Industry Committee on Sept. 19th, 2023

[Mark Schaan]

Yes.

Our concern prior to the summer recess was that such a clause, by giving—to use a colloquial term—a shout-out to privacy and intellectual property, might suggest that intellectual property and privacy aren't currently factors under consideration of the net benefit review, when very much, in our understanding and in our reading, they are. In many ways, I think our goal would be to see a subamendment that would assure those reading this that the imposition or the introduction of these two factors isn't at the expense of the consideration, that they were already there as factors for consideration under the net benefit review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There are no more comments, so we'll move this subamendment presented by Mr. Vis, which you've all received, to a vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We're back to NDP‑2, which would add clause 8.1 to the bill.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We went through this dance before with regard to it. There actually was kind of an agreement with the Liberals to do it, so it's pretty shocking to start this way because that was actually the understanding. We went through a lot of talk and testimony, and what we heard in terms of the response was kind of the “false straw man” argument about somebody reading legislatively through this. It actually isn't based upon any real substance or anything other than just an impression that it may or may not happen. It's the bogeyman argument we've been getting.

I'm not going to revisit all that, but I just have to say I'm pretty disappointed because we had actually reached a common agreement on this and apparently that's been torn up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Gaheer, go ahead.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

We recognize that we had reached an informal sort of agreement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It wasn't informal.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

We would ask the clerk to circulate the new version of the amendment. It should be in your email already. I'd like to move a subamendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, it's a subamendment.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's it exactly—it's a new subamendment—and I think it should achieve what Mr. Masse is looking for. It will be our compromise to make sure we're not undermining the general nature of the net benefit review.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand you're moving the subamendment that was circulated via the clerk.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes. It was circulated just now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Is there a paper copy, Mr. Gaheer, for members?

I believe it was circulated via email to all members of the industry committee this morning. Was it not?

The subamendment proposed by Mr. Gaheer was circulated, but it will be circulated by the clerk again via email so that all members can see it. I'll give maybe a minute or two for members to consider it before we start debate on it.

Colleagues, I will suspend for two minutes for the subamendment to reach everyone's mailbox.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand that it has been received by everyone and circulated by the clerk. We can resume this meeting.

The subamendment is proposed by Mr. Gaheer. It's up for debate if there are any comments. Otherwise, I'll move it to a vote.

Yes, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a question for clarification: Was this circulated on June 21?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I believe it was. I haven't verified if there was any change to the language.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

So the stuff we've been hearing, the comments, were not actually accurate. This actually was circulated on June 21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I believe it was, Mr. Turnbull, but—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll get evidence of that just so we don't have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It was circulated also this morning, but I believe that it might be a slightly different version. I'm not sure.

Go ahead, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm not going to support this, because it would be a hypocrisy for me. I'll let them have the amendment. It's ridiculous what's happening here. It's unfortunate. We had all summer to work on this. There was an agreement. We worked on a lot of these amendments in good faith. I even dropped out some amendments that the government was uncomfortable with on a few different things.

It's funny, because I've been in touch with ministers all over the summer, with some of them coming to do fundraisers in my riding and others to actually come and meet with me. There were a variety of opportunities when this could have been brought up as something. It's disappointing, because this committee actually has a history of working together and actually living up to its word. Everybody has a right to drop an amendment or a subamendment at any point in time, but there is generally a piece of courtesy involved. In fact, I voted for some Liberal subamendments related to this because that was the deal. I was supposed to get my amendment passed. The concerns that were raised are really nothing more than straw men with regard to the concerns on my amendment.

It's pretty shocking and surprising that we want to start this way, but if that's the case, then fair enough. Perhaps it's just because somebody wants to have their own name on an amendment. I don't know, but it's a pretty significant double-cross when you think about it, especially given the history of what took place in supporting the other Liberal amendments that we did change during this legislation.

Sadly, we start this way, but that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Next is Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I'd like to communicate to my colleague, whom I respect a lot. I've served on this committee with him for two years, and I know that he has a lot more experience on this committee than I do. This is a not a slight to him or his amendment. We're just introducing a little more certainty. This committee has debated individual words within amendments, so I don't see what I've done that's wrong here. Again, this should have been circulated, I think, on June 21, and it was circulated again this morning.

Again, this achieves the purpose the member is looking for. I don't think there needs to be much debate. We're just clarifying language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

I have Mr. Perkins.

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

I'll be voting against this simply because the Liberals voted against essentially the same amendment just a few moments ago, with the addition of three words, which, at the time, the officials, in reviewing ours, said provided the greater certainty and greater clarity that we want, but the Liberals chose to vote against it for the purpose of putting in their own motion that does essentially the same thing. It's a goose-and-gander sort of thing.