C-17 Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 1, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.))

Mr. John Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport)

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

0915

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

The Clerk

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

0920

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John Read

0925

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Sherill Besser

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

0930

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Ms. Lillian Zadravetz (Deputy Director, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Border Policy, Enforcement Branch)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. David Dunbar (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. David Dunbar

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

0935

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Simard (General Counsel, Department of Health)

0940

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Mario Simard

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Mario Simard

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Mario Simard

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Mario Simard

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

0945

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Simard

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

0950

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

0955

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Clerk

1000

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1005

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

The Clerk

1010

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1015

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Bob Kilger

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1020

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1025

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1030

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wilson (Director, Strategic Issues Branch, Department of the Environment)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1035

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. John Read

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1040

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1045

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Gary Lunn

1055

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Ms. Bev Chomyn (Legal Counsel, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1100

The Chair

Ms. Bev Chomyn

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Bev Chomyn

The Chair

Ms. Bev Chomyn

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Bev Chomyn

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. John Read

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

CANADA

Legislative Committee on Bill C-17

NUMBER 019

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)): We now continue with our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-17.

First off, I'd like to ask Mr. Read to briefly explain to us which officials will be seated at the table.

[English]

Mr. John Read (Director General, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you are aware, several acts are being amended in this bill, so the two who will stay at the table in a more or less permanent fashion will be myself and Sherill Besser from Justice. For the other amendments, as we come to them, we will be asking other departments to have their representatives join us at the table. We would then introduce them by name. In addition to that, I believe what has been laid in front of you is a list of the officials who are in the room. These people or alternates are in the room, so if there are questions you need to put to one of these departments, you can do that, because we do have, we believe, all departments covered.

The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you at the table and beyond the table for your ongoing cooperation.

(On clause 11)

[Translation]

We're going to pick up where we left off at the conclusion of last Tuesday's meeting, that is with BQ motion 23.

Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Subsection (5), line 2 on page 22 currently reads as follows:

(5) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days after it is made.

We propose that this provision be amended to read “tabled in each House of Parliament within 5 days”. We feel that five days is more than enough time. I disagree with Mr. Read's contention that time is needed to deal with the paperwork. These are important documents that must be tabled within a reasonable period of time, namely as soon as possible, in each House of Parliament for our information. We think five days is a sufficient amount of time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We've already discussed this clause. Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[English]

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 12 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21)

The Chair: On clause 21 we have G-10. Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): We're moving that Bill C-17 in clause 21 be amended by replacing in the English version line 30, page 27, with the following:

an investigation under paragraph 1(b), the Minister may

[Translation]

It's on line 30 of the English version, Mr. Laframboise.

[English]

Subsection 8.7 (1.1) of the Aeronautics Act as currently proposed in the bill has “In carrying out an inspection or audit in any place referred to in paragraph 1(a) or (b), the Minister may..”. As currently drafted, the bill implies that paragraph 1(b) relates to an inspection or audit. This is corrected to show the reference is to an investigation.

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

The Chair: I think Mr. Proulx has something further to add.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, I'm fine, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): So you're not touching or removing 1(a) as such, you're just adding on to 1(b)?

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: There is a reference made to two activities, one under paragraph (a) and one under paragraph (b). Under (a) there were inspections and audits and under (b) there were investigations. In making reference to them, they were all called inspections or audits. It was just an incorrect reference. It should have said inspections and audits were (a) and investigations were (b). So this is a technical correction.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I guess my concern is that this doesn't just refer to line 30, so the amendment is incorrect.

Mr. John Read: The correction is to replace line 30. So the new proposed subsection 8.7(1.1) would read:

In carrying out an inspection or audit in any place referred to in paragraph 1(a) or an investigation in paragraph 1(b), the Minister may

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So you're adding “investigation under paragraph 1(b)” to line 30, so it will then become lines 30 and 31.

Mr. John Read: Yes, that's correct, but the change is to line 30.

The Chair: Anything further, Ms. Desjarlais?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No, not at this time.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I was wondering why there was no reference to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) in the French text.

Mr. John Read: I was wondering about that as well.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's done correctly in French.

Ms. Besser.

Mrs. Sherill Besser (Senior Counsel, Department of Transport): Section 8.7(1.1) in the proposed legislation does not refer to paragraphs (a) or (b) in the opening words, so the change is not necessary.

Mr. John Read: There is no wrong reference in French that has to be corrected. It is already correct in French.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, it's as clear as dishwater.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: No one is supposed to understand.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If I understand Ms. Besser correctly, the English version refers to an inspection or audit, whereas the French text contains no such reference. In the French version, the provision is more general, with the reference to an investigation or audit being implicit.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Besser.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: When drafting legislation, the drafters make sure each version reflects the appropriate wording within the language, rather than having one version as a literal translation of the other. English tends to be more specific in cross-referencing, whereas French is more general.

[Translation]

It's implicit in the French version.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What you're saying is that the English version was saying, “in carrying out an inspection or audit”, and you needed to add “an investigation”, whereas in the French what we're basically saying is “during this visit”, and we do not specify if it's an inspection, an audit, or an investigation.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: Perhaps I can clarify it somewhat. The way it was written in English, we must refer back to (a) and (b). In French, as Mr. Proulx has set out, the original subsection 8.7(1) refers to a visit, during which you can do various stuff. When you come to the amendment, we only refer back in French to la visite.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm not convinced.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on G-10?

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I need to have something clarified.

[English]

We're going to touch lines 30 and 31, so the rest of the page will accordingly be pushed down, right?

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: I think I would refer to the clerk here. When you add a lot of text to a line, lines automatically get pushed.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Proulx, if you make changes to one line in particular, even if the first and last words on the line don't change, even if you add 25 lines, you're still only amending one line. Everything changes when the bill is reprinted.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The numbering automatically changes.

The Clerk: That's why we ask that the bill be reprinted following the clause-by-clause study phase.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine then. Thank you.

The Chair: The clerks always have a clear grasp of the situation. Are there any further comments?

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: How will this affect other areas if there's a line conflict? It won't, is that what you're saying?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

The Clerk: This doesn't affect the amendments at the committee stage because the line numbers haven't changed for now.

[English]

It's at the end, and that's why the committee will request a reprint of the bill for the report stage.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

The Chair: Thank God for legislative clerks.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to)

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 25 agreed to)

(Clause 26 agreed to on division)

(On clause 27)

The Chair: Amendment CA-9, Mr. Lunn.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Basically, this clause limits interim orders made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to one year instead of the current two. There are 14 provisions in Bill C-17 dealing with interim orders. All have a limit of one year, except for those relating to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. If one year is a standard for every department, I believe it should apply here as well.

