FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 13, 2000

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. As you know, the order of the day is the clause-by-clause of Bill C-22.

Before we begin, there were some concerns raised by Mr. Abbott and, I believe, by Mr. Marceau as well. We'll give them some time to express their points of view on whatever issue it is.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We raised the issue in the committee yesterday afternoon and I raise it again today: the issue of process. Understand that the Canadian Alliance...and I state this for, what, the fifteenth time? Understand that the Canadian Alliance is fully in favour of this legislation in principle. That is an unqualified statement. As always, the devil is in the details.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the parliamentary process, and part of the parliamentary process is what we're doing here right now in committee. In committee, an opportunity is given not only for witnesses but for the minister and for the department officials to be able to explain legislation to the legislators who are responsible for it, to inform us of their perspectives. We have heard some very interesting perspectives from people.

You can appreciate that unlike the government, which has literally hundreds of lawyers in at least three departments, I have one lawyer who is responsible for helping me with this legislation along with legislation on other issues that come from at least three other departments. This is, like, 500 to 1, quite literally.

To take the process whereby, as the official opposition, we concluded hearing witnesses at 5:30 p.m. yesterday and at 9 a.m. this morning we're supposed to be starting on clause-by-clause.... I suggest it is not a good process. It is not a fair process in terms of the official opposition being able to do its job. I have a responsibility on behalf of 62% of the people of Canada.

• 0910

I don't want to get into the political rhetoric here, but there is the whole issue of balance in the parliamentary process. I have difficulty with the process—again, to be precise—in that we have reached a point, as I understand it in private discussion between myself and Mr. Cullen, the parliamentary secretary, where this committee has a lot of work that it has to get through.

We are all in agreement, and I am in full agreement, that we want this legislation through as quickly as possible, but within this process we are involved in, it is impossible for me to do my job properly or adequately. It is an impossible process.

So I have decided, as an accommodation in good faith to the committee, that what I would prefer to do is to monitor this session, as opposed to participating in this session.

Let me just make one more explanation. We all know that legislation, when we're going through clause-by-clause.... We all know that each clause does not live and die by itself. In fact, each clause either supplements other clauses or refines the thought in other clauses. In other words, it is a seamless document—or should be a seamless document.

Therefore, for me to be involved in the process of commenting on clause 22 when in fact my counsel has an opportunity to take a look at it and says, well, clause 22 didn't do whatever needed to happen, and clause 17...and so on and so forth. I am unarmed at this particular point. I require expertise, and I have not had the opportunity, because of the process, to get that expertise.

So as an accommodation—because we do want to see this through—and in good faith, what I'm proposing is for me, as the official opposition, to monitor the proceedings today. I would hope that the government would then provide me with the legislation as amended and with any other pertinent data. I will submit that to my counsel. Over the two-week break of Parliament, my counsel will have an opportunity to look at it. Then I will reinsert the official opposition at report stage.

The only accommodation I would ask for, of course.... I have no idea whether we will be recommending amendments or not; that is absolutely impossible to forecast. Also, will our amendments, if they do come forward, be acceptable to the government or not? Again, who's to know?

In the same good faith that I am exhibiting to the government and within this process, I'm simply asking that very serious consideration be given to any amendments that we do bring forward and that the amendments not be seen as political and certainly not as hostile, that they be seen as amendments that, in our judgment, would enhance the legislation.

I think this is probably the best way. It's unfortunate, I do have to say—politically now for just a second—that the government has taken two years. We've been after the government throughout this entire process in our debate and in committee. It's unfortunate that the government has taken two years to bring this forward. It's doubly unfortunate that, having had it brought forward finally at the end of two years, we're now in a fire drill to see the end of it.

I don't think this process is a good way to do important legislation like this, legislation that has the far-reaching impact this legislation has. So I chastise the government for that. I think the process is just a bad process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 0915

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott. Just so we understand, for the record here, Bill C-22 was first introduced March 31, 1999. These clauses have existed for quite a while, and it also received first reading in the House of Commons on December 15, 1999. So in reference to the content of the bill, we've had ample opportunity to at least review it. That's my point of view on that. I do take your point of view, and I think it's an important statement you make.

