SECU 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.
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, June 17, 2026
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[Translation]
Good evening, everyone. It's great to see you in such fine form and good humour on this Wednesday evening.
I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting No. 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on April 20, the motion adopted by the committee on April 30 and the motion adopted by the House today, June 17, we are meeting on the study of Bill C‑22, An Act respecting lawful access.
As always, I'd like to welcome the witnesses.
From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Ramzi Nashef and Juanita M.
From the Department of Justice, we have Kimberly Gibner and Normand Wong.
From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Richard Bilodeau, Shannon Hiegel and Fenton Ho.
From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Chief Superintendent Richard Burchill and Sergeant Aaron Gilkes.
I'm going to cheat a bit on the usual procedure. Since it's going to be hard at the end of the meeting to properly thank the witnesses we still have before us this evening, I'm going to do so right away.
We are very grateful for your time and expertise as you have guided us over the past few days and indeed the past few hours. It seems like we've been meeting frequently over the last little while. Thank you very much for that.
I'll also take this opportunity to thank the interpreters who are with us in a demanding environment. A number of us, including Ms. DeBellefeuille, have rightly pointed that out. Our committee sometimes looks into technical issues, so it can be hard for both the interpreters and the members of our committee who depend on the exceptional quality of interpretation.
I also want to thank the technicians, who stay very discreetly hidden behind their desks and screens and who are here to serve us.
Thank you to everyone at the back of the room or elsewhere who has been there and is still there today to help us do this work for Canadians.
I'm sure the committee members join me in wishing you the very best as you continue this demanding work. We extend you our sincere gratitude.
We will now resume clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑22.
(On clause 9)
We were at NDP‑6. Specifically, we were at the subamendment that was moved yesterday by Mr. Mantle.
Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I echo what you said about our witnesses. I know it's not easy to be here. Let's face it. Not many people are spending their Wednesday nights on Parliament Hill at 10:48, serving the Canadian public while being bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and always having to be on guard for a question, so we appreciate this.
Sometimes, we as MPs may trade barbs. Sometimes we may ask you difficult questions. Sometimes there might be moments that are a bit more serious. Sometimes there might be moments that are a bit more lighthearted. You don't have a choice in that. You have to come here and answer the questions that are posed to you, and you have to be ready for a spinoff question that may come your way. For that, we are grateful.
Mr. Chair, we have 30 minutes to discuss this. I'm on the speaking list, and I think that Ms. Kirkland, Mr. Au and Mr. Lloyd will probably be after me.
I will say this. We're all ready for summer, but that doesn't mean that summer has started. There is still work to be done. There's work to be done this evening, and there's work to be done tomorrow. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 is a contentious piece of legislation. It was contentious from the get-go.
Most people here have heard ad nauseam about my background as a prosecutor, in which the access to data or the access to evidence was central to whether a conviction followed. I understand that. There is no doubt in my mind that lawful access is something that our House, the chamber upstairs, must address—not should, but must. The question is about how we address it.
I have now seen what is probably the most aggressive programming motion during my five years here in Parliament. A programming motion basically tells us how and when we must consider something.
We have to get through amendments without discussion tonight. That is the gist of it: no discussion on a bill that is probably over 100 pages long. We have to get through the amendments without discussion.
Now, say what you want about lawful access. Like me, you may think there is a necessity for a lawful access regime. The question is, what does it look like? You may say you don't want any lawful access because it infringes on your civil liberties, or you may say that you are prepared to trade privacy for lawful access in order to accede to the arguments that have been put forward by some.
At the end of the day, we are here to work and we are here to debate. There is one thing we will not do in 28 minutes, and that is debate. The motion that was passed in the House tonight precludes debate. It precludes debate on matters of privacy, on matters that may impact the charter. No, I shouldn't say they may; they do impact the charter. They engage section 8 of the charter, and here we are, talking about provisions that we will pass without debate, that a court will someday be considering. Make no mistake, someday a court will consider the words that we pass on paper here. They will decide the constitutionality of those words, and we are expected to pass those words without debate. That is unconscionable.
For 12 years we've had a Liberal government. We got this motion put on us on Tuesday, before we left—Tuesday—not Monday and not the Friday before, but Tuesday. In fact, the Liberal government put forward a wish list of bills they wanted passed. Do you know what wasn't on the list? Bill C-22. Yes, I'm a bit animated here. The government said they didn't want this bill, but literally at the last minute, Wednesday night, we are talking about amendments that impact each and every Canadian.
