Evidence of meeting #48 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Do you remember earlier I asked specifically about whether I'd be able to put forward an amendment that would deal with--
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You did. I'm sorry, you're quite right. I'm sorry, Mr. Reid. You're a very soft-spoken person. You really have to speak up a little bit, because I'm getting a little older and I've got the mike in this ear, and unless you get my attention or the clerk's attention.... It is not intentional in any way.
But yes, you did say you were thinking of a subamendment, and yes, you're in order to address that, so I give you the floor.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
All I was simply proposing earlier--and I already gave my rationale so I won't go through it again--was that we hear from Mr. Esau today and from Professor Attaran.... Is it in order to make that amendment, Mr. Chair?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Here's the nice question that we ran into the last time. You are the mover of the motion, and consequently I've already ruled in the past that the mover of a motion would need unanimous consent to amend the motion. Does the mover have unanimous consent to amend the motion?
No. There's no unanimous consent to amend the motion. Is there further debate? Yes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I know this is a challenging day for you, but I will move the motion that we will hear from Mr. Esau today and that at the next available meeting we will meet with Professor Attaran.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
So you're moving to amend Mr. Reid's motion to say item one will be Jeff Esau on May 17. So that's today, obviously.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Followed then by the rest of the list. In other words, Information Commissioner, etc., and Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail and Jocelyne Sabourin, in the order that they are in.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Yes, the subamendment is in order and it is to hear Mr. Esau today, Professor Attaran at the next meeting, and then to carry on with the list as it was put in the Reid amendment.
Did you have a comment on it, Mr. Wallace?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I just want to remind Pat of his own history of filibustering, as he likes to call it.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Hours and hours.
But the point was that earlier, when I supported the original amendment, I think it should have gone in a particular order. The question has been presented here today--and the comments that were presented by colleagues--that they need some more information, particularly to deal with what the professor may be presenting, and that giving us that time to the next meeting would allow that to happen. So Mr. Esau is here in the audience with us. It looks like we're prepared to ask him a few questions, but we need some more time to do more work on Professor Attaran.
Obviously my first preference is to have the Information Commissioner first, which is what I put forward first thing in the morning here, earlier, and I think that's the appropriate way to go. But it doesn't seem to be gaining any support here, unfortunately, to do it in a more orderly fashion.
So that is my amendment ,and I'd be happy to hear from any other colleagues on that item.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you. We've heard the amendment...sorry, the subamendment. We've heard the subamendment moved by Mr. Wallace. Is there any debate on it?