Just so everybody here understands what happened, we agreed to a work schedule. Unfortunately, I don't think you were the member who agreed to that work schedule, and I gather the other person didn't speak to you, hence there is that kind of challenge you are now facing. But the points you've made are good points.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I may, I just want to point out that your statement is correct, and indeed the official opposition has some responsibility for what you just mentioned. I'm fully aware of that and I accept that responsibility, on behalf of the official opposition. We have been aware of these clauses, but we have not been aware of the testimony that has been brought forward, and that is my concern. I want to take a look at the legislation, in light of the testimony, and receive counsel.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Chairman, continuing somewhat in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Abbott, I would have to say that you have raised a very valid argument. However, I find it somewhat simplistic. If, after reviewing Bill C- 22, formerly known as Bill C-81, we had already formed a clear, definitive opinion before even hearing from all of the witnesses who appeared before us, why then would we have bothered to hear from witnesses in the first place? Do we not invite witnesses to give testimony - and some of this testimony is rather remarkable - precisely because we want to form some opinions?

Before arriving here, we the members of the Bloc Québécois had some idea of what we expected to find in the bill. It was part of our 1997 election platform. Therefore, we support the bill in principle.

Having said this, some of the testimony we have heard has raised a number of questions. As my colleague Mr. Abbott pointed out, after adjourning yesterday at 5 p.m., here we are resuming our proceedings at 9 a.m. this morning. This doesn't leave us much time to thoroughly analyse all of the testimony presented. I also understand that the committee feels somewhat pressed for time. We are running a little behind schedule and we don't need anything more on our plate.

I have a question, or rather more of a suggestion to make. Since we are going to break for two weeks, would it be possible, instead of holding a regular Finance Committee meeting, to convene at 4 p.m. on a Monday or Tuesday and to take the time we need to consider this matter? Today, we're sitting from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., or a total of four hours. We could sit from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. one evening, or from 4 p.m. to midnight, to consider this bill, without taking up time set aside for another issue.

We could accomplish quite a bit during these two weeks. Several privacy issues have been raised. Is the protection afforded by the Privacy Act sufficient to alleviate the concerns that have been raised? During these two weeks, the committee could perhaps ask the Privacy Commissioner to share his views on the proposed legislation with us, because frankly we don't know where he stands on this bill. Furthermore, all of the witnesses, whether they support the bill or not, spoke of the balance that needs to be maintained between preventing crime and protecting privacy.

Perhaps we could take advantage of this two-week period to sound out the Privacy Commissioner, seek his opinion, get down to work, roll up our sleeves and stay a little later. We could order in sandwiches or a pizza and get the job done.

The Bloc supports the principle underlying this bill, but in light of the testimony presented, I don't think we would be doing our job if we didn't take the time to review this testimony properly.

• 0920

Once again, I don't think it's a question of not being willing to act in good faith. It's simply that my opinion of the bill has been influenced by the testimony of certain witnesses. If there was no chance whatsoever of being influenced by the testimony heard, then why would we even bother to call in witnesses at all? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, when this bill went to the House it was sent to the committee on division. For the opposition parties and all members who were there, the government appreciated that. This is a bill Canadians want. As the opposition parties have pointed out, sometimes at length, it's been long in coming. It was in the last session and it's now back again.

I understand the anxiety about the pace of what we're looking at here, but I can tell you there are three other pieces of legislation: the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, the Budget Implementation Act, 2000, and another bill dealing with the excise tax and the harmonized sales tax that are in the House, or will be in the House this week. This committee, in its wisdom, has decided to look at a number of projects that have been proposed by the opposition parties.

So I suppose the government side would express some empathy about the pace. The fact is there is a lot of legislation in the pipeline.

Canadians want this bill. The police agencies in Canada, as we heard yesterday, want the bill and want us to get on with it. Having said that, I've undertaken with the official opposition that once Mr. Abbott has had a chance to review it, if he has some issues of substance, I'll certainly review those conjointly with the department. We'll make every effort to satisfy him, one way or the other, about his concerns. I would certainly offer the same thing to the other opposition parties.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think the problem we have is we will lose two weeks, when the department is developing regulations and will have to essentially put things on hold, and that will cause another delay. I respectfully ask the committee to deal with this today. If any amendments are proposed later that come out of the in-depth review by the opposition parties, I will certainly undertake to review them very carefully with the parties to see if there's anything that should or could be done.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen. As always, I'm in the hands of the members of the committee when it comes to the workings of this committee. What I'm really bound to right now is the work schedule everybody has approved. It was unanimously approved by all members of the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals, so I will have to operate on that premise.

However, Mr. Marceau and Mr. Abbott, you raise very good points that will be duly noted. Mr. Cullen, I think you have provided us with a compromise position that will suit the committee—that is, until Mr. Gallaway speaks.

