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.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I had my questions answered again. These officials are just so officious today. It's amazing. Thank you.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I request a recorded vote on this amendment.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We'll do a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on CPC-17.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
We will be moving this amendment.
It would require the government to consider whether a telecom “exercised due diligence to prevent the violation” when determining an administrative monetary penalty.
I think what we're looking for is pretty self-explanatory.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
We think we have an easier solution.
BQ-11 also deals with due diligence. We won't support CPC-17 or BQ-11 because we think it's cleaner not to support clause 10. I can get to that when we get there, but this would have the effect of allowing due diligence in a proceeding for a violation.
We think deleting the clause is easier than amending.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Do you mean the entire clause, all the violations?
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Which government amendment are you talking about?
8 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Just to clarify, it's CPC-18 in clause 10. Do you want me to go there or just wait until we get there?
Basically, the amendments being proposed right now all deal with due diligence. We think we have a cleaner way of dealing with it.
I don't know if you want to park those and deal with clause 10 to make sure everyone is comfortable. I don't know what the process would be. We're not supporting these amendments because we think we have a cleaner way of addressing the same issue.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I'm fine with parking it.
Can we park this?
8 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Before we vote on amendments CPC-17 or BQ-11, the intent of which is the same, I want to make sure I understand the government's intention with respect to clause 10.
Clause 10 of the bill deals with defences. It reads as follows:
Subsection 72.15(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Defence 72. 15 (1) It is a defence for a person in a proceeding in relation to a violation, other than a violation under section 72.131, to establish that the person exercised due diligence to prevent the violation.
I'm not sure I understand what the deletion would do for the people who want to defend themselves. I would like Ms. O'Connell to explain the intent of this amendment. That would help us understand everything.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I think it would be simple to let officials explain the rationale of why deleting the clause would have the effect of what I think everyone is in agreement with.
8 p.m.
Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
The Telecommunications Act, as drafted currently, has a due diligence defence that applies broadly across the course of the act. Clause 10 of Bill C-26 would insert an exception that would essentially have it so that orders under Bill C-26 would not be subject to due diligence.
Rather than add amendments to insert due diligence back in, simply removing the exception in clause 10 would ensure that the due diligence defence that already exists in the telecom act would apply writ large. Just from a drafting standpoint, it avoids an exception and then a reinsertion of new language.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
We're on CPC-17, and I think BQ-11 also deals with it, so if we could park those two, then, when we get to clause 10, we can do what is being proposed. I think it might address everything, and, if not, if committee members are not happy with that justification, we can go back to CPC-17 and BQ-11.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Oh, heavens, we don't want to do that again.
Thanks, Chair.
I will just ask something of the legislative clerks, who often don't get the thanks they deserve in helping us navigate some of this stuff.
I know we often hear about line conflicts in sequential order, so if we were to park these and find agreement on what's being proposed, because I think everything has been talked about on the record.... Would the legislative clerks be able to outline whether that would essentially deal with these in sequential order and address the line conflict issue? If I'm correctly interpreting what's happening, by my reading of some of the amendments, that would allow us to process this efficiently while not missing out on what I think we're trying to accomplish with our amendment.
8 p.m.
The Clerk
We'll stand clause 7 and put it at the end—the whole clause, not just the amendments. CPC-17 and BQ-11 will be postponed, to be dealt with at the end.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal