Publication Search

Ladies and gentlemen, I see a quorum. We are under some time pressures, so I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Before we get started, I want to note that votes are scheduled at 10:40. Under the Standing Orders, I'm obligated to suspend proceedings when the bells start ringing, which will be at 10:10. I'm sure colleagues would like to finish with clause-by-clause consideration today. I, possibly, will ask for unanimous consent to extend. If we don't have unanimous consent to extend, then we'll have to come back to this on Tuesday. When colleagues are debating amendments, and points have been made, they don't need to be made again.

With that, let's proceed.

There are no amendments to clause 1.

(Clause 1 carried)

(On clause 2)

The Chair: The first amendment is NDP-1.

Mr. Dubé.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With this amendment, we want to limit the regulatory changes the minister can make and further clarify the types of information that may be collected.

Is there any debate on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next amendment is NDP-2.

Mr. Dubé.

Thank you, Chair.

We've raised concerns about the number of regulatory changes that can be made subject to this legislation. In an effort to seek a compromise, we are seeking to amend the legislation so that the Governor in Council must consult first nations, after the testimony we heard, and the Privacy Commissioner before proceeding with regulatory changes. That way, having the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in particular, we can make sure that even in these vast regulatory powers, there is some kind of safeguard for Canadians.

Mr. Picard.

I will not support this amendment because the reference to a single group of persons limits consultation. The Commissioner already consults not only the first nations, but the entire business community. It would therefore be pointless to limit his obligation to consult.

Mr. Dubé.

We would like the Privacy Commissioner to have the legal duty to consult before making any regulatory changes. This seems entirely appropriate to me, especially in view of the range of regulatory powers set forth in the act. The government apparently does not share that opinion.

Is there any other debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next is NDP-3.

Mr. Dubé.

This is another amendment seeking to narrow down the scope of both the type of information and the regulatory powers.

Is there any debate on NDP-3?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next is NDP-4.

Mr. Dubé.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is based on the same principle as our second amendment. It seeks to establish a duty to consult in another part of the bill, which pertains to regulatory powers.

Is there any debate?

Monsieur Picard.

I maintain my objection to limiting consultation, since that is already part of the Commissioner's role. As an independent body, the office of the Commissioner consults a wider range of stakeholders than a single group.