Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. Welcome to meeting 22 of the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

We made some good progress this morning. We moved through the agenda, and we'll continue to do that this afternoon.

We're going to start at clause 15, but we should probably address the length of sitting tonight before we go on. There had been some suggestion to carry on later. We've heard from some members who have other commitments. We're missing the NDP. I've had indication from some members that they have other personal priorities. We will have sat for six hours.

Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Simply to save time, let's say that as soon as the bell goes for the votes, why don't we take stock and make a decision on the spot as to how far we are along?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll have a hard time getting food then, if that's the case, but we can all stand to miss a meal anyway.

Not all of us can stand to miss a meal? Okay, we'll make that judgment as we go along.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Mr. Cullen was not in the room. However, we do have a quorum, so we will press ahead. The next three are fairly easy anyway, since there are no amendments.

(On clause 15)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There are no amendments to clause 15 that I am aware of.

Mr. Godfrey, go ahead.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We have a problem with clause 15. As the clause book points out—the one that's officially put out by the government—this deals with the scope an inspector has to go onto other people's property to search for things.

As the explanation puts it, in order to protect privacy the amendment narrows the scope of that authority by limiting the “any place or property” that the officer “may enter or have access to”. Our view is that this is altering the existing inspection arrangements and the authority of the inspector in CEPA. We think that authority is, based on our admittedly imperfect knowledge, probably a good authority to have to give scope for inspection. Unless we were persuaded otherwise by whoever here, I think we would be opposed. We would vote against this amendment unless we were persuaded there was some powerful reason to limit the scope of inspection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Ares, are you in a position to comment, or are we missing Mr. Moffet?

[Michel Ares, Counsel, Department of Justice Canada]

Yes, I prefer waiting for Mr. Moffet. He should be here pretty soon, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That would be good.

Do we have other points? Mr. Jean, go ahead.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I would like to wait with my comments until we hear from Mr. Moffet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Shall we stand that one and move to the next couple, and then come back?

(Clause 15 allowed to stand)

(On clause 16)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There are no amendments that I'm aware of on clause 16. We'll move straight to the question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Un instant, s'il vous plaît.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Are there no amendments on clause 16? Are you ready for the question?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

On a point of clarification, my understanding is that it's only a French translational change. I don't have any English translation of what's being changed, so it's going to be difficult for me to vote on something. Can I just hear from the department? Does this bring it into line with the English? What is the situation, and why was it brought forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Would you like to respond, Mr. Ares?

[Michel Ares]

This is an issue of just making sure that both versions say the same thing. That's why it is only the French version that is amended; it's to bring it in line with the English version.

(Clause 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll move on to clause 17 while we're waiting for Mr. Moffet. There are no amendments on clause 17, unless there are any from the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It's not an amendment. Can we have a bit of an explanation? I've got the book here. Can somebody summarize what we're doing here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Ares, are you in a position to do that?

[Michel Ares]

I would like to mention that this clause is to be dependent on one of the amendments to the definitions section, so in this case I would suggest that it be stayed until that clause is dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Jean, you have a question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just wondering if you could be more specific, Monsieur Ares; what definition is it dependent on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead.

[Michel Ares]

It would be subclause 3(3), actually, of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Those have been allowed to stand, and those depend on this; this one can still be allowed to stand.