Make no mistake that on the Conservative side, we all want to put bad people in jail, but this ain't the way to do it. To have amendments rammed down our throats without debate and without discussion is patently wrong.
Yes, we will sit here at the table. Yes, we will oblige with the process. We will adhere to democracy. The motion that was passed. That doesn't mean we like it. Moreover, it doesn't make it right. What is happening here may have been duly passed, but it is wrong.
One day, in two years, three years or five years, a court may be reviewing our words. They may well look at what happened here tonight and talk about the lack of discussion and consideration when they are reviewing whether amendments put forward, which aren't even public yet.... We can't even talk about this.
By the way, who breached parliamentary privilege with the Toronto Star? Am I in the twilight zone here? They don't know.
I think my point has been made. We are here, and we are here to work. This is not the right way to work. We will do our jobs. This is not the climate in which we were expected to do our jobs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
I would like to thank those who are here, who have spent their time listening very carefully to the questions that have been put forward to them during clause-by-clause consideration up to this time. I appreciate that because, as I saw many times over the last few days and hours in this committee, members opposite were having side conversations, doing their own thing and reading books rather than paying attention to what was going on and the questions that were being asked.
I want to thank you, but I also want to pose one question to each of you before I move on. I'm not trying to keep you to a one-word answer, but I think it probably will be a yes-or-no answer. I would just like to have your opinion on one thing.
Throughout this process during clause-by-clause so far, we have asked questions about the amendments that had been presented by the NDP, by the Bloc and by the Conservatives. I don't think we got to a Liberal or a government amendment yet. However, we did have what I thought were important questions. I believed that they were relevant questions.
During that period of time, we had a lot of questions. Part of the reason we had a lot of questions is that the first part of this process before clause-by-clause was so rushed, we barely had time to catch our breath and understand fully this long, 90-page bill.
My question is simple. When we asked questions about each amendment as we looked at them, were they relevant questions to the bill or to the amendments?
Mr. Gilkes, were the questions we asked you relevant to the bill or the amendment? Did we ask questions outside the scope of the bill or the amendment?
Okay.
Is there anyone else? I would just like a bit of verification.
Mr. Nashef, I believe I asked you a few questions. Were they relevant to the bill or to the amendments we were discussing?
It was important to us to ask the questions because Canadians need to hear the answers.
Unfortunately, we have a 30-minute time limit tonight. We can't ask more questions. In fact, the motion that was passed, motion 13, in the House tonight was in essence muzzling us. Now we can just say yes or no, basically, after this. That's why it's important for me to ask the questions, because a process has been bypassed here. Whether we want to answer the questions or we agree with the premise of the questions isn't really the point. The point is that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to ask the questions. We have a duty to ascertain as best as we can the answer and we have a duty to find out whether or not an amendment is worth passing or not.
I can agree with you. I can agree with the Liberals in some aspects. Sometimes people were trying to wrap their heads around things and they asked questions in different ways, maybe the same question in a different way. That definitely happened. That is the process we are allowed for a reason, because that is democracy. That is what we're supposed to do here.
Today could possibly be one of my most disappointing moments in this whole process as a new member. Normally I'm not emotional, but I'm tired. Like everyone else, we're worn out. We've been working hard. My 15-year-old asked, when I said goodnight to her, why I was going to committee tonight. I explained to her that we are going to vote on nearly 100 amendments without discussing them, without understanding them, or without, to be even more clear, helping Canadians understand them.
I want to thank our staff. Our staff have worked hard. The folks here, the clerks, the analysts, the translators, the folks behind me, they've been working hard. We've been doing our due diligence on this bill. We've been trying to do our jobs. I get passionate about this because lawful access actually is important to me.
I was told tonight that I wasn't listening to Durham Regional Police officers. I tell you, surely I have, and I've listened to them carefully. Of course. they want to have better tools and they're looking for lawful access, but everyone I've talked to individually when I've explained the process has said they want to get it, but they don't want to get it that way. They want to get it and they want to get it right. That's all we've been asking for.
