Evidence of meeting #87 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 privacy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, but it was not her turn anymore. She had already said “yes”, if I'm not mistaken.
What I have now is Madam Sidhu asking for unanimous consent to change her vote from yes to no. Is there unanimous consent?
Do we have unanimous consent? This is a bit silly. We know the intention of the member. Do we have unanimous consent to allow Madam Sidhu to vote nay?
Thank you. I have unanimous consent.
(Motion agreed to)
(Amendment negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
The amendment by Mr. Perkins is defeated. We are back to the motion.
Are there speakers on the main motion by Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Gaheer, go ahead.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
I just want to say that we've been debating this for over an hour now. We have such great witnesses, obviously, and we're wasting their time.
The minister had shown an openness to amendments. What if the minister had done the opposite and had not shown an openness to amendments? The opposition would then have gone after him, saying that there's no openness to change, despite a whole summer of debate, with this bill being in the news and being discussed in different provinces.
There's no winning. If you're open to amendments, it's “Where are the amendments?”, and if you're not open to amendments, then it's “You're not open.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Colleagues, please; we're being watched, and I keep hearing people talking. If you want to speak, Mr. Vis, ask the chair and I will recognize you.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I recognize Mr. Turnbull—
I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Masse, I don't want to forget you because you're online. I'll go to Mr. Masse first and then Mr. Turnbull.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to commend you for walking us through that one.
When an honest mistake takes place in a vote, it's always important that we try to fix that. I commend us for doing that. I think it's a good example.
Right now, the government needs to get its act in order if it wants to do this properly. It's as simple as that.
I mean, yes, we're spending time on this because we had a minister, and either in contempt of this committee—because if you read the testimony, it's clear that he had amendments and the government members referred to his amendments, so we're not wasting.... It's sad that the witnesses have to go through this with us at this moment, but I don't think there's an alternative.
We need that information, and if it's not there, then issue a letter of apology to this committee and an apology to our witnesses for putting us in this predicament.
Whether or not saying that they were open to amendments was a snow job attempt, he said that in the House of Commons already anyway, and then he came to this committee specifically outlining a series of things that are highly technical, that require specific changes to the bill that he made, and that was confirmed by government members, who also referred to them as amendments. That's the reason I made a public statement and asked for clarification from you as to whether there were actual amendments, because that created the confusion.
The confusion in all of this is entirely 100% on the minister. To suggest anything else is not fair or helpful for us as we go through the next number of weeks together as a group trying to craft the best legislation. I don't know how to do that without having the right information in front of us. Again, this is not even about us. This is about all the other people who, in the meantime, have to sit in that chair in front of us and speculate on what is in front of them. They put their reputations on the line. They use resources, including legal ones, to draft proper information or improved information to make those amendments even better or maybe to clarify them, whichever it might be. They have to spend resources and time to do that, and they have to put themselves in front of the world to do that.
How do we do that when they have a moving target right now? My suggestion—and hopefully the government will take it—is to get your act in order. Get your act in order and come back to us with as much information as you have. Give us some deadlines as to when you're going to have your amendments and put them forward.
By the way, ministers do actually have amendments. They're drafted by the department and they're maybe brought by another member, but they come from the minister and the minister's office. Just because another government member brings an amendment forward in name only doesn't mean it's not the minister's.
If we don't do this properly right now and reset everything, then we're going to have a bad environment. I hope we can get this information, restart and then have the Privacy Commissioner come back at a time that's better for them and do this properly and intelligently so that we can get their best advice as to the law that's in front of us, as opposed to their having to go back and hunt down testimony later on that we're going to get from other people on the “what ifs” and the changes to their own act that they have to follow and comply with by law.
I'd rather have that process, and if it means delaying a little bit for maybe a week or less or maybe delaying a meeting to get it going on the right foot, I'd rather do that than this.
This is unbelievable.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
My understanding is that the minister never said in his remarks, “I have amendments.” He said he had proposed amendments, which indicates a willingness and an openness to talking this through.
I think we're obviously at an impasse here with regard to how you interpreted the minister's remarks versus how they were intended.
I think what we need to do is move past this, so I would suggest an amendment to Mr. Vis's motion. I'll read it into the record.
It reads, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee order the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and his department to produce the amendments discussed by the minister in his opening remarks to the committee on September 26, 2023, provided that these documents be deposited with the clerk of the committee when they are available and that the minister return to the committee to speak to them.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I understand that you're proposing an amendment to the motion.
If possible, Mr. Turnbull, send it to the clerk so that it can be distributed to all members. Has it been sent to the clerk already?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Will you read it again, Mr. Turnbull? Then I'll briefly suspend for the email to be sent around so that all members...because it seems like a substantial amendment.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It's removing the words “briefing notes and memos referencing the amendments”. It's replacing the words “within five business days” with “when they are available and that the minister return to the committee to speak to them.”
The full text would read from the top as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee order the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and his department to produce the amendments discussed by the minister in his opening remarks to the committee on September 26, 2023, provided that these documents be deposited with the clerk of the committee when they are available and that the minister return to the committee to speak to them.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
There's an amendment by Mr. Turnbull on the floor.
Do we need to suspend for colleagues to receive it, or have you heard the terms and you're fine? Can we continue?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I recognize that I had Mr. Lemire, but now there's this amendment. Do you want to speak to it, and then I'll go to Mr. Perkins?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I welcome this amendment because I believe that bringing the minister back to the committee could indeed be useful and is consistent with the motion tabled by Mr. Brad Vis at the last meeting. The purpose of that motion was to invite senior officials back.
I'd like to bring up something from the record of that meeting. At 5:25 p.m., I made a comment to the minister: I told him that we were anxious to see his amendment and that the exercise was difficult. His response was: Once again, the intent is really to move the debate forward. If we plan to do certain things but do not say so, we will only talk about things that we already agree on. I do understand though that you need my remarks and a draft of the amendments that we will be presenting and that I already have. At the same time, we can provide you the official wording of the bill as quickly as possible for your clause-by-clause consideration.
That's crystal clear, and it really hit me. That is what we're reacting to today. These are not allegations. Nobody is making this up.
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm most interested in the amendment, so I appreciate Mr. Turnbull's part of the motion that narrows it to that.
My concern with the amendment and the reason I don't support it in its state—from what I remember, having listened to it twice—is that it provides an indeterminate amount of time to table those items. In other words, the minister doesn't have to table his amendments until clause-by-clause study, tabling them through the members opposite.
This is a delay tactic to basically do the same thing that the minister did on Tuesday. It's a repeat of what the minister did, which is saying, “We have amendments, but we are not going to give them to you for any of the witnesses to see until we're ready to give them to you, which will not be until clause-by-clause consideration.” That's the point of what we've been spending the last hour on.
The government members have just admitted that there are amendments, in addition to what Mr. Lemire just quoted from the minister's testimony.
I am okay with this amendment as long as what is put into it is “within five business days”, as was in the previous motion.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair. Is Mr. Perkins moving a subamendment?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I understand, Mr. Perkins, that you're moving a subamendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Turnbull—
Conservative
