Evidence of meeting #136 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I don't really object to the motion, which might surprise you, but I would like to propose an amendment, if I could.
I don't know the right way.... If I wanted to delete two discrete clauses, what's the best way of moving that amendment?
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
If I wanted to delete two discrete clauses, what's the best way of proposing that? To reread it, changing the words after that or to say what I'm....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Why don't you read it out first and then we'll see how complicated it is?
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
It's me, so it's complicated. Trust me.
In that case, I'll read the motion, as I would amend it, so just follow along. I can read it again slowly, if you need me to. It's that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology invite the chief statistician of Statistics Canada to appear before the committee to discuss the financial pilot project for one hour and that the meeting be televised.
In order to get it in a form that can be used, how would you like me to do that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Hold on a second, I just want to get my clerk back here.
Did you have a question?
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That sounds like a major substantive change, so we just need a ruling on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
First of all, regarding the amendment, I don't know if it's exactly what you want to say, so it's a debate right now on the potential amendment.
At this point, it's hard for me to rule because I don't know what your side is saying versus what they're saying.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
It called for a one-hour.... At any rate, it's up for you to decide, but it called for a one-hour witness testimony and that's it. I would just question whether that's a substantive or not substantive amendment. I would say that's substantive, personally, so that determines whether it's in order or not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
What we have here is the original motion to study Statistics Canada's plan to collect individual-level financial transactions data to develop a new institutional personal information bank, and invite Statistics Canada officials. You also have the Privacy Commissioner, representatives of the Canadian Bankers, among others.
I don't see it at this point as a substantive change because it is inviting one witness versus a few other witnesses, so far. That's how I'm seeing it right now.
You're next, Mr. Chong.
Michael Chong Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
On a point of order, first, what is the amendment?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Michel Marcotte
I'll try to explain it as I see it.
We keep the first line, “That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology”. We stop at “study”. We skip about three lines and we keep “invite the chief statistician of Statistics Canada”. There's a new end. The end would say, “to appear before the committee to discuss the financial data pilot project.”
Basically, it removes the title of the Privacy Commissioner and all the other witnesses, but keeps the beginning, the middle and the idea.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
Mr. Chair, would you please read out the amendment in its entirety so I understand. I still don't know what the amendment is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
From what I can see, it reads that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology invite the chief statistician of Statistics Canada to appear before the committee to discuss the financial data pilot project for one hour, and that the meeting be televised.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
In my view, that's a complete change to the motion, because the original motion is worded as compelling the committee to study, which is a very specific parliamentary word.
The amendment would replace the word “study” with “invite” and would strike the word “study” entirely from the motion. Now, unless I'm misunderstanding the amendment, replacing a study with an invitation to appear are two very different rubrics of a committee.
That's my view, if I understand the amendment correctly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay, I see hands all over the place.
Before we jump to that, I just want to go back to David.
You can respond to that, please.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
The objective of both the motion and the amendment is to invite the chief statistician to testify for the reasons we're all familiar with, and this seems to achieve that. Let's get him in here. We can get him in here as early as Wednesday.
Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC
On the same point of order, I respectfully disagree, Mr. Chair.
A study allows a committee to issue a report and recommendations that can be tabled in the House of Commons. A motion that does not mention the word “study” and simply mentions an invitation for a witness will not allow the committee, as I understand it, to issue a report with recommendations in the House of Commons.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Just give me one moment, please.
Mr. Masse is next on the list, but right now I am trying to speak to the point of order that Michael has put forward.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
I also have a comment on the exact same point of order.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
It's on the substance of the motion and whether you can view it as in order or not. I think that's the discussion you're having with the clerk, and I'd like to make sure my voice is heard on this.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
I submitted this last week, or even before then. Mr. Chong has said that “study” is very important, but there was no mention even by the government of a pilot project until last Friday, so this gives exactly what we'd be asking questions on. It also says that we want to actually study, table something and report its findings to the House of Commons, and then have the government respond to it. That has been effectively taken out.
Not only that, there would be only one person, who wasn't even listed originally in my motion, the chief statistician. I asked for Statistics Canada officials, but I also asked for the Privacy Commissioner, representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association, and other witnesses.
I would imagine that if he had made a motion to maybe delete one or to add another, that would be fine. But to actually be saying that this committee will just invite and have one done in an hour, with no report and no response from the government, I think is a substantial change, Mr. Chair.
I understand Mr. Graham has things that he wants to do, but then he should propose his own motion, versus making major changes to the structure of this one.