In this pre-study, we had 48 witnesses in just over eight hours. It was a lot to do very quickly. We had issues with briefs. We didn't get them in time, not because the clerks didn't do a great job. They did a great job. We didn't get them in time, not because the translators were too slow, but because they had a lot of work to do. Why did they have a lot of work to do? We tried to rush too much into too little time. That is not democracy either.
I appreciate very much the members from the NDP, who have been presenting amendments, who gave us amendments to look at.
From the Green Party, Ms. May, thank you, and thank you to the Bloc. All opposition parties, every last one of us, have been working to do this right.
Liberals can laugh. They can laugh at processes. They can laugh at emotions. They can laugh at the passion, but guess what. I came here to do a job, and for the first time in 14 months, I feel like I'm being muzzled and asked to not do my job and to just vote. That is unacceptable.
I will explain to my daughter tomorrow, after this is done, exactly what has happened and how I do stand with the police. She knows I do, as do the Durham Regional Police officers in Oshawa and in the Durham region. I want to give them what they need, but we answer to Canadians, and having a manufactured majority does not give Liberals the right to bypass something so important and to ram this through.
I will leave it there. Thank you.
As much as I'd like to take the high road here, I've had enough. The opposition had eight and a half hours yesterday to debate amendments. They chose to amend or vote on three of them in eight and a half hours. For them to come back to us today and accuse us of somehow violating their democratic rights is frankly absurd.
I would like to thank the other people, the people who are in the department here, for their dedication, for what they've done for our country and for the fact that they've managed to show up at this time of night to debate this. It's certainly not their fault. I would sincerely like to thank them for their contribution to this.
Thank you, MP Powlowski.
Is the subamendment carried? On division?
An hon. member: No. We'd like a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.
Mr. Chair, just to be clear as we're jumping into this, is this Mr. Mantle's subamendment that we're talking about?
Yes, I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'll intervene now that I actually have a right to intervene for the next 12 minutes or so.
You know what? Laugh all you want. Smile all you want. That was a darn good subamendment, and one that came out of discussion. People may not like how the discussion came about, but that was a darn good subamendment. People may not like the person who proposed it, but if you actually listened to the people who were there at the table, my sense from listening to them, the people on the ground, was that they supported it, and that was the product of what we are here to do.
At the very least, we got a chance to debate this. Yes, it got voted down, but at least we got to hear from witnesses. It was a good subamendment, and I think it would have given law enforcement more of what they needed.
Too bad for the next, well, I've got 90 pages here.... I think we're on page 10 of my 90 pages. At least we got to debate that one.
We're going to be talking about encryption and breaking encryption, whether encryption should be broken, whether encryption that has been or has the ability to be broken should be broken by the state and how that relates to organized crime. If I'm an observer watching at home, I'm wondering why we even send our people to Parliament in some respects, because at the end of the day, if you get four people to cross the floor, one of whom said “and it's good for me”, that's what democracy comes down to: “it's good for me”. That actually dictates what happens at this committee: It's good for me.
That's all I have to say.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm going to have to repeat myself.
[English]
Our colleague on the other side of the aisle keeps repeating the same thing.
It's not like we haven't had any debate. I'll say it one more time: We are definitely against this amendment because we consider that the judge, and only the judge, knowing the particular set of arguments in the case in front of him, is the person most able to decide.
It's not you, and it's not me, Mr. Caputo, who can decide what should be this order. It's for the judge to decide. We respect the judiciary process, and we're going to vote against so that the judge can decide what is the right time for this order to be produced.
That is what democracy is all about, Mr. Ramsey. You just articulated a point. You just articulated why you're voting for something. I may have voted for that amendment, and you may have voted against that amendment, but you know what? We actually had robust discussion on that amendment.
You know what we're not going to have for the next 80 pages of amendments that I have on my spreadsheet? Robust discussion.
Thank you, sir. You have just made my point.
Mr. Chair, I've been in the House now for 10 years, and the standard when you're going through clause-by-clause at a committee is that you usually cover an amendment in approximately 10 minutes, so you go through six an hour. Some of them take longer, some of them are shorter, and some of them are done in a minute.
Last night, we spent eight and a half hours, and we got through two amendments. That, to me, is the tragedy. We easily could have gone through this whole package having substantive discussions about everything, but it was clear that there was no desire to do that, and that is disconcerting.
