Evidence of meeting #39 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'd just like to go to the officials, if we could, because it seems to me that we've addressed this through clause 10 already.
Can you maybe talk about the different approaches here?
Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Industry
The subject matter is covered now in subclauses 10.(2.1) and 10.(2.2), where really we've elaborated in the interior of that consent regime instances when enhanced information is required prior to the installation of software on a computer. It serves much the same function of distinguishing between what I've taken to calling “benign ware” and “malware”. So I think that were we to adopt the amendment, it would sit very poorly with clauses 8 and 10.
Conservative
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I feel snookered here a little bit, in the sense that we're saying we've already addressed this in a different way in another clause beforehand, so it's almost as though it's out of order is the feeling I'm getting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
It's in order. There are other motions out of order, but I'll get to that momentarily.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I thought you would.
Well, I'm not going to say anything more, other than the fact that I think it is a better approach to legislation to specify what you're actually talking about, and I think this is a very explicit approach here that does identify it. That's the reason we put L-1 in.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Garneau.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We'll now go to the consideration of government amendment number 2, moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We'll now go to the consideration of government amendment number 3, moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We now have two amendments in front of us, beginning with BQ-1, which I am going to rule out of order.
As I'm sure Monsieur Bouchard is aware, and as the legislative clerk indicated to him before, if your previous amendment did not pass--BQ-1.1--then this one will not stand. The reason this cannot stand is that the amendments make a substantive change to the interpretive clause, clause 2, by adding another paragraph after subclause 2(4). That paragraph would be subclause 2(5) and would be substantively additional to the interpretive clause. So I'm going to rule amendment BQ-1 out of order.
Thank you for proposing that, and thank you for consulting with the legislative clerk, who I know indicated that to you before, as well.
We now will go to the second amendment I am going to rule out of order, which is the amendment the Liberals have just proposed. This amendment is out of order, because it also substantially amends the interpretive clause, clause 2. You can propose amendments to clause 2, but they cannot be substantive in nature.
In Marleau and Montpetit, it states that the “interpretation clause of a bill”--in other words, clause 2--“is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and not go beyond the scope of or be contrary to the principle of the bill”.
This amendment is out of order for that reason, because it adds a substantive element to clause 2 and would recognize a body established by the Canadian Parliament or by another province. This is too substantive an addition to the interpretation clause.
I also want to point out to members at this time that it's important whenever we're considering clause-by-clause that you consult with the legislative clerk, because he would be able to give you forewarning that your amendment will be ruled out of order.
Without further ado, we have Mr. Garneau. Go ahead.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I just want to understand this a little more. You say that this is a substantial amendment. I'd like to understand more specifically what makes it a substantial amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Well, when you read the existing bill, as passed down to us from the House, the subclause in question, subclause 2(4), called the exclusion paragraph, reads: “An electronic message described in subsection (2) or (3) that is sent for the purposes of law enforcement, public safety, the protection of Canada, the conduct of international affairs or the defence of Canada”.
You're proposing to replace “the defence of Canada” with “a body established by an Act of Parliament or a provincial or territorial legislature to regulate a profession, or an affiliated entity of such body”. That's a substantial change to the interpretation clause, clause 2.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
There may be an error here. I don't think it was meant to remove anything. It was meant to include an additional exception.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Sorry, you're correct. I meant to say that it would be added after “the defence of Canada”. It's adding something substantially different to the interpretation clause. What it's doing is referencing a possible provincial legislature, a possible provincial body established by a province. And that was never part of the interpretation clause before. In other words, what you're proposing in your amendment is to recognize a body that might be established by a legislature in a province. That is substantially different from what is in the interpretation clause. That's why I've ruled your amendment out of order.
Now, if you wish to challenge the chair, you can do so. I'll seek to see if the majority of the members of this committee will sustain me in my ruling. If my ruling is sustained, then the ruling will stand. If you feel that you want to challenge it further, you could go to the Speaker of the House.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I will not challenge you, Mr. Chair. My aim here is to try to do something sensible that I think has been overlooked. This is really a very sensible thing to do.
I would like to know whether there might be a consensus to make this change, despite the fact I'm not challenging what you said.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
This is a motion I have in front of me, so unless somebody moves another motion, this is the one that's under consideration.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Is there any option to see whether there is any consensus, or unanimous consensus, to look at it, or is considering it excluded?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Well, if the majority of members of the committee decide to overrule my decision that it's not in order, then obviously you can consider it.
Mr. Masse.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
The process is to challenge the chair, and that's what the Liberal Party has to do if they want to challenge the chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay.
We now move to government amendment 5, the last amendment to clause 2. It's moved by Mr. Lake.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Earlier in our discussion Monsieur Bouchard asked me to seek unanimous consent of the committee to revisit clause 64. I take it that you no longer wish to do that, now that you've spoken to clause 86.
Okay, so I won't call that question.
Shall the short title of the bill carry?