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Unfortunately, we will not support this amendment. It would require the interim order to be replaced by a regulation within one year of the order's being made. The bill currently requires the interim order to be replaced by a regulation within two years of the order's being made.

The Chair: Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): That's why we have the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: We can certainly recognize the desire for consistency from one act to another. This particular amendment, however, refers to an act that already has several interim order powers, all of which have a two-year date. So it appears, as I recall, four times already in this act with the two-year date. This is a new introduction and they wish to keep consistency within this act, so they would need to have two years for this particular authority.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We talk about consistency in any act we ever deal with, but it's just not always there. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that for something different you're going to have a shorter period of time. Specifically, can you point out the other areas where two years is mentioned in this act, so we can refer to them?

Mr. John Read: It would take me a little while, but I could get back to you. Unfortunately, the person who was supposed to be sitting on my left is not here, so I cannot give you the answer right now.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I thought we were to have every answer we wanted, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: So did I.

Could we stand it down for now?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I would appreciate that.

The Chair: Agreed?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We'll now go to CA-10. It is withdrawn.

Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-10.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Once again in this amendment, Mr. Chair, we are ensuring that there is parliamentary oversight. It will come up a number of times in this manner.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

We will not be supporting this, for the same reasons we gave on NDP-9. The tabling in both houses within two sitting days after an interim order is made is of no consequence when one of the two houses is not sitting. An interim order can only be made concerning a matter for which a regulation can be made. If the interim order satisfies this criterion, there will be nothing for a committee of one of the houses to do. Changing the regulation and creating the authority of an act would require the processing of a bill. Do you remember my answer on NDP-9?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No, it was a couple of days ago, so I'm going to ask you again.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

The proposal is a very elaborate one to verify that the content of an interim order is within the regulatory authority of the act. It appears that the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations could already undertake this. If you want more, Mr. Read can help us, or else we can wait until the representative from Environment Canada comes to visit us.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: What timelines are there for parliamentary oversight under the Emergency Measures Act?

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: There are different levels of activities, but essentially, for the kinds of events we're thinking of, if one used the Emergency Measures Act, there would have to be a representation made to the Governor in Council, which would then have to consult with the lieutenant governor of the province involved, all of this to happen prior to the order's taking effect. This is the time for Parliament to receive notice that the Governor in Council and the lieutenant governor of the province have agreed and a state of emergency has been declared. I believe the time is 72 hours, and Parliament has to be recalled within that period of time. Then there's a very elaborate procedure whereby the emergency measure is tabled before a joint committee of the Commons and the Senate. There is debate required, and a fairly massive report has to be developed. The conclusion of the process is a decision made by Parliament to allow it to stand or to make modifications. It is a very long process.

¿ (0925)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's what we've been working with, and now it seems to be a problem with two or three days to a parliamentary oversight.

Mr. John Read: Let me amplify this slightly. The decision to declare the emergency is done. There's knowledge of this decision to go ahead with the emergency measure for several days before it actually has to be reported back to Parliament. So it's not just a 72-hour period we're looking at. The Governor in Council can declare the emergency after consultation with the lieutenant governor. While all that is happening, time is running. Several days have now passed.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It could be several days that have passed, but not necessarily.

Mr. John Read: That's correct.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Besser.

Mrs. Sherill Besser: Once there is a declaration of an emergency, that declaration is in force for 90 days unless revoked or continued. The motion for a confirmation of the declaration must be laid before each house within seven days after that declaration is issued. If either house is adjourned at the time, that house will return within seven days to hear it. So you could have a 14-day period, I guess, but the motion must be considered within 24 hours after it is laid. But what we have here is a regulation made under an existing act, and the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations would be looking at that instrument.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think it's important, and if you don't mind, I'll take the time to read this out:

Where a motion for the consideration of the Senate or the House of Commons that is signed by not less than ten members of the Senate or twenty members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, to the effect that the interim order tabled under subsection (8) be revoked or amended, is filed with the appropriate Speaker, that House of Parliament shall take up and consider the motion within three sitting days after it is filed.

So it's not as if there would automatically have to be a recalling of Parliament. It would be on the request of members from both houses, therefore allowing oversight within a period of time. All of these go in conjunction pretty much with the Emergency Measures Act we have had in place for a number of years, which has seemed to do the job, so it's quite curious that we should need to have such a change to that type of process.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on NDP-10?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I won't put the question on clause 27; we'll stand that down until we deal with CA-9 at a future date.

(Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 33)

The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Lunn, CA-11.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment will modify section 5 of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. Basically, if the minister wants to enter into a new agreement to collect and share information, we believe he or she should ask Parliament. We want to make sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration cannot enter into agreements to share information with other governments without prior consultation with Parliament.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support this, and I will ask Mr. Assadourian to speak to it.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the minister already has that authority, I believe, in the section to ensure consistency with the Privacy Act. I think we should keep it the way it is. I think it's quite appropriate.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm obviously in support of this motion. We could go back to all the times we listened to the Privacy Commissioner raise concerns over this act and the risk that he wouldn't necessarily be informed. If it happens that he's not informed, how does he check into it? There's no automatic referral of issues to the Privacy Commissioner. It's only if he happens to find out and someone suggests that maybe there should be a review. If it's already there, if the minister can already do these things, remove it from this bill.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: I'd like to introduce David Dunbar from the Department of Justice and Lillian Zadravetz from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. They are both able to speak to this question.

The Chair: Ms. Zadravetz.

Ms. Lillian Zadravetz (Deputy Director, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Border Policy, Enforcement Branch): As Mr. Assadourian said, the minister already has the authority to enter into agreements. This is only to clarify that such agreements could be for the purpose of information sharing. Also, Treasury Board has a new policy for privacy impact assessments, so any information sharing arrangements or agreements we enter into would be subject to that policy, and that includes referral to the Privacy Commissioner's office for review and comment.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To tie this to the questions that came up the other day in relation to information that goes to provinces or other agencies that aren't necessarily government departments, how do we ensure the privacy of that information? Once information is shared with provinces, that information falls under the privacy legislation of the province. So there is not necessarily control over that information.

Mr. David Dunbar (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I would simply say that the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will address, I hope, the issue of subsequent downstream issues of shared information.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So we should maybe leave the civil liberties of Canadians up to a whim, cross your fingers, a hope and a prayer?

Mr. David Dunbar: No.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Does anyone else have any questions or further debate on this amendment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now, Mr. Lunn, would you present CA-12 on page 62.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, I would like CA-12 to stand, but I don't believe there's need for discussion. It does exactly the same as CA-11, just for the record, and I am prepared to let it go to the question.

