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.
Liberal
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I'm asking the mover the question. Why wouldn't you just support CPC-10?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
There is quite a bit at the end of yours, “was involved in authorizing and implementing the revision, as well as the”. It's similar. It's just slightly different language.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
What we have on the table is amendment LIB-12.1, which has similar impact but different to NDP-9 and CPC-10. If it is adopted, then CPC-10 or NDP-9 could not be moved, and BQ-6.
Mr. Clement.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I just want to add a couple of things on the record.
I now understand what the mover was trying to get at. I would just say that in these matters, greater clarity is better than lesser clarity. If you're dealing with a situation when a report has been ordered to be revised by the Prime Minister of Canada, parliamentarians have a right to know which departments are involved in that and not only the nature and the reasons of the decision, but to go behind the veil, as it were, to find out the particulars as they are laid out in my revised subclause 7.
I think that my amendment is superior in many ways to the proposed amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay, seeing no other requests, I'm going to test amendment LIB-12.1.
(Amendment agreed to)
We will take out amendments NDP-9, BQ-6, and CPC-10. However, amendment LIB-13 is still eligible to be moved, if someone would like to move it.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
What this does is no department is identified or responsible in any way, shape, or form if there are redactions made on a revised report.
Conservative
Allen Sutherland Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Sure, she can repeat it.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Just for clarification purposes here, with the piece removed, that removes the openness and transparency from any department that has made suggestions that it be redacted, so there is no accountability by any department in this process.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The accountability is through the PM. It's his decision.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I understand that, but there would be departments advising the Prime Minister, so that removes any information as to who advised him to do this.
I'm doing a hypothetical case here.
Heather Sheehy Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The act allows the Prime Minister to direct that certain information that's injurious to national security be redacted from the report.
The act gives the authority to the Prime Minister to request that information be redacted from the report. It is the Prime Minister who would request that, not the departments, and then the committee is responsible for determining how that redaction is made in the report.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, what I'm hearing then is that.... The Prime Minister isn't going to arbitrarily start redacting stuff without getting advice from a variety of departments. That's just common sense. What I'm hearing is that there are provisions still embedded within this whereby the committee has the ability to get that information as to which department and why that advice was given to the Prime Minister. Is that correct?
Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The bill is silent on what information, on how that information is communicated to the committee, or what constitutes the information that the Prime Minister gives to the committee in terms of the redaction. It just says that the Prime Minister can indicate to the committee that certain things have to be redacted. The bill does not provide for how that information is considered in that direction nor what analysis has to be provided to the committee.
December 6th, 2016 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, so if the bill is now silent on that, and the committee is an oversight committee, and there have been redactions by the Prime Minister, there is no ability for the committee to get any of that information as to who and why that redaction occurred because the bill is silent on it now. Is that correct?
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The proposed revision that was just advanced speaks to “clearly identified as a revised version and must indicate the extent of, and reason for, the revision”.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, I had just heard that the bill was silent on that, so the committee will have the reasoning behind it as well as which department made that request. Is that correct?
John Davies Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
May I take a crack at this one?
Clause 21 is about the public report, what the public will see, but the committee will see everything, including what's redacted. I just want to make sure it will be clear which departments are involved in the redactions because you can see everything. This is about what is made public, and the key about the bill is the Prime Minister will make that call. It's not about hiding anything or redacting anything before the committee sees it. This is about what is appropriate to be released publicly.