Evidence of meeting #121 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
So is there a double-standard here, or are we allowed to talk about related amendments? Because that's not fair.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Just wait a moment.
Mr. Turnbull, there is a point of order.
Mr. Garon, you have the floor.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I just want to point out that we are still discussing the subamendment and, to a certain extent, we are writing its obituary before actually debating it.
I think we have not finished the discussion and that we could try to improve it. I have a suggestion, but first, we would have to start discussing the subamendment in good faith.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
I ask everyone to please take a deep breath, because we’re only on a subamendment.
I agree with you, Mr. Turnbull. I think we could have a broader vision on the way to debate the issue, because it will have an impact on what you’re going to move and what’s coming.
I’m ready to be relatively generous in our debate, and the questions you’re asking do pertain to the subject before us.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'll go back to what I was trying to say earlier—which was just to make a case for what might be the best approach here. It deals with concerns that arise out of CPC-7 and the subamendment that's been proposed. That would add a part of NDP-6 to CPC-7—“context of its use or disclosure, an individual has a high reasonable expectation of privacy”.
It's not that we completely disagree with that—and maybe you can clarify that, Mr. Schaan—but we propose to move that wording up to the top. You had already explained that to some degree. The other two factors that seem to come up regularly, which would create consent fatigue and not take into account context in terms of sensitivity, would be financial and biometric information, so the idea would be—
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I would like a ruling, Mr. Chair, because we're doing this again. If you look at my amendment, which we submitted in good faith a long time ago, and then this one dropped by the Liberals just recently in front of us, they're almost identical in many respects. They're very close. One could argue that there are a lot of connections between the two. I don't even think this one would be....
The Conservative one tried to force and thrust upon it that...but it's the Liberal one right now in front of us that's creating this mess. It actually is in order, in many respects, if you look at dealing with NDP-6, which has to be dealt with before theirs. We can't get to mine, though, because we have to deal with theirs, which they've just dropped on the table here and have referred to in several different fashions.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Masse, I'm sorry if there's any confusion. Right now we're debating Mr. Garon's subamendment to CPC-7.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
When we're dealing with a bill like this, if there are amendments to be proposed that have a bearing on the decision that the committee needs to make right now on the subamendment and on CPC-7, because it will have an impact on your amendment and on Mr. Gaheer's amendment, if we ever get there, then I understand that the discussion can be a little larger.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I can appreciate that, Mr. Chair, but at the same time, this could be a practice that we could do for the entire rest of this bill, with anybody just looking at the different amendments and then starting to drop them very similar to current amendments that are already there in the weeks and days to come. You could literally go and do what they have done. Instead of trying to fix amendments through subamending, you could try to table brand new amendments that basically plagiarize other amendments. You could go and do that all the way through this process. That's what my concern is.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I would encourage members, if they want to present a proper subamendment, to consult with the legislative clerks.
The legislative clerks can tell you exactly how to draft a subamendment. For example, they could tell you that the problem with what Mr. Gaheer might propose is that it doesn’t say how it changes amendment NDP‑6, and it’s actually a new amendment.
If you want to frame it as a subamendment, then you can work with the legislative clerks. They'll happily assist you so that we don't get into this situation again. I think in that case it was decided to rewrite it. It's true that they have a lot in common, but we're not there yet.
We're still on the subamendment, but looking at the clock and the progress that we've made so far, I don't think we'll achieve much more tonight. If you're all okay, given that the vote is happening in about 12 minutes, I would think that we could maybe take it off-line, have a little chat and hopefully get back with some form of agreement.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
No, no; I mean come back on Monday.
On that note, thank you, all.
The meeting is adjourned.