The Chair: Okay, let me ask the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Claude 33 agreed to on division)

(On clause 34)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, go ahead and present BQ motion 24.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is the same. We move that clause 34 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 35 with the following:

sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory

The reference to section 3 would thus be deleted. This particular clause on page 35 currently reads as follows:

(4) An interim order (a) is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

The amended version would read:

(4) An interim order (a) is exempt from the application of sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

The reference to section 3 would be removed, which means that interim orders would be subject to section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

As I was explaining, pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act, the government, or the authority making the interim order, is required to forward the order to the Privy Council Office which ensures the following, namely that:

(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made;

(b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made;

(d) the form and draftsmanship [...] are in accordance with established standards.

Obviously, as noted in the first provision, three copies of the proposed regulations are forwarded in both official languages. That is one requirement that must be upheld. Let me give you an example, since we are talking about Health Canada. As you know, after September 11, the Minister made the colossal mistake of ordering drugs without complying with the Patents Act. Drugs were ordered, with total disregard for the fact that a company had patented a drug and that pursuant to the Patent Act, we had an obligation to purchase that patented brand.

I think that at the very least, these infamous interim orders should be subject to an initial review by the Privy Council Office. There is no obligation as such, but this could be done as quickly as possible. There is no particular time frame, but they could do the review the very same day in an emergency situation. I'm tired of hearing people tell me that it's very complicated. The orders need to be made in both languages, they need to be forwarded to the Privy Council Office and the four conditions listed in the Statutory Instruments Act must be met. I think all of this could be done in an emergency situation, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Unfortunately, we have to disagree once again with Mr. Laframboise. I have to say that I practised what I would say to him last night, so that I wouldn't leave anything out. He is arguing to the committee that this provision would do away with the requirement that interim orders be consistent with the Charter. That's not entirely correct.

Interim orders cannot violate the Charter, regardless of whether they are examined before they are made, since an interim order can be made in a matter of minutes. They would subsequently be examined to ensure consistency with the Charter. However, as it is now worded, Bill C-17 makes provision for reviewing orders in advance, when time permits. The fact that orders are not examined does not restrict the application of the Charter. The provisions of the Charter apply to all government actions.

If you would like additional explanations, Mr. Laframboise, we have the pleasure of having some Health Canada officials here with us. They are Mr. Simard, Ms. Chapman and Mr. Waxman. Is there anything else you would like to know?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like them to explain to me how it was possible to buy drugs that did not meet the standards. Could they explain that to me? Basically, they were the ones who made the decision. It was their department.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, my colleague Mr. Laframboise is interested in dredging up the past, whereas we want to focus on the present and on the future. We have the good fortune of having here with us officials who can explain the present and the future to him.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Proulx, since I believe that we can learn from the past, I'm just saying that a mistake was made in the past. I simply want some assurances that this will never happen again. As the text is now worded, the order must be forwarded to the Privy Council Office. Had an interim order been made for the purchase of specific drugs, the Privy Council Office would have checked to ensure that the order was authorized by the enabling statute.

That's all we're asking and I think this is a vivid example. We don't want the same mistake to be made again and we don't want to hear the excuse that because it was an interim order, there was no time to ensure compliance with the Statutory Instruments Act because there was no obligation to comply with this act and that in such instances, decisions are automatically approved.

Can the Health Canada officials address these specific concerns?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Either Ms. Chapman, Mr. Simard or Mr. Waxman.

The Chair: Would you please identify yourselves?

Mr. Mario Simard (General Counsel, Department of Health): My name is Mario Simard and I'm with the Department of Justice.

Although I believe it's already been said, I will say it again clearly: the Charter applies to all government actions, including the making of interim orders. The fact that an interim order was adopted without first being reviewed pursuant to section 3 changes nothing.

As Mr. Read explained a few days ago, the Statutory Instruments Act is a procedural act respecting mechanisms enacted. In the case of the example given, namely the purchase of drugs, an interim order could not have been made calling for the purchase of drugs for the following reason: the government cannot proceed by way of an interim order to do that which it could do in any case by making regulations pursuant to the acts listed in Bill C-17, namely the Health Act, the Quarantine Act, and so forth.

Bill C-17 makes no mention of the Patent Act. We do not have any authority to adopt an interim order that would be in violation of the provisions of the Patent Act. Therefore, an interim order would not serve as justification for purchasing drugs if it violated the Patent Act.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Mario Laframboise: For starters, drug purchases could be authorized pursuant to an interim order. I don't think anyone disputes that. You're saying the drug purchases must be carried out in compliance with the Patent Act.

Mr. Mario Simard: That's correct.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: However, an interim order could be made authorizing the purchase of drugs to combat an epidemic. True or false?

Mr. Mario Simard: Yes, but we don't necessarily need an interim order to do that. Generally speaking, we can purchase drugs. However, you're correct in saying that under certain circumstances, we could resort to using an interim order.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: To expedite matters. Correct?

Mr. Mario Simard: It would depend on the particular circumstances. If we're talking about an over-the-counter drug, then the government is free to buy it just like any other member of the public. In the case of a patent drug , the provisions of the Patent Act continue to apply. If the drug still requires regulatory approval under the Food and Drug Act, then the interim order could indeed expedite the process.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You're admitting then that the provisions of the act will continue to apply. How then were drugs purchased if these provisions were still in force? Explain that to me.

Mr. Mario Simard: I don't think I will. I'm a government official.

The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Mr. Laframboise?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Obviously, as a measure of security for the general public, we would like to see section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act continue to apply. We'd like the government to comply with this provision.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

[Translation]

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

Mr. Lunn, CA-13.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, that's withdrawn.

The Chair: We'll go back now to Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-11 on page 65.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm almost tempted to read the whole amendment out, but I won't. Again, Mr. Chair, it is meant to ensure that there is adequate parliamentary oversight, which is a problem throughout this bill. Although I know the officials are feeling it's just too little time, I'm not convinced of that. I think, for issues such as this, there's ample time allocated, and the amendment is specifically to refer to parliamentary oversight.

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm tempted to give her my former reply, but I won't. I'll just say that I will not be able to support it.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair:You may proceed with BQ motion 25, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: As you will see, Mr. Chairman, our position doesn't waver. The following is noted in line 33 on page 35 of the bill:

(6) A copy of each interim order must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 days after it is made.

We're asking that this period of time be shortened to five days. We feel that five days is a reasonable amount of time under the circumstances. I don't agree, not now or ever, Mr. Chairman, with the position taken by Mr. Read the first time this matter was discussed, namely that it takes 15 days to deal with all the details and the paperwork. In an emergency, Mr. Chairman, the crisis is over after 15 days. This means that everyone is off the hook, including officials who act even before the House is apprised of the situation. We think 15 days is far too much time. Five days would be a more-than-reasonable length of time, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Again, we cannot support this amendment, for reasons already stated. If you want to hear them one more time...