As to Mr. Caputo's point, because I want to stay on the amendment and the subamendment, I think Mr. Mantle is a perfectly delightful person, and I would never vote against something because Mr. Mantle proposed or didn't propose it. On substance, I don't agree with having the 30 days, so I didn't agree to the subamendment, because I don't think it's necessary to set a time frame.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
[Translation]
Shall NDP‑6 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
Thank you, Chair.
We still have some remaining time when we can talk, so I would like to ask consent from the committee to allow Ms. May, if she wants, to have a moment to say a few words before we wrap up our chance to speak.
For that we need unanimous consent. Is it granted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Yes.
Go ahead, Madam May.
I want to thank the honourable member so much.
It has been 13 years since the bizarre motion was created by Mr. Harper's PMO that members of parties that are smaller than 12 would be allowed amendments to be deemed moved, but they could only speak when the amendment came up. Had I not been allowed to say a word, this would have been the first time that I've done the work, come to a committee and not been able to say a word, so I'm grateful for that.
I was just reflecting on the fact that today is June 17. I remember what I was doing last year on June 18 in the dying hours of the evening, because during the morning of June 18, I had attended the funeral for the late honourable Marc Garneau in Montreal, then spent until midnight when the bâillon came down trying to present amendments to the committee on Bill C-5 before there was no longer any time to debate them.
I will say that I didn't put in nearly as many amendments as Jenny Kwan and the NDP did and certainly not as many as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois did, but all of our amendments were intended to reflect concerns we heard from experts and from our constituents. My amendments—if there's any chance without debate as you look through them tonight, as you come up to them one after another—some of them have conflicts or are very similar to efforts put forward by other members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.
[Translation]
One of our amendments is PV‑2.
In fact, there is a reason why we use the letters “PV” to refer to the Green Party.
[English]
If we put it down in English, it would look like a government amendment, G-something.
[Translation]
I'm going to jump right in to talk about PV‑2.
[English]
It is directly supported by the intelligence commissioner. Oversight cannot be meaningful if the reviewer does not have access to the full evidentiary record.
As for my first amendment, I ask you to please consider it, although it is somewhat similar to some of the other amendments, but it's really important that orders made under this act be time limited and subject to meaningful, ongoing review. We can't have extraordinary powers that continue by default.
I won't have time. I know you gave me a few moments, and we're going to have the end of debate in I don't know how many minutes, but I'm grateful for this chance to say a few words.
This process of programming motions is offensive at any time. I've always objected to them, but I hope this committee—and maybe the chair will help me—will take it back to the powers that be. It really isn't right to say that our rights, which I would have but for the motion that was passed by this committee and every other committee without thinking about it after every election.... I would otherwise have the right under our rules to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage, so I would beg of members here who have seen what it's like to be a member of Parliament sitting at the table hoping for a chance to say a word.... I appreciate the Conservative member's thoughtfulness in asking if I'd like to say something before saying I will vote against this bill. I'm terribly, terribly sad that the concerns of so many people were dismissed so casually.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Kirkland, for being so gracious.
Thank you, everyone, for allowing Ms. May to speak eloquently.
Ms. Kirkland, would you like to continue?
I noticed that Ms. Kwan is with us on Zoom. If we could have consent, we might want to give her a moment.
There are two conditions for that. First, we need to see her. Second, we need to have unanimous consent for that to happen. I don't see her visually, so we will have to....
She doesn't have a headset that would make it possible for her to participate.
Thank you for that invitation.
Mr. Caputo.
Mr. Chair, I would invite the chair to assist the committee members. We're going through a lot of amendments. Can you perhaps announce exactly what amendment we're on and what clause we're on? I think that would be of great help.
Thank you.
I will try to do that to the best of my ability. Thank you for that.
We're now on the clause itself.
Shall clause 9 carry?
The former amendments were on clause 9. The amendments were defeated, so we have clause 9 unamended.
Clause 9 is now the object of the vote.
Shall clause 9 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 9 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We'll go to clause 10.
[Translation]
[Translation]
Not only are we going to take a break, but I also recognize that the half hour we had for debate has now elapsed, so I need to let you know how we're going to proceed from here on in.
As you know, Government Business No. 13, adopted by the House, states that “all remaining amendments that were submitted to the committee by 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026, shall be deemed moved”, so “the Chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill”. Furthermore, “the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill”.
