Industry Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, section (e) starts with “orders the Office of the Law Clerk”, and the introduced language is “amendments proposed by the minister in his presentation”. That's just to get specifically to what we're looking for, which is the three privacy amendments, so we want to be consistent there. That's really what we're after, so we can use whatever language is easiest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

So it's something to the effect of “orders the minister to produce to the committee the three amendments referenced in his presentation before committee on September 26, 2023, that pertain to part 1 of the bill.”

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's part 1, specifically, yes, because hopefully the thing here is that if they are being done, there shouldn't be a problem for the government to support this, and we'll get them in for sure and we can move on. Then we'll get the other stuff, so we can go on about that later. I don't need the minister here again.

So, that would be the intent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just to be clear, before we vote, we're debating the amendment by Mr. Masse to remove section (a) of the motion entirely and modify section (e) to order the minister to produce the three amendments he referenced in his presentation before the committee on September 26 pertaining to Part 1 of Bill C-27.

Are there any comments on the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse? I see none.

Madam Clerk, I will ask for a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse.

We have a tie. I'll vote against it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That brings us back to the motion.

We now go to Mr. Lemire, followed by Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think a number of messages have been conveyed throughout today's meeting. Obviously, we don't support the idea of gag orders. For the sake of credibility, it is paramount that the committee have this debate. This may be one of the most important debates of the next two decades. Bill C‑27's passage will have consequences that go beyond politics. That is why I would like us to begin examining its content as soon as possible.

However, I think the concerns raised by my Conservative and NDP colleagues are entirely legitimate. I urge the government members to provide the documents requested. I don't think we need a formal motion to obtain clarification. That would only delay what comes out of this work. Clarification and predictability, by the way, are keywords the minister uses to send the industry a message. That is the message we, as parliamentarians, need to hear. The industry needs to hear it, as do all the witnesses who come before the committee. I think the committee should receive the text of the amendments.

That said, I think the letter the minister sent is a worthwhile mea culpa. It recognizes aspects of his testimony that provide clarity, specifically in relation to the application of Quebec's law 25, which could take precedence over the Canadian data protection law. I encourage the committee to proceed with its work, and begin the study by hearing from witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given what we've heard since the beginning of the meeting, I want to point out that I agree with the Bloc Québécois member that this is a paramount bill, one that will have long-term consequences. The minister said he wanted the bill to be as flexible as possible. There's a difference, though, between the perception or the intention he expressed during his appearance on September 26 and what appears in the letter he sent us.

Here's where we differ with the Bloc Québécois: we believe the words matter. Not only does how they are written matter, but so, too, does how they are measured and given effect, by all the witnesses, as they relate to the bill as a whole. We obviously believe that the witnesses who appear before the committee throughout this process must be able to make a judgment, one based on words that clearly outline what the government is trying to achieve through the bill. We can't just wait for the clause-by-clause study, at the very end. We have a duty to provide all the witnesses who come before the committee with the proper text of the bill, so that they can make their own assessment and comment accordingly.

We have shown good faith, and I want to make clear that we have absolutely no intention of filibustering this committee. What we want is not to waste the time of the very important valuable witnesses who appear before us. As I said, we want to make sure the proper text of the bill is available to them. Hopefully, the government will share it with us. As my fellow member said earlier, we are working in good faith and want to put time into this.

The government could potentially put forward eight amendments. We want the first three so we can start the work. We are meeting with the Privacy Commissioner Thursday, but again, we don't have the amendments. That means we'll be asking him for his take on something he hasn't formally seen. That makes no sense.

I still believe that my fellow member is right. The Bloc Québécois is partly right, but we disagree on where to draw the line. As the member said privately earlier, the important thing is establishing a balance so that our work isn't for naught. The words in a bill that deals with privacy and artificial intelligence are fundamentally important, in our eyes. Let's face it, AI will be running our lives in 10, 15 or 20 years. That's why we need the proper text of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

I have Mr. Lemire's name here, but I can't recall whether Mr. Masse had asked to be on the list.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse, go ahead. Then we'll have Mr. Lemire and Mr. Williams.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll be brief, to allow my colleagues to intervene.

It's unfortunate. For people who didn't know, it was a courtesy provided to the government to take a break and figure out where they're at. In that, I'm still trying to find a process here where we can find some consensus and move on. I might take the floor again later on.