Mr. Mario Laframboise: By all means.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'll explain it more slowly. Mr. Laframboise and I are always pleasant to each other, besides which we work well together.

It's likely that when an interim order is made, an analysis will be requested. Unfortunately, experts who would be able to do such an analysis may not necessarily be available in the first five days, or, if required to submit their analysis, may not necessarily be able to do the work required to deal with the emergency.

Therefore, we do not support this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: To be honest with you, Mr. Proulx, I dispute your contention that experts would not be available in the first five days either to validate or invalidate an interim order. I hope you consulted with these experts before you came to this decision. That's what I find somewhat annoying. Today, Mr. Read feels the need to surround himself with people in order to make a decision, but in an emergency, he can act alone in the minutes after the order is made if experts are not available. We're hearing today that these experts would not be available during the first five days. I don't really believe that, Mr. Proulx.

The Chair: Mr. Simard.

Mr. Mario Simard: I'd like to clarify a few points, if I might.

First of all, pursuant to the Health Act, the statute in question here, only the Minister is authorized to adopt an interim order, contrary to what was discussed two days ago regarding transportation. Thus, the decision in this case rests with the Minister.

Secondly, as for the reasons why the decision was made to go with a 15-day time frame, it was felt that in an emergency, all of the department's resources and expertise should be focused on managing the crisis. Procedural matters should be a secondary consideration. We totally agree that the Minister should report to Parliament and that he is accountable to Parliament, but first things first, that is handle the crisis and then deal with secondary considerations.

Unlike the transportation sector, health emergencies such as SARS can last quite a long time. They usually can't be resolved in 24 hours.

Thirdly, given the way in which the system is organized, the Minister has 14 days following the making of the interim order to obtain Cabinet approval. According to the procedure set out in the act, the Minister himself adopts the interim order and Cabinet reviews the decision within the next 14 days. The order can be overturned. Once Cabinet has come to a decision, that decision is forwarded to Parliament for debate.

Fourthly, we have to look at things in context. Barring exceptional circumstances, Parliament does not, as a rule, intervene in the regulation-making process. The fact that a report must be made to Parliament is an additional, exceptional requirement.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's regrettable, Mr. Chairman, and that's why we would like the time frame to be shortened in this case. I still don't like Mr. Proulx's explanation that experts will not be available within the first five days, but will in fact be available over the next 15 days. You're correct in saying that these orders must be forwarded to Cabinet. If they do not have enough time to review the order, then I don't see what they can base their decision on. Experts should be available in the first five days after an emergency. I feel that this is a very reasonable amount of time to allow Cabinet to review the situation.

I stand firm on my position, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just walking through your plan as to how things worked, I couldn't help but think how the minister and the cabinet would make their decision without having some specialist tell them exactly what's happening. Mr. Read indicated the other day that possibly the deputy minister would be able to meet with Parliament, and I don't think anybody had an objection to that, but I'm just amazed to think it would take 15 days to get something so crucially important in a time of an emergency back to Parliament. We're not talking about a little get-together down by the corner in the middle of somewhere in the Northwest Territories, we're talking about the representatives who are here on behalf of the people of Canada wanting to know what's happening and making a decision if there's an issue related to an interim order. It's not just a little get-together for a social reception, it's important stuff, and to suggest it would take 15 days to get that information to the representatives of the people of Canada is disconcerting. I would ask you, as you spew out these answers without being open to accepting a lesser period of time, how you would feel if you were on the other end of things in a country where there was a real issue and you wanted to know what was going on and to give that to the people of Canada. You want to make sure people know what's going on.

I know we're going to get the usual answer, and quite frankly, it probably would have saved some time and effort if we'd had a tape recording; Mister Proulx could have just done it by remote control from another room, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether you were going slow or fast. But it is disconcerting, and I think the people of Canada should be extremely concerned.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear what Mrs. Desjarlais is saying, but I just want to bring your attention--and you've already underlined it--to the fact that we're saying “within 15 days”. We're not saying it's necessarily going to take 15 days all the time.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

[Translation]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[English]

(Clause 34 agreed to on division)

(Clause 35 agreed to on division)

(On clause 36)

Now we go to Mr. Lunn, CA-14.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is all with respect to the inexplosive ammunition components. CA amendments 14 to 37 are word for word, I think, identical to government amendments 12 to 21, except for three, and our amendments are also match word for word NDP amendments 12 to 32. The amendments as a group propose to delete all references to “inexplosive ammunition component” in part 7 of the bill. In fact, the only difference between the CA, government, and NDP amendments is that CA-15, CA-16, and CA-23 and G-12 and G-16 also delete “inexplosive ammunition component” from lines 22, 23, 27, 28, 33, 34, and 36 and lines 36 to 38 on page 40. Given that there are 53 amendments from three parties all aiming to remove “inexplosive ammunition component” and its definition from part 7 of Bill C-17, and given that there are no inconsistencies between them, I propose--I'm not sure if I can do this, but I'm suggesting it--that they be dealt with as a group and should be supported. Obviously, I leave that in the good chair's hands.

The Chair: I'll inquire as to the opinion of the people opposite and on any other side.

Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The simplest solution would be for the opposition motions to be withdrawn, and then we could look at the government motions, G-12 to G-21, with the exception of amendment CA-38, which would be a different ball game.

Mr. Gary Lunn: If G-12 to G-21 are passed, I believe CA-38 is moot and would be withdrawn after the fact. So we'll withdraw CA-38 if we pass these ones.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

The Chair: If Mr. Lunn would consider withdrawing CA-14, I would then turn to Ms. Desjarlais with respect to NDP-12, and then we would deal with G-12.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Gary Lunn: We could withdraw CA-14 to 37, provided that the government's willing to pass.

The Chair: We can't. We'll just withdraw this one for now.

Now Ms. Desjarlais on NDP-12.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Not that I'm untrusting of the government side, but I'd much prefer to see one of these amendments passed before there's a withdrawal of other ones.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, you've withdrawn your amendment?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Well, no, we won't, if they're not....

The Chair: Okay, so we're back to CA-14.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: NDP-12, Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: As is.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: G-12 would cover CA-15, CA-16, CA-17, and NDP-13. We have some witnesses here from Natural Resources, Mr. Chair, who could help us out on this. I think members have the wording of G-12.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 36 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 37)

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

The next item of business is amendment G-13 on page 75.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That would cover CA-18 and NDP-14. It is replacing lines 13 to15 on page with “illicit manufacture and illicit trafficking of explosives”. Again we have the department.

The Chair: Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Proulx, amendment G-12 has been passed. The following are all consequential amendments to G-12: G-13 on page 75, G-14 on page 80, G-15 on page 81, G-16 on page 89, G-17 on page 90, G-18 on page 101, G-19 on page 106, G-20 on page 113 and G-21 on page 118. Consequently, the adoption of G-12 automatically means that all of these amendments are adopted as well.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Including G-14 and G-17?

The Clerk: G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-18, G-19, G-20 and G-21.

À (1000)

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Merci, monsieur le président.

We had a correction to G-14 in the French version. It's just a typo. We have “traffic” with two fs, and it should only be one.

Good news in regard to either CA-24 or NDP-19. In G-17, page 90, we have (a) “replacing lines 1 to 3...”, but the French version, referring to lines 43 and 44 on page 40, would not be sufficiently elaborated. So we are suggesting that we take either CA-24 on page 91 or NDP-19 on page 20. Then within G-17 we would accept the rest of the page, starting from paragraph (b). Can we do that?

[Translation]

The Chair: It's all starting to get rather confusing for the Chair.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: And for me as well, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Then we're on the same wavelength. I don't feel quite so alone.

[English]

The Chair: Let's see if Mr. Read can shed a little light on this.

Mr. John Read: The problem is that G-17 comes before CA-24 and NDP-19. Because of the error in paragraph (a), G-17 should only be adopted for paragraphs (b) through (e).

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: For the sake of clarification, what was the big issue with paragraph (a)?

À (1005)

Mr. John Read: The problem in (a) was that “or” was omitted; there was an addition of a phrase, and the “or” is missing.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Where should it be?

Mr. John Read: Well, it's not in the lines that are being changed, it's in the line above, so you have to make the change, which you people have proposed. Your wording is better than the wording here. If you compare the French wording in G-17 with the French wording in CA-24, you'll see the difference.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Did you say this was one approved in conjunction with the first one?

The Chair: Yes, it was.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So what's the easiest way to fix it?

The Chair: Well, let's ask the clerk.

The Clerk: It's in the hands of the committee, but if you all agree that there is a change only involving “or” or an “f” too many in “traffic”, that's fine. We'll fix it later on, and all the amendments I have given, G-13 to G-21, being consequential, can be adopted at the same time, if no one has any objection.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I, for one, am quite willing to make that small change, rather than going through a whole process of doing something when we've already approved it.

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We're asking that one of the Canadian Alliance motions be passed, along with one NDP motion.

The Chair: Either one.

[English]

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: My understanding, though, is that we have already approved the government one with our previous vote.

The Chair: That's correct.

Monsieur Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Isn't this something we can call a friendly amendment, accepting CA-24 into G-17?

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

The Clerk: I think, after discussing it with the chair, the best solution is simply to say G-12 is consequential to G-13, G-14, G-15, and G-16--we'll deal with G-17 or your amendments when we get there--and also consequential to G-18, G-19, G-20, and G-21. So only G-17 will not be consequential to G-12.

The Chair: Agreed? Okay.

(Clause 37 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 38 agreed to)

(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: Since G-15 is automatically adopted, we will not put the amendments that follow to a vote.

(Clause 40 carried, as amended)

Since G-16 is adopted automatically, I will not put amendment CA-23 to a vote.

[English]

(Clause 41 as amended agreed to)

Now we come to G-17.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

We want to deal with G-17 without (a).

The Chair: I think probably there's a procedural question. Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Amendment G-17 has not yet been formally moved. It's more like a notice of amendment. Therefore, if you have any changes to make, now is the time to do that.

À (1010)

[English]

The Chair: What the table is saying is, let's amend it now, and then we'll get it right the first time.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The provision on page 41 currently reads as follows:

inspector may seize and detain any explosive, any restricted component or any inexplosive ammunition component

Lines 1 to 3 on page 41 would be replaced with the following:

inspector may seize and detain any explosive or any restricted component

The reference to “any inexplosive ammunition component” would be deleted.

[English]

The Chair: Where is our expert? Is that what you want?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We've got it solved. We're using the wording in CA-24.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

CA-24 will be part (a) of G-17, and then the rest of G-17, (b) to (e), is identical to what is on page 90.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I just want it clear.

The Chair: Take your time, Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Could Mr. Proulx just repeat it?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: On G-17, for (a), forget what's on page 90 and use the wording CA-24 was giving us.

The Chair: Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your patience. We apologize for the hitch.

The Chair: That's no problem. I'm just happy to see you guys all get along here.

(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 43)

The Chair: With amendment G-18 having been adopted, we will not put CA-29 and CA-30 or NDP-24 and 25.

Ms. Desjarlais.

À (1015)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Based on the clerk's point that that amendment really hadn't been submitted until we came to it, would that not follow with all these other ones? It's just a clarification for my own benefit, for future use.

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

The Clerk: You submit the amendments to the clerk so I can prepare a package. The amendment is officially moved when the person says, I move this amendment for consideration. Sometimes the amendment is withdrawn. In fact, most of the time it's simply that you don't move it. That's the distinction.

The Chair: The critical mass is basically when the chair gives the floor to the person presenting the amendment.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So when G-12 was put in, these would have all been consequential. Okay.

Mr. Bob Kilger: That's correct.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I just wanted verification.

The Chair: No, that's fine.

(Clause 43 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 44 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Amendment G-20 was adopted also.

(Clause 45 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive agreed to)

[Translation]

(Clause 49)

The Chair:Since amendment G-21 automatically carries, I will not call a vote on the other amendments.

(Clause 49, as amended, carried)

[English]

(Clause 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51)

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, CA-38.

Mr. Gary Lunn: We're just cruising along here, Mr. Chair. We're getting you warmed up for the business of supply coming up, aren't we?

I will not be putting CA-38.

The Chair: It is withdrawn.

(Clause 51 agreed to)

(Clauses 52 to 65 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 66)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laframboise, kindly present BQ motion 26.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The intent is the same, Mr. Chairman. We move that the bill be amended on page 52 by replacing line 2 with the following:

sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory

We want to see interim orders subject to the terms of sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act and we want section 3 to be maintained. In other words, the authorities responsible for making interim orders should be required to forward them to the Privy Council Office for verification that they are authorized by the enabling statute, that they are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they are made in both official languages.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, we have to disagree with this amendment. If you have objections, I can turn the floor over to Mr. Simard.

The Chair: Personally, I don't think that is necessary.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm only saying that I can do that.

The Chair: Unless Mr. Laframboise has something more specific to add to that. Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived)

À (1020)

[English]

The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Lunn and CA-39.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will be withdrawing this. For the record, because I may not be here on Tuesday, I will not be moving our amendments 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52.