That said, I will invite the witnesses to withdraw, unless they insist on not following my invitation, as no debate is now permitted by the House order. I thank them again for their preparation, their time, their availability and the sacrifices associated with that.
This now allows me to put to a vote all amendments, clauses and questions necessary to dispose of Bill C‑22 in the order established by the legislative clerks.
A point of order is permitted, but it must be to point out a rule or practice that members believe has not been followed, and not to raise a question that is a matter of debate. The order of the House is clear: Questions that fall under debate are no longer admissible as of now. In fact, Government Business No. 13, which we passed in the House, says that this is an order, so the motion supersedes the usual practices of a committee like this.
That said, we will proceed slowly, because there is a lot of work to be done and discussions must be understood in both official languages.
I would remind you that we are now at clause 10, for which there are no amendments moved.
Shall clause 10 carry?
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 11)
We'll move on to clause 11.
BQ‑8 is deemed to have been moved. Since this amendment has been moved, CPC‑7 cannot be moved, because the two amendments are identical. In other words, we are now dealing with BQ‑8.
Shall BQ‑8 carry?
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC‑7 is identical to CPC‑8, so we will skip it.
That brings me to the question: Shall clause 11 carry?
[English]
[English]
We'll move on to the new clause 12.1, which is required because of the amendments that have been moved. CPC‑8 proposes adding the new clause 12.1.
Shall CPC‑8 carry?
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Caputo.
We'll proceed with a recorded vote, please, Madam Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
[English]
[English]
I would like a recorded division.
[Translation]
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 19)
[English]
Yes, I would like a recorded division, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 20)
[English]
Do we not have clause 19? I'm sorry. Did we already get through that, or was that just the last vote? I'm sorry, but I may have missed that.
Just to make sure that we are all on the same page, or at least on the same clause, clause 19 has been carried.
We have moved to clause 20, and clause 20 comes with amendment NDP-8. That's what we're going to vote on with a roll call vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Clause 22 comes with amendment NDP-10.
Shall amendment NDP-10 carry?
Jacques Ramsay: No.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Frank Caputo: I would like a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.
(Clause 22 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
[Translation]
(On clause 23)
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 4; nays 7 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 23 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 24)
In terms of clause 24, we have BQ‑9.
As BQ‑9 has been moved, NDP‑12 and CPC‑9 cannot be moved, as they are identical to BQ‑9.
We'll go to the vote on BQ‑9.
Shall BQ‑9 carry?
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 25)
We'll move on to clause 25, for which we have BQ‑10.
Since BQ‑10 has been moved, NDP‑13 and CPC‑10 cannot be moved, as they are identical to BQ‑10.
Shall BQ‑10 carry?
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6[See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 25 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
(On clause 26)
We'll move on to clause 26, for which we have BQ‑11, which is deemed to be moved.
NDP‑14 and CPC‑11 cannot be moved, as they are identical to BQ‑11.
Shall BQ‑11 carry?
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 30 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 31)
We'll move on to clause 31, for which we have LIB‑0.1.
Shall LIB‑0.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)
[English]
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 33 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 34)
We'll move on to clause 34, for which we have LIB‑0.2.
Shall LIB‑0.2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
Mr. Chair, I think we can group clauses 34 to 40, which takes us to the end of part 1, and the Conservatives will vote in favour.
[Translation]
Is that okay with the Liberal members as well?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 35 to 40 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 41)
That brings us to clause 41, for which we have NDP‑16.
This amendment is deemed to be moved. Therefore, CPC‑13, which is identical to this one, cannot be moved.
Shall NDP‑16 carry?
[English]
Yes, so we will proceed with a recorded vote on NDP-16.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We skip over CPC-13 and move to NDP-17.
Shall NDP-17 carry?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to NDP-18. If it carries, CPC-15, LIB-1, BQ-12 and LIB-1.1 cannot be moved because there would be a line conflict.
Shall NDP-18 carry?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
That brings us to BQ‑12.
If BQ‑12 is adopted, we cannot move LIB‑1.1, which comes after BQ‑12. It's because of a line conflict. That's just to give you an idea of the connection between the two.
Shall BQ‑12 carry?
[English]
It's defeated on division.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to LIB‑1.1, which is a new amendment. It's not the same amendment as the one that was moved at the very beginning. Even though it bears the same number, it was subsequently amended.
