Evidence of meeting #99 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
I want to let my friend at the end of the table know—because we were going against him on a few there—that we will also be supporting this amendment.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I agree with the intent behind this.
The language in G-3 is in line with how the act reads, generally. The language as it's written in NDP-4, to me, says it in a backwards fashion. “If the minister believes there are reasonable and probable grounds that it's necessary” would be, to me, a proper way to put it. It falls in line with the way the wording is in the act for that type of language.
That's all I'm suggesting. It says the same thing, but one says it one way and one says it in an NDP-backwards sort of way.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, either way. I just wanted to point it out.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall NDP-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We're moving on to G-3.1.
G-3.1 can only be moved if BQ-1 was defeated. Also, if G-3.1 is adopted, BQ-3 and CPC-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Gaheer.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is coordinating with G-1.1, which the committee agreed to. We're saying that Bill C-26, in clause 2, should be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 2 with the following:
tem against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order and af-
Thank you.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.
Shall G-3.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
G-3.2 can only be moved if BQ-3 and CPC-5 were defeated.
We need a mover.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Can you say that again, Mr. Chair, but a little more slowly?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Amendment G-3.2 could only be moved if BQ-3 and CPC-5 were defeated, and they were not moved.
Are you okay, Mr. Julian? Good.
Mr. Gaheer, go ahead, please.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
G-3.2 is similar to G-1.2. We are concerned about being too prescriptive and limiting the ability to consult with required people as to threats. Obviously, when we look at administrative law, there's a zone of expertise that we allow the agencies to have.
I move to amend Bill C-26, in clause 2, by replacing line 28 on page 2 with the following, which is referring, I assume, to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness:
Emergency Preparedness and with the persons the Minister considers appropriate,
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This has always somewhat confused me. We do have a Minister of Public Safety and a Minister of Emergency Preparedness. However, all the legislation that gives the Minister of Public Safety power references him or her as being the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
I'm just a bit confused by what Mr. Gaheer said. Are we suggesting that this legislation will fall under just the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, or will this fall under the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness? I mean, it's technically two ministers, but in law it's actually under one ministry.
Do the officials have anything to say about that?
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
In legislation, we are required to use the legal name of the minister in question. For instance, you'll see a lot of references to the Minister of Industry and not the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, even though that is the name currently styled. The reference speaks to the legal name of the minister in the underlying enabling legislation for the department in question.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm just a bit confused by what Mr. Gaheer said. To clarify, this is going under the Minister of Public Safety, not the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.
5:40 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Yes. That's correct.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall G-3.2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
We are now on G-4.1.
If G-4.1 is adopted, G-4.2, G-4.3 and CPC-6 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
G-4.1 is coordinating with G-1 to add “degradation” to the enumerating lists.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Shall G-4.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
So amendments G-4.2, G-4.3 and CPC-6 are now moot.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Right. They cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
We're now on CPC-7.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative