Evidence of meeting #95 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we've been here for the last couple of weeks to discuss Bill C-33. We're continuing to do that today. We're hoping to get that done prior to rising from the House on Wednesday.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to get back to work. I move that the debate now be adjourned.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The motion has been put forward by Mr. Badawey that the debate now be adjourned.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 122)
We will now go to clause 122.
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor on amendment BQ‑6.
Bloc
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt the member from the Bloc, but I did actually stay after the vote, and the House has already gone into the committee of the whole. You mentioned that we have to wait for bells, but I just wonder if you could clarify why we would need to wait for bells since it's already in committee of the whole.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I will confer with the clerk, Ms. Zarrillo.
The guidance of the clerk is that we only suspend if there are bells. If there are no bells, we don't need to suspend.
Liberal
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have a point of order.
Does Mr. Barsalou-Duval have a point of order?
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ‑6 proposes that Bill C‑33, in clause 122, be amended, in item (a), by replacing line 6 on page 78 with the following:
107.1(1) If there is a
Amendment BQ 6 also proposes that Bill C‑33 be amended in section 122, in item (b), by adding after line 28, on page 78, the following:
(6) For greater certainty, for the judicial review of an order made under subsection (1), the correctness standard applies to determine whether there was a risk of imminent harm to national security, national economic security or competition that constitutes a significant threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships or port facilities or the security of supply chains.
On page 78 of the bill, in section 107.1, it says that the minister has the power to make ministerial orders in certain specific cases. The specific cases are quite broad, and include national security, economic security, competition, and the security of persons, goods, ships, port facilities and supply chains. The scope for the use of ministerial orders is therefore very broad. What's more, in the bill, the article begins simply with “If the Minister is of the opinion that there is a risk of imminent harm [...].”
First, the amendment aims to remove the words “is of the opinion.” Second, we wish to add a sixth paragraph, according to which the use of such orders is expected to be made in an organized context and according to a standard. This ensures that the minister does not have unlimited discretionary power. I think that the use of such a power requires a tighter framework than what is proposed in Bill C‑33.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
I will begin a speaking list on BQ-6. Before I do that, I'm going to make note of Mr. Badawey and Mr. Strahl, and I have a point of order from Dr. Lewis.
I see your hand up as well, Mr. Muys.
Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to bring light to the fact that I tabled a motion that was put on notice on Friday, December 1, and that motion was for CIB transparency. I would like to present the motion at this time. It goes as follows:
Given that, after almost 7 years, the Canada Infrastructure Bank—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm sorry, Dr. Lewis. You can't present a motion on a point of order. Unfortunately, you can't do that. It's out of order.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
You can't do it on a point of order, Dr. Lewis.
I will turn the floor over to Mr. Badawey and Mr. Strahl.
You can put your name on the speaking list if you would like.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
It's Mr. Badawey, Mr. Strahl, Mr. Muys and then Dr. Lewis.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This motion is presented by the Bloc. I'll state the fact that it's very similar to BQ-2. With it being similar to BQ-2, I'll give you the same comments I gave regarding BQ-2 when we voted against it and it was turned down.
Number one, the bill was created on the basis that the reasonableness standard would be used in all of these determinations. The reasonableness standard is what is generally used, and has been used, in Canada's judicial system. “Correctness” would mean that our minister of transport would essentially have no discretion to exercise the power given. The threshold would be too high, making it unusable.
Once again, Mr. Chair, it's no different from what I stated for BQ-2. With this subamendment, it would be very similar to that. Therefore, I will be voting against it and not supporting it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.
Go ahead, Mr. Strahl, followed by Mr. Muys.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move a motion that I put on notice last week, which indicated that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm sorry, Mr. Strahl. That's not in order either. We have BQ-6 before us. Until we've concluded with BQ-6, you won't be able to put a motion forward.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Well, put me on the list to do it immediately following that.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
I would like to speak on BQ-6.
I think the points Mr. Barsalou-Duval raised with this amendment are worth some scrutiny. One of the concerns overall is with the broad and vague ministerial authority that Bill C-33 gives the minister. It's an “Ottawa knows bests”, one-size-fits-all approach. This amendment hopes to provide a bit more clarity to that. I think he articulates a few different areas where that needs to be applied, all of which makes some sense.
Taken individually, national security is clearly a very significant issue. Economic security is obviously important, particularly when the whole objective of Bill C-33 is to look at national supply chains, which have been tattered and stretched. The bill clearly doesn't address that. This is an attempt to put some limitation on the minister when it comes to this.
I think that's worthy of discussion. I think we should continue to discuss this.