The Chair: You'd better speak to the clerk before you leave.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I was just giving him notice.

The Chair: Okay.

Now we'll go to Ms. Desjarlais and NDP-33.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Same scenario. The amendment is to ensure parliamentary oversight. That's it.

The Chair: The government indicates it won't be supporting your amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair:Mr. Laframboise, kindly present BQ motion 27.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The principle is still the same. We move that the bill be amended in line 17 on page 52 as follows:

tabled in each House of Parliament within 5

We're asking that a copy of the order be tabled in each House of Parliament within five days, not the 15 days proposed by the government.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The answer is still the same. We will not support this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: (Amendment negatived)

(Clause 66 agreed to on division)

(On clause 67)

[Translation]

The Chair:Go ahead and present amendment BQ motion 28, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The same principle applies in the case of interim orders made pursuant to the Hazardous Products Act, Mr. Chairman. We want such orders to be subject to the terms of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act, that is to say we want these orders to be made in both languages and assurances that they are authorized by the enabling statute and are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-34.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: This is another attempt to ensure parliamentary oversight.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise, BQ-29.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Again, the principle is the same. The proposed amendment pertains to the Hazardous Products Act. We're asking that interim orders be tabled in each House of Parliament within five days of their being made, rather than the 15 days proposed by the government.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our answer is still no, we cannot support this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 67 carried, on division)

(Clause 68)

The Chair: Please move BQ motion 30, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: In a similar vein, this amendment pertains to clause 68. We're asking that interim orders be subject to the terms of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act which, let me repeat, requires orders to be tabled in both languages to the Privy Council Office for verification and assurances that they are authorized by the statute pursuant to which they were made and are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The answer is still no, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Are there any comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, amendment NDP-35.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Once again, Mr. Chair, it is an attempt to ensure parliamentary oversight in a reasonable period of time.

The Chair: Is there debate?.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead and move BQ motion 31, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This amendment also pertains to clause 68. We're asking again that interim orders be tabled in each House within five days, rather than the fifteen days proposed by the government. I maintain that it would be possible to consult with experts within this reasonable five-day period, instead of allowing for 15 days, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is still no, we reject this amendment.

The Chair: Any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

À (1025)

[English]

(Clause 68 agreed to on division)

(On clause 69)

[Translation]

The Chair: Please proceed to move BQ motion 32, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The same holds in the case of clause 69. We're asking that interim orders be subject to the terms of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act, or in other words, that there be a requirement to make the orders in both languages and to forward them to the Privy Council Office for verification to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and authorization by the statute pursuant to which the order is made.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Again, we cannot support this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Any comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-36.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Once again, Mr. Chair, it is an attempt to ensure parliamentary oversight in a reasonable period of time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Negative, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair: Kindly move BQ motion 33, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This amendment also has to do with clause 69. Mr. Chairman, we're asking that interim orders be tabled in each House within five days of being made.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are not in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Any comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[English]

The Chair: (Clause 69 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 70 and 71 agreed to on division)

(On clause 72)

The Chair: CA-43, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move this amendment. Basically, it limits the ability to make regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to share information for the purposes of national security and the defence of Canada. We also delete, through CA-44, proposed subsection 150.1(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The object of this amendment is to make sure information shared pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is used only for purposes of national security or the defence of Canada.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not support this, Mr. Chair. Mr. Assadourian may want to add something.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chair, we are going to oppose this. I think it takes away the ministerial responsibility that regulates CIC operations. By opposing it, I think we increase the transparency of the system within our mandate.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: We'll obviously support this amendment. I think we've already seen a situation where the issue of protecting Canada's international affairs came up. We saw a situation in B.C. during the APEC conference where certain things were done because they didn't want to upset another governing body that was coming to Canada, and they used the terminology of international relationships. We didn't want to upset them, so we had to do these things. It makes me extremely leery. We don't even want to ruffle their itsy-bitsy little feathers any more, and we are willing to give out information related to Canadians just to protect the conduct of international affairs. I don't think that's acceptable.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, CA-44.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, excuse me, but you remember we were expecting an expert on CA-9 from Environment. We now have available Mr. Michael Wilson, whenever you wish to return to it.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'll move CA-44. The explanation is the same, it basically does the same thing. I'll let it stand for the record and call the question.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived: yeas 2; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 72 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx, do you suggest we return now to clause 27?

À (1030)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's right.

The Chair: Then we go to Mr. Lunn to present, if he should so choose, CA-9.

(On clause 27)

Mr. Gary Lunn: I can't put my finger on it.

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: When this amendment was being debated, I did make reference to the fact that to be consistent within their act, they sought two years, since they had four other instances where they had a current two-year delay. When I was asked for the specific sections of the act, I couldn't bring them up at the time. We now have Mr. Wilson from the department to answer that question.

The Chair: Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Michael Wilson (Director, Strategic Issues Branch, Department of the Environment): Thank you.

There are four sections of the Environmental Protection Act that already have the authority for interim orders, section 94, which is where we regulate normally the emissions of toxic substances; section 163, which gives the minister and Governor in Council the authority to regulate sources of international air pollution; section 183, which gives the minister the authority to regulate sources of international water pollution; and section 163, which gives the minister the authority to regulate vehicle and engine emissions, normally automotive systems. If we learn very suddenly of a serious and significant harm, we can pass regulation through an interim order, and those provisions require that interim order to be replaced by a regulation within two years. The reason it's two years is that the Environmental Protection Act has consultation requirements that are in excess of the normal government consultation requirements. Because environment is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces, we're mandated to do extensive consultation with other levels of government and outside interests before we make a regulation. Normally, even for our priority regulations, it's typically taken us anywhere from a year and a half to two years to get a regulation in place. That's why it was deemed that one year was really difficult.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: To ensure that we're clear on what happened, I recognize that you might have that within the Environmental Protection Act, but my question to Mr. Read was, within this act what is the length of time for interim orders? It's good to have you here anyway this morning to emphasize that there is a long period of time as a result of certain issues related to the environment, but we're talking here about orders that have to be issued absolutely immediately. We don't have time to catch anybody, we're not going to so much as mention them to Parliament for however many days. So we're talking about a quite different situation. It's not the usual realm of what happens within the course of other environmental issues in relation to this bill. As there was a need to put that in this bill, because nobody wanted to get back to Parliament for at least so many days, I don't think it falls under the same realm as what Environment Canada has, and I would ask Mr. Read again, is it a two-year period for interim orders throughout this bill?

À (1035)

Mr. John Read: I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question the first time around. It is one year for all interim orders in this bill--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In this bill?

