Evidence of meeting #109 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
The Clerk
The question is to adjourn debate on the motion of Mr. Genuis.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's five votes to five. I vote no.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We will continue with the debate. I see no one on the speaking list. Can we move to a vote?
Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I don't know if it's appropriate or allowed to call upon or demand that the Privacy Commissioner conduct the investigation. I believe that's.... They're independent. We would certainly have to request that they do so, and I would like the opportunity to....
That's why I was asking for the adjournment of debate. We want to amend the motion in order to make it more palatable and equitable in terms of how we proceed on this issue.
I'm waiting for that amendment to come my way, with regard to supporting the motion with proper wording for how we proceed, because I don't believe you can actually call upon them or force them to do something to this effect.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Is there anyone else on the speaking list?
Mr. Sousa, if you're going to speak, speak.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Yes. Let me, if I may, move a change to the amendment. Here's a subamendment, if I can move it. Can I read it?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'll get the team to proceed to do that, but I'll read it.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'm trying to respect the commissioner's ability to judge the merits of the issues independently, outside of our committee. We don't want to make this an order, per se. We recognize their independence and their arm's-length nature.
I would like to add an amendment to say, “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response in regard to this, and that we request the Privacy Commissioner to conduct the investigation.”
I'll get it out to you in writing.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
—on the amendment.
It sounds like you're changing it to “request” instead of “calls upon”, and you're adding a response from the government. Otherwise, it's staying the same, if I understand that correctly.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Briefly, the government response piece is obviously ridiculous. I don't think it even needs to be dignified with a response.
The changing of “calls upon” to “request” seems like a distinction without a difference.
If it helps us move along, I would see if there's the unanimous consent of the committee to adopt the one part, but not the other part, of Mr. Sousa's motion, and adopt the motion.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Do we have UC for that?
Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.
I see the NDP saying yes. I see Mr. Jowhari shaking his head.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I'm sorry. I was on mute.
I put forward amendments to the motion, as I read them. That's where we stand at this point.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'll move a subamendment to take out the reference to a government response.
We're asking the Privacy Commissioner to do something. Asking for a government response when we've asked the Privacy Commissioner to do something doesn't make any sense. We're asking for the feedback of the Privacy Commissioner. Again, I don't think it needs much comment.
That's the subamendment.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Seeing no one on the speaking list, we can move to a vote on that.
Mr. Clerk—
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, can you read what we're actually voting on, please?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
It's a subamendment to remove the comprehensive response by the government.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
The question is to amend the motion by replacing the words “calls upon” with “requests” and to remove the request for a comprehensive response from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109. The subamendment would retain the change from “calls upon” to “requests”, but would remove from the proposed amendment the text requesting a government response.
The question is on the subamendment put forward by Mr. Genuis.