Evidence of meeting #99 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm not going to make a filibuster, Mr. Chair. I'm moving NDP—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
I'll just give some clarification.
If NDP-1 is adopted, G-1.2 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to respect the speed we're setting.
Mr. Chair, as you will recall, we heard many witnesses from a number of sectors talk about ensuring consultation with prescribed persons and entities in a way that ensures that any orders are subject to the appropriate consultation process and also the appropriate transparency.
I particularly flag the president of the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, who talked about the importance of having that consultation with prescribed persons and entities. In terms of any government order on telecommunications systems, this would change and insert...to ensure that those consultations take place.
I move NDP-1. Hopefully, with the witnesses who were very clear in this regard, it will receive the support of the committee.
Liberal
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank Mr. Julian for moving this amendment.
I would like the witnesses to tell me something. If we were to replace this amendment with a sentence that says, on line 17, “after consultation with the persons the Governor in Council considers appropriate,” would it be more effective? Would amendment NDP‑1 be more effective, because it would seem more complete and would include more components? Which do you think would be better?
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for her question.
The difference in wording concerns whether to proceed with a regulatory process before the consultation period.
Given the number of stakeholders involved and the fact that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's regulatory processes are generally open to everyone, the possibility of bypassing a regulatory phase in order to try to specifically include the parties could lead to certain barriers in the regulatory process. Slightly more flexible wording that helps to bypass the regulatory phase before the consultation period would be more effective.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We'll be voting against this amendment. I'm sorry to disappoint my NDP friend, but we prefer the language regarding consultation in G-1.2 and G-3.2, which we will be supporting.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Like Mr. Shipley, we'll be supporting the language that we are proposing in G-1.2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Is there anybody else? Is there more discussion?
Shall NDP-1 carry?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is related to NDP-1 but has alternative language in G-1.2. We're moving that Bill C-26, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 1 with the following:
cil may, by order and after consultation with the persons the Governor in Council considers appropriate,
That's the amending language. Again, this is alternative language to NDP-1.
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We are on NDP-2.
If NDP-2 is moved, CPC-2 cannot be moved as they are identical.
Mr. Julian, do you want to move that?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would love to. I hope my coalition partners in the Conservative Party will vote for this as well.
You will recall, Mr. Chair, that a whole range of groups came before this committee. I'll just cite a number of them. There was the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, OpenMedia, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Ligue des droits et libertés, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. They all urged that the provisions of the order within the purposes of the bill be subject to being reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.
It is a concern that has been raised, to have guardrails in this legislation. It's important. We heard much testimony to the effect that this is an important guardrail to ensure that the provisions of the orders and the powers that we're giving to the minister are exercised in an appropriate way.
This issue of proportionality is extremely important, and that's why I move NDP-2.
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I just want to propose a subamendment.
Given the language in G-1.1 that was approved, I move a subamendment. Following the word “manipulation”, add a comma and remove the word “or”, and then following the word “disruption”, add the words “or degradation”.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Could Mr. Lloyd repeat that, and then could we have the officials comment on the implications?
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes. I am proposing that we add a comma following the word “manipulation”, remove the word “or” and then add the words “or degradation” after “disruption”.
Conservative
