Evidence of meeting #27 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.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Chair, I am withdrawing L-27 because it related to amendments that were proposed earlier and ruled out of order.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
As soon as I find that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move it. You said page 173.1, which doesn't exist in my book.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, my friend.
I will in fact move amendment NDP-22.01, page 173.1, seeking to amend clause 229 on page 164 by replacing lines 10 to 16 with language regarding the order in council, “the Access to Information Act, as enacted”, etc.; and secondly, by making reference to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. We believe these sections should not apply in respect to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board for the reasons given when we dealt with the same matter under the Access to Information Act. There are aspects of the investment strategy of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board that warrant extraordinary exemptions and secrecy and privacy.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment to propose. It's actually a technical subamendment. It has been tabled at your chair. I think there are enough copies to pass around.
The goal here is to match the NDP amendment with some of the changes that were made earlier on in the bill. So this is strictly a technical subamendment.
The expert panel has a copy of the subamendment I've tabled, if they would be willing to offer some commentary.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Treasury Board Portfolio, Department of Justice
Thank you, Chair.
The subamendment does as the member suggested. It is correcting technically, given that various things happened yesterday with respect to the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act provisions that are in part 3 of the bill.
Just to highlight, in the NDP motion there's a reference to section 142.1. Of course, in the end, that section did not come to pass and does not exist. So the subamendment removes the reference to that and adds in a reference to proposed section 3.01 of the Privacy Act, which is a new section that was created.
Just to highlight what's happening in proposed subsection 229(2), so members of the committee are clear, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is an organization that has a joint governance model as enshrined in legislation with the provinces. Under the Canada Pension Plan act, whenever there is a piece of legislation that's going to have a direct or indirect impact on the legislation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, there is a requirement to obtain provincial consent from two-thirds of the provinces, representing two-thirds of the population that participates under the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, proposed subsection 229(2) is simply reflecting that statutory requirement under the Canada Pension Plan act.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 229 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 230)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have an amendment on clause 230. That amendment is on page 175.
Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It's amendment G-52, that Bill C-2 be amended by deleting clause 230.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Then the government side will be voting against the clause in total.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
(Clause 230 negatived)
(Clauses 231 to 238 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 239)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We are now on clause 239, and we have some issues that relate to internal audit. There is a series of clauses that, as in other cases, are related to this particular clause.
Is there a point of order, Mr. Owen?
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I have a point of order. Could you clarify, Mr. Chair? We seem to have some difficulty. Is clause 230 carried or not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It failed. If I said something else, I'll clarify it now: it failed. Thank you. If I was wrong--
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, that's kind of scary, isn't it?
We're going to deal with the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 239 before we put that question. We'll deal first with the amendments to this clause, to clause 261, and to the schedule. Once that has been completed, we will put the question to clause 239. The results would be applied to all the consequential clauses: clauses 259 to 261 inclusive, clause 270, clause 272, clause 277, clause 299, and the schedule.
(On clause 261)
We will call the first amendment, which is L-27.1 on page 178.1 of your book. It relates to clause 261.
Before you proceed, Ms. Jennings, we have a line conflict with L-27.1. We have a line conflict with G-53.1. It is also the same as NDP-22.1.
Ms. Jennings, could you move the motion, please?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I move my amendment L-27.1, and if I understand the points you raised about line conflicts, it means that should my amendment carry, those other amendments simply drop.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
My amendment was put through subsequent to Mr. Walsh's presentation before this committee concerning the impact of Bill C-2, as it was then formulated, on the constitutional autonomy of Parliament itself and its members, whether members of Parliament or senators, but his comments were particular. Therefore, I instructed his staff to prepare a whole series of amendments that flow through his actual legal expert opinion, and this is one of them.
So I move the question, unless someone else has put their name on the list--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, Mr. Poilievre....
I just want to make one more clarification. All these amendments conflict, so the chair is going to take the position that all these amendments could be debated at the same time.
Do you want me to elaborate?