Mr. John Read: In this bill, except for this particular interim order under Environment Canada. As I said, there are two consistencies one could look at. One would be a consistency throughout this bill, the other would be a consistency within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They have, as they've described, their procedure for consultations, which has led them to the conclusion that they would have difficulty with one year, they really need two years, as with the other portions of their act.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But they still could, under the Environmental Protection Act, have an interim order related to some issue that might come up related to this, and it would go through the normal process, whereas in this case we are changing the process that would normally be followed and not having the same parliamentary oversight.

Mr. John Read: With respect, the four sections that are there will not be touched, they stand. This is a fifth location where the process would, if it stays the two years, be consistent throughout their act. If it were changed to one year, they would have five authorities to make interim orders, four of which would have the two-year life span and the other one year.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I understand that fully. I'm just saying it makes more sense to have consistency in this bill, and if there's an issue related that Environment can deal with, let them deal with it under theirs, rather than changing consistency in this bill so that individuals who are stuck with this bill, which is pretty annoying to start off with, don't have to wonder why one is suddenly different from the other.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I just listened to the explanation, and the amendment I had only dealt with interim orders made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I accept the explanation that they need two years because of having to deal with the provinces. It seems rational, so I'll withdraw that.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is the member able to withdraw once we've had debate and it's been put before the committee?

The Chair: Well, it would have to be by unanimous consent.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Why don't we just vote?

The Chair: All right.

(Amendment is negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 27 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 73 to 94 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 95)

[Translation]

The Chair: Please proceed with BQ motion 34, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, we're proposing that the bill be amended in clause 95 by replacing line 31 on page 74, specifically that orders be exempted from the application of sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments, but not the application of section 3.

I realize that I seem to be repeating myself, Mr. Chairman, but I want to try and explain one last time to my colleagues the substance of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act respecting the sending of proposed regulations to the Clerk of the Privy Council. This particular provision reads as follows:

3. (1) ...where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages.

(2) On receipt by the Clerk of the Privy Council of copies of a proposed regulation pursuant to subsection (1), the Clerk of the Privy Council, in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice, shall examine the proposed regulation to ensure that:

(a) it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made;

(b) it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made;

(c) is does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights; and

(d) the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulation are in accordance with established standards.

Subsection (3) further states:

When a proposed regulation has been examined as required by subsection (2), the Clerk of the Privy Council shall advise the regulation-making authority that the proposed regulation has been so examined and shall indicate any matter referred to in paragraph [...] to which, in the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, based on that examination, the attention of the regulation-making authority should be drawn.

Therefore, there is no obligation in so far as the final outcome is concerned, and the interim order is not placed in jeopardy. The Deputy Minister of Justice merely issues an opinion to the effect that the interim order is inconsistent with the statute pursuant to which it was made or inconsistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There may be an obligation in connection with the time required to forward all of this to the Deputy Minister of Justice, but since sections 5 and 11 impose a seven-day time limit, there are already certain stated obligations in so far as time is concerned.

The sole purpose of this provision is to ensure that regulations are made in both official languages and are not inconsistent with enabling statutes or with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently, I don't agree that these interim orders should be exempted from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don't find Mr. Laframboise's answer to be redundant. Moreover, he is entitled to present his position. Unfortunately, we will not be supporting his motion.

If Mr. Laframboise desires further explanations, I'm sure the experts seated at the witness table would be happy to oblige, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: The problem as I see it is that the experts don't understand that section 3 in no way threatens the effectiveness of the interim order. That's the real problem, to my mind and that's why I do not wish to hear from them on this matter.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment is negatived)

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais, NDP-37.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Once again, Mr. Chair, this is an attempt to get increased parliamentary scrutiny over the interim orders. As we already have an Emergency Measures Act that falls much along the line of this amendment, I see no reason it can't be incorporated. There's a little difference in the length of time, but if we've had an act in place that has done the job, including on September 11, because there really weren't increased problems, I don't see any reason we can't have increased parliamentary scrutiny.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm sorry, but again it's going to be negative. We have a witness available from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I really don't need that witness.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair:Please proceed with BQ motion 35, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We're proposing that the bill be amended on page 75 to ensure that interim orders made pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are tabled to each House of Parliament within five days, rather that the 15 days proposed by the government

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We reject this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 95 carried on division)

(Clause 96)

The Chair: Go ahead with BQ motion 36, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: This amendment pertains to interim orders that may be made pursuant to clause 96. We're asking for the same thing again, namely that these orders be exempted from the application of sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act, but not invariably from the application of section 3 of said act which requires translation of the orders into both official languages and compliance with enabling statutes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As before, we reject this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais, amendment NDP-38 please.

À (1045)

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Once again, an ongoing attempt to ensure parliamentary oversight on the interim orders, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The same reply as before, negative.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair:Go ahead with amendment BQ-37, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: We're hereby asking that interim orders made pursuant to clause 96 be tabled in each House of Parliament within five days, instead of the 15 days prescribed by Parliament.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, we reject this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 96 carried on division)

[English]

The Chair: (On clause 97)

(Clause 97 agreed to on division)

(On clause 98)

The Chair: I'd like to suggest that we stand CA-47 and this clause down and give our colleague a chance to return. I'll come back to it. Agreed?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Is our colleague coming back within the timeframe of this meeting?

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, I can only assume from what I observe at the table right now that he will be.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Not a problem.

[Translation]

(Clause 99)

The Chair:Go ahead and move BQ motion 38, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Clause 99 has to do with the Pest Control Products Act pursuant to which interim orders may be made. We're asking that the bill be amended in clause 99 by replacing line 22 on page 78 with the following:

sections 5 and 11 of the Statutory

We want interim orders to be exempted from the application of section 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act, but not so from section 3 pursuant to which a copy of such orders must be forwarded to the Privy Council office in both official languages and verified by the Deputy Minister of Justice to ensure that the orders are not inconsistent with enabling statutes or with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We reject the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais, amendment NDP-39.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm almost tempted to read it out, but I think the message has been taken that there is a wish to have increased parliamentary scrutiny.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Negative.

