Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reasonable.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Okay.
Ms. Dandurand, you have a good memory as well.
Mr. Au, you have the floor.
Conservative
Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC
Mr. Chair, before we go on, instead of relying on memory, shall we find out from the minutes what was submitted at the time? Otherwise, we are basing this on memory, which could be faulty. May I suggest that we pause and find this out from the minutes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Good. That's what we'll do.
As the analysts and others do that behind the scenes and behind the screen, let me turn back to MP Lawton for any additional input.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That was a good question from my colleague Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
I believe the recommendation was made by Mr. Dufresne.
I think this is exactly why it would have been valuable to have the commissioner testifying about the amendments that were very important to protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. I know that this was something my colleagues attempted multiple times to have happen. It's unfortunate that the Liberal government did not want to do that and have now introduced legislation that further weakens the power of the Privacy Commissioner. That seems to be adding insult to injury for someone who's trying to help Canadians.
In any event, I appreciate that very much. I would just submit to this committee that if the government felt it suitable to make crystal clear in the statute that medical information and solicitor-client privilege would not be at issue in the confirmation of service....
Again, it's a lot harder to draw a line from confirmation of service to medical information or solicitor-client privilege. If that were the argument from the government in that section, I see no reason why they would not want to make the same crystal clarity in the actual production component, where there is potentially a greater connection between these two things—unless, as Mr. Mantle suggested, it was deliberate to not offer that certainty and not offer that assurance. The government has had months to work on this bill. You have to assume that everything in it is deliberate, just as you have to assume that everything not in it is deliberate.
That speaks to the broader point of why cutting short this committee's process and preventing us from being able to subamend amendments is an incredible violation of the rights and privileges of members.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to also comment. I think I heard Mr. Housefather say that some of the information in the subscriber production order was minimally identifying or narrow. I take a very different view. We've established that the confirmation of service is certainly much less intrusive, but the subscriber information is quite broad. It goes beyond just the potential to identify a name or an identifier of a person. I'm not sure I agree with his point that there's no likelihood that it might be disclosed in this. It could include all the types of services provided, when those services were provided and anything that identifies devices, equipment, etc. I want to put that on the record. That's a different view on the scope and how broad the production order for subscriber information is.
Second, I will reiterate that it would be fabulous and useful to the committee to have the Privacy Commissioner here to speak on his suggested amendments. I know we have asked for unanimous consent multiple times to get consent to bring the Privacy Commissioner here, so I'm not going to do it again because it will be futile with the members across the way. This is an example of how this process has become fouled by the members opposite who simply don't want to devote sufficient time to going through this bill in a civil and substantive way in order to deal with these issues.
They may not like being reminded of those decisions, but we will continue reminding them of those decisions.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to take a moment to defend the honour of my colleague Mr. Lawton. It seemed like there was a lot of anger thrust toward him just now when he said that we really want the ability to possibly add subamendments to amendments. If the Liberals get their way and they choose to follow through on a programming motion, the truth is that not only will we not get to look at each amendment and possibly suggest subamendments, but we will also be hiding that from Canadians because they will be deemed moved. Canadians will not be able to see what the amendments are until they've already been voted on. They will not be able to give their opinion or their thoughts.
I would just ask that we consider that. I urge the Liberal government, based on this information, to move forward and have good amendments on this.
I can assure law enforcement as well that we want to give you the tools you need, but we need to do this right. Voting without the ability to add subamendments or voting on amendments without the Canadian public even knowing what they are...because they don't get to see them if they are deemed moved. We don't get to read them, and the public doesn't get to see them until after they're voted on. I want that very clear and on the record. That's all I'll say on this point.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, that would have been very reasonable. To my knowledge, having been here now 10 years, you normally can get through somewhere between six and seven amendments an hour in a clause-by-clause. Right now, we've been going since 3:30, and we've gotten through one vote. That only happens if people procedurally block us from doing our work. That seems to be what's been happening today. The Conservatives are desperate to not vote on anything, desperate to ask anything about everything that has nothing to do with the amendment at hand. They don't want us to move forward.
Then we have no choice but to do a programming motion. If I see in the next hour that we get through six amendments, then I'll see that we're starting to work, but so far, in the last several meetings, Mr. Chair, we haven't done any of that.
Liberal
Conservative
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you.
Because you said that, I feel like I need to respond.
I will respectfully disagree. We are trying to move through these. We've had legitimate questions. Every question has been legitimate. In fact, I think we're just about ready to move on with regard to this one.
The truth is that we wouldn't need to spend so much time asking questions on the amendment and the bill had we had enough study before clause-by-clause to be able to fully study the bill and understand it. For instance, when the Privacy Commissioner was here, there were only two rounds of questions. We couldn't even ask him about his suggested amendments. We didn't have them at that point, as Ms. DeBellefeuille said. That is the issue I take, which is why I asked last week for consent to have the Privacy Commissioner here. The Liberals blocked that, as they have been doing. We've been trying to move, and the Liberals have been blocking the movement that we've been trying to make.
I want to leave it at that because I genuinely would like to see us move forward on some amendments. That is the truth. Despite the arguments happening across the table, I think we can move on and ask some excellent questions, as my colleagues have been asking tonight.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will disagree with my colleague, Mr. Housefather.
All of the questions I've asked this evening have been directly on point. In fact, all of the questions I've asked at this committee have been directly on point, and I would stand by that. We can go through the transcript together and look at that.
I'm trying to understand a complicated bill that has sweeping repercussions for Canadians, for our security interests and for our privacy interests. There's no magic formula for how many clauses should or shouldn't get passed in a set amount of time. It's contextual. It depends on the complexity of the clause, the complexity of the bill and how a clause interacts with other clauses. I don't think it's a fair assessment to draw a blanket generalization about how many clauses should or shouldn't be done.
It sounded to me like the programming motion was being used as a cudgel or as blackmail, that if the government sees that this is moving to its liking—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Mr. Mantle, there seems to be a problem with the interpretation.
Let me speak in my broken English to see whether interpretation is working.
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille, for pointing that out.
Conservative
Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's always good to have some levity at the table. That's a good reminder for me as well.
I'll begin my thought again. It sounded to me like Mr. Housefather was suggesting—and he can go on and clarify in his own words—that if the government is seeing progress, whatever that may be, to its liking, programming would not be necessary.
That seems to me like blackmail rather than civilly and substantially engaging in the content of this bill and giving it the appropriate time and consideration it requires. It is certainly not the fault of the opposition that this government waited 10 or 11 years to bring forward lawful access legislation and then, in the last week of Parliament, decided to try to ram it through the House.
I will respectfully disagree that the programming motion is a necessity on the part of the government. It is not. The government has had sufficient time to do this. I'm going to ask the questions I need to ask so that I, as a voting member, am comfortable with whichever way I decide to vote on this bill.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
The word “blackmail”, of course, is completely offensive. It would be like me saying, when the Conservatives said that they would allow part 1 of the bill to go forward as long as we split the bill and didn't have part 2, that it would be, under Mr. Mantle's words, blackmail. I would never call it that, but he would.
All I can say is that I've been here for 10 years. I know when people are genuinely trying to move forward with a bill and asking pertinent questions. I watched Mr. Mantle last meeting spend an hour on a very simple amendment, asking exactly the same question over and over to the point that it was repetitive to the nth degree. It seems clear to me that we could have, starting at 3:30, gone through 20 amendments by now. We haven't—and that would have been at a slow pace. Certainly, some are going to be more complex than others, but there is not actually any effort to make it through clause-by-clause in good faith.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
A recorded vote has been requested, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
