Evidence of meeting #78 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment is rejected. It's defeated.
I've been listening to the Speaker. I don't like the thought of your being defeated. It's a spiritual thing.
Carry on. We have NDP-12.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think that two days ago what you said was “not quite adopted” or “not passed”. I prefer that language rather than “rejected”. That sounds very harsh.
NDP-12 would include that medical information, including information from mental health professionals, would be included as information that is accessed. This is something that we heard from Breaking Barriers Together would be important. Requesting medical information that is only physical does not provide for a full and comprehensive review of an individual's situation, and “namely information from mental health care professionals” would be included in this. I believe there may be a subamendment on this.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
We do have a subamendment. I have copies in both official languages.
We agree in principle. What we would propose is “medical information”, then striking out “namely” and changing it to “including”, so it's “including information from mental health care professionals”. The reason for this is that I think the intention is that it could be included and be allowed to be included, but it would not be the only example. The option is there. It's just changing the language to make it a little clearer.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
The discussion is on the subamendment.
I have Madame Michaud.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I'm wondering again about the appropriateness of the proposed change. It seems to me that the meaning of “medical information” is perfectly clear. I don't know why it's necessary to add a reference to mental health. Furthermore, the amendment restricts medical information to information from a mental health professional. The intent of the subamendment is to alter the amendment to make it clear that the expression “medical information” includes information from a mental health professionals, when it was already implicit. I feel that such added details are not necessary.
I'm not sure whether I'm the only one who is interpreting it in this way, but when I read the words “medical information”, I understand that mental health information is included. I would therefore leave the wording of the bill as is. That's my opinion.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Julian gets to work once again.
We're on NDP‑13, please.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate everyone's patience as we move through these amendments. We've gotten them from all parties, though, so I may be speaking on them more often today, but in coming days that will switch as we move through this bill.
I'm very happy that we are all working together to improve aspects of this bill. There is no doubt that Bill C-20 will be much better coming out of committee than it was going in. That's really what we are paid to do.
I want to move NDP-13. This would delete the ability for the commissioner or president to refuse access to privileged information sought by the commission under this section. It would basically delete subclause 17(6), which requires the commissioner or president to indicate why they're not giving the information. This gives the complaints commission the ability to access that information, which is fundamentally important.
This would delete subclause 17(6) of the bill.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Heath MacDonald Liberal Malpeque, PE
Maybe it's a question for our witnesses. Would the RCMP and CBSA deputy heads have the opportunity to refuse to share privileged information, with proper justification, to protect the integrity of a case or operational information?
5:50 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I understand the intent of the removal of subclause 17(6) is to prevent the commissioner or the president of CBSA from refusing to provide certain information. In fact, that provision doesn't allow the commissioner or the president to refuse, it merely says if they do refuse, this is what they need to do in refusing it. They need to provide the commission with the reasons they have determined that the information is not both relevant and necessary, and give an indication of the nature and the date of the information.
This would then enable the PCRC to determine whether or not the commission actually needs the information and whether to pursue other options, such as perhaps a judicial review application to the Federal Court, to try to obtain the information.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I won't be able to support this today. It's just deleting the ability of the RCMP and CBSA to refuse to give the commission access to privileged information.
It's not something we want to see in this, so we won't be supporting this today.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
You have one more shot, Mr. Julian. Go ahead on NDP‑14.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
I have actually quite a few other shots to come, Mr. Chair, but I'll try to keep them as brief as possible because I know everybody has reviewed the amendments. I know each member basically has the ability to vote on it, after the clarifying questions. It doesn't require a big lead-in as an introduction.
NDP‑14 is a recommendation from Breaking Barriers Together, to ensure that memorandums of understanding are rendered public.
This would ensure that there is the transparency that is so important to ensure the success of this new complaints commission.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Julian, I saw your hand up on both sides. I assume you voted for it.
5:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:50 p.m.
NDP
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's fair enough.
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 18)
Mr. Julian, go ahead on NDP-15, please.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
To facilitate the work, given the number of amendments we have, I believe both NDP-15 and NDP-16 were voted on already in previous clauses of the bill.
I wanted to ask the clerk, through you, whether in his opinion we've already discussed those two items. If that is the case, then I would withdraw both NDP-15 and NDP-16. We certainly have had the discussion around NDP-16. I believe we've had it around NDP-15 as well.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think the concern that Mr. Julian mentioned is that a previous amendment was linked to these.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We discussed the subject matter. I believe I'm correct in saying that both NDP-15 and NDP-16 should be withdrawn, because they were defeated in a previous incarnation, in one of the previous clauses.