Evidence of meeting #39 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
We will temporarily suspend while we await the written subamendment proposed by Ms. Gill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Colleagues, we are resuming.
I'm told that the subamendment has been sent to you for examination, so I'll give you a minute to look at it. Then we will proceed to a vote on it unless there's further debate.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Is it possible to get the technicians to give us their thoughts on the subamendment as presented?
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Perhaps Madame Gill could read it for them so they can respond.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Yes, please.
We'll suspend just briefly.
Resuming, we'll now hear from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.
Ms. Ledgerwood, are you ready to give your opinion? Go ahead.
Kate Ledgerwood Director General, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize for taking a little bit of time to consider this very thoughtfully proposed subamendment.
Perhaps I'll provide a little context, if possible, around what was originally envisioned for the information-sharing protocol. Really, what that was designed to do was.... Recognizing that, as an independent organization, the council would have access to existing legislative mechanisms around the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to solicit information, the protocol was envisioned to be something that would help facilitate a streamlined, efficient process for them so that they would not have to go through that.
I would suggest that, in looking at this as it's being suggested, the protocol, in being developed, would need to be something that is agreed to by both parties, both the minister and the council. However, we would want to reflect on the fact that when it says, “must allow the council to receive all information”, it would need to take into account that there might be information that, from other perspectives, might not be able to be released. I'm thinking particularly around privacy information—currently, there is legislation that protects the release of information that is of a private nature—and the concern that there might be certain information that the government might not be in a position to release as a result of other legislation that prevents it from being provided.
That would be something that we would put forward for members' consideration around the proposed subamendment.
I don't know if my colleague from the Department of Justice would like to add anything to that point.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
I think you covered it.
Really, there is a regime in place to protect personal information, and we want to make sure that this law is in accordance with that broader information management regime that's governed by legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you very much.
If I understand it, you need to do some further research to make sure that it's in accordance with other legislation.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
I think I'm just raising that concern in alignment with Ms. Ledgerwood's point that you would want to respect the fact that there are things like personal information and other exceptions in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act that would potentially make it not possible to provide all the information that the council requests.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Okay. Thank you very much.
Is there any further debate on the subamendment as written?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm going to need a time out here, because I'm still trying to process what I've just heard and whether that's in LIB‑5 or just in the subamendment. Can we take a time out just to huddle so that I could ask what we'd like to do?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Yes. We'll suspend briefly. Let me know as soon as you're ready to resume.
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Chair, there have been some conversations among the parties, and based on what we've heard—I know I can't make a subamendment to a subamendment—I'm wondering if we can seek unanimous consent to approve the wording to put in, before “all”, the words “to the extent possible”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Mr. Battiste.
Under normal circumstances, we would vote on the subamendment, and if it was defeated, a new subamendment could be proposed to the effect that you're talking about, but in this particular case you tell me you've talked to everybody, so we could look at this from a unanimous consent point of view, as long as it is very clear to everybody exactly what that minor change to the subamendment is.
Could you spell it out one more time for everybody to hear, and then I'll seek unanimous consent? Then we'll have to check that the French is also in proper form.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Before the words “all information”, we would suggest the amendment be “to the extent possible”, based on the privacy concerns raised just now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Okay.
The legislative clerk will read what she has interpreted you to have said.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Émilie Thivierge
It would read, “the protocol must allow the Council to receive, to the extent possible, all the information it judges relevant to fulfill its mission”.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment to amendment LIB-5 proposed by Madame Gill, with a slight revision by Mr. Battiste, carries.
Shall amendment LIB-5, as amended by the subamendment and the friendly additional words, carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Very good.
Without repeating myself, shall clause 16 as amended carry?
(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)
We'll now proceed with a new clause 16.1, which is really amendment PV-3, which is deemed to be moved.
Ms. May, would you like to explain PV-3 before we go to debate it?