Evidence of meeting #48 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I fully get that, because it's not necessary for the general public to have that information. My concern was around the committee having that information, going through the process of redaction and who's doing what and advising whom on what.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As with a lot of other public reports, in court proceedings and so on, in the end it's a give and take. It's a back and forth in terms of discussion on what should be released and what should not be released.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I get all that. I just want to make sure that there's a provision that, before it goes to the general public, the information is given to the committee in terms of why there was a redaction, who was advising to redact it. That was my point.
I heard from Ms. Sheehy that it was silent on that; therefore, the information wasn't there. I just want clarification. I just want to make sure.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I think the why will be clearly stated. The who is the Prime Minister.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I guess that's my point. The Prime Minister isn't arbitrarily going to start changing documents because he thought so that day. There's a process that's undertaken. There are advisers who would give him that information. My question was around, would the committee not be able to have that information now?
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I think I would maybe look at it from the other direction, which is that the Prime Minister won't simply take whatever his advisers tell him either. It's ultimately his decision.
Conservative
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Again, it's the committee's report.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The committee is writing the report. The committee sees everything. In the back and forth that goes on with the redaction, it's going to be clear which agency the report is on and where the information comes from. At the end of the day, it's the Prime Minister's decision, but there is not going to be any information hidden from the committee or any discussion that's not going to be revealed on why a redaction did or did not occur. Every review body goes through this as they issue a public report.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
The reason I'm trying to understand this is that an amendment was made to take that language out. I still want to make sure that the committee needs to fully understand why there was a redaction and which organization put that forward, so the committee will have full understanding of what that looks like.
Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I would also just point out that I slightly misspoke. I want to be very clear that, in Bill C-22, at subclause 21(5), where I said “injurious to national security”, I should have been more accurate in saying:
the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege
Then the clause goes on, but I just want to clarify that I had misspoken on that point.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I want to clarify one thing on process. The amendment that was passed added language and no language was taken out. That would have come in a later amendment, which is now not eligible. Just so people are clear and the public record is clear, what we have done is we have the original subclause 21(5), which has two lines added to it, which will make other motions ineligible; however, it has added the requirement for reasons to be given to the committee.
You still have the floor, Ms. Watts, and then Mr. Rankin, followed by Mr. Mendicino.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I thank you for that. I do understand that. I just want to make sure that with the redaction, if a committee member asks who advised that this be redacted, whether it's CSIS or whoever it is, it doesn't matter; that information would be forthcoming to the committee.
I get that it would be injurious to public security and all that other stuff, the reasons why. I just want to understand that there is still is a process in place whereby the committee has the information that they need.
Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
To your point, the act is silent on that, including with the amendment. To Mr. Davies' point, one can imagine that they'll be back and forth with the committee in terms of the redactions that are requested, but the act is silent.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, and that's what I understood it to be, so it's clearly problematic. Thank you.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I appreciate the area of questioning that Ms. Watts is exploring, although I don't agree with her final characterization that the amendment is clearly problematic because—
Conservative
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Fair enough, but I think it should be coloured by what we heard from Mr. Davies. The amendment, which was approved by the committee, in no way prohibits the reasons from including references to the departments which are asserting privilege, so it's because of this that I think this amendment is obviously not in any way going to foreclose reasons that will shed light on the area that you were probing.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Actually, it does, because it says if any department was consulted in authorizing the revision, as well as the extent, that that be given to the committee. That was an amendment that we had put forward. That's why I wanted clarification, because this clearly stipulates that the information from whatever department or agency will come to the committee. Now it's silent on that. That can be interpreted a thousand different ways, is my point. To me, that's problematic because it's not clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay. We are ready to entertain another amendment. We got into a discussion on the clause itself, which is absolutely fine, and I believe there is another amendment to be moved, LIB-13.
Does someone care to move it?
