Industry Committee on Sept. 26th, 2024

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I haven't heard or seen the media reports yet, but I believe that what Mr. Perkins has expressed is possibly true, because it's been out there before.

I see this as another part of an unfortunate decline in Parliament here. Here you have a committee that's come back. It struggled through a couple of controversial elements that had been proposed. We have basically a toxic House of Commons, which I haven't seen in my 20-plus years. We have a toxic environment outside the House of Commons as well, which I haven't seen in my 20-plus years here.

Now, as we're trying to broker a potential solution for an issue that has seized the committee, we have.... You can use the word filibuster or you can say it's extensive questioning of repeated measures—whatever you want to do—but it's true that the government side has been delaying in terms of what it wants to do here.

Then we came back, and I thought it was helpful to have the government say it was willing to put something aside to do a study, and that it'd come back with something that maybe we'd be able to deal with. I thought that was actually one of the more positive things I've seen here.

I don't know whether this is going to pass or whether we'll get to it today or not. I would still like to see the media reports, because I hate to respond without seeing the media report myself. That's my only concern in this: I haven't seen it. I have no reason to not believe Mr. Perkins on this, and I'm not saying that, but I want to make sure that the media reported it correctly. That's more the question that I would have. He has been fast and loose on this before—I've seen it in the House of Commons before—in responding by blaming others for where we're at.

Perhaps this might be another moment that will self-correct to where we need to get to. If we're actually going to save all the work that we've done on the privacy element of this bill, I'm not sure whether we can legitimately get to the AI stuff. I've said that a number of different times. Even if we wanted to get to that second part of the bill, it's probably logistically not even possible, if the Parliament went its whole length to get through the Senate, given what the Senate is going to do with this bill.

The privacy elements, with all of the work that we've done, all the money that we spent and all the different things we've gone through, has legitimate life and has legitimate value for Canadian citizens. Whatever happens after this Parliament, it probably will be a benefit for whatever government comes into place or whatever opposition comes into place, because they're good measures. If we all agree on them, we're at least going to leave something so that the next Parliament—whenever it comes and whoever is in it—is not going to have to deal with it and can get to other issues that are important to Canadians.

I'm not sure I want to vote on this today. I'm struggling with that in terms of making sure that the media report.... I've seen in the past that there are media reports about something that don't always reflect what has been conveyed.

I actually appreciate this being raised in the sense that, hopefully, this will end the nonsense and we can get to a genuine conclusion on the components that we really think there's some genuine agreement on with regard to the Privacy Commissioner and the tribunal, which is really the major blocking point. I think there are a few other things, but it's more about coming to grips with those.

I'll leave it there. It's just disappointing to me, because here, when you think you actually have something done, we have another scuttling of the committee, in some respects, to where we really could be going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse, you're not moving to adjourn debate, are you?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, I don't want to do that to my colleagues.

I prefer not to deal with this today until I see the report, but I'm not sure where my colleagues are.

I personally don't like to shut down debate unless I have to. I appreciate bringing it back, but again I haven't seen the report. I haven't seen Mr. Perkins's motion. It's not his fault. He's able to do that. I haven't seen any of those things. Those are the challenges I have in front of me at the moment with regard to it.

I don't want to adjourn debate, because I think there are other colleagues on the list. I hate to shut down debate without consensus from others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm not sure about the order, because sometimes I don't look to my right enough.

I have MP Turnbull, Mr. Garon and Madam Rempel Garner, but I'm not sure what the order is.

Can we go like this?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, the motion has been sent around.

MP Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll say, briefly, that I've tried to operate in good faith in relation to Bill C-27. We've methodically worked through quite a number of debates, and I think that was productive. I believe the bill has been strengthened through our work together on many components as we moved up to the tribunal.

Certainly, we've reached an impasse. However, by no means would I consider my interactions with officials on this committee, the deep debate, the questions we asked them, the clarification they provided us or the differing perspectives we had on the tribunal.... I take issue with that being called a “filibuster”. It was not a filibuster. It was me, the Conservatives and all the other members of this committee asking the officials for clarity. Yes, we disagreed and had some vigorous debate. However, again, I take issue with that being characterized as a filibuster. I want to put that out there.

