Evidence of meeting #114 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you for that answer.
May I ask why, then, the amendments to the Security of Information Act felt it necessary to include a specific reference to municipal political governmental processes when—if they are, in fact, a creature of the province—you already have it covered in proposed paragraph (b)?
I'm just wondering.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Scrivens, go ahead.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
The intention there was to be as specific as possible, because at the time, we were specifying a level further, which was at the school board level. That is now incorporated in a secondary definition.
It's a bit technical and complicated, but in attempting to assert a very broad scope for that provision, which included school board elections, the intention was to specify all levels and orders of government down to school boards.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Chair, the one part I liked about Mr. Scrivens' answer was an attempt to be as specific as possible. I think that's great. That's what we should be attempting to do here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
Is there any further discussion?
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I believe, through you to the officials, that one of the issues with this was the fact of the coming-into-force clause for something referred to as (b.1). Even if we make that amendment, the problem is the fact that (b.1) isn't referenced.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you, Chair.
There are three coming-into-force provisions, one for (a), one for (b) and one for (c), and they are all different. If you decide to add (b.1) as a separate category, there is no equivalent coming-into-force provision for (b.1).
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
If we just added into (b) “provincial, territorial, or municipal”, the coming-into-force issue would not be an issue. It would do what the amendment of Mr. MacGregor—
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's correct.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Chair, I don't know if this will be ruled in order or not, but I would like to move a subamendment that we delete (b.1) and instead move, within (b) , “provincial,” remove “or”, “territorial, or municipal”, and then continue with “political or governmental processes.”
I have extra copies if anyone needs them in both official languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Could you distribute those, and we will suspend while we look at this?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Upon consultation with our able legislative analysts, this is an amendment, not a subamendment. It's not in order, according to our rules at the current time.
Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Are we as a committee allowed to challenge the chair on that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You can always challenge the chair, but this change would basically add another (b) to the text. We would have two (b)s, which makes the bill unintelligible. This is my advice.
Mr. MacGregor, are you done?
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, in other words, what you're saying is that we have the option to negative NDP-6 and then consider another amendment, which has been essentially proposed by Madam O'Connell.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We're not allowed to do amendments. We can only do amendments to the bill that were submitted prior to 4 p.m. on Friday.
For those amendments that were submitted prior to 4 p.m. on Friday, we can do subamendments. This change would require its own amendment, and therefore it's excluded by what we're allowed to do under the terms of the House order.
Potentially, though, we should make a list of these things and deal with them at report stage when it gets back to the House.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, to another point of order, NDP-7 appears to be exactly the same as NDP-6.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I see. Okay, I understand now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Therefore there's no way to amend NDP-6 in the way that was suggested by Madam O'Connell.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It appears not, because it says to take this line of the act and substitute this text.
What Ms. McConnell's change is trying to do is add something to the previous line of text, and we're kind of caught.
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell, please.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Chair, could we ask for unanimous consent to accept this as a subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You can ask, but the chair is going to rule it out of order, so you'll have to overrule the chair.
It will produce a repetition of text in the bill.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
In all seriousness, I understand and recognize the importance of the House motion. However, I think it's silly, when we have an opportunity to make legislation better in this committee. I think we have some consensus in how to do so without the unintended consequences of a coming-into-force issue.
Yes, we can do it at another stage, but I think if there is will among this committee.... While I respect the law clerk's ruling and your ruling, I think these aren't normal constraints we're under. We have an opportunity to actually just make the bill a little bit clearer. If we have support, I think we should do so.