The Chair: Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair:Please move BQ motion 39, Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, we're asking that interim orders made under the Pest Control Products Act be tabled in each House of Parliament within five days, instead of within 15 days as prescribed by the government.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our answer is no.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 99 carried on division)

[English]

The Chair: I now return to clause 98 and ask Mr. Lunn to speak on CA-47.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I thought you were passing on my amendments when I was gone.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, I would take no such liberties.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would limit the ability to share information only for national security or the defence of Canada. The objective is to make sure information shared pursuant to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is used only for the purposes of national security or the defence of Canada. So I move the amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We will not be supporting this amendment, but I would ask Ms. Jennings to explain.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The reason the government will not be supporting this amendment is that clause 98 as now worded is essential to ensure the proper functioning of the regimes that have already been adopted under sections 4.81 and 4.82 in part 1 of the bill. As they are now, CSIS or the RCMP could be on the alert for a high-risk passenger and, under those sections in part 1, could ask the airlines to be on the alert for that high-risk passenger. For the airline to be able to receive the name and watch out so as to notify Transport, RCMP, or CSIS the moment the passenger makes a reservation, it's imperative that the airlines not have to seek and obtain consent of that person, as they are now required to under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The amendment the Alliance is requesting would in fact require the airlines, as soon as RCMP, CSIS, or Transport asked them to be on the lookout for a high-risk potential passenger under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act as it stands, if that high-risk person makes a reservation, to inform the person that they have to get their consent in order to keep the information and disclose it to CSIS or RCMP under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It goes completely against common sense, and therefore we do not support the amendment.

À (1050)

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: More to clarify Madam Jennings response, my understanding is that by removing this line, we're changing the fact that you would be able to do this without the information that's passed, because a line that's being removed is “that is required by law”.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: By law under the Personal--

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I know, but I took you as saying the opposite to what this--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: There are two cases. One is that under Bill C-17, RCMP, CSIS, or Transport may wish to provide personal information regarding a high-risk individual--high-risk in respect of national security, for instance--to the airlines. The airlines, under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, would not be able to receive that information without the consent of the high-risk person involved, because they're not allowed to receive and collect under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. A company that's regulated under that act can't receive the information, for instance. The opposite is where we would ask them to be on the lookout for a particular individual. So it covers both, our sending information to them and their sending information to us.

The Chair: Mrs. Desjarlais, have you any further comment? Mr. Lunn?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, I have.

I don't accept Madam Jennings' explanation. The government, obviously, has the ability, under its Personal Information Protection andElectronic Documents Act, to release that information. This is how it reads for two cases: “it suspects that the information relates to national security or the defence of Canada”--subparagraph 7(3)(c.1)(i)--then it can release it, or “required by law”. We're just deleting “required by law”. Basically, that is just a basket clause for everything else. We are saying, restrict it to national security and the defence of Canada. When she says you'd have to ask for the consent of that person, that is not accurate. We wouldn't amend it that way, because it would be ridiculous. What we are asking is that we remove the basket clause. If it's pertinent to national security or the defence of Canada, all right, no problem. If it's not, then we have a question.

I am ready for the question.

À (1055)

The Chair: I will put the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 98 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to on division)

The Chair: I have had a very brief discussion with members who still have amendments on other clauses, with the exception of Mr. Lunn, because I wasn't certain if some of these were ones he intended to move. I'm in the hands of the committee, of course, as to whether we're going to convene another meeting. If it's agreeable to everyone, I'll simply put the questions on the amendments. They'll be recorded as having been tabled.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I am withdrawing all the remaining Alliance amendments.

The Chair: Okay, all the remaining Alliance amendments have been removed.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Amendments BQ-40, BQ-42, BQ-44 and BQ-46, all of which concern section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act, could be grouped together. The vote could be thus be called right away.

[English]

The Chair: Is it agreed?

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Those amendments of the Bloc Québécois are defeated. The Canadian Alliance is not moving its amendments.

Mrs. Desjarlais for the New Democratic Party.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Amendments NDP-40, NDP-41, NDP-42, and NDP-43 can be dealt with in the same way.

The Chair: All right.

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 102 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Monsieur Laframboise.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I propose that the vote be called right away on amendments BQ-41, BQ-43, BQ-45 and BQ-47 , all of which propose that the length of time be shortened from 15 days to 5 days, so that we can dispose of these clauses.

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Are there any other amendment motions?

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I have one last one.

[English]

The Chair: Does the NDP have any other amendments? No.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It concerns clause 106.

(Clauses 103 to 105 inclusively carried on division)

(Clause 106)

The Chair: We now move on to BQ motion 48.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: As you will note on page 182 of the package, we're proposing that the bill be amended by replacing line 27 on page 90 with the following:

the purposes of the application of sections 487 and 488.1

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regrettably, we will not be supporting this amendment. To expedite matters, we could turn to witnesses for help, if you have no objections.

The Chair: Could you please identify yourself?

[English]

Ms. Bev Chomyn (Legal Counsel, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade):

My name is Bev Chomyn. I'm with the Department of Justice.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Okay.

So would someone conclude the remarks on this amendment?

Ms. Bev Chomyn: Okay.

Could you just repeat what you just said? I missed it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm sorry. I just said we were not going to support it, and in order for us to save time, I suggested that you give the explanation.

Ms. Bev Chomyn: We recommend no support for the amendment.

The Chair: What's the reason?

Ms. Bev Chomyn: The reason is that section 488.1 of the Criminal Code was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Why is it still in the Criminal Code if it's declared unconstitutional?

Ms. Bev Chomyn: Because the case is recent and there have to be amendments, which takes time.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

(Clauses 106 through 110 inclusively carried on division)

[English]

(On clause 111)

The Chair: We have G-22. Monsieur Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. G-22 is a technical amendment.

[English]

It is to reflect the fact that Bill C-8, the Pest Control Products Act, has now received royal assent. We have our witness from Health Canada if there are any questions, but it is recommended that we accept this amendment, of course, and that would allow them to make emergency interim orders under the new Pest Control Products Act when it comes into force.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The obvious objection again is to the issue of the interim orders and the length of time without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 112)

[Translation]

The Chair: Next is BQ motion 49. Mr. Laframboise.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, we're proposing to amend the bill in clause 112 by adding after line 29 on page 103 the following:

(1.1) Sections 35, 36 and 38 to 51 come into force thirty days after the publication, in the Canada Gazette, of the regulations proposed under section 37.

What this means is that we would like to see all of the regulations mentioned in these provisions tabled within a thirty-day period, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regrettably, for the last time, I have to say that we will not be supporting this amendment. If you want additional explanations, to expedite matters, perhaps Mr. Read could...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Read.

Mr. John Read: Mr. Chair, this would be quite unusual. The way regulations are made, they are carefully scrutinized while they are developed and passed through. The Department of Natural Resources has pointed out that this would cause them considerable delay in bringing into effect the various amendments that are in this act.

The Chair: Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It may be the last time at this committee, but I'm sure it won't be the last time in the scope of discussion on this bill.

The Chair: Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 112 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: In concluding, let me begin by thanking Mr. Read, Ms. Besser, and all the officials who have worked with the committee through the clause-by-clause of Bill C-17, particularly also the people at the table with us here who have been so helpful and supportive of all of us, and last, but not least, the members of all the political parties of the House of Commons for their diligence and cooperation with the chair and everyone. Thank you very much, and good day to everyone.