Mr. Gallaway, you have the floor. I understand you have some amendments as well.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): I've already tabled them.

I think we should have some consideration for what the opposition has said. It's fine to talk about the convenience of the department and say the department is developing regulations, but I think the process works the other way. The laws have to be made and the regulations flow from that, so I find that somewhat of a specious argument.

It's also a question of fairness. Just because a work schedule has been adopted and other events intervene, if we wait to do this immediately after the break, I can't imagine why that isn't fair. I'm not concerned about the department creating regulations in a two-week period. If indeed this bill has been languishing or has been talked about since 1997, I think it was said, another two weeks won't mean anything.

I want to suggest we adjourn consideration of this bill until the Tuesday when we return. I don't know the date.

An hon. member: May 2.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: May 2.

• 0925

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, I must point out that the fact that you came here today prepared with these amendments would lead me to believe you were probably ready to deal with clause-by-clause today.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No, I wasn't.

The Chair: So you just forwarded these for...?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Well, there are more yet.

The Chair: So at report stage, I guess.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: You will know that in terms of the resources of the House, there's very little one can do. These were cobbled together yesterday, but these are very rudimentary little changes. If one were going to do anything of any substance, it's impossible.

You would know, Mr. Chairman, that there are only five legislative counsel in the employ of the House, three of whom have just begun, and it's a learning curve for them, so you're really dealing with two people with experience. This is not a criticism of the other three, but they're new on the scene and they're learning the operations here. So it's fine to talk about taking into consideration the viewpoints of the opposition, but that's to ignore the process that is laid down in this place.

The process is that members of all parties, regardless of political stripe, be given the opportunity to propose amendments at committee stage. Moving this to some other stage is being patently unfair. It's not a question of one party versus another; it's a question of members' rights.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway. I do want to note the point you made about counsel, which is a bigger issue vis-à-vis resources of committees. We'll note that one as well.

Are we ready to proceed to clause-by-clause?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can we put this to a vote?

[English]

The Chair: This is the order of reference. The order of the day is that we're doing clause-by-clause. That's the reason we're here.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Then I'll make a motion that we adjourn until May 2 consideration of Bill C-22.

The Chair: Okay.

Apparently if you add a date, it becomes a debatable motion, but if it's without a date, we simply vote on it.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Well, I think you have to put a date on it. I'm not moving that we just adjourn. I'm moving that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22 be adjourned until May 2.

The Chair: That's fair enough. Is there any debate on this issue?

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, if I really wanted to be a pain in the neck, I would say that we're going to debate the issues and that I'm prepared to speak for three hours. As a lawyer, I know that a person can say just about anything, or nothing at all, and go on for quite a long time. I could do that, but I don't intend to. We can set a date and I'll not debate the issue. However, if we agree to vote...

I'd like to be able to count on the members opposite acting in good faith. I don't want to turn this into a political debate, because we do support the bill. Could we possibly agree among ourselves that we don't really have the time for this and that it's preferable to adjourn for two weeks? We've been waiting two years for this bill. Two weeks more won't make any difference. It won't keep anyone awake at night.

Mr. Gallaway's motion has opened the door to a possible min- filibuster. We could undertake a clause by clause study of the bill and not get through everything, but we would be no further ahead for it. This would be of no benefit to anyone seated here at this table or to the department. I think we should recognize this fact and agree not to wage a procedural battle over this.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further comment?

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, I will not be entering into anything to do with the filibuster.

I agree with my colleague from the Bloc. I have had prior conversation with Mr. Cullen, and I've outlined the position of the Canadian Alliance. However, the suggestion of Mr. Marceau of doing this even on the Monday that we come back, from 4 to 8 o'clock or from 4 to 12 o'clock or whatever the case may be, would accommodate the concerns that have been raised about the process.

• 0930

The only possible argument I can think of or that I've heard to this point, from Mr. Cullen or anyone else, relates to the production of regulations within the department. It seems to me that is probably not a gigantic problem.

Again, maybe Mr. Cullen can convince us that the two-week delay in the department being able to go ahead with the regulations, particularly in light of the fact that we do have word processing equipment on which they could be producing the regulations in view of what they think the legislation is going to be.... I can't see that really is a problem with the delay.

I'm inclined to agree with this motion. As I say, it seems to me it works us out of this procedural problem without any undue delay.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I think we probably want to get on with this, but I just want to clarify something.

