No, no.
Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
We've done this one. This is not the right one.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Can we group together clauses 100 to 152 and do a recorded vote that applies to all of them? Okay.
(Clauses 100 to 152 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
We want to thank our officials from the Privy Council Office for being here. Thank you so much.
I will ask our next officials to come forward. Welcome to the committee.
We'll move now to division 11, the Employment Insurance Act.
Colleagues, I do not have any amendments for clauses 153 to 160. For discussion, do you want to group these clauses together and speak to them together? Okay.
(On clauses 153 to 160)
Monsieur Côté.
4 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As you may have noticed during the previous vote, I was so eager to speak in favour of the government measure that I showed enthusiasm I absolutely didn't have regarding the protection services of the two Houses.
That said, without praising the government's position, it is always a pleasure for the NDP to support a measure that will encourage training and access to employment for all Canadians. That is why we support this measure, but it doesn't mean that we support the government's approach regarding the employment insurance system. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not hesitate to repeatedly restrict access to employment insurance, which is insurance only in name. The system is nothing more than a facade. It is no longer really insurance because it no longer covers everyone who loses their job.
While we wait for an NDP government to re-establish much broader accessibility, we're happy to support both employment insurance recipients and their future employers by providing the employers with a better trained labour force, and to help people get the jobs they need to live with dignity.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci, Monsieur Côté.
I'll move to the vote on clauses 153 to 160: recorded?
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll apply the recorded vote to all of them? Okay.
(Clauses 153 to 160 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
Thank you, Madam Bertrand.
I'll ask our official from Industry Canada to come forward.
We move now to division 12. This is a relatively small division, dealing with the Canada Small Business Financing Act, clauses 161 to 163.
Can I deal with clauses 161 to 163 together? Okay.
(On clauses 161 to 163)
Mr. Rankin, you'd like to speak to these?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Yes.
We are going to vote in favour of all three, and we'd ask for a recorded vote. We're happy to see the Conservatives move to make it easier for small business owners to access financing. We are, however, sad and disappointed that they cut support to organizations like Futurpreneur, which provides support to new entrepreneurs.
Having said that, and subject to that, we are content with that on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Do you want a recorded vote, then, that will apply to clauses 161 to 163?
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 161 to 163 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
(On clause 164)
We will now move to division 13, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. We have clauses 164 to 166.
I'll ask our officials from Industry Canada to come forward.
We have two amendments, but, as I understand it, they are the same amendment.
I'll ask Mr. Hyer to speak to amendment PV-32.
4:05 p.m.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Quebec's private sector privacy law was found to be inadequate by the EU, and countries are considering moving the World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, from Montreal.
PIPEDA, the federal private sector privacy law, has been found by the European Union to be adequate. However, the federal government can't simply place WADA under its jurisdiction due to the Constitution.
The government is free to amend legislation, but it's not free to ignore our Constitution. Simply stating that WADA is now subject to PIPEDA is subject to challenge, because to do so calls into question the constitutional foundation of the entire law. If PIPEDA applies to non-commercial activities, it needs a different constitutional basis. By encroaching on provincial powers, in this case seeking to impose a federal law where a provincial Quebec law already applies, the government is proposing to solve one problem by creating a much bigger problem.
The Privacy Commissioner has raised the same concerns.
This amendment is to recognize that the government cannot simply legislate this agency into its jurisdiction, because constitutionally it belongs to the province.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment contemplates a scenario where there is a conflict between two different orders in council: one making an organization subject to PIPEDA, and another exempting an organization from the act because it is subject to a provincial privacy law.
This addition is unnecessary and contrary to the presumptions of statutory interpretation. The government is presumed to know and to respect the entire body of law and not make different orders that are contradictory to each other. In the unlikely event that a conflict does arise between different orders, the rules of statutory interpretation would apply to resolve the matter.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, the government is not supporting this amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
For the record, I agree with Mr. Hyer's perspective on this. From a constitutional point of view, I think he's entirely right. I don't think it's unnecessary at all. I think it is not contrary to the principles of statutory interpretation to provide clarity. That's what people do in statutes.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I'll call the vote on PV-32
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 164 agreed to)
Can I group clauses 165 and 166?
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 165 and 166 agreed to)
Mr. Clare, thank you for being with us here today.
We shall move to division 14, Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. This has one clause, clause 167. I do not have any amendments for this clause.
We'll greet our officials from Finance.
(Clause 167 agreed to)
(On clause 168)
Thank you to our officials.
We shall move to division 15, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will welcome our officials.
I will start with clause 168. We have amendments PV-33, PV-34, PV-35, and PV-36, but we will deal with amendments PV-34 and PV-36, since PV-35 and PV-36 are identical.
Mr. Hyer, you can deal with amendment PV-34 and PV-36 separately or together, however you wish.
