Evidence of meeting #23 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was move.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Excellent.
Is there any further discussion on NDP‑5?
Seeing none, we'll go to a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
As mentioned a few moments ago, CPC‑21 is very similar to NDP‑5, but it's not identical, at least in one of the versions. That's why it can be debated.
Before we go to debate, though, can you tell me if CPC‑21 is being moved?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
Yes, I will move CPC‑21. I imagine that we will go straight to a vote.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Not immediately, because this is going to lead to the same decision that I just made for the previous amendment.
The ruling is that this amendment is out of order, for the reasons you now know. I could go through the rationale again, but I think you've seen that this amendment would require the minister to obtain the authorization of a judge to make an order in certain circumstances, which, in the chair's opinion, is contrary to the scope and principle of the bill. Indeed, it is the chair's opinion that introducing such judicial authorization prior to orders is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill and, therefore, the amendment is out of order.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC
With the greatest respect, I will again challenge the chair.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
In that case, we must proceed immediately to a recorded division on the question.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That brings us to NDP‑6, which is deemed moved.
Ms. Kwan, do you wish to speak to this amendment?
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Presently the limits on sharing personal information obtained through proposed section 15.4 are contingent on whether a telecommunications service provider has chosen to designate its customers' personal information as confidential. This amendment, one, would deem personal and de-identified information that is not designated as confidential by a telecommunications provider as confidential; and two, would introduce data retention and deletion clauses so that confidential information is retained only for as long as it is necessary.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is similar to BQ‑5, BQ‑7 and PV‑6.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Is there any further discussion on NDP‑6?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
BQ‑5 could only be moved if NDP‑6 was defeated, which it was.
Is BQ‑5 being moved?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to move BQ‑5.
Basically, Ms. Kwan's explanation was very insightful, but the text is worded in a different way in BQ‑5. We prefer the version proposed in BQ‑5, which is directly related to a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner.
The commissioner made a few recommendations. He also helped us draft amendments. In this case, the Bloc Québécois is also speaking on behalf of the Privacy Commissioner to amend this clause.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
BQ‑5 adds complexity to the act. However, we have come to the conclusion that this complexity can reassure people that the government will treat personal information with the appropriate confidentiality. Therefore, we will be voting in favour of this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Is there any further debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We'll now go to PV‑6, which is deemed moved.
Ms. Kwan, the floor is yours.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
No, it's a little error. It's PV; it's strange, yes. This is the first time we've had to participate like this. If it was the letter G for “Green”, there would be a problem, because it would be the same letter as the one designating the government. That's why all of my amendments are designated with the letters P and V for “Parti vert”.
I so move PV‑6.
The reasons for this amendment are pretty clear, and they're not far from some of the points that Jenny was making earlier about trying to find ways to protect privacy.
All of proposed section 15.5 is described as relating to confidential information and its designation. The amendment we're putting forward would be to ensure that people's privacy cannot be violated at the discretion of service providers. The language is pretty clear. It's a short amendment. I would urge you to consider accepting it as an amendment to this bill.
Thank you.
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I would like a clarification.
I see that BQ‑5, which we've adopted, and PV‑6 are almost identical. Is it relevant, then? Is there a problem if we adopt PV‑6 when we've already adopted BQ‑5?
I don't know if the legislative clerk can tell us a bit about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Yes, but I can speak to that as well.
It's called redundancy. In other words, the purpose of the two amendments is very similar, if not identical, but the wording is different.
PV‑6 is in order, but if it were adopted in addition to the BQ‑5 we adopted a moment ago, it would create redundancy, which would lead the legislative clerks and department lawyers to have to arbitrate the will of the committee. Since the committee would have adopted two very similar amendments, it would be up to the experts in the department and the House of Commons to arbitrate for the committee, since these two amendments would be redundant.
Liberal
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
For the reason expressed by Madam DeBellefeuille, we consider it to be so similar to BQ-5 that we don't think PV-6 is necessary. We're going to vote against it.