I take extreme exception to the suggestion from the member from Sarnia—Lambton that moving this forward now has anything to do with the departmental schedule or priorities. It has to do with moving forward with a piece of legislation that Canadians want, that law enforcement agencies want, and that we want to get on with.

The Chair: Is the debate exhausted at this point? Have all the points been made?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. We'll move to the vote. Do you want a recorded vote?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Sure.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The Chair: Thank you.

We're now moving to clause-by-clause. We have some government amendments, and we also have some amendments filed with us, I believe this morning, by Mr. Gallaway; we'll be dealing with those as well. Does everybody have the amendments tabled by the government and Mr. Gallaway?

Mr. Roy Cullen: I don't have Mr. Gallaway's.

The Chair: We will wait for everybody to get Mr. Gallaway's amendments before we proceed.

• 0933

• 0951

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Cullen.

(On clause 2—Definitions]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, what the member from Sarnia—Lambton has proposed would put the centre on the same basis as the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, and the centre is an agency, an arm of the government, fulfilling a mandate of the government. The centre reports to the minister annually. The minister tables the report to Parliament. There's also a five-year review.

So on that basis, I think in concept what the member is proposing is not really appropriate, and I was wondering, given that all his amendments deal with that main theme, whether it would be possible to vote on all his amendments in a group.

The Chair: Yes. They're consequential, so we can.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay.

The Chair: So that's where we're moving—to the vote on the first amendment.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Let's vote on them now then.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Gallaway, would you like a recorded vote on this?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No, I think it's quite fine.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: So all the other amendments...and I have here L1 to L13. They're all defeated.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5—Application of Part)

The Chair: We have two amendments on clause 5.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I propose that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

(b) cooperative credit societies, savings and credit

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to make the description of credit unions in this paragraph consistent with that in Quebec legislation. I think the members have the explanatory note, but if they don't...the amendment would include the term “savings union” in English and “caisses d'épargne” in French. So it's more a housekeeping amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Now we have amendment 2.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd propose that clause 5 be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 4 with the following:

[Translation]

province qui se livrent à l'acceptation de dépôt ou ven-

[English]

Is that correct?

It's a potential ambiguity in the French version of the paragraph, Mr. Chairman, and that's a housekeeping amendment.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to deal with clauses 6 through 48 in a block?

Some hon. members: Yes.

(Clauses 6 to 48 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 49—Personnel)

The Chair: We have amendment G3.

Mr. Cullen.

• 0955

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I propose that we replace line 3 with the following:

notwithstanding section 56 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, in accordance with the mandate approved by the Treasury

What this does, Mr. Chairman, is it allows the director of the centre to fix the remuneration of centre employees with the approval of Treasury Board.

The amendment would specify that once a mandate has been approved by the Treasury Board, the director would fix remuneration of employees in accordance with the mandate, without having to obtain further Treasury Board approval as required by section 56 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 49 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 50 to 54 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 55—Disclosure by Centre prohibited)

The Chair: We're on amendment G4.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I propose that clause 55 be amended by replacing line 13 on page 26 with the following:

spect of a financial transaction or

This subclause defines the designated information that the centre is required to disclose to the police and other government bodies listed in subclause 55(3). Without this, it would be limited to the prescribed information. This makes sure it also includes suspicious financial transactions.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 55 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 56 to 64 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 65—Disclosure to law enforcement agencies)

The Chair: Clause 65 has an amendment by the government—G5.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

I move that Bill C-22, in clause 65, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 25 and 26, page 36, with the following:

organismes compétents chargés de l'application de la loi tout renseignement dont il prend

[English]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would correct an error in the French version of the clause.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 65 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 66 to 69 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 70—Audit)

The Chair: There's an amendment by the government.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I propose that we amend clause 70 by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 37 with the following:

70.(1) All receipts and expenditures of the Centre are subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General of Canada.

Then under “Use and disclosure”:

(2) The Auditor General of Canada and every person acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Auditor General of Canada shall not use or disclose any information referred to in subsection 55(1) that they have obtained, or to which they have had access, in the course of exercising powers or performing duties and functions under this Act or the Auditor General Act, except for the purposes of exercising those powers or performing those duties and functions.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, this has the okay of the Auditor General. Basically, it means that if there's a staff person or a contractor of the Auditor General doing an audit of the centre and they come across, for example, someone they know who has been investigated for a suspicious transaction, they would be obliged never to reveal that information and would suffer the consequences if they did.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I wonder if the officials could advise us whether or not the rules of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants would cause some difficulty with regard to chartered accountants who are in the employ of the Auditor General's office to the extent that they have professional rules of conduct that may require them to make reports to their association in the event that they become directly aware of information.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Could I just comment on that?

