that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would say, though, that Mr. Rankin's last comments have a lot to do with understanding the ambit and the parameters of the mandate of this committee. Having asked the Information Commissioner about some of the distinctions between her mandate and what the committee of parliamentarians' mandate would be, she accepted that there were distinctions.
For instance, the Information Commissioner accepts complaints. The committee of parliamentarians does not. There is more of a focus on the domain of information that is related to activities that are purely national security intelligence, whereas the Information Commissioner has access to information right across the whole of government.
I think it is through understanding the distinctions between the committee of parliamentarians and that particular oversight entity that we start to get some understanding about access to information and then ministerial discretion that is used to refuse access to information in the interest of national security. Understanding that distinction sheds some light on the importance of consistency of language.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Can we have two minutes for us to have a brief chat?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Yes. You can suspend. Nothing happens in two minutes. Let's suspend for five minutes. It's 4:55. We'll reconvene at 5 o'clock.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have another question. How many times is “activity” or “operation” used in the bill? Is this word used elsewhere? If we change it here, I'm wondering if it is going to impact other places in the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Heather Sheehy Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Yes. The word is used elsewhere in the bill, and we would have to go and see whether or not there would be implications for where it's used elsewhere in the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Having heard the answer to Ms. Damoff's question, that really isn't a problem, so we shouldn't hang our hat on that. It's easy enough to change it when we come to it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Are there any other questions, comments, or thoughts on this subamendment, which is to insert the word “operation” in place of the word “activity”?
We'll have a recorded vote. This is on the subamendment changing the word “activity” to “operation.”
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Dubé, I think you still have three more subamendments. We're looking forward to them.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I thank the committee for their support of the first one. I'll have to reword the second one because it has the word “activity” in it, and we want to be mindful of that, I suppose.
The second one remaining in paragraph 8(a) will be the longest of the subamendments. It's about a dozen words or so. It would add after “Minister” the following phrase: “after consulting with the chair of the committee on all options to mitigate harm to the efficacy of the”, and instead of “activity”, we'll say “operation”, in keeping with the last one.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Could you just repeat that?
Leave the word “Minister”, and before the word “determines”...?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
After “determines”—excuse me; before “that” we say, “after consulting with the chair of the committee on all options to mitigate harm to the efficacy of the operation”.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
By way of explanation, despite the fact that we've lost the fight for the elected chair, we do think that nonetheless the relationship between the committee and the minister and Prime Minster, depending what the case may be, is important. We feel it's a good way of building trust with the committee and with the public having that kind of consultation. It doesn't behold the minister to anything; it's just to keep that dialogue going.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm just looking at your staff. Perhaps they can help with some written notes for our legislative clerk. I think people got the comment.
Go ahead, Mr. Di Iorio.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Just a moment, please.
I will read it for the committee.
This is continuing in paragraph 8(a). After the words “the appropriate Minister determines” at line 12, a comma is added and then I believe it is “after consulting with the chair of the committee on all options to mitigate harm to the efficacy of the operation”, and then it continues on with “that the review would”. This is a consultation with the chair regarding making sure that there is a mitigation effort.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is defeated. Can we have your third subamendment?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair. I guess everyone got fed up with the debate on the first one.
Kidding aside, this would be in subclause 8(2). Staying with Mr. Mendicino's amendment, we would add after the word “Committee”, the following: “and the appropriate review body if applicable”.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Yes, of course.
In proposed subclause 8(2), after the word “Committee”, add “and the appropriate review body if applicable”.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I will just read it as it would stand; I think it's helpful.
If the appropriate Minister determines that a review would be injurious to national security, he or she must inform the Committee and the appropriate review body if applicable of his or her determination and the reasons for it.
That would be informing SIRC if it was the one—
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Of course. This is in keeping with this notion of horizontal integration and working together with the other review bodies.
(Subamendment negatived)