The other thing is this: I think the minister is saying publicly that he's advocating for us to continue our work on Bill C-27. We recently said, “Okay, we're at an impasse on the tribunal. Let's take a pause. Let's do another study in the interim and have productive negotiations and conversations behind the scenes to try to work out our differences and find a path forward on Bill C-27.” We all agree that this piece of legislation is paramount to Canada's interests. It's in the public interest for us to have new, reformed legislation on privacy and artificial intelligence.

I don't think this is productive. The committee writing a letter of this kind doesn't seem, to me, to be at all helpful in terms of moving us forward. I'm looking to help us move forward—all parties collaborating to try to work out a path forward on Bill C-27.

That's where I stand. I think this is something we should take up in a future meeting if members choose to do so.

I will move to adjourn debate on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. Mr. Turnbull has moved to adjourn debate. It's a dilatory motion, so it calls for a vote right away.

I will ask for the vote, Madam Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will go back to our list.

I'll go to Madame Rempel Garner, because she hasn't spoken yet, then Monsieur Garon.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

To address my colleague Mr. Masse's concern, which is reasonable, I'll direct the committee's attention to an article in La Presse that was published yesterday. It's an article specifically on this issue. With great apologies to my colleagues from Quebec, I won't make you listen to my anglicized French. Thanks, Dad.

This is my best translation into English: “I deplore the fact that the opposition parties, for over a year, have done everything possible to slow the legislative process. However, now I think we have to put partisanship aside and think about the interests of our innovators, businesses and citizens,” said François-Philippe Champagne in a press scrum on the sidelines of an event at the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday afternoon.

To alleviate my colleague's concern, this is something that has now been reported by one of the biggest media outlets in Quebec. I mean, we have the parliamentary secretary, any time we move a motion, saying, “Oh, well, colleagues can just use their time when the minister comes for an hour to address these concerns.” Then he's out there casting aspersions on the work happening in this committee. When he's quoted as saying, “Now...we have to put partisanship aside,” I don't think.... Well, he shouldn't have taken a partisan dig at the work of this committee if he wants it to be productive. I think that was unfortunate.

I support my colleague's motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garon, you now have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I can assure you that I didn't vote against adjournment because I was having too much fun, obviously. I voted against the motion because I think that if we end the meeting now, we'll start talking about it again the next time. In other words, we won't be done with it. What I'm about to say is a bit ironic, but I don't think we have a better use of our time for the next 15 minutes.

Since everyone is blocked at one point or another, myself and others, voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, we are going to have to vote on amendments and subamendments to the motion. We'll ask ourselves who’s to blame, and say that the Conservatives and the minister did this or that.

I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner for her reading. I'll take her at her word, of course. I think that in this case, the source of the problem is that the minister publicly meddled in the committee's affairs and that what he said was not in line with the committee's conversations.

Personally, I would make the following suggestion. In fact, I talked about it informally with Mr. Perkins.

Rather than adopt this motion and spend two hours discussing the amendments and subamendments, I propose that we drop the motion and ask the clerk to write a letter to the minister urging him to be more careful in his public statements about the committee's work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's an interesting suggestion, but I think it would be more appropriate if the letter came from me, as chair of the committee, rather than from the clerk.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor].

I was obviously referring to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's perfect.

It's not really an amendment to the motion. It's a suggestion for a way forward, but I don't know if Mr. Perkins—

Mr. Perkins, you would remove your motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

With unanimous consent. Do I have consent from the Liberals? Yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, you do, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I will draft the letter and send it shortly, probably by tomorrow.

Go ahead, Madame Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Just so that it's clear that we are referencing facts, could the letter also include a reference to the article in La Presse as well?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's fair? Okay.

Mr. Garon, thank you for your constructive contribution to getting us out of this impasse.

Unless someone wants to move another motion—I'm looking at Mr. Perkins out of the corner of my eye—I'm going to end the meeting. It's ending on time and on budget.

The meeting is adjourned.