Go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #74 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #74 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm confused as to the reason for ruling LIB-12 out of order. If somehow you're ruling that there was...with LIB-7 defeated, and that's what added the reference to 12(2).... I'm not quite sure.
If that's the case, then why would we not remove the words under subsection 12(2) and just say that if a matter is referred to the Commissioner under 24(2.1)...? I'm just confused as to your rationale for why this is out of order, so if you wouldn't mind explaining it, sir....
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Mr. Housefather.
I will refer to our legislative clerks, who will have a better answer than I would.
June 20th, 2023 / 6:50 p.m.
Dancella Boyi Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In LIB-12, it is indicated, “If a matter...”. I should actually read it, but 12(2) is referenced in LIB-12, and 12(2) would have been created by LIB-7, which was withdrawn.
To go back to your question, Mr. Housefather, even if you were to remove that from the current LIB-12, 24(2.1) already exists in the parent act as it is written, without the 12(2) reference.
Does that answer your question?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That certainly would answer my question if the only thing being added was 12(2) and LIB-7 were withdrawn.
I'll just turn to Mr. Jowhari, because he would have been the one who withdrew it, but thank you so much for that explanation.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay. I recall that LIB-7 was pulled. However, this one is referring to.... I'll at least read it: It's that Bill C-290 be amended—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
This reference is made:
If a matter is referred to the Commissioner under subsection 12(2) or 24(2.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Commissioner shall
Even if we remove 12(2), the 24(2.1) is still.... Are you telling me that 24(2.1) is actually covering this?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Wait just a moment, Mr. Jowhari.
We're going to suspend for a couple of seconds. Our legislative clerks wish to address this with the officials.
7:01 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, thank you for bearing with us. It was a bit of a procedural issue.
LIB-12 is out of order due to a typo. Mr. Jowhari was kind enough to table-drop an amendment that is almost identical. We're going to call it “LIB-12.1”.
Please read it in and highlight the specific change from LIB-12, so people can follow along.
When Mr. Jowhari is done with that, we'll open it up for debate.
Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.
7:01 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move LIB-12.1, which reads that Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 12 the following new clause:
42 The portion of section 68 of the Conflict of Interest Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
68 If a matter is referred to the Commissioner under subsection 12.1(1)—
which replaces 12(2)
—or 24(2.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Commissioner shall
My reasoning for this is we want to make sure that we allow the Ethics Commissioner to receive protected referrals from departments under the PSDPA, not only from PSIC. We are just making sure they can receive more.
That's it. Thank you.
7:01 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Yes. It's quick.
Is this amendment about subsection 12(2) or subsection 24(2.1)?
7:01 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's identical to LIB-12, except there is a fix to a single reference number. It is basically identical in all ways to LIB-12.
7:01 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
If you look at LIB-12, we made a mistake by typing 12(2). That mistake caused LIB-12 to be thrown out. Therefore, I had to move a new one, which is called LIB-12.1.
All we are doing is replacing 12(2) with the appropriate subsection, which is 12.1(1). That's it.
The legislative clerk has seen it. If you want, we can have more debate on it. It's basically just to expand and protect, and it allows other people from other departments to be able to receive it.
That's it.
7:01 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
You're on mute. As much as we enjoy that....
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Can you hear me now?
I'm sorry about that.
I'm giving more ammunition to feedback, to try to make it exciting.
I just wanted to explain something for Mrs. Vignola's benefit. In amendment G‑4.4, we added—
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Give me just one moment, Mr. Housefather. We're having some audio problems with you.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Basically, it just allows that when a department sends something to the Ethics Commissioner, the disclosure is protected. It's not currently protected under the act if it comes from the department. That's the goal. It's to make sure that all disclosures, even if they're coming from the department to the Ethics Commissioner, are also included.
Thank you.