The Chair: Sure, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Colleague, the comments that we heard from...this clause deals with something more specific than that, and I'll ask the officials to comment after I make a brief intervention.

With respect to the representation made by the CICA and the CGAs, the bill calls for...the types of activity will be defined by regulation. I will guarantee to you that the regulations will stipulate, with respect to accountants and lawyers, that in the normal course of their duty, let's say it's an audit, a test function, or preparing financial statements, they would be exempted. The only time they would be obliged to report would be if they were engaged as a financial intermediary in a transaction. And you have my undertaking; that is the way it will be expressed in the regulation.

• 1000

Is that okay?

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 70 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to)

(On clause 73—Regulations)

The Chair: Shall we hear amendment G-7 from Mr. Cullen?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proposing that we amend clause 73 by adding after line 28 on page 38 the following:

(e.1) specifying the information to be contained in a report under section 7 or subsection 9(1)

Mr. Chairman, this is amended to provide explicit regulation-making authority to prescribe the information to be contained in a report under section 7 and subsection 9(1). Right now the act talks about the form and the manner, so conceivably we could have a situation where someone has a nice form and they're reporting it every month, or whatever is prescribed, but they include their favourite recipes in the form. This says not only the form and the manner but the content.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 73 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 74 to 76 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 77—Reporting—section 9)

The Chair: Clause 77 has an amendment by the government, amendment G-8.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would propose that clause 77 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 40 with the following:

cised due diligence to prevent its commis-

Basically, the concept of due diligence is well recognized. This act had the concept of all due diligence. The amendment removes the word “all” so that everyone understands what the obligations are and it's clear for all stakeholders.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 77 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 78 agreed to)

(On clause 79—Offence by employee or agent)

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I propose that clause 79 be amended by replacing line 40 on page 40 with the following:

due diligence to prevent its commission.

This clause, Mr. Chairman, provides a due diligence defence for persons charged with an offence under section 75 or 77. The motion removes the word “all” from the phrase “all due diligence” in English and replaces the words “a pris les mesures nécessaires”, etc.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 79 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 80 to 96 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 97—Bill C-6)

The Chair: Now we have government amendment G-10 on clause 97. Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: This amendment responds to a representation by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who appeared yesterday. They followed up with the facts to the chair.

Basically what this amendment does is bring Bill C-22 in line with Bill C-6. In a nutshell, any non-disclosures by the centre or by a financial intermediary—in other words, anything that would be prejudicial to the detection of money laundering activities in Canada.... So for any information that was withheld for that purpose, as defined in the act, there would be a report to the Privacy Commissioner saying this information had been withheld. It responds to the Public Interest Advocacy Group.

Have the officials had a chance to talk to the privacy office on that point? Would you like to expand on that?

Mr. Charles Seeto (Director, Financial Sector Division, Department of Finance): We have called the privacy office. We called early this morning. We left a message with them and we hadn't gotten a response back from them.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Essentially, in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, this gives a heightened level of comfort to the Privacy Commissioner. As the act reads now, the non-disclosure report would not be forthcoming to the Privacy Commissioner. This allows that so that the Privacy Commissioner has an understanding of the volume and the extent of non-disclosures. It actually adds to his or her mandate. We don't expect any difficulty there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1005

(Clause 97 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before you leave, first of all, I want to thank all those of you who are here to vote and exercise your democratic right as responsible members of Parliament to be present at these hearings.

Secondly, I'd like to express to the officials my sincerest gratitude for all the work you have done, not only on this bill but on many bills that come to this committee. Your work is absolutely excellent and exceptional. From time to time we will come up with amendments to make improvements, but that's our duty and obligation to the people we represent. You can rest assured that this committee and the members of the House certainly appreciate the excellent quality of work and consultation that does take place throughout our country. You make a very serious contribution. I can sincerely tell you these comments are heartfelt.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'd just like to thank the members and the department as well. I'd also like to note for the record that we placed a call to Mr. Jim Abbott of the official opposition to see if he'd come back, because we were lacking quorum. He indicated he was prepared to do that. I'd like to thank him for that gesture of goodwill.

I'll certainly be working with the members of the opposition over the next couple of weeks. If there's anything substantive, we'll certainly be looking at it very carefully.

The Chair: Of course, to all the staff of the members of Parliament and also to our staff, clerk, researchers, and everybody involved in any way with the workings of the committee, as always, your work is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.