Shall LIB‑1.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move on to BQ‑13.
Shall BQ‑13 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move on to NDP‑19.
Shall NDP‑19 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
We're moving to G-1.
Shall amendment G-1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
We'll move on to NDP‑20, which is deemed to be moved. Therefore, we will not be able to move CPC‑17, as the two are identical.
Shall NDP‑20 carry?
[English]
I'd like a recorded division, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
[Translation]
We all agree on that, which is very good news. G‑2 once existed, but it was removed from the list.
We''ll now move on to CPC‑18.
[English]
Shall CPC-18 carry?
[Translation]
[English]
You're fine, MP Caputo?
Fortunately, we won't be having a roll call vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on CPC-19. If CPC-19 were to be adopted, NDP-21, G-3 and CPC-22 could not be moved because of a line conflict. Let's therefore deal with CPC-19 with that in mind.
Shall CPC-19 carry?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to CPC-20. If CPC-20 is carried, CPC-21 will not be moved because of a line conflict.
Shall CPC-20 carry?
An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That brings us to CPC-21.
Shall CPC-21 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will move to NDP-21.
Shall NDP-21 carry?
An hon. member: Defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We will move to G-3.
Amendment G-3 is identical to CPC-22. We will deal with CPC-22 afterwards.
Shall G-3 carry?
We just said to pass it on division. Let's just pass it on division and move on. It's 11:58, people.
[Translation]
[English]
Can we have a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
I can't put CPC‑22 to a vote because it's identical to the previous one.
That brings us to CPC‑23.
Shall CPC‑23 carry?
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
We're very good at this, so let's do it again.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived; yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
No. It is rejected on division, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
[English]
[Translation]
It's a show of hands.
I guess the Liberals are voting against CPC‑27.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to CPC‑28.
If CPC‑28 is adopted, BQ‑14 and CPC‑29 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Shall CPC‑28 carry?
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: yeas 4; nays 7 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're at BQ‑14.
Given that BQ‑14 has been moved, CPC‑29 cannot be moved, as it is identical to BQ‑14.
Since amendment BQ‑14 was adopted, amendment BQ‑15 can't be moved owing to a line conflict. The same applies to amendments NDP‑23 and NDP‑24.
I'll repeat this more slowly. We just adopted amendment BQ‑14. Since amendments BQ‑15, NDP‑23 and NDP‑24 introduce a line conflict with amendment BQ‑14, they can't be moved.
We're skipping amendment CPC‑29 because it's identical to amendment BQ‑14.
This brings us to amendment BQ‑15, which introduces a line conflict with amendment BQ‑14. As a result, we can't move it.
This brings us to amendment CPC‑30. This amendment is identical to amendment BQ‑15, which introduces a line conflict with amendment BQ‑14. As a result, we'll skip this one as well.
After all this, we're now at amendment G‑5.
Shall amendment G‑5 carry?
[English]
[Translation]
We're at amendment CPC‑31.
I must read my decision on this amendment.
Bill C‑22 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act. Amendment CPC‑31 seeks to make it mandatory to pay compensation to electronic service providers, according to the regulations made by the Governor in Council—
[English]
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
If it's out of scope, just let us know it's out of scope, please.
[Translation]
The reason is that this amendment would entail expenditures that would require a royal recommendation. Since a royal recommendation is necessary, this amendment is not in order.
[English]
I can say it in English.
You want to challenge the chair, which is fine.
Is the decision of the chair sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
The Chair: We're moving to CPC-32.
Shall CPC-32 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall CPC-33 carry?
An hon. member: No.
The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote on CPC-33.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is G-6.
Shall G-6 carry?
Yes, maybe we should finish G-6, and then we'll break.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll suspend for five minutes.
[Translation]
[English]
I request a recorded division, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to amendment G‑6.1.
Shall amendment G‑6.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment NDP‑23 can't be considered because of a line conflict with an amendment that we've already adopted.
This brings us to amendment BQ‑16.
[English]
[English]
I request a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now at amendment G‑8.
If amendment G‑8 is adopted, amendment CPC‑36 can't be moved because of a line conflict.
Shall amendment G‑8 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to amendment CPC‑38. Oh, sorry, I skipped a page. I'm going too fast. I wouldn't want to give you false hope. We aren't moving that fast and we aren't there yet.