I'm trying to figure out how we get past this. For the government members to say this is like stonewalling, I'd be interested to break down how many times in this committee we've had to break and take a pause, a time out, for the Liberals to get their act together and come back. We're probably into a couple of hours at least in that.

It's difficult to see how we can go forward without having some resolution to this. The government says the amendments are coming, but we don't have specifics in terms of a guarantee or anything like that. If I had a dollar for every time I was told that, I'd be a very wealthy man. I'd like to find a way for us to get past this point. If not, I fear it's going to go back to the House at some point.

I'll just leave it there for now, and I hope we can find a way through this. The legislation should have been separated anyway. Why we're not dealing with this for this one section alone, I have no idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Paragraph (f) of the motion calls for the committee to postpone its work. That's why I intend to vote against the motion. I propose adjourning debate and moving to the vote before hearing from the witnesses. I don't recall the exact language for requesting a vote.

That said, my message to the government is very clear: if the legitimate request of parliamentarians is not met and they are not provided with the material by next week, I may vote differently. For the time being, I think we have enough information to vote and hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Lemire, I want to be sure I'm clear on what you said. Are you moving to adjourn debate?

Keep in mind that we can't vote as long as the motion is being debated.

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

Yes, I move that debate be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Very well.

We won't be voting on the motion, but we will be voting on the motion to adjourn debate.

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

Is Mr. Williams the only one left on my list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have Mr. Williams and Mrs. Goodridge.

Are you still moving to adjourn debate?

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

Will you be quick, Mr. Williams?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, so I would say no, but it's up to you, Mr. Lemire.

Do you move to adjourn debate?

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

I'm counting on Mr. Williams to keep his remarks brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

All right. We don't have a motion to adjourn debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

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

Look, I know we're going around and around here, and I think it has been said, but there are big problems here with this, and we have to get this straight and right.

When a minister comes here, a minister who's trained in law, words matter. When a minister states—and I know this has been stated over and over—that there are amendments, and the minister agrees to provide these amendments.... The National Post said:

While a spokesperson for Champagne initially said Friday the government plans to publish the amendments “as soon as possible—aiming for next week,” the ministry later said that the government won’t actually provide the full text of the amendments until the study is completed.

It was stated to the committee that he was going to do this in good faith, and afterwards he admitted that he didn't have those amendments. Again, this is in good faith. This is why we have to go to a motion.

Mr. Lemire, if you would like to do an amendment, let's just amend section (f) and get that off there. In good faith, let's get the amendments to the committee, not for us, but for the fact that I have calls coming in—I'm sure you have had calls too—from witnesses, and we hope to get this bill right. We all want this bill to work. They have all stated, “I don't know what I'm actually testifying on because the amendments aren't there.”

Unless we think this is going to be a 7,000-word essay that we're asking for that needs to be proofread and perfected, I think we're asking for pretty reasonable grounds, when words matter. We have asked for something very simple. If we take section (f) out of here, then certainly I think this would allow us to continue the study, move on and get the things we want.

I would certainly be willing to offer that as an amendment, Mr. Chair, that we remove section (f), which means we continue with the study and just get the information we need. If we don't do this and we don't go through this motion.... Already half of this committee is upset, but it's not about the committee. It's about letting the people who are putting in their time to be witnesses understand exactly what the minister has proposed two years later to the original bill. I think that's the whole premise of this. We need those amendments in writing.

We're not asking for anything that's out of the ordinary, or something that's really hard. I'm sure the staff here would agree that what has been stated on paper could be easily drafted as amendments, and we would go on our merry way with those witnesses, with the committee, having respect for the fact that the minister already, from this article in the National Post, agreed to this.

Why don't we take section (f) out and not suspend the testimony that's coming forth? Let's not see this happen again. Let's move forward. We have a lot of great witnesses. I know we would like to see it split into a few different parts. Right now I think we're agreeing to study the privacy portion first, and then AI, but we don't want to get into this every time we have to deal with a section, and we certainly don't want to get into this in the House. We want to make this smooth and go forth correctly.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to make the amendment that we remove section (f) from the motion. We're going to remove “directs that all further meetings in relation to Bill C-27 be postponed.” With that amendment, we will just continue the study.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

There is a proposed amendment on the floor to remove section (f) of the motion.

MP Goodridge, I'll come back to you, unless it's on the amendment.

Otherwise, are there comments on the amendment by Mr. Williams?

I see none, so I will call a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is carried, which brings us back to the motion as amended.

MP Goodridge, go ahead.