Evidence of meeting #77 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Okay, we'll call the vote on NDP-29.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 21 agreed to)
(Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to)
(On clause 24)
Once again, amendment NDP-30 is identical to PV-14, and PV-14 cannot be moved after a vote on amendment NDP-30.
We'll start off with Mr. Cullen and then Ms. May.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I may have a bit of a misunderstanding that might take a moment. Could we suspend this piece, Chair?
My understanding was that if amendment PV-8 failed, which I believe it did, that this was paired with it. While maybe not being identical, it wasn't my expectation, as amendment PV-8 had failed...unless the clerk will correct me that it didn't—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I will check with the clerk now.
We don't see that conflict, Mr. Cullen, so with advice from the legislative clerk—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My understanding, in checking with Krystal, is that the two pieces hung together. I'm not sure, without a bit more of a review of the one amendment without the other, that it would even be sensible to move this one.
I don't know about the procedure, but I would like to—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Well, Ms. May can also speak to this, so we can proceed on either ground.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why don't we allow that? My initial instinct is that if the two hang together, then I'm not sure if moving this one on its own would be a good idea.
Conservative
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The purpose of the amendment that I'm proposing, which I guess is identical to.... Which NDP motion is PV-14 identical to?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Okay. I'm on two different agendas, so I apologize.
The purpose of this amendment is based on recommendations from the Information Commissioner to amend these sections to reflect that it is the commissioner's order that is under review before the Federal Court, as opposed to the government's decision that is under review.
Again, there are deletions, but it's replacing lines 5 to 7 so that the “record is on the government institution concerned” as opposed to the current language, which is “the decision or take the action that is the subject of the proceedings is on the government institution concerned”.
The effect is to ensure that it's the commissioner's order that's under review.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, Chair, if I may. I'm not comfortable with this, because while the clerk has one interpretation, we have advice another way. In that battle of interpretations on this, I'm going to withdraw it rather than seek something that I'm not confident in.
Conservative
Conservative
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'd just as soon have a vote on PV-14, even though I can't vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I've just been consulting with the legislative clerk. It would need unanimous consent to be withdrawn before committee.
Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Do we have unanimous consent?
It looks like we do, so it's been withdrawn.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Now we will go forward and vote on PV-14.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll go to NDP-31.