We're at amendment CPC‑36.
As you heard earlier, since amendment G‑8 was adopted, amendment CPC‑36 can't be moved because of a conflict. Unfortunately, we can't consider it.
We'll move to amendment PV‑2.
Shall amendment PV‑2 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
Please do a recorded vote.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to amendment BQ‑17.
If amendment BQ‑17 is adopted, amendment PV‑3 can't be moved because of a line conflict.
It's true love and perfect harmony.
Since amendment BQ‑17 was adopted, this brings us to amendment PV‑3. However, this amendment can't be moved because of a line conflict with amendment BQ‑17. We'll skip amendment PV‑3.
We'll move to amendment CPC‑37.
Shall amendment CPC‑37 carry?
[English]
Please do a recorded division.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
We'll have a roll call vote on BQ-18.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-24 cannot be moved because there is a line conflict with another amendment that we carried. We are therefore moving to CPC-39.
Shall CPC-39 carry?
Frank Caputo: We'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are moving to CPC-40.
[Translation]
Regarding amendment CPC‑40, I must inform you of a decision similar to the one that I already rendered concerning a previous amendment.
[English]
[Translation]
This amendment would require a royal recommendation. As a result, the amendment is not in order.
I gather that Mr. Caputo is challenging my decision, which is entirely possible.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
Amendment CPC‑41 can't be moved later, since it's identical to amendment BQ‑19.
Shall amendment PV‑4 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
We are moving to amendment LIB-3.
Shall amendment LIB-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Because we have carried LIB-3, CPC-42 cannot be moved because the two amendments are identical.
We are moving to CPC-43.
Shall CPC-43 carry?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
If CPC-46 were to be adopted, G-13 could not be moved because of a line conflict.
Shall CPC-46 carry?
I would like a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is G-12.
Shall G-12 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall G-13 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall CPC-47 carry?
[Translation]
We're at amendment BQ‑20.
Since amendment BQ‑20 was moved, amendment CPC‑49 can't be moved later because the two amendments are identical.
Shall amendment BQ‑20 carry?
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're skipping amendment CPC‑49 because it's identical to amendment BQ‑20.
This brings us to amendment CPC‑50.
Shall amendment CPC‑50 carry?
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to amendment CPC‑54.
If amendment CPC‑54 is adopted, amendment NDP‑25 can't be moved because of a line conflict.
Shall amendment CPC‑54 carry?
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall LIB-5 carry?
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is CPC-59.
Shall CPC-59 carry?
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is CPC-60.
Shall CPC-60 carry?
An hon. member: It's defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC-60 is defeated on division.
We will move on to BQ-21. BQ-21 and CPC-61 are identical, so we will therefore deal with BQ-21.
[Translation]
Shall amendment BQ‑21 carry?
We'll skip amendment CPC‑61 because it's identical to amendment BQ‑21.
This brings us to amendment G‑14.2.
Shall amendment G‑14.2 carry?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded division, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
I would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[English]
We would like a recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
(Clause 41 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
[English]
I know. I just said no.
(Clause 42 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 43)
[Translation]
Shall clause 43 carry?
(Clause 43 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 44 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 45 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 46 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 47 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to the new clause 47.1, proposed by amendment NDP‑26.
Amendment CPC‑66 is identical to amendment NDP‑26 and can't be moved.
[English]
Shall NDP-26 carry?
Some hon. members: No.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall NDP-27 carry?
An hon. member: It's defeated on division.
(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: CPC-66 is identical to NDP-26, which we've already dealt with.
I will move to clause 48.
Shall clause 48 carry?
No.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
Frank Caputo: I'm voting no, no matter what clause it is. Whether it's clause 47 or 48, I'm still voting no.
Are we all clear that we are now on the clause itself, which is clause 48? There is no amendment to clause 48.
Shall clause 48 carry?
Let me try to sound as intelligent as she is.
Clause 47.1 was a new clause that would have existed had we carried amendments to create clause 47.1. Since we didn't carry any of those amendments, clause 47.1 doesn't exist.
Therefore, we are at clause 48.
The question is whether clause 48 shall carry.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think you have this order anyway from the motion that was carried in camera today.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Just to be on the safe side, we'll proceed with a recorded vote, since we really enjoy doing them.
(Report to the House on the bill as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Lastly, shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer