Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Order, everyone. Mr. Drouin has the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If members want to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, we will of course pass a motion to that effect. We're ready to do the clause-by-clause study, but we know full well that we won't have heard the necessary testimony.

The usual practice for all House of Commons committees is to receive evidence and use that to inform amendments. The chair has confirmed that no date has yet been set to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration and submit our Bill C‑27 amendments or clauses. When the committee decides to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration, the amendments will be moved. I'm sure the Conservatives will have comments to make and amendments to propose. They've said as much. Mr. Masse, for one, said he was ready to put amendments forward, too. I'm sure the Bloc Québécois will also have amendments to propose to Bill C‑27. It's standard practice for a committee to set a date for submitting amendments.

I don't see what's going on here, other than not wanting to hear from Mr. Dufresne. What's happening here is not contempt of Parliament. It's perfectly normal for a minister to say he's open to amendments and prepared to accept them. Regardless of which parties put them forward, we'll debate them once the committee has decided on a date.

That's all I wanted to say. I'm not a regular member of this committee, but I sit on other committees and I know how things work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Drouin.

Given how things are starting out, I may have grey hair by the time we get to the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

With respect, Mr. Chair, there has been very little filibustering here today. I'm impressed.

That said, there's one big difference. The minister didn't say that he was sharing his ideas. He said “amendments”, as the record shows. That's the issue. There's also the notion of responsibility. The minister was here once, and he's not coming back. He has put things out there that he'll never take responsibility for. I have a lot of questions about that, especially about what he'll say the next day. One solution is to invite the minister back so he can tell us. At this point, we have an amendment, and I'm going to take the liberty of discussing the subamendment.

I won't vote in favour of delaying the committee's activities, because I believe we have to do the responsible thing. I think we need to hear from the witnesses. I think we need to be informed by what the industry thinks. I think people are watching us. We had an opportunity to show leadership on the international stage, but we're squandering that opportunity, mainly because the minister caused some confusion. I think we have to move on. I'll support the motion, but not the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire, and thank you for addressing the subamendment, since that's what we're talking about right now.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

I think everything's been said. I appreciate all the comments, especially by Mr. Masse. He's been here more than anyone else here combined, perhaps.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

All of us together.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Yes, all of us together.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Half my life.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Look, this is not about anything other than the words that were stated on the record specifically by the minister, specifically the words “amendments that we are proposing”.

In terms of the intent, we have to look at checks and balances. We need to have respect for the institution in this place and how committees work in Parliament. A bill is presented by the government. We respond to that bill. It comes to committee. We hear witness testimony. We debate that. We suggest amendments. Then we bring the bill back to the House for further debate.

When the minister comes here to state that he's already presented a bill but he's going to change that bill, specifically stating that he's making amendments and enjoining us to please listen carefully to his amendments but then doesn't supply those amendments, the committee is hamstrung. We don't know what those amendments are or where the context was, except for having good faith to just believe he did that because we suggested them.

I certainly saw that this week, having my private member's bill read into the record on June 8 and taken by the government into legislation. That's fine, because we're all here to provide good ideas, but at the end of the day, there's a process we have to follow. We have to respect the institution of the parliamentarians who sit here and work on behalf of those Canadians who are counting on us to create good legislation and be able to look after what is, as my colleague has stated, probably the most important legislation that Canada is seeing right now, specifically with the AI portion. This would be the first jurisdiction in the world to implement that.

I for one wanted to have a lot of testimony from Mr. Dufresne today. I wanted to hear what he had to say specific to privacy. As my colleague mentioned, it's privacy for all of us, specifically children. All of us with children are very concerned about the amount of data that's leaked and being sold right now on the Internet. We've talked about this for a long, long time.

When the minister comes and proposes, and says the word “amendments” and uses that specific context, and we don't even get the courtesy of seeing a paper version of prepared remarks or those specific amendments.... It's not just us at the table; it's the witnesses who are taking time out to be at committee and to have information before them to say whether they agree or disagree. We don't have the information and they don't have the information. That's the disrespect we've received, based on that wording and based on the context.

For us, that is why we want to see that information. Yes, we'll go to clause-by-clause consideration after hearing all witness testimony. We'll get this right at some time, but we need to have it right from the outset.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I recognize Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks.

Colleagues, I don't know how we're getting off on the wrong foot here. I think there is just a misinterpretation of the minister's remarks. You're thinking that because he's open to amendments, somehow this means there are cooked-up amendments in the background that you haven't seen. That's not the case. I don't have any information that you don't have.

We know that you haven't submitted your amendments. No members of this committee have submitted their amendments, have they? Are you willing to submit them on the same timeline that you're asking of the minister, Mr. Perkins?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull, I would—

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

You can ask me that question, but you don't know what I've done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins and Mr. Turnbull, please—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I mean, the point is that you've talked about an even playing field. If you're asking us to submit amendments that we're telling you we don't have yet, that there's an openness to considering the kinds of things that you all argued for in the House of Commons, then this is—

[An hon. member]

The minister—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

He said he was open to amendments and was willing to amend the legislation.

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

Read the text.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Order.

Colleagues, this isn't how this committee operates. You may speak when I recognize you. Right now, Mr. Turnbull has the floor. We have an amendment from Mr. Perkins. I was hoping we could get to the end of the list of speakers to the amendment so that we could vote on it and get back to the motion.

Mr. Turnbull, I'll let you continue. There's no one else on the list right now.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I wanted to clarify before we go to a vote, hopefully. I think the Conservatives and other members of the committee have spoken on this for over an hour. I think we've had a couple of turns to speak to it. I wanted to clarify that we could have the minister come back, if you like, to clarify his remarks. If there was a misunderstanding, we apologize for that. It was not intended.

The other thing we could offer, I'm told, is information before our next meeting on the general topics and information on the areas that we think could be amended based on the feedback we've received so far.

Why don't we agree to that, with the consensus of the committee, and move forward with today's proceedings with our witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Lemire, do you want to speak to Mr. Perkins' amendment?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes I do. I would also like to talk about the debate in general, if I may.

I'm just reading from the testimony from the last meeting, which is available on the Internet: “Not only did we consult and listen to him [he means the Privacy Commissioner], we also followed through [past tense] with amendments based on his requests.” That's real. I'm not making this up. My colleague from Sudbury also alluded to those amendments when she spoke after that.

So, yes, I get the impression that things have been happening on the government side that have not made it to our side. If I didn't know better, I might have been okay with taking the minister's speech, copying the three amendments he read to us, sticking them in a document and sending it off to the clerk. I might have been okay with that at that point, but people refused to do it and they're still refusing to do it. That doesn't show good faith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

There are no more speakers on the amendment by Mr. Perkins, so I will put the amendment to a vote, Madam Clerk.