Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm not sure a clarification is a point of order. In fact, it's not a point of order, but—
Conservative
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
That was on the list you gave me: a clarification point of order. There were about six.
Okay, fair enough.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Clarification is basically when you need some information. It's like asking a question; it's not a point of order. I say this just so that we don't run into it again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
But I will acknowledge you and give you the floor to pose your question.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
I want to go back to what my colleague said here. Several times we've heard the member, Boris Wrzesnewskyj, mention a specific fund. And then we heard him talk about a specific inquiry that he participated in at another committee.
That's not what's contained in here, clearly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Rickford. That's debate; it's not even a question, but you got it in.
We have to be careful, colleagues. This meeting is going to be over in ten minutes. If the members want to dispose of this item, I think we should deal with it; if not, you can talk it out and it will be filibustered forever and a day. I guess it will become clear really soon.
In any event, members have the right to speak and to say whatever they want, as long as it is relevant to the discussion. It doesn't have to be accurate; that's not a prerequisite. Members at their own peril will say things.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, we don't have to....
There being no further people on my list, I'm going to put the question on the subamendment posed by Mr. Poilievre where, after the words “public funds by”, we dropped the word “Conservative”; and after “members of Parliament”, we had the words, “who are public office holders, past or present”. And near the end, where it reads the “logo of”, you replaced “the Conservative” with “any political”. So it would be “the logo of any political party”.
Does everybody understand the subamendment?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We are voting on the subamendment, the Poilievre subamendment, the Conservative subamendment—without a logo.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, is everybody comfortable that they understand what we're voting on?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I want to put the question and I would like to again have a recorded vote, so that the members are clear.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It can still make sense. The reference to public office holders is already there by the subamendment.
The attribution is not there. It needs to go in.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Yes, but the phrase about public office holders needs to go in as well. We've amended it, but we still haven't voted on including it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, “past or present”. And the final proviso is that it “not commence until such time as the commissioner has reported her findings.” Is that correct?
Does everybody understand the amendment as amended?
