Evidence of meeting #26 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, I'd like to call the meeting to order.
Mr. Poilievre.
Order. Mr. Poilievre has the floor.
I'm sorry, we're on page 137. There is an amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, BQ-28.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
There is a subamendment now proposed by the Conservatives.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I believe we left off with the Liberal representatives satisfied by our explanation of the amendment, or at least understanding it.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The question was why we chose these particular foundations to be included and not others, and the explanation was that four of the five were the result of acts of Parliament, and the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, in our view, receives enough public funds to warrant public scrutiny, and there is no other reason not to include it. We believe that it has the capacity as a foundation to respond to a reasonable flow of ATI requests. So that is why we've chosen this group.
You'll recall that there was some rationale offered by Mr. Martin as to why some of the organizations listed in the original Bloc amendment should not be included under the ATI act.
We offer this as a compromise to continue our efforts to extend access to information to yet a larger number of foundations, that's all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, unless there's further discussion we're going to vote on the subamendment, BQ-28, which is limiting this list of five names.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Now we're going to go to L-20.1, which is on page 139.1.... We can't.
It was a line conflict, Mr. Moore.
(Clause 166 as amended agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We seem to have a small area we need to correct.
Ms. Jennings, I'm going to give you the floor. This has to do with clause 99.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Each of the members of the committee should have received a document that says état du comité, committee stage. This is clause 99, with the amendment I brought forward and this committee adopted. If you look in proposed subsection (2), you will see in the French version that there are two words in that paragraph highlighted in yellow. On the second to last line on the first page, again, you have two words highlighted in yellow.
After this was adopted, we realized there was a concordance issue between the English and the French versions. Unfortunately, this was a result of last-minute changes last Friday afternoon to the English, but by oversight they were not made to the French version.
Therefore, I would ask for your unanimous consent to allow the French version of clause 99 to be corrected as it is shown in this document. This will ensure that while the constitutional role of the House to provide opinion on the matters is dealt with here, it will also respect the constitutional role of the courts to determine whether an offence has occurred.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
(Clauses 167 to 171 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 172)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're now on clause 172. These are amendments to the Access to Information Act schedule and are consequential to clause169 and proposed clauses 172.1 and 172.21.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move to proposed clause 172.1, and that is on page 140. It's a government amendment, G-43, from Mr. Poilievre. It is consequential to G-42, page 136, which is proposed section165.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
This amendment is the same as the original amendment to which it is consequential. I urge all members to vote for it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Poilievre, you're going to have to help us here. We're trying to figure something out.
Is amendment G-43 replaced by G-43.1?
Conservative
Susan Baldwin Procedural Clerk
We're trying to determine which one the vote should apply to. I'd like to point out that in amendment G-43.1 there's a reference to the Open Government Act. I assume there must have been a consequential amendment. I don't know what's going on with that, because I don't think we've dealt yet with anything called that.
Conservative
Procedural Clerk
Well, in that case, is amendment G-43 the same as G-43.1, except for that title?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, that makes it a little easier.
Just bear with me; we're almost there.
We voted on amendment NDP-18.4. It was carried, and it is consequential to G-43. So that takes care of that.
I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to proceed to vote on clause 172. It also applies to new clauses 172.1 and 172.21 and to clause 179.
(Clause 172 agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We'll go to clause 173.
I'm sorry to cause the confusion, but it's difficult, as you know.
Clause 173 relates to returning officers, and as before, there's a series of other clauses that are related to this particular clause. We'll deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 173 before we put the question on it.
We will first deal with the amendments to clauses 174, 176, and 177. Once that's completed, we'll put the question on clause 173, and the results will be applied to all the consequential clauses, namely 174 and 176 to 178.
The first amendment is on page 141 of the package. It's Bloc amendment BQ-29.
Mr. Sauvageau.