Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I respect the fact that everyone's been here a long time.
I move that Bill C‑12, in clause 72, be amended by adding, after line 26 on page 28, the following:
87.3001 For the purposes of subsections 87.301(1), 87.302(1) and 87.303(1) and (2), the making of an order is consistent with the public interest if its purpose is to address matters such as public health, public safety or national security and if the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any prejudice caused to individuals by the order.
A key term here is “public interest”. The reason this is being put forth is that in testimony, we heard how public interest was a matter questioned upon by committee members from all sides. As well, it was one that officials and the minister explained should apply to certain cases that are non-exhaustive, but certain cases that have been thought of in advance.
With respect to the fact that this is not an exhaustive list, the cases that were highlighted are spelled out here with “such as”, which is why this says, “such as public health, public safety or national security”. It's not an exhaustive list or an exclusive list. You can still have analogous classes. Having the term “such as” leaves some latitude. This does put guardrails, so that the Governor in Council has to have some guidelines, which are written over here.
The latter part of this amendment speaks about how the public interest should outweigh in importance any prejudice caused to an individual by the order. The reason that's important to spell out, although it should be implicit, is that it's a reminder to the Governor in Council that there is prejudice in taking such an action to utilize this aspect of the law. Therefore, it's just a reminder to the Governor in Council that there is prejudice caused and that the usage of this should outweigh the